Tag Archives: Baseball

Should the Baseball Hall of Fame Change Its Voting Rules?

A couple of days ago, three former MLB players were inducted into the hallowed halls of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. All three of these players weren’t able to attend the ceremony as they all had passed away more than 70 years ago. It’s unfortunate that these Hall of Famers weren’t able to receive the recognition (in person) that they earned.

There was an article on SB Nation about a week ago that argued for changing the way the Hall of Fame voted. That is, the Baseball Hall of Fame has some of the most strict guidelines (among pro sports) when it comes to voting people into the Hall of Fame. Part of the argument is that it’ll make the ceremony much more exciting for those who attend and for the sport of baseball. As someone who’s played baseball for a good part of his life, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve watched the Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony. That’s not good for the Hall of Fame nor is it good for baseball.

Another argument is that, in some years, there isn’t even anyone elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And while that may have been necessary when there were only 16 teams in the league (55 years ago), there are now almost double that amount (30). In baseball, a player needs to be voted into the Hall of Fame by more than 75% of the people voting (the Baseball Writer’s Association of America). The author used the example of Craig Biggio who appeared on the ballot for the first time this year (players have to wait 5 years before they can appear on the ballot). Biggio earned the most votes of those on the ballot, but he didn’t meet the 75% threshold.

~

The author made some practical suggestions for changing the way the Baseball Hall of Fame votes on players being inducted, but I thought that one of the commenters on the article had some rather intriguing ideas. Granted, I realize that some of them are probably very unlikely of coming to pass (given drastic a shift this would be to the current method of electing members), but I thought that it’d be entertaining to include the ideas:

The eligible players should be voted on individually, not as a group. It makes no sense that a vote for Mike Piazza is a vote that can’t be cast for Craig Biggio or Roger Clemens. They have nothing to do with each other. Their candidacies have nothing to do with each other. They should not be limited by a finite pool. They should not have to compete with each other for votes. They should stand on their own merits.

Like I said earlier, I haven’t been following the Baseball Hall of Fame that closely, so I don’t know if this idea’s been proposed in the past. It sounds pretty good to me. Of course, I’m sure there’s a good counterargument as to why it’s not done this way, right?

Here’s the plan:

Every year, around November, the BBWAA gets a vote, living HoFers get a vote, current and retired broadcasters get a vote, retired MLB coaches, managers and executives get a vote, retired players get a vote, and the FANS who pay the  FREIGHT get a vote to, by consensus, determine the 12 most eligible players to be considered for HoF induction. Then starting in January, the votes are done, one player per month, by the BBWAA, 75%, up or down, in or out. For four weeks there is a national debate. First up: Barry Bonds. In or out? Let the sides argue. At the end of four weeks, ESPN hosts a two hour special on Sunday night. The first hour is a retrospective of the player’s career. The next half hour is a debate among three or four BBWAA members, for and against the player’s induction. The final half hour is the actual vote, carried live and with names and votes tallied in real time, so we can see who the assholes are, as the player himself watches and comments on the voting.

Think you’d watch that?

No more of this making the announcement anonymously on a Tuesday afternoon.

If the player gets 75%, he’s in. If he doesn’t, he’s ineligible for another five years. If he doesn’t make the consensus final ballot in five years, that’s it. He’s done forever.

Again, some really interesting ideas. This could be a way for baseball to reclaim its fan-base (or maybe get some new fans?) It’d certainly be entertaining to watch what this commenter proposed. Of course, before making these kinds of drastic changes, questions would need to posed and answered about the purpose and virtue of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Is it meant to honor former players? And if so, is it sullying to use it as a way to draw in more fans?

Can There Be Too Much of a Good Thing?

Earlier today, I saw a tweet from Mental Floss about the home run derby. In fact, it wasn’t about the home run derby that happens the day before the Major League Baseball All-Star Game, no, it was about the home run derby TV show from back in the 1960s. After being reminded of the home run derby from the 60s, I wondered, can there be too much of a good thing?

My first thought is, no! I love the home run derby, as do many other baseball fans. It’s a fantastical display of ability by some of the greater sluggers. There’ve been quite a few memorably home run derbies. There was Cal Ripken, Jr. in 1991. He hit 7 more HRs than the second place hitter. This was particularly memorable for me because it took place in Toronto (my hometown). There was also Josh Hamilton from 2008 when he broke the record for most HRs in one round, but went on to lose the home run derby. There was also Ken Griffey, Jr. in the last 90s. He won back-to-back home run derbies in 1998 and 1999. He still has one of the sweetest swings in the history of the game.

Then, as I thought more about it, maybe seeing the home run derby once a week would begin to take some of the shine off of the event. Maybe if the home run derby happened once a week, we wouldn’t have the once a year, mid-summer classic, to look forward to for the display of towering home runs.

Thinking about this also made me think about the slam dunk contest. It’s one of my favorite parts about the NBA all-star game. Watching the creativity of some of the best “slam dunkers” is really entertaining. If there were a slam dunk contest every week, would that be too much?

Other than actually producing the show, there’d be no way to know (for sure). If I had to hazard a guess, my guess is that it would be too much. Part of the fun of the home run derby and the slam dunk contest is that it only happens once a year. The amazing feats of ability are rare (at least in their display in this context). And that rarity also adds to the fun of the event. We know that at the end of the night, we won’t be seeing the feats again for another year.

Second-Guessing Managers and General Managers

About a week ago, I was watching the Toronto Blue Jays baseball game and there were some questionable decisions made by the manager. (Note: questionable in that they didn’t really make all that much sense to me or another group of fans of the Blue Jays.) Based on the game situation, many viewers of the game who are familiar with the Blue Jays would have anticipated that the manager would have substituted a certain pitcher. However, this didn’t happen. In fact, the manager substituted a player that was completely unexpected.

As someone who wants to see the Blue Jays succeed, it’s flabbergasting when things like this happen. I watched as fans on Twitter were absolutely dumbfounded by the decision. And that one decision *seemingly* affected decisions in the following game. For instance, because some pitchers can’t necessarily pitch on consecutive days, by using one pitcher on Tuesday, he can’t be used on Wednesday. Having played baseball for some time and having a relatively sophisticated understanding of the game (at least when compared to an average fan), I found it hard to determine the reasoning for the decisions made by the manager. Of course, I was assuming that the primary goal was to “win the game.” However, when you consider that this might not always be the only goal, then one can begin to consider different possibilities.

For instance, maybe the general manager (GM) told the manager that he needed to have a certain pitcher showcased in a game because a scout from a different team was going to be in attendance. Or, maybe the GM said that a certain player was about to be called up and another released, so he should use that player in the game. Heck, maybe there are personality issues (or “office politics“) at play that can’t be seen by fans who simply watch the game on TV. Think about the kinds of politics that happen at your office. These kinds of politics are bound to be at play on baseball teams, especially because the personalities might be a bit more extreme (it takes a certain kind of person to become a high-performance athlete). And, sports teams probably spend more time with each other than your typical office does.

My point in all of this is that it can be tough for a fan when a manager makes a move that seems completely counter to what one would think is the primary goal: winning the game.

On a related note, the NHL free agency period recently opened. Much to the chagrin of Toronto Maple Leafs‘ fans, the Leafs decided to let go of their best center, Mikhail Grabovski. Statistically speaking, that is, if you use advanced statistics, there’s no question that Grabovski was the best center on the Leafs. However, as has been noted with statistics, one can interpret the data to fit their opinion. Regardless, the decision by the GM of the Leafs, like the decision of the manager of the Blue Jays, left fans dumbfounded. These moves by the Leafs were even more frustrating because they had to do with personnel. With the explosion of fantasy sports, many fans have had the ability to pretend to be GMs. My guess is that because of this, some fans may think that they know better (and have tangential proof?) than the current GM of their favorite team.

All this is to say that when your favorite team does something that seems contra-indicated, consider that there might be something behind the scenes that you can’t know. I know, this will probably be of little comfort, but it might allow you to gain a more nuanced perspective of the business of sports.

Know The Rules: Bench-Clearing Brawl at the World Baseball Classic

A couple of weeks ago saw the start of the World Baseball Classic (WBC). This is only the 3rd WBC, but it’s already proving to be quite enjoyable to watch and from what the players say, quite enjoyable to play. The World Baseball Classic is akin to the World Cup (of soccer/football) where countries compete to qualify for (and play in) a tournament against other countries — in baseball. This past weekend, there was a game between Canada and Mexico that erupted into a fistfight. Now, as a baseball player of many years, I can tell you that never have I been in a fistfight on a baseball field. So how did it happen?

In the WBC, there are 4 pools with 4 teams in each pool. Each team plays each other once and the top 2 teams advance. Pretty simple, right? Well, with mathematics, there’s a high probability that there will be a tie for 2nd (or 1st!) and there will need to be tiebreakers to differentiate between teams. The first tiebreaker is head-to-head. Meaning, if Team A and Team B have the same record at the end of the pool play, the winner of the game between those two would advance to the next round. If we included a Team C in that scenario (all three Teams have the same record), then it gets dicey. Let’s also say that Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, and Team C beat Team A. Our first tiebreaker doesn’t work. So, we’ve got to go to the next tiebreaker — run differential (it’s actually a bit more complicated than that, but we’ll just call it this to make it easier). Basically, run differential is just what it sounds like — the difference between the number of runs you scored and the number of runs that were scored against you.

Okay, now that we’ve got the basic understanding of the rules, we can talk about what happened this past weekend. In Pool D of the 2013 World Baseball Classic, Italy beat Mexico in the first game. In the second game, Italy mercy’ed (beat by 10 runs!) Canada. In the third game, Mexico beat the USA. At this point, the standings were: Italy 2-0, Mexico 1-1, Canada 0-1, and USA 0-1. In the fourth game, Canada was to play Mexico. Going into the game, Canada had a -10 run differential because they lost by 10 to Italy. So, if Canada won the game, they knew they were going to have win by a lot (in case that the 2nd tiebreaker came into effect).

Cut to the 9th inning of the game between Canada and the USA. At this point, Canada was winning 9-3. They had the game solidly in hand. The first batter of the inning noticed that there was an opportunity to bunt and make it to first base — so, he did. The 3rd basemen didn’t like this and instructed the pitcher to hit the next batter! Let’s take a step back for a second.

In the way that baseball is normally played (without the imposition of tiebreakers), you wouldn’t a team to try to “run up the score.” Meaning, a player wouldn’t take the advantage that the Canadian player did when he bunted — this is considered ‘bush league.’ So, when the Canadian player bunted to reach first base, the 3rd basemen suggested to the pitcher what would normally be suggested — bean him. Now, I’m not condoning this as a response, but generally, this is how things go in baseball. However, because of the tiebreaker 
rules, Canada wasn’t trying to embarrass Mexico, they were trying to even out their run differential! Herein lies the problem — the Mexican player didn’t know the rules. After the Mexican player beaned the Canadian player, the benches cleared. When the benches cleared, a fist fight erupted.

This whole kerfuffle could have been prevented if the Mexican players knew the rules. I’m not writing this to place blame on the Mexican players for not knowing the rules. This post is meant to highlight what happens when you don’t know the rules of the game. More than that, we can broaden this to not knowing the rules of play (in business, politics, education, etc.). If you’re operating under the assumption that the rules are X, Y, Z, and the rules are actually Cup, Dog, Queen, then you’re probably going to miss something. More than that, when someone does something relating to Dog, you may get pretty upset expecting that the rules were X.

In short: Know the Rules.

Should PED Users Be Allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame? Old Hoss Radbourn Thinks So

A couple of weeks ago, there was a retweet that came up in my feed from someone I don’t currently follow. As a brief aside: this is another cool thing about Twitter. Even though I don’t follow a person, their tweets may show up if someone else retweets them. The cool part: I get introduced to someone (by way of 140 characters, their Twitter handle, and their Twitter picture), that I wouldn’t have otherwise knew existed.

Anyway, this tweet was from @OldHossRadbourn. For those who don’t know, “Old Hoss” is the nickname for Charles Radbourn who was a MLB pitcher in the late 1800s. Radbourn was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1939. He was one of the first 25 players elected to the Hall of Fame. Radbourn passed away before the dawn of the 20th century, so it’s safe to say that the person behind the Twitter account is someone else. The tweet:

Obviously, the person who is behind this account is being sarcastic. In fact, one of the people who replied to this tweet made an even more salient point:

Like Radbourn, Ty Cobb was elected to the Hall of Fame very early on. In fact, Ty Cobb was part of the first class of players elected to the Hall of Fame. A bit of baseball trivia for you: Ty Cobb was elected to the Hall of Fame with a higher percentage of the vote than Babe Ruth (98.23% to 95.13%). While Ty Cobb was probably one of the greatest baseball players — ever — he’s also know for being one of “bad boys” of baseball.

From one of the reviews of a biography of Cobb:

Stump, Ty Cobb’s ghostwriter for the 1961 autobiography My Life in Baseball, fleshes out the story in this bare-knuckle, shocking biography. Born in Georgia in 1886, Cobb began his baseball career with the Detroit Tigers in 1905 and stayed in the big leagues until 1928-all the time hated by his rivals and teammates alike because of his meanness and combativeness. The author portrays the highlights of Cobb’s career: his first batting championship in 1907; his 96 stolen bases in 1915; and his three .400 seasons in 1911, 1912 and 1922. Stump also looks at Cobb’s involvement in game-fixing in 1919, his time as a manager and his activities after retiring. He died in 1961. The most sensational aspects of the book deal with Cobb’s personal life: his mother’s murder of his father, millionaire Cobb’s cheapness (no electricity or telephone in his house), wife beating, alcoholism and racial bigotry.

So, we’ve got meanness/combativeness, game-fixing, wife beating, alcoholism, and racial bigotry. Not exactly the upstanding qualities of a person you’d expect to be elected to a Hall of Fame, right? It’s worth noting that some of the severity of these claims have been challenged, but from what I’ve read/seen, I’m inclined to think that there’s at least some truth to them.

I suppose there’s the argument that Cobb’s transgressions don’t immediately relate to his ability to play the game. That is, those players who have dabbled in Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs), are immediately affecting their ability to play the game by using these drugs. I can totally understand that point.

Although, as I look down the list of players who have been suspended for using PEDs, there aren’t more than a handful of players that the casual MLB fan would recognize. Similarly, there are only a handful of all-stars. My point here is that even though players use PEDs, it doesn’t automatically skyrocket them to the top of the list of the best players in baseball. The player still has to play at an extremely high-level and for an extended period of time. No easy feat.

As the 2013 baseball hall of fame balloting starts to wind down (voting closes in January of 2013), there will probably be much ink spilt opposing the inclusion of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and there will probably be much ink spilt supporting their inclusion. I found these two cases, one from the San Jose Mercury and the other from NBCSports to seem well-rounded. In particular, the NBCSports article specifically addresses 3 common arguments you hear in opposition to players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

If I were casting a ballot for the 2013 baseball hall of fame class, I’d almost certainly tick the box for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. The conclusion from the NBCSports article puts it succinctly:

In the final analysis, I hope we can all agree that there is no baseball reason whatsoever to keep Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens out of the Hall of Fame. Their baseball accomplishments — both those which can be measured by statistics and those which cannot — are so far beyond sufficient for induction that it’s almost laughable to list them.  To oppose their candidacy, then, one must make a moral or ethical case based on their drug use and the voter’s opinion of their character. And that case will almost certainly be made from a great distance and with imperfect information.

You may feel comfortable doing such a thing.  I do not.  And I believe that any Hall of Fame that does not include two of the best players to ever swing a bat or throw a ball, no matter what their flaws, is an utter joke.

Confessions of a Toronto Blue Jays Fan: So This is what it Feels Like to be a Yankees or Red Sox Fan

This past week has been momentous. Absolutely momentous. Okay, maybe I’m being a tad hyperbolic, but it’s been an exciting week for the Toronto Blue Jays (and their fans). This past week, the Toronto Blue Jays made the biggest trade in franchise history:

Going to the Miami Marlins

Coming to the Toronto Blue Jays

  • Josh Johnson (SP)
  • Mark Buehrle (SP)
  • José Reyes (SS)
  • Emilio Bonifacio (UT)
  • John Buck (C)
  • $4 million

This was a huge deal. Not only did a number of players change hands, but a number of marquee players. Reyes is a 4-time all-star and NL batting champion from 2011. Buehrle is a 4-time all-star. Johnson is a 2-time all-star. Buck is a 1-time all-star. Both Alvarez and Hechavarria are two prospects that were expected to lead the Blue Jays over the next decade. This trade will certainly solidify the Blue Jays’ prospects of making the playoffs in 2013.

Not only did the Blue Jays make a splash with this huge deal, they also signed a couple of players to fill a few holes. They signed Macier Izturis who can play all the infield positions and Melky Cabrera who was an all-star this year and the all-star MVP this year.

There are a ton of things going well for Toronto Blue Jays’ fans. Having been born and raised in the Greater Toronto Area, I’ve certainly followed the Blue Jays quite a bit, especially because growing up, baseball was my favorite sport. I loved the game, so naturally, I was interested in watching the professionals, too. I can remember back to 1992/1993 (when the Blue Jays won back-to-back World Series) — it was glorious. Those two teams were stacked with talent. In fact, leading up to the 1992 season, the Blue Jays made a very big trade to acquire to cornerstones of those championship teams. Many are comparing the trade I described above to that trade.

The number of deals (and the size of the deals, with regard to money), are not something that you usually see from the Blue Jays in the offseason. The Blue Jays usually have a very low-key offseason, picking up a few players here and there. I always remember the Blue Jays taking a more “Moneyball” approach. Part of this has to do with the size of the payroll. The only time I can remember the Jays spending a great deal of money in the offseason was during those two World Series years I described above.

There is no salary cap in baseball, so teams are allowed to spend as much as they want. As a result, you find the bigger marquee teams (like the Yankees and the Red Sox) able to spend more. (Though, there might be a chicken and egg problem here.) That’s why I’ve titled this post the way that I have. There haven’t been many times in Blue Jays’ history when they’ve spent this much in the offseason. As a result, I would imagine that this is what it feels like to be a Red Sox fan or a Yankees fan. Fans of these teams — I suspect — have become accustomed to their team spending a great deal of money in the offseason to keep them competitive.

~

Only time will tell if the success of the Reyes, Johnson, and Buehrle can equal the sucess of Roberto Alomar and Joe Carter. I, and most of Canada, most certainly hope that it will.

 

Shutting Pitchers Down Early: A Creative Lesson in Long-Term Sustainability

I’d been meaning to write about this for the last few weeks. In fact, I first got the idea after the Washington Nationals made the playoffs for the first time in a long time. I immediately knew that there were going to be a number of articles written in trying to sway the management of the team to let Strasburg (the star pitcher) pitch in the playoffs. However, management had already decided that this particular pitcher had “reached his limit” and would no longer be pitching this season.

There are pros and cons to this, but I wanted to look at it for: “short-term gain vs. long-term sustainability.”

When we look at companies that have failed, often times, it’s because they sacrificed long-term sustainability for short-term profits. That is, they took a shortcut to make a quick buck without due consideration for how it was going to affect the company in the long-term. Or, maybe they did consider it, and just chose the short-term gains instead.

As I watched — painfully — the Nationals be eliminated from the playoffs a bit ago, I couldn’t help but reflect on this idea of short-term gains and long-term sustainability. Those folks who screamed for Strasburg to pitch kind of have a point. It’s possible that he Strasburg may get hurt at some point next season or the season after or that the Nationals will never get that opportunity to return to the playoffs. And it’s because of this that Strasburg should have been allowed to pitch.

Though, if I think about it from a ‘business’ perspective, the argument can be made that it’s best to “take care of your assets.” That is, if your company had a Ferrari, you wouldn’t necessarily overuse your Ferrari simply because you had a Ferrari. No, you would want to take care of that very expensive (and valuable) asset to reap the benefits over the long haul.

In sum, I don’t know how I would act if I were the General Manager of the Washington Nationals. However, I do think that this is a creative example in illustrating the difference between pursuing short-term gains or long-term sustainability.

Every Game Counts The Same: Does It Really?

In most sports, there is a “regular” season and a “post” season. That is, the teams play against it each other for a set number of games to jockey for position in the playoffs. As I write this, I’m thinking about in particular, as it is getting very near to the end of their season. As the season comes to a close, many teams are either jockeying for position in the playoffs or they are struggling to remain one of the teams that will get to play in the playoffs.

I was having a conversation with someone the other day about the relative importance of each game, ie. “every game counts.” Some people like to say that games at the end of the season “count more” than games at the beginning of the season. They’ll tell you quite a fancy story about how and why the games at the end mean more to a team than the games at the beginning of the season. And I want to believe them. I want to believe that there’s a formula that accounts for “time” in the relative importance of games. To my knowledge, there isn’t and a game won in the beginning of the season is equal to a game won at the end of the season.

Looking at it mathematically: there are 162 games in a season. So, every game is worth 1/162nd of a team’s record. If a team wins a game on May 6th, that game is worth 1/162nd of that team’s record. If a team loses on June 12th, that game is still worth 1/162nd of that team’s record. And if a team wins the last game of the season (!) that game is still worth 1/162nd of that team’s record.

I think where a lot of people get confused or misled when it comes to games at the end of the season meaning more is because of the cultural bias. It is often written of and spoke of that games at the end of the season mean more than games at the beginning of the season. As a result, people begin to believe this and say it themselves (creating a bit of an ). At the end of the day (literally), the last game of the season has the same weight on a team’s record as a game at the beginning of the season.

Note 1: this line of thinking doesn’t apply to those sports that use a more sophisticated way of measuring the success of their teams. For instance, some sports, like soccer, often use “goal differential” as a way of distinguishing the relative placement of their teams.

Note 2: for sports that have such relatively “short” seasons like the NFL, one could argue that a game later in the season is worth more because of the various tiebreakers that are used for Winning percentage, etc., but the sentiment of every game counting the same still holds.

Behavior of Sports Fan(atic)s Rival Behavior of Religious Fanatics

A couple of days ago as I was driving into town, I heard the guy on the radio talking about some sort of . Given the , my attention wasn’t immediately tuned into what was happening. As the reporter expanded upon the story, I was appalled. The reporter proceeded to tell the listeners that one, , 42-year old and San Francisco Giants’ fan, is showing signs of brain damage after having been severely beaten by, Los Angeles Dodgers fans.

The history of violence involving fans is well documented, and typically, violence in spectator sports is more closely associated with football (or soccer for those folks in the US and Canada). The last incident of “fan violence” in baseball was in August of 2009, when a at and hit, Philadelphia Phillies centerfielder, Shane Victorino. The outfielder had some beer land on him, which is unacceptable of course, but other than that, nothing too serious.

Some of the more recent incidents of violence include a match between Italy and Serbia in October of 2010. The start of the game was delayed over half an hour. Once the game got underway, before they were ten minutes into the 1st half, a flare was thrown onto the field causing more rioting. The game was called and one team was later awarded the victory based on the fans that were causing trouble.  In March of 2010 during a game, climbed over the glass, into the bench of the opposing team, and proceeded to strike one of the goalies over the head several times with a stick. The goalie had to leave the bench area, as blood was running down his face, and he was later diagnosed with a concussion. If you’re interested, there’s a .

On the face of these myriad incidents of violence by fans in sports, I can’t help but think of the true meaning of the word fan. The word fan, comes from the word fanatic, which means, “. . .” In my opinion, these fans are definitely exhibiting “extreme enthusiasm” in support of their team. In the definition I provided, I left out five words that appear after the word zeal. These five words: “as in religion or politics.”

When I hear about these horrendous acts of violence committed in the “name of one’s team,” I can’t help but make the connection to another brand of fanaticism — religious fanaticism. After the events of , the world was led to believe that these attacks were committed by religious fanatics (and that may well be the case, but I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of any of the explanations for what happened). Since then, opening up the or the to find an article about someone killing in the name of religion has become somewhat normalized because of how often it happens. Is there really a big difference between religious fanaticism and sports fanaticism?

If there is, to me, the difference is negligible, and I for one, think this is awful. Fans identify with their teams so much so that they feel compelled to harm another human being! I was an athlete and I can tell you, after the game is over, life still goes on. You go on and eat your meals, sleep, read books, and do all of the other things that people do. To some fans, when the game ends, their life, in a way, ends. I think this kind of attachment to sports is unhealthy. Similarly, I think the attachment to religion that is displayed by those who believe they are doing right by their religion by killing in the name of their deity is also a little bit too far. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the thinking that goes into their decision and prosper in the afterlife, but it is my opinion, that there is never a valid reason to kill another human being, (or one’s self for that matter).

Where on the Internet is Jeremiah Stanghini?

Jeremiah Stanghini Dog Victoria British Columbia Happy [Author’s Note: This post was updated on April 6th, 2011, to add/remove sites that I frequent on the Internet.]

[Author’s Note #2: This post was updated again on June 14th, 2011, to reflect that I am now on Twitter.]

I am by no means , but I thought it’d be helpful to do a post about the various places where I can be found on the Internet.

– Obviously, first and foremost, you can find me here at my home site, Genuine Thriving. There is an for me and there is also an where you will find a list of my posts.

Twitter – Jeremiah Stanghini – I am now on Twitter (as I announced in this post). I’ll do my best to tweet things that I think are worth repeating to keep the information train flowing.

– I have a profile on LinkedIn that provides my professional resume.

– I have a channel on YouTube where I upload videos of presentations. You’ll also find videos that I “like” on YouTube along with videos that I have commented on.

– I have a ‘lensmsater’ page on Squidoo listing the various lenses (mini-webpages) I have created. All of the proceeds from my mini-pages (lenses) are donated to (loans that change lives).

– I have a profile on the International BodyTalk Association’s website profiling the various courses I have taken and requisite .

I have profiles with two of the more popular commenting services for blogs, and . On these profiles, you’ll be able to see the various comments I have made on blogs all across the Internet. There are other blogs I visit that do not use these commenting services like , the TED Blog, or .

Being that I grew up in the , I developed a soft spot for the and the . As a result, you may find me commenting at (For Toronto Blue Jays’ Fans) or (For Toronto Maple Leafs’ Fans). These sites are also linked up to a profile of a network of blogs at , so you’ll find my profile page at .

From time-to-time, you may also find me on community boards like , for example.

Overall, the best place to find me is right here — on my blog.

Looking forward to crossing paths with you!