Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Literally the Entire 42 Letters

Definitely the biggest sports story of the week right here. Yup. This was it.

Our one-year blogaversary was on the 18th. Should we do an oral history of The Whole 42 Minutes? Everyone's doing them nowadays. WE NEVER THOUGHT IT WOULD BE THIS HUGE AND NOW LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE BECOME.

Your letters:

What are the 5 most exciting NBA teams?

I'm interpreting the "exciting" as "exciting to watch," so here's my list:

5. Rockets
4. Nuggets
3. Golden State
2. Thunder
1. Lob City beetch Lob Lob City beetch

The Heat are essentially down to one exciting player, and I can't put them on this list over these way exciting teams. Sean won't like the fact that J.R. Smith's perpetual heat check mode and 40% shooting percentage doesn't make the Knicks the #1 most exciting team.

Hockey's back, do you care at all? Does anyone?

Do I care at all? Yeah, I care at all. The hockey playoffs are really exciting, and now we don't have to suffer through an entire regular season to get there. It'll be great. Does anyone care, you ask? Well, the Canadiens fired their general manager and it was the biggest news story in Canada. So yes, Canadians care. As do Canadiens. Canucks do as well.

How much money would you pay so that your parents didn't see your google search history? Alternatively, how much would you pay to see what a friend searched? Or, is it better not to know?

I guess the first question assumes that my parents would somehow be able to see my Google search history anyway, which is not the case in real reality. But if this were the case in real reality, I guess I'd pay...I don't know, $20? There are some things on there that I guess I wouldn't want them to see, but I can't think of anything that I'm ashamed of or anything. Maybe my 15-year-old self searched for some embarrassing stuff, like "when does the second ball descend," and "how to kiss girls respectfully," so I'd pay the $20 to keep that private.

As for a friend, I'd pay like $1. I don't think it's better not to know. If I could know, I'd definitely want to know. Google searches reveal a lot more than your friend's prurient interests, and I'd want to see what I could uncover. Does that make me a yenta? Our readers can chime in on if that makes any sense.

What's your favorite sports movie? Please don't say Fever Pitch just because it's about the Red Sox.

Well I'll tell ya what it's NOT! It's definitely NOT Fever Pitch! Oh. As we all know, I don't watch a lot of movies. For instance, I've never seen classics like Hoosiers or Field of Dreams or Raging Bull. A movie I have seen, however, is Space Jam, which is absolutely without question my favorite sports movie. And He Got Game. No, it's Space Jam.

How good looking is Tom Brady?

He's the best-looking person in his marriage.

Are the Lakers going to make the playoffs and in that same vein should they trade Gasol?

The Lakers are currently 4 games back of Houston for the 8th spot in the West. Yes, they are going to make the playoffs. Dwight Howard is back. Pau is back. They're going to slide into the playoffs without much of a problem.

The question of whether they should trade Pau Gasol comes down to what they can get for him. Earl Clark actually played well for the Lakers in Gasol's absence, and I think they want to see what he can do. But I think the Lakers are nervous about a potentially unhappy Dwight Howard leaving in free agency this offseason, meaning that they'd go from 2 elite bigs down to 0, leaving Kobe without much of a shot at another championship. I don't see anyone coming up with a worthwhile offer for Gasol, so I think he'll stay put, but if a team is dumb enough to offer something irresistible for him, the Lakers should absolutely pull the trigger. The real question is SHOULD THEY TRADE DWIGHT HOWARD?! I'd love that.

I recently watched American Reunion which was by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

This reader brings up something that mildly annoys me. I don't like when people say "by far one of the best" or "by far one of the worst." How can something be by far ONE OF something? You know what I mean? Think about it and see if you agree with me.

If a player in an NFL game got hit so hard that he became immediately paralyzed (not dead, but can no longer use his legs), would you stop watching, and if so, for how long? This happened in hockey a few years ago with Travis Roy of BU, but it wasn't that high profile. Do you think the pervasiveness of the NFL would change how the story plays out?

To the second part of this question, yes, if this happened in the NFL, it would be a giant story that would raise a whole new slew of safety questions for the NFL. We'd hear stories about how Brett Favre was actually paralyzed from the neck down in the third quarter of a game in 1995, came right back into the game, and threw 2 more touchdowns without the use of his arms or legs. Then we'll realize he was paralyzed from the neck UP! Heyooooo!

Would I stop watching? If I saw someone get legit paralyzed, and then I found out that this person would be paralyzed forever, I might find it jarring enough not to watch anymore. But I will say that I would stop watching only because I personally wouldn't want to relive the memory of seeing someone get paralyzed. I don't think I'd stop watching because, in and of itself, someone got paralyzed. I think we kind of all accept that horrific and lasting injuries happen on a weekly basis in the NFL. The risk of an athlete being paralyzed before our eyes is constantly there, and the simple reality of someone getting paralyzed wouldn't stop me from watching football. But I can't say how seeing someone get paralyzed would affect me emotionally.

Every year people immediately start predicting what the storylines will be for the various Super Bowl matchups (Lewis retiring, the Harbitch bowl, Brady and the Bay Area, etc.). Is there anything worse than this? 2 weeks between the championship games and the Super Bowl is pretty fucking unbearable most years.

There is nothing worse than this. There is a horrifying civil war going on in Syria, but I think even they would admit that the two-week break before the Super Bowl is worse. I remember a time when the Super Bowl was one week after the conference championships. That used to happen, right? Didn't the Super Bowl used to be in January? I understand that 2 weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl is a good idea to bolster the quality of the game, but if I hear one word from ESPN from now until February 3rd, my head will explode and I'll be paralyzed from the neck up like Brett Favre.

As the blog celebrates its anniversary, do we have any big changes in store for next year?

People will start reading it?

No comments:

Post a Comment