American Pie with RJ as the Big Bopper (The Gothic Ginobili Sessions)

Note: I have about 100 unpublished drafts at the Gothic Ginobili, and it's not doing anyone any good to have these things just lying around. So now I will put the occasional good-but-hard-to-publish piece in a place for my thousands (nay, millions) of loyal readers to indulge. 

Today, it's my parody of American Pie, where the theme is none other than Richard Jefferson's tenure in San Antonio. This definitely should have been published. I am bitter to no end that this is what I'm resorting to in order to get this published. Its appeal is obvious and limitless. The New York Times should be beating down my door for this vintage American comedy I am producing. j/k lol ;-p. Let's get started. Heh.

A long, long time ago
I can still remember
How that RJ used to make me smile
And I knew if he had his chance
That he would win some Con-fer-ence
And Spurs fans would be happy for awhile...
But the trade deadline would not abate
And I read about how Golden State
Had acquired Richard Jefferson
I couldn't take one more step...fferson.
I can't remember what I said
When I learned about his moving head
Our title hopes were surely dead...
When we got...S-Jax instead

So bye, bye, Richard Jefferson, bye
Most respectful expectations you did defy
But now it's S-Jax at the wing who now flies
Singing "This is now the team that I die....
This is now the team that I die...

The Meta-game Dialogue That Inevitably Accompanies a League of Legends Session

"Hey, I was wondering if anyone wants to give me tips on playing this hero."

"Pick another one. That hero is under-powered."

"No, I mean, I really enjoy play-"

"Pick another one. That hero Is not nearly as good as these alternates."

"Come on, I just want some advice. Look, I could easily go to one of hundreds of forums and find out exactly how to play any of these heroes, including sites that would tell me exactly what you're saying about hero selection. I know I could win 51.5% instead of 51% of games if I played the metagame and picked the most OP heroes at any given time, searching for a marginal advantage, but that's fucking retarded as advice. I don't enjoy playing with those heroes as much, so yes, changing up my hero selection might mean winning a sliver more, but it's also completely limiting my enjoyment of the game which decreases my enthusiasm to make it through the early game. And besides, even if I lose slightly more often, that will eventually be accounted for in the matchmaking system. God fucking damn it. I just want to enjoy myself for the five fucking hours a week you guys insist that I play."

The Confluence of Albums and Basketball Teams: Criteria, Justification, and "Pet Sounds"

My friend (and editor at the Gothic Ginobili) Aaron contractually obligated me to write this piece after another 3000-word unpublishable rant about stats. He says that all my pieces are basically just Lovecraftian ramblings about Richard Jefferson and the "untold nature of numbers" (my words, not his). Guilty. This is... actually a good point, Aaron. You're right. I need to loosen up. Heh. So, *sigh*, here's a possibly-viral, reader-friendly post for all the music lovers out there! I was thinking about how musical albums (like LPs) would translate to basketball teams. There are several modes of analysis we can use to base a sane comparison on. After all, consider the following:

• Depth- how many songs are good? How many songs are playoff good?
  • Numerically this works seamlessly. Most teams have about 10-15 players and most albums have about 10-15 tracks (and in both cases a typical listener's playing time for each song will be proportional to that song's quality, with the last few often being skipped entirely in both cases). What is the distribution of the album's quality?
  • Playoff depth? How many players would you honestly trust to start or finish the Western Conference Finals? Not so fast, Ramon Sessions, even though we all love you. How many songs would you honestly listen to on their own for pleasure? Not so fast, "That's Not Me" from Pet Sounds (okay, situationally, sure, sue me, I'm nostalgic). Not so fast, 2nd-best George Harrison song on a Beatles album (except Here Comes the Sun)! How many songs would you trust with your life?
• Good Fit/Chemistry/Variety between the players (especially when it comes to the role players) is essential when talking about the greatness of teams.
  • This can mean fit caused by track ordering/lineup tandems (see side B of Abbey Road).
  • But it can also be fit caused by inherent chemistry (for example, between a offensively-limited stopper and a ball-dominant volume-shooter). To keep with the Beatles' example, "Revolution #9" and "Good Night" from the White Album are both very good songs, in my humble opinion  But they work especially well in that specific order: the transition from one to the other is epic and shows a deep understanding of how to use those two songs in the lineup.
  • "Fit" means that players can be put in lineups that play better than the sum of their parts, but it also means that the team has a diverse skillset of pieces for matching up against any opponent (or any adjustments that opponent might make). The players can "fit" into any basketball puzzle needed of them. The musical equivalent to this is to have a range of styles, aesthetics, moods, lyrical modes, chords, etc. Basically the questions boil down to "Is this a versatile album to listen to in a variety of situations?" Like: Would you put a stretch of this album on in your friend's car (sorry, Pet Sounds/2003 Spurs/2011 Mavericks)? Would you listen to this album alone if you were feeling depressed (sorry, Rush, but come on, you are a silly band. You are a silly band to like [I'll call you back when I'm better I will meet you and we will get ice cream together you are so funny, Rush, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings]. Sorry, Ringo [except for the devastatingly sad "Don't Pass Me By". Dead serious])?
• Star quality:
  • What do the stars do? Do they have a simple game or are they multifaceted? Are they just very good players or are they transcendent, once-in-a-lifetime, impossible-to-replicate players? Are they conducive to building a great team or are their talents actually a limiting factor in the team's ability to attain greatness?
  • What do the best songs do? Are they simple or musically complex? Are they simply very good or are they transcendent masterpieces? Is the song conducive to building a great album around or do they call undue attention to themselves and fit poorly with the other songs on the album?
• Offense vs. Defense - Offense is musical creativity, defense is musicality. Sue me, the metaphor falls apart here. I'm not going to rely on this except as a sort of semantic tie-breaker. Bob Dylan's mid-60s output is a balanced two-way team, not too great in either.
• Pace - pace is pace. Err... I mean tempo is tempo. Possessions per minute is beats per minute. But possessions aren't beats. There you go.
• Historical Success. What did this team/album do? Did it never win any championships but everyone that watched them won championships of their own? Sup, SSOL Suns (thanks, Bill Simmons, for that prenatal article premise, by the way).

This is gonna be a series, usually covering albums I've listened to dozens (if not hundreds) of times: Today I'm gonna review The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, later I'll probably do such masterpieces as Songs In The Key of Life by Stevie Wonder, Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart, That One Pretty Good Kanye Album That Everyone Pontificated About, Especially Kanye, by Kanye West (or My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, as it's more commonly known), Moment of Truth by Gang Starr, and, finally, the greatest album of all time, which is, of course, Om by John Coltrane.