Lessons of three partially true cliches for graduates (and others)

Editor's note: Following is Brad Stanhope's prepared graduation speech, which he has maintained and updated every year since the late 1980s, yet never delivered.

Hello graduates and congratulations on making it through the toughest few years since World War II. You endured distance learning, wearing masks and a reasonable concern that every cough was the start of COVID. You are experiencing our nation's deepest division since the Civil War. Plus you've had to act like you understand cryptocurrency.

Now graduation, which is filled with advice. Today, I'm presenting three things you'll hear and why they're true and why they're false.

Find something you love to do and you'll never work a day in your life.

Oh, sure. Passion is important, so don't settle for a job if the only benefit is money. (Unless, of course, you really need the money.)

However, doing something you love might be something like watching Netflix all night or getting high all the time. If pursue those, you might never work a day in your life, but you'll also not have any income or happiness.

The truth: Follow what you love, but also learn to love new things. You'll probably change jobs multiple times in your life.

By the way, whoever said, "find something you love to do and you'll never work a day in your life," must never have had a real job. In any job, there are days that feel like work. That's called being human.

It's not the destination, it's the journey.

Oh, sure. If you're too focused on the goal (making a million dollars, playing professional sports, becoming a famous musician, becoming an assistant manager at a fast-food restaurant, earning enough to move out), you can miss the memorable parts along the way. As John Lennon (who died 20-plus years before you were born) said, "life is what happens while you're making other plans," so be sure to enjoy your journey.

The truth: The destination is important. That's what determines the journey, right? (By the way, it's OK to change your destination, which is why our phone GPS allows us to put in new destinations all the time).

By the way, whoever said, "it's not the destination, it's the journey," clearly never drove down I-5 to Disneyland or across Nevada and Utah on I-80. Those journeys suck.

You'll always regret what you didn't do rather than what you did.

Oh, sure. Many of us wish we would have taken that job offer or asked that person on a date or tried out for that part or for that team. We wish we would have moved to a different town or learned that new skill or joined that club.

The truth: We tend to compartmentalize this and forget the wise decisions to skip things – staying home from that party that ended disastrously; turning down a job that would have been a catastrophe; asking out that person who ended up as a serial killer (OK, maybe extreme). Sometimes, it's wise to not take action.

By the way, whoever said, "you'll always regret what you didn't do rather than what you did" never talked to someone in prison.

Here's some solid, reasonable advice: Follow your passion (within reason). Enjoy the journey (but also remember the destination). Take risks (but not all of them, particularly the kind that you'll regret forever).

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Spending $114 (or less) on these six items is the smartest investment you every make

Selling inexpensive, but long-lasting household items has to be a scam, right?

Consider this: Based on my research (looking for the normal sales price on Amazon), you can spend $114 and buy six essential household items that you never need to replace.

Invest $114 in 2022 dollars and you're done. Forever. There must be a trick to this, right? If so, I can't figure it out. How do companies make money when they sell items cheaply and we never need to replace them?

I'll share the six items and when your read each, think about when you last purchased one. Odds are, you've had the item for years and won't need a replacement for years. Maybe forever.

The sensational six:

1. Ironing board ($30). An amazing feat of engineering, this folds up and slips beside your chest of drawers or beside your coats in the hall closet or something else. Once you buy an ironing board, you're set for life (to prove this point, think about the ironing board in your childhood home. It's no different than what you have now). Do ironing board manufacturers sell these so they can sell you irons? Maybe that explains it.

2. Clothes hamper ($25). Not a laundry basket, which suffices for many of us. This goes in a bedroom corner or in the closet. Maybe it's made of wicker or plastic or metal. But it lasts a long, long, long time. Do clothes hamper manufacturers make their money off college kids who destroy these? Maybe that's the profit.

3. Kitchen trash can ($30). This price seemed high to me, but maybe that's because we have a cheap version. Whether it's the kind with the pedal that opens the lid or if it fits in a cupboard (correct location for that option: under the sink, right side), the kitchen trash can lasts forever. We had a hideous yellow plastic version my whole childhood. They last forever and are cheap.

4. Plunger ($18). You probably bought your first plunger after the first experience of learning you needed one. Once you have one, there's (hopefully) no need for a replacement – plungers last forever. They're the CPR of household necessities: rarely used, always valuable. And also unclear how the plunger industry makes a lot of money.

5. Dustpan ($10). A $10 dustpan is likely an elite dustpan, since even one that costs $5 lasts forever. Brooms may break or fray, but the old, reliable dustpan only needs to be replaced when you lose it – and how would you lose a dustpan? Of course, you could go for the Cadillac of dustpans – the kind school janitors have, where the handle stands up and you don't have to bend over to use it. Go ahead, moneybags. The rest of us will use this long-lasting, low-priced dustpan.

6. Flyswatter ($1). How many flyswatters were in your childhood home? One. It probably had a tear in the plastic, but who cared? The job is to kill flies and that doesn't require a perfect swatting surface, just enough to get it done. This $1 investment lasts a lifetime.

All of those items have been in your house for a long time and you won't need to buy replacements this year or next year. That $114 is the best investment you'll ever make.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Are you part of the 10% of insane people who want the T-rex to return?

At least 10% of Americans have apparently never watched a science fiction movie.

That's the only rational explanation for the fact that one-tenth of our population supports the idea of scientists bringing back the tyrannosaurus rex.

Seriously. This was from a survey conducted by YouGov, which asked respondents a series of questions about extinct animals and whether those animals should be brought back.

One out of 10 respondents said the T-rex should come back. One-tenth!

Think of a group of 20 people you know, friends and family. Based on this study, two of them – two! – think we should bring back the T-Rex. And by that, they mean the dinosaur, not T. Rex, the band that sang "Get it on (Bang a Gong)."

Although frankly, either idea is bad. The founder of T. Rex died in a car wreck in 1977.

Anyway, the survey asked a series of questions:

• Should scientists try to prevent animals from going extinct? (Most say yes.)
• Should scientists bring back extinct animals? (Most are squeamish about it.)
• Should scientists bring back specific extinct animals?

To the last question, interviewees were presented with options, and the answers varied. This isn't necessarily a moral question, it's a strategic question: Which animals would be good to bring back?

The most popular animal to bring back was the giant tortoise (supported by 50% of respondents), followed by the passenger pigeon and the northern white rhino (44% support for each).

OK. This kind of makes sense. We like those animals – or at least think they're worth saving. The world would be better with them, presumably.

Then came the less-desired-to-be-returned animals. The wooly mammoth. The saber-tooth tiger. Neither were very popular (return supported by 24% and 20% of respondents, which seems high).

Then came the dinosaurs: 12% of people said they'd support the return of the triceratops. Eleven percent said they'd be OK if scientists brought back the pterodactyl. And the aforementioned 10% who thought it would be cool if the T-rex returned.

A weird thing is that only 70% of people think it's a bad idea to bring back those animals to their original habitats, which means about 20% of us (again, that would be an additional four out of your group of 20 friends) don't have an opinion. ON WHETHER WE SHOULD BRING BACK THE T-REX.

What?

Have they not seen Jurassic Park? Or The Lost World Jurassic Park? Or Jurassic Park 3? Or Jurassic World? Or Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom?

This is a baffling result. I guess some people think the world should be returned to whatever stage they think was the right era. It's kind of like people who want the world to be like it was when they were a kid, ignoring all the problems that existed in their childhood world. (In my childhood world, for instance, there was no internet and no cupholders in cars.)

Here's what I know: If scientists can bring back extinct animals including dinosaurs, it's there's a 100% chance that some rogue scientists will do so. Then we'll have a runaway T-rex (or a pack of them) causing havoc – knocking over garbage cans, trampling golf courses and eating all the apples off your trees. Oh, and killing people and reasserting their position as the apex predators in the world.

If that happens, the 10% of people who think this is a good idea (and maybe the 20% who are undecided) we fight off the inevitable T-rex invasion.

I'll be on an island with all the other people, living in peace with a group of giant tortoises.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Remote office work is here to stay and the implications are largely positive

Hybrid working schedules are here for good. I know, because I drive a hybrid to my office every day.

Get it? MY CAR IS A TOYOTA PRIUS. A HYBRID CAR!

Anyway, I've been back at my office for nearly a year, but that scenario is far from universal. In fact, a recent Gallup poll of nearly 12,000 U.S. employees in remote-capable jobs showed that nearly 40% are working either partly or entirely from home.  Nearly half!

To emphasize the obvious, many jobs can't be done remotely. You can't be a restaurant server from home. You can't be a bus driver or a police officer or professional mime (unfortunately). So the Gallup survey was of those who can work remotely.

While 40% of remote-potential workers work at least partially remotely, a full 70% of all such workers say would prefer that scenario (which suggests that about 30% of them – the gap between those who do work remotely and those who wish they could – are looking for another job).

As hybrid work becomes more common, a late-March Gallup article highlighted four important dynamics of hybrid work, including some things that we used to think were untrue.

The first principle is counterintuitive (at least to companies that have long refused to allow remote work): Folks who work remotely (or who mix on-site and remote work) are more engaged and less likely to experience burnout. Counter to what employers have long said, providing flexible working arrangements makes people feel more connected and makes the job better.

A downside of remote work from the Gallup study and article is that remote work results in a decrease in feedback from the manager. That makes sense in a way because being out of sight (and away from the site) can put someone out of mind. And you don't get the kind of accidental feedback that sometimes happen when there's zero chance you'll walk by your boss's office or meet her while getting coffee.

Maybe the most affirming conclusion of the Gallup report is that despite what management presumed for years, people are actually more productive working remotely than while at the office. This runs counter to the longstanding management theory that employees will only work when they're being watched. Which is insulting and clearly wrong (since we can't be watched all the time anyway).

The final conclusion from Gallup is an argument against remote work. The ability to build and perpetuate workplace culture is much easier to do when there is shared time. That, of course, presumes the workplace culture is positive. The survey didn't address whether some negative workplaces might improve morale by decreasing exposure to "culture."

The Gallup poll and follow-up article ultimately addressed what's becoming obvious: Some version of remote or hybrid work is here for good. The future involves many or most office workers doing their jobs from home.

More than two years after the pandemic started and more than a year after most people were vaccinated, it's clear that there is a permanent change.

Take it from someone who works in a 10-story building that used to have hundreds of people in it and now has a few dozen: Hybrid work is here to stay.

Trust me, I know: As I wrote earlier, I drive a hybrid to work every day.

Get it?

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Most important current Bay Area sports figures

It's easy to determine the most important current Bay Area sports figure.

But who's second and third? Who's fifth and 10th? Glad you asked. Following is the latest ratings of sports figures for major Bay Area professional teams.

It's sports figures, not just athletes: Announcers are eligible, as are coaches and managers. Heck, a mascot could make it someday (hint: Not this day).

This list obviously changes over time. For instance, six of the 10 figures on my 2018 list are now gone: one (Buster Posey) retired, two (Derek Carr and Jon Gruden) left for Las Vegas and three (Joe Thornton, Madison Bumgarner, Kevin Durant) departed as free agents. Another member of the 2018 list (Jimmy Garropolo) is about to be traded.

And away we go . . .

10. Tomas Hertl, Sharks. I had to pick at least one NHL player and he's the best in San Jose. For years, Joe Thornton was the most beloved Sharks player, but now it's Hertl, who just finished his ninth season and is just 28.

9. Trey Lance, 49ers. The best bet on this list to make a big leap in the next year. The 49ers quarterback: the glamour position on the area's glamour team.

8. Ken Korach, A's. It would be nice to pick an Oakland player, but ownership is bent on trading off everyone who can get anything in return. Korach has been the radio voice of the team since 1996 and is quietly as good (or better) at radio play-by-play as Jon Miller or Dave Flemming of the Giants.

7. Nick Bosa, 49ers. A freakishly great defensive end who (if he stays healthy) will be one of the NFL's top players for the next several years. One of the greatest defensive linemen in team history.

6. Draymond Green, Warriors. The Warriors have been led by Green, Klay Thompson and Steph Curry for 10 seasons. For perspective, only six NBA players have spent the last 10 seasons with the same team, meaning that group makes up half of that list. Green is the heartbeat and the NBA's best defensive player.

5. Brandon Crawford, Giants. Grew up in Pleasanton, joined the Giants in 2011, played on two World Series champions and was the best player on last year's 107-win team. Quietly a Giants legend.

4. Klay Thompson, Warriors. He spent more than 900 days off the court with two major leg injuries and somehow became even more popular. Like Curry and Green, fans feel like they've seen him grow up.

3. George Kittle, 49ers. This could have been Deebo Samuels' spot had he not gotten into a baffling contract squabble with the Niners this offseason that end with him being traded. Kittle is an aggressive, athletic, one-of-a-kind tight end who thrills fans with his skills. And joy.

2. Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow, Giants. The beloved Giants TV broadcasters have been a pairing since the early 1990s and the tragedy in recent years (illness for Krukow, cancer for Kuiper, followed by Kuiper's wife's death last winter) has made them even more treasured. Maybe the most beloved local sportscasters in America.

1. Stephen Curry, Warriors. The greatest-ever Bay Area basketball player, a modern-day version of Willie Mays (had Mays started his career in San Francisco). Arguably the most popular NBA player, he's the top Bay Area sports figure by the same margin by which he'll ultimately hold the NBA 3-pointer record: It's not even close.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

 

Fifty years ago, we began America's middle-school decade

Decades have an image in our collective memory.

The 1960s were about social change.

The 1980s featured yuppies, the end of the Cold War and cocaine.

The 1990s saw the rise of grunge, growing wealth and the emergence of the internet.

The 2000s were about hip-hop music, 9/11 and the Great Recession.

The 2010s highlighted social media's explosion, political division and the Giants and Warriors each winning three championships (maybe that's just me).

The 1970s? They were America's middle school years – particularly the decade from 1972 to 1981 (from Watergate to Ronald Reagan becoming president).

Stay with me, especially if you have fond memories of that era. I do.

Fifty years ago we began the middle school decade of American history.

Think of middle school. It's when kids are most awkward. Photos from sixth, seventh and eighth grades are put away, often forever. In middle school, we try to fit in but don't know how. We know what and who is cool, but can't figure out why.

In middle school, we're awkward and uncomfortable and wish we could just hit a fast-forward button.

Just like the 1970s. Don't just think of Watergate and disco and runaway inflation (although those fit this narrative).

The styles were also awful. Wild, unkempt hair. Sloppy clothes. Caught between the 1960s (traditional or hippy) and the 1980s (preppy or cool street clothes). It was an embarrassing time, the middle school of style.

Cars were awkward. Sedans (including the Ford Pinto and AMC Pacer!) and small trucks (the Chevy Luv! Pickups made by Datsun and Toyota!). Heck, in the late 1970s, the Ford Mustang looked like something a middle-aged businessman would drive to work, not a sports car. That decade was the middle school era of cars.

Watch video from that era, particularly news reports that show how everyday people looked and acted: They looked terrible. Tired. Sad.

Part of the reason for the visual awkwardness of 1972-1981 was the quality of the videotape used. By the 1970s, videotape replaced film for news footage and for many TV shows, meaning this era was preserved with fading, poor video. Compare the quality of the video on "I Love Lucy" or "Leave it to Beaver" with "Happy Days" or "Laverne and Shirley." The latter shows look old and tired because they were shot on videotape (also true: They were old and tired shows).

Likewise, video of Jimmy Carter or the coverage of the Three Mile Island disaster looks older and more tired than coverage of Civil Rights marches and the Vietnam War a decade earlier.

It's as if those filming knew it was middle school and history would spend time looking at childhood (the 1960s and before) and adulthood (the 1980s and later).

I loved the 1970s. I'm embarrassed by the 1970s.

We're supposed to reflect on our younger years with nostalgia and warmth, but as someone who wore a leisure suit, drove a Volkswagen Rabbit and watched "Happy Days," I also acknowledge the truth: Those were the middle school days.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Ancient octopus figures include 330 million years, 10 legs, two spellings

It's almost like everything you've been told about octopi is a lie.

Eight legs? Not always. Found in the ocean? Not necessarily. That octopi is the plural of octopus? Not always.

For some of those findings, we can thank scientists, who recently published a report about a 330-million-year-old fossil of an octopus in Montana.

Yes. Three-hundred-thirty million years.

Yes. Montana.

Even stranger than its age is this: the old octopus had 10 limbs, which really qualifies it as a decapus if my memory of prefixes is correct.

Even stranger, the scientists say that each of the 10 limbs had two suckers, giving it 20 total.

So if you're keeping track, this is the oldest fossil found since the Tampa Bay Bucs signed Tom Brady. It's the most suckers in one place since the last cryptocurrency convention.

I jest. Maybe.

Anyway, scientists say the octopus in question lived millions of years before what they previously believed was the oldest octopus – making it kind of the Dick Clark of octopus, to use a 40-year-old joke. While the scientists used some fancy science wizardry to determine the octopus' age (not counting rings, I hope), they were also tipped off to the fact that it was really old when it started complaining about modern music and telling stories about when it cost just a quarter to go to the movies during the Great Depression.

Of course, all of this could have been discovered three decades ago, when the fossil was only 229,999,970 years old. The specimen was discovered in the Bear Gulch limestone formation in Montana and was one of several octopi (more on that word later) donated to the Royal Ontario Museum in Canada in 1988, when the octopus' childhood friend Ronald Reagan was president.

It sat there for years, forgotten and presumably offended that it was called an octopus, despite having 10 limbs.

Then . . . years later . . . scientists noticed the 10 little limbs, encased in limestone.

What's more, the fossilized octopus had the remnants of an ink bag, used presumably to squirt at predators and to sign ancient octopus documents with a quill.

According to an article by The Associated Press, "The creature, a vampyropod, was likely the ancestor of both modern octopuses and vampire squid ..."

There was more information, but I like the idea of ending a sentence with the words "vampire squid," which will haunt your dreams. The AP article also quoted the journal Nature Communications as saying "the 'oldest known definitive' vampyropod was from around 240 million years ago."

That means the Montana octopus (perhaps the first time those words have ever appeared consecutively in print) was around 90 million years before the birth of what was formerly presumed to be the first octopus.

While doing my research (reading the article, using a calculator to subtract 30 from 3 million, thinking of dumb jokes about old things), I also discovered that octopi isn't the only plural for octopus. Many sources say the correct word is octopuses, although Merriam-Webster Dictionary says either one is fine.

So here's what we've learned today:

• Millions of years ago, octopuses had 10 limbs.
• Ronald Reagan was childhood friends with an octopus.
• Octopi and octopuses are both right.
• There's such a thing as a vampire squid.

Good luck thinking about that tonight when you turn out the lights.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Brad's Almanac provides 12 months of weather forecast for area

For more than 200 years, the Farmers' Almanac has received kudos – or at least attention – for its weather forecasts.

This will be better.

For those unfamiliar with it, the Farmers' Almanac has been published annually since 1818 and includes a mixture of information. There are tips for planting your own food, lists of natural remedies, a compendium of odd facts and more. Famously, it includes long-range weather forecasts for the United States by region.

(Farmers' Almanac, by the way, is not to be confused with Farmer's Almanac, which is Daily Republic sports editor Paul Farmer's unparalleled knowledge of local sports history.)

Publishers of the Farmers' Almanac claim its weather forecasts are 80% to 85% accurate. Outsiders say it's closer to 50%.

I can do that, particularly on a smaller level: I can forecast the weather for Fairfield-Suisun for the next 12 months with an accuracy of at least 75%.

Trust me in the same way people trust the Farmers' Almanac. Brad's Almanac (this column) is based on years of scientific observation (from living in the area) and can be relied on while planning activities for the next year. Do you want to plan an outdoor wedding in October? Should you dress warm for Christmas shopping? Will it be hot in August?

Here are the answers, with a month-by-month forecast for each of the next 12 months for Fairfield-Suisun.

May: Warming trends with occasional cooling periods. At least one heatwave. Warning: once you get used to the hot weather, a cold spell will confuse you.

June: Windy. Warm temperatures with several blustery days and nights. As it gets closer to July, residents begin to speculate on the weather for July 4. There will be no consensus on what the weather usually is like on that date.

July: Windy, but warm. At least one hot spell when residents start to wonder whether this summer is hotter than most (it's not).

August: Slightly less wind, still hot, including some extremely hot periods that end with a windy evening followed by a very windy day.

September: Still hot and more questions from residents about whether this is an unusually hot summer. Fire danger increases and experts warn that it could be a bad fire season.

October: Cooling begins, then there is a hot spell that leads to complaints ("is this hotter than usual?") and more worries about fires. When a wildfire hits, Lake Berryessa will be affected for the 100th consecutive fire season.

November: There will be smoke from a large fire somewhere nearby (or far away, but the wind will bring the smoke to Solano County). The weather turns cool and wet on either Nov. 1 (because it's the day after Halloween) or Nov. 6, the first day of standard time. 

December: Cold weather, some rain. Excited kids wonder if it's possible that there will be snow for Christmas (there won't be).

January: The lack of rain for several weeks raise concerns about a drought, but what can you do about it? Cold mornings lead residents to wonder whether this winter is colder than usual (it's not).

February: Dark. Cold. Just dark and cold. Except for one day when it will be 65 degrees and kind of sunny, which only creates a little hope before crushing it.

March: A few warm days – into the low 70s – bring optimism that spring is here. Spring arrives March 21, but it remains cool and residents will begin to wonder if it's colder than usual in March (it's not).

April: A few rainbows and hailstorms, because it's spring. At least one day reaches the 80s, but there are more cold nights than should be. Residents check Brad's Almanac and suspect the accuracy rate on weather predictions is better than 75% (it's not).

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

 

When it comes to passion about superheroes, I'm Absent Man

If you're part of the majority of Americans who lover superheroes (68%, according to a recent Morning Consult poll), get ready to hate me.

If you love Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man (a superhero with a hyphen!), The Flash or Thor, get ready to be angry.

My name is Brad and I don't like superhero movies.

I fact, I don't like superheroes. Never have.

I know. Put down your X-ray vision or whatever Spider-Man (a hyphen!) shoots out of his wrists.

I'll offend you with the next sentence, too: When I was a kid, I presumed only children liked superheroes. I still don't understand why so many adults lose their minds over a movie about a cartoon character.

Is that right? Are all the Marvel and D.C. characters from cartoons? (I had to look up what the companies are. What the universes are.) I genuinely don't know.

The first real superhero movie of my generation was the "Superman" with Christopher Reeve. It was a throwback to a few decades earlier when people the age of my parents went to the local theater and watched superhero movies or cowboy movies while spending a quarter for popcorn. It was charming, although I remember going to that movie in my teens and thinking, "Isn't this kind of a kids' movie?"

I was wrong. Way wrong.

Over the past several decades, the D.C. and Marvel characters have owned the movie world. Every year, there are new superhero movies, featuring characters that I've never heard of. Enough so that I rarely know they're superheroes.

Of course I know Superman and Batman and Spider-Man. I know Wonder Woman (mostly from the TV show starring Lynda Carter). But I'd never heard of these other characters.

I presumed the first Black Panther movie was about Huey P. Newton or Bobby Seale, not a superhero.

I presumed Captain America was about former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach, not a superhero.

Morbius? Doctor Strange? Black Adam? Iron Man?

Those all seem fake.

Apparently, I missed out on a huge cultural trend. I've spent my adulthood scoffing at superhero movies, then seeing them be wildly successful. How did I miss this? As a kid, maybe I was too busy collecting baseball cards or watching "Hogan's Heroes" to read those comic books (at my house, the comic books were mostly "Archie" and "Richie Rich," not superheroes).

But it happens, year after year after year. I hear the excitement for a new superhero movie. "I'm so excited to see the new Fandango Woman and Tricycle Man movie!" people say.

I don't get it. I don't go to superhero movies and don't plan on starting.

However . . . I did find comfort in that Morning Consult poll that showed that more than two-thirds of Americans are superhero fans. Millennials are by far the group most interested in superheroes, whether it's going to movies, buying comic books or dressing up as them. Gen Z is significantly less interested.

So go ahead and enjoy going to the next Asparagus-Man movie or reading the next issue of the comic book about Scrapbooker and the Committee of Pencils. I'll sit it out, along with my Gen Z friends.

Maybe we'll be watching a movie about Hugh Jack-Man, Paul New-Man or  Morgan Free-Man – a joke that reveals how old my cultural views are.

But if that were the case, at least I'd understand the superheroes and their random hyphens.

Not like the new "Pink Lady and the Legion of Grasshoppers" movie.

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.

Baseball season's back, so it's time to finally fix some things

Baseball should be better.

The major leagues return this week after two seasons affected by the Covid-19 pandemic followed by a 99-day lockout that delayed the start of spring training and pushed back opening day by a week.

The lockout was a bad look, but do you know what's worse? Baseball is . . . (looks around) . . . kind of boring.

I've loved the sport for decades, but it's gotten harder to watch over the past 20 years. I can already hear all my baseball-loving friends objecting, but they're wrong and I'm right.

Baseball is boring, even when the Giants are winning 107 games.

Consider two facts:

• There are far fewer hits, as well as fewer balls in play than at any time. The league-wide batting average keeps dropping (last year's was the sixth-lowest in history) while hitters strike out 50% more often than they did 30 years ago. It's not uncommon to play 20 minutes and have only a few balls put in play. That's boring.
• Games are much longer. Forty years ago, the average game took 2 hours, 33 minutes. Last year, the average game took 3 hours, 10 minutes.

Compared to even a few decades ago, there is way less action spread over way more time.

And baseball – unlike other major professional sports – responds to problems by doing nothing. Maybe forming a committee to study the issue.

The NFL changes rules to encourage passing and scoring. The NBA eliminates defenses that slow down the game.

Baseball forms a group to look at how to knock 30 seconds off a game that takes 3 hours, 10 minutes.

Baseball has always been a slow game – a daily sport with a lot of time spent standing around on the field and a lot of relaxing in the stands. But the recent trends (encouraged by advanced statistics) lengthened games and decreased action to the point that it's like watching curling (no offense to Canadians).

Changes are coming. National League teams will use a designated hitter this year after 50 years of it being an American League-only rule. Next year, there will almost assuredly be a pitch clock, forcing pitchers to work faster. There will be bigger bases to encourage base-stealing. There will be some sort of rule banning the infield shift, allowing more hits to go through.

Those are all good, but baseball should go further. The sport needs to speed up – not just to please kids who love video games, but to keep people like me engaged. Three-hour games with 12 total hits are hard to watch day after day.

Major league baseball should learn from the NFL and NBA and keep making changes. A shorter season? Maybe. Move the pitching mound back to encourage hitting? Consider it. Force teams to lose their designated hitter when they pull a starting pitcher in order to encourage leaving that pitcher in? Sure. Bigger bats or harder infield? Maybe.

There are surely unforeseen consequences for every change, but I know this: They're worth considering.

Baseball is still a great game, but if my favorite childhood sport wants to fully capture people like me – and more importantly, gain interest among people under 50 – it needs to change.

The new (potential) rules are a good start.

Keep tweaking the sport. Get more action. Take some risks.

Stop the slide toward curling!

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@outlook.com.