The more I think about it, the more Barack Obama is starting to remind me of Jimmy Clausen. I know it might seem a bit odd to compare the President-elect to Notre Dame's quarterback, but let me take you back to 2006.
That April, Clausen was the No. 1 quarterback recruit in the country when he was scheduled to announce his commitment to Notre Dame at the College Football Hall of Fame. Then a junior in high school, Clausen showed up to the announcement in a stretch Hummer limo with an entourage in tow. It seemed a bit over the top at the time, but Fighting Irish fans didn't care. In fact, they were fired up. This guy was going to save Notre Dame football. But to this point, he hasn't.
As we get ready for Obama's inauguration next Tuesday, I can't help but see some parallels. It seems like everyone I know (and yes, I realize I live in a Democrat-centric world) has got inauguration fever. If they're not going down to DC next week, they know someone who is, or wish they were. Frankly, I just don't get it.
I'm as excited and hopeful about Obama's presidency as most rational lefties, and I realize inaugurating our first black president is a big deal, but this Obama worship has got to stop. So far, all he has really proven is that he is an amazing orator, fundraiser, and campaigner. Some of these things are important traits of a good President, but to this point, Obama hasn't done anything to prove he is a good president. And last time I checked, the country is in the shitter. Everything about inauguration sounds a little excessive, and I think it's an odd time to be having such an extravagant (not to mention costly) celebration. People seem to think it is going to be some sort of can't-miss historical event, but I can't say I have ever heard anyone talk about any past inaugurations as anything that memorable. So why is this going to be different?
I've expressed these thoughts to some friends, and they mostly say, "don't be such a downer, it's just a party." Frankly, I think we've done enough celebrating of Obama. I'm over it. I thought that is what election night was for, when tens of thousands of people showed up to see him speak in Chicago. When people took to the streets of New York City to yell and scream and hug strangers. It was an amazing night, and Obama did an excellent job of managing expectations during his address that night. The country seems to think we need one more party, but it seems to me like the past two years have essentially been one giant party for Obama, capped off by a rager on November 4.
It's probably unrealistic to expect Obama's minions not to turn this inauguration into a frenzy, so I guess there was no way for him and his staff to stop it. But let's stop pretending he is some sort of mythical savior, because he's not. I can only hope that Obama downplays the hysteria during his address, and then we can finally find out if he is actually going to turn things around. I'm optimistic, but so were Notre Dame fans about Clausen.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Hall Of Dumb
If you're someone like me who devours any number of nerdy baseball blogs and websites, you know that Monday is a relatively big day in baseball history. If you don't know, well then let me fill you in.
On Monday the Hall of Fame will announce its 2009 class, which will definitely include Rickey Henderson, likely include Jim Rice, and possibly include Bert Blyleven. Every blogger from Perez Hilton to Markos Moulitas has given their fictional ballot for the Hall of Fame, so I won't go into too much detail about my choices (Henderson, Blyleven, Raines, Tramell, reasons below) here. Instead, I want to address the ongoing case for Jim Rice, and one element I find particularly absurd about it.
Let me just get it out the way that Jim Rice is a horrendous choice for the Hall of Fame. Many insightful and clever writers have ripped his case to shreds elsewhere, but the bottom line is his candidacy is completely driven by Boston writers. What's odd is that when a candidate sees such a boost of support in the later years of his eligibility for the Hall, it's usually because advanced metrics come out to show that the player is more qualified than originally thought. However, that isn't the case with Rice. In fact, not only do advanced metrics say Rice is underqualified, but basic metrics do too! 382 home runs, and his case for the Hall of Fame is entirely predicated on power!
Anyway, the objective case is marginal, and Rice's supporters seem to know this. And that's why his case in recent years has been based entirely around this subjective statement: "He was the most feared hitter of his time." If you're referring to his three-year peak from 1977-79, than this is probably true. But three years does not make a Hall of Fame career.
"Most feared" is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot in baseball. It's not only highly subjective, but also vaguely racist. And the reason I say this is because I only see it attached to surly black players. Seriously, the only guys I can think of who ever got the "most feared" title were Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Jim Rice and Albert Belle. Manny Ramirez has probably been called the "most feared" as well, but it's not like he's white. Dale Murphy would never get the title of "most feared," but he actually has a better Hall of Fame case than Rice, seeing that he
actually played an important defensive position, and played it well. But he was a wimpy-looking white dude, and despite his magical light saber bat seen in the photo to the right, he doesn't get this arbitrary subjective statement thrown out there boost to his Hall of Fame chances. On the flip side, it's probably the only time where being seen as an "angry black man" has helped someone get included in an elite institution. So maybe this is progress!
Speaking of angry black men, on behalf of my good friend Daniel Sas, the biggest Albert Belle fan on the planet, let's revisit him for a second. I know it was a completely different run-scoring environment, but Belle hit 381 homers in 6,673 plate appearances. Rice hit one more home run, in 9,058 plate appearances. For those who don't have a calculator, that's 2,385 more PAs. And lest you think Belle was completely a product of his era, keep in mind that his career adjusted OPS is 143, and Rice's is 128. The bottom line is that if Rice is a Hall of Famer, than Belle most certainly is too, but Belle fell off the ballot last year in just his second year of eligibility because he got less than five percent of the vote. Considering Rice and Belle were both jerks to the press, it's amazing Belle didn't gotten more support. Are baseball writers really this stupid? You know what, don't answer that question. But seriously, how can you treat two players, with essentially the same case, so differently? I'm not even saying I think Belle is a Hall of Famer because I'm not sure. But if you think Rice is deserving, than you basicallly have to think Belle is as well. Too bad for Belle won't be on the ballot long enough for the "most feared" juices to seep in.
The most humorous part of the entire thing is that we actually have proof that Rice wasn't even that feared. How do we know? Intentional walks. Rice finished in the top 10 in intentional passes just three times in his career. And he was given a free pass just 77 times in his career. Now I realize that could be a product of who was hitting behind him, but if he were really so feared, wouldn't he have gotten more intentional walks than Von Hayes (82), Ed Kranepool (89), Garret Anderson (101) or Wally Joyner (108)? When B.J. freakin' Surhoff (81) has more intentional walks than you, I'm sorry, that just absolutely kills your "most feared" case in my mind. For the record, Belle had 91 intentional walks. But remember that was in more than 2,300 fewer plate appearances.
So yeah, it's pretty clear Jim Rice is a fraud, at least when it comes to the Hall of Fame. But it looks like there is nothing informed baseball nerds can do to stop it. Sigh.
And for those who care about who I think should go in . . .
Rickey Henderson--D'uh.
Tim Raines--The case against him is essentially that he's not Rickey Henderson. That's like saying Willie McCovey should not have gotten in because he's not as good as Lou Gehrig. If Raines spent his career in Boston, as opposed to Rice, he'd definitely be getting in on Monday. I know he doesn't seem obvious at first glance, but he reached base safely more times than Tony Gwynn. There is even a website devoted to his candidacy. So if you don't believe me, believe these guys.
Bert Blyleven--Another not-so obvious candidate, but the reason he hasn't gotten more support is because he doesn't have 300 wins. Wins are obviously not the best metric by which to rate pitchers, and he is fifth all-time in strikeouts, and ninth in shutouts. Those are two pretty basic (and strong) indicators of dominance. So yeah, he should probably be in.
Alan Trammell--Similar to what I said about Rice v. Belle above, if you believe Ozzie Smith is a Hall of Famer, and Smith got in on the first ballot with 91.7% of the vote, than Trammell is too. Based on runs created, Trammell had 100 more than Smith in two fewer seasons. As good as Smith was with the glove, it's hard to believe he was more than 100 runs better than Trammell with the leather because Trammell was also very well-regarded on defense. Unfortunately, since we don't have access to advanced defensive metrics for these older guys, we have to go based on reputation. I tend to think we overrate basic offensive skills and tend to underrate the ability to play an up-the-middle position, and play it well. When you think really hard about it, isn't a guy like Trammell much harder to find than a guy like Rice? One is an above-average hitter who plays a premium position adeptly, and the other is a slowpoke slugger who isn't even that great of a power hitter and led the league in double plays grounded into four times.
Maybe this all just a long of way of poking even more holes through the swiss chese case of Jim Rice, and maybe Trammell isn't deserving either. But if Rice is, then a whole lot people from his era are too. Sadly, it's Rice who will be going in. I guess we can consider it a victory for race relations.
On Monday the Hall of Fame will announce its 2009 class, which will definitely include Rickey Henderson, likely include Jim Rice, and possibly include Bert Blyleven. Every blogger from Perez Hilton to Markos Moulitas has given their fictional ballot for the Hall of Fame, so I won't go into too much detail about my choices (Henderson, Blyleven, Raines, Tramell, reasons below) here. Instead, I want to address the ongoing case for Jim Rice, and one element I find particularly absurd about it.
Let me just get it out the way that Jim Rice is a horrendous choice for the Hall of Fame. Many insightful and clever writers have ripped his case to shreds elsewhere, but the bottom line is his candidacy is completely driven by Boston writers. What's odd is that when a candidate sees such a boost of support in the later years of his eligibility for the Hall, it's usually because advanced metrics come out to show that the player is more qualified than originally thought. However, that isn't the case with Rice. In fact, not only do advanced metrics say Rice is underqualified, but basic metrics do too! 382 home runs, and his case for the Hall of Fame is entirely predicated on power!
Anyway, the objective case is marginal, and Rice's supporters seem to know this. And that's why his case in recent years has been based entirely around this subjective statement: "He was the most feared hitter of his time." If you're referring to his three-year peak from 1977-79, than this is probably true. But three years does not make a Hall of Fame career.
"Most feared" is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot in baseball. It's not only highly subjective, but also vaguely racist. And the reason I say this is because I only see it attached to surly black players. Seriously, the only guys I can think of who ever got the "most feared" title were Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Jim Rice and Albert Belle. Manny Ramirez has probably been called the "most feared" as well, but it's not like he's white. Dale Murphy would never get the title of "most feared," but he actually has a better Hall of Fame case than Rice, seeing that he
actually played an important defensive position, and played it well. But he was a wimpy-looking white dude, and despite his magical light saber bat seen in the photo to the right, he doesn't get this arbitrary subjective statement thrown out there boost to his Hall of Fame chances. On the flip side, it's probably the only time where being seen as an "angry black man" has helped someone get included in an elite institution. So maybe this is progress!Speaking of angry black men, on behalf of my good friend Daniel Sas, the biggest Albert Belle fan on the planet, let's revisit him for a second. I know it was a completely different run-scoring environment, but Belle hit 381 homers in 6,673 plate appearances. Rice hit one more home run, in 9,058 plate appearances. For those who don't have a calculator, that's 2,385 more PAs. And lest you think Belle was completely a product of his era, keep in mind that his career adjusted OPS is 143, and Rice's is 128. The bottom line is that if Rice is a Hall of Famer, than Belle most certainly is too, but Belle fell off the ballot last year in just his second year of eligibility because he got less than five percent of the vote. Considering Rice and Belle were both jerks to the press, it's amazing Belle didn't gotten more support. Are baseball writers really this stupid? You know what, don't answer that question. But seriously, how can you treat two players, with essentially the same case, so differently? I'm not even saying I think Belle is a Hall of Famer because I'm not sure. But if you think Rice is deserving, than you basicallly have to think Belle is as well. Too bad for Belle won't be on the ballot long enough for the "most feared" juices to seep in.
The most humorous part of the entire thing is that we actually have proof that Rice wasn't even that feared. How do we know? Intentional walks. Rice finished in the top 10 in intentional passes just three times in his career. And he was given a free pass just 77 times in his career. Now I realize that could be a product of who was hitting behind him, but if he were really so feared, wouldn't he have gotten more intentional walks than Von Hayes (82), Ed Kranepool (89), Garret Anderson (101) or Wally Joyner (108)? When B.J. freakin' Surhoff (81) has more intentional walks than you, I'm sorry, that just absolutely kills your "most feared" case in my mind. For the record, Belle had 91 intentional walks. But remember that was in more than 2,300 fewer plate appearances.
So yeah, it's pretty clear Jim Rice is a fraud, at least when it comes to the Hall of Fame. But it looks like there is nothing informed baseball nerds can do to stop it. Sigh.
And for those who care about who I think should go in . . .
Rickey Henderson--D'uh.
Tim Raines--The case against him is essentially that he's not Rickey Henderson. That's like saying Willie McCovey should not have gotten in because he's not as good as Lou Gehrig. If Raines spent his career in Boston, as opposed to Rice, he'd definitely be getting in on Monday. I know he doesn't seem obvious at first glance, but he reached base safely more times than Tony Gwynn. There is even a website devoted to his candidacy. So if you don't believe me, believe these guys.
Bert Blyleven--Another not-so obvious candidate, but the reason he hasn't gotten more support is because he doesn't have 300 wins. Wins are obviously not the best metric by which to rate pitchers, and he is fifth all-time in strikeouts, and ninth in shutouts. Those are two pretty basic (and strong) indicators of dominance. So yeah, he should probably be in.
Alan Trammell--Similar to what I said about Rice v. Belle above, if you believe Ozzie Smith is a Hall of Famer, and Smith got in on the first ballot with 91.7% of the vote, than Trammell is too. Based on runs created, Trammell had 100 more than Smith in two fewer seasons. As good as Smith was with the glove, it's hard to believe he was more than 100 runs better than Trammell with the leather because Trammell was also very well-regarded on defense. Unfortunately, since we don't have access to advanced defensive metrics for these older guys, we have to go based on reputation. I tend to think we overrate basic offensive skills and tend to underrate the ability to play an up-the-middle position, and play it well. When you think really hard about it, isn't a guy like Trammell much harder to find than a guy like Rice? One is an above-average hitter who plays a premium position adeptly, and the other is a slowpoke slugger who isn't even that great of a power hitter and led the league in double plays grounded into four times.
Maybe this all just a long of way of poking even more holes through the swiss chese case of Jim Rice, and maybe Trammell isn't deserving either. But if Rice is, then a whole lot people from his era are too. Sadly, it's Rice who will be going in. I guess we can consider it a victory for race relations.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Not As Awful As I Feared
I've had January 6 marked on my calendar for about a month, and no, it's not because today is Marlon Anderson's birthday. It's because today is the day that brought upon the return of "90210" and "Scrubs." And while I realize my affinity for the former might make me lame, I've already made it clear in this blog that I enjoy the show, so there is no use getting defensive about it now.
I won't go too much into "90210", other than to say that it was more of the same. In other words, I loved it. Instead, I'll focus on "Scrubs," which moved from NBC to ABC after a year-and-a-half hiatus. I'm not exactly sure if it was that long, but they made reference to it during the first of two episodes, so I'll go with that.
I wasn't actually a fan of "Scrubs" from the beginning, but after my sister insisted I would love it for about five years, and I finally started watching it when re-runs began appearing on Comedy Central a couple of years ago. I was living in North Carolina at the time, and since I was regularly bored while I was there and Comedy Central was showing "Scrubs" roughly 12 times a day, I was able to catch up with it pretty quickly. My sister was right, I thought it was hysterical, and it quickly became my favorite show since "Seinfeld" (though "90210" might be giving it some competition).
Like most comedies, "Scrubs" started to lose it's proverbial fastball during its most recent seasons, and I wasn't really expecting much from the new episodes. In fact, I expected them to suck. However, after devoting so many hours to this damn show, I figured I would watch the last few episodes to see how it turns out. Besides, it's not like I have anything that much better to do on a typical Tuesday. (Note: I read that this might not be "Scrubs" final season, but it is Zach Braff's final season. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it's the final season. I'm not like a huge Zach Braff fan or anything, but he is the star.)
Because my expectations were so low, I have to say that tonight's two episodes weren't that bad. I was fully prepared to do a full-on rant about how much it sucked, but it was surprisingly not terrible. I even laughed a few times. But all in all, I wasn't pleased. First of all, they fired the janitor. I never found him that funny as compared to other characters, but this is an ensemble cast, and he was a big part of the show. Second, they had Dr. Kelso retire, and Kelso was probably the funniest character on the show. If he wasn't the funniest, it was his son Harrison who was the funniest, even though we never see Harrison. I'd go so far as to say that Harrison is the funniest imaginary character in TV history, with only Bob Sacamano ("Seinfeld"), Maris ("Frasier") and The Gooch ("Diff'rent Strokes") as competition.
***Quick triva (answer at the bottom): Besides having an awesome imaginary character, what else does "Scrubs" have in common with "Diff'rent Strokes?"
Yes, Dr. Kelso made a cameo in the first episode, but he has been replaced by Courtney Fucking Cox. I realize the producers probably thought she would bring ratings, but her character is the a combination of the worst parts of Monica Geller and Kelso. Hey "Scrubs" writers, we get it, medicine can be a business. Stop hitting us over the head with that for the eighth straight season. Also, according to a New York Times article, Disney (parent company of ABC) asked that The Todd no longer wear his signature "banana hammock" because they thought it was distasteful. Disney signs my checks, so I won't go off on this too much, but I'd like to. I guess it was moot anyway because The Todd didn't make an appearance for some unknown reason. OK, so maybe this is turning into a rant.
Like I said, I'll probably keep watching just to see how they decide to end, even though it's pretty clear that J.D. and Eliot will end up together somehow. In that way, it's fitting that Cox (Courtney, not Dr.) is involved, because the end will be just like "Friends." The "will they or won't they" plot line will be resolved years after the show stopped being funny. But even if the final season sucks, it wouldn't be the first time that happened. "Scrubs" has given me many laughs while asking for nothing in return, and for that I will be thankful.
***Trivia answer: Both "Scrubs" and "Diff'rent Strokes" switched networks. "Diff'rent Strokes" switched from NBC to ABC in 1985. Stupid ABC, always poaching other networks' shows. I mean, "I love ABC, their parent company signs my checks!"
I won't go too much into "90210", other than to say that it was more of the same. In other words, I loved it. Instead, I'll focus on "Scrubs," which moved from NBC to ABC after a year-and-a-half hiatus. I'm not exactly sure if it was that long, but they made reference to it during the first of two episodes, so I'll go with that.
I wasn't actually a fan of "Scrubs" from the beginning, but after my sister insisted I would love it for about five years, and I finally started watching it when re-runs began appearing on Comedy Central a couple of years ago. I was living in North Carolina at the time, and since I was regularly bored while I was there and Comedy Central was showing "Scrubs" roughly 12 times a day, I was able to catch up with it pretty quickly. My sister was right, I thought it was hysterical, and it quickly became my favorite show since "Seinfeld" (though "90210" might be giving it some competition).
Like most comedies, "Scrubs" started to lose it's proverbial fastball during its most recent seasons, and I wasn't really expecting much from the new episodes. In fact, I expected them to suck. However, after devoting so many hours to this damn show, I figured I would watch the last few episodes to see how it turns out. Besides, it's not like I have anything that much better to do on a typical Tuesday. (Note: I read that this might not be "Scrubs" final season, but it is Zach Braff's final season. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it's the final season. I'm not like a huge Zach Braff fan or anything, but he is the star.)
Because my expectations were so low, I have to say that tonight's two episodes weren't that bad. I was fully prepared to do a full-on rant about how much it sucked, but it was surprisingly not terrible. I even laughed a few times. But all in all, I wasn't pleased. First of all, they fired the janitor. I never found him that funny as compared to other characters, but this is an ensemble cast, and he was a big part of the show. Second, they had Dr. Kelso retire, and Kelso was probably the funniest character on the show. If he wasn't the funniest, it was his son Harrison who was the funniest, even though we never see Harrison. I'd go so far as to say that Harrison is the funniest imaginary character in TV history, with only Bob Sacamano ("Seinfeld"), Maris ("Frasier") and The Gooch ("Diff'rent Strokes") as competition.
***Quick triva (answer at the bottom): Besides having an awesome imaginary character, what else does "Scrubs" have in common with "Diff'rent Strokes?"
Yes, Dr. Kelso made a cameo in the first episode, but he has been replaced by Courtney Fucking Cox. I realize the producers probably thought she would bring ratings, but her character is the a combination of the worst parts of Monica Geller and Kelso. Hey "Scrubs" writers, we get it, medicine can be a business. Stop hitting us over the head with that for the eighth straight season. Also, according to a New York Times article, Disney (parent company of ABC) asked that The Todd no longer wear his signature "banana hammock" because they thought it was distasteful. Disney signs my checks, so I won't go off on this too much, but I'd like to. I guess it was moot anyway because The Todd didn't make an appearance for some unknown reason. OK, so maybe this is turning into a rant.
Like I said, I'll probably keep watching just to see how they decide to end, even though it's pretty clear that J.D. and Eliot will end up together somehow. In that way, it's fitting that Cox (Courtney, not Dr.) is involved, because the end will be just like "Friends." The "will they or won't they" plot line will be resolved years after the show stopped being funny. But even if the final season sucks, it wouldn't be the first time that happened. "Scrubs" has given me many laughs while asking for nothing in return, and for that I will be thankful.
***Trivia answer: Both "Scrubs" and "Diff'rent Strokes" switched networks. "Diff'rent Strokes" switched from NBC to ABC in 1985. Stupid ABC, always poaching other networks' shows. I mean, "I love ABC, their parent company signs my checks!"
Sunday, January 4, 2009
End Of An Era
Ever since graduating, my college roommate has a term he uses for when we get drunk like we used to in college. He calls it “college drunk.” Original, right?
Needless to say, I got “college drunk” on New Year’s Eve. I’m not really sure I’m too old for that kind of drinking, but I’m probably getting there. That being said, I was conscious enough early in the evening to make what I believe to be is a semi-interesting observation.
On my walk from the Subway to my apartment, I noticed someone wearing those 2009 sunglasses. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, take a look at the photo to the below to get
an idea of it. As you’ll remember, these became very popular at the turn of the millennium, and there has been a version of them every year since. This was in Brooklyn at about 4:30 pm when I saw this guy, and while I was marveling at how much of a tool he must be, it occurred to me that this souvenir only works when the middle two numbers of the year are zero. But since this is 2009, we have to what Boys II Men referred to as the end of the road, and we will probably never see these glasses again. Sure they could go ahead and make the glasses again next year since 2010 features two zeroes, but they would be off center and probably look stupider than already do.
I have a lot of questions about these glasses. Who came up with them? How many have they sold over the years? Do people wear them outside of Times Square (I sure as shit hoe so)? What do they do with the excess inventory? Who are the idiots that wear them?
But as dumb as people look while wearing these glasses, I’m amazed they’ve stayed popular for a decade and I have to give credit to whoever came up with them. There is no way for me to be positive, but I have to think that since they probably cost about eight cents to manufacture, these glasses were a profitable venture. But after 10 years of glory, it looks like they’ll need to find their next great chachka invention. And I’m glad I’ll probably never have to see them again.
Needless to say, I got “college drunk” on New Year’s Eve. I’m not really sure I’m too old for that kind of drinking, but I’m probably getting there. That being said, I was conscious enough early in the evening to make what I believe to be is a semi-interesting observation.
On my walk from the Subway to my apartment, I noticed someone wearing those 2009 sunglasses. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, take a look at the photo to the below to get
an idea of it. As you’ll remember, these became very popular at the turn of the millennium, and there has been a version of them every year since. This was in Brooklyn at about 4:30 pm when I saw this guy, and while I was marveling at how much of a tool he must be, it occurred to me that this souvenir only works when the middle two numbers of the year are zero. But since this is 2009, we have to what Boys II Men referred to as the end of the road, and we will probably never see these glasses again. Sure they could go ahead and make the glasses again next year since 2010 features two zeroes, but they would be off center and probably look stupider than already do.I have a lot of questions about these glasses. Who came up with them? How many have they sold over the years? Do people wear them outside of Times Square (I sure as shit hoe so)? What do they do with the excess inventory? Who are the idiots that wear them?
But as dumb as people look while wearing these glasses, I’m amazed they’ve stayed popular for a decade and I have to give credit to whoever came up with them. There is no way for me to be positive, but I have to think that since they probably cost about eight cents to manufacture, these glasses were a profitable venture. But after 10 years of glory, it looks like they’ll need to find their next great chachka invention. And I’m glad I’ll probably never have to see them again.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
8 For '08
You probably don't read Brooklyn Heights Blog. I don't usually, but because my good friend Daniel Squadron was running for State Senate, I set up a Google Alert for his name to see what was being written about him in the press/blogs. And because Brooklyn Heights Blog wrote about his election extensively, I've become quite familiar with it.
I got another Google Alert that linked me to BHB today because they released "The BHB Ten," which is supposed to be the most influential and important Brooklyn Heights' residents of the past year, and I got a kick out of seeing Daniel as No. 1. Not so much because that blog is super-relevant or anything, but because he ranked one spot ahead of Paul Giamatti, who earned the No. 2 spot based on his portrayal of John Adams the HBO mini-series about our second president.
Since I didn't have a great idea for an end-of-the-year post, I decided to steal BHB's idea and do my 8 for '08. Unlike BHB, I am not limiting my list to my neighborhood. If I did, it would definitely include (in no particular order), my roommates, my ping-pong table, Bergen Bagel, the free popcorn at Fourth Avenue Pub, the Prospect Park loop, my roof, and Los Pollitos' $3.95 half-chicken.
Without further adieu (you're getting bullet points again, deal with it) . . .
8. The Tampa Bay Rays: Yes, a small-market team can finish ahead of the Yankees. All they have
to do is be terrible for 10 years and be relatively successful with their plethora top-five draft picks. Seriously though, I want to thank them for keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs for the first time since people were wearing Cross Colours.
7. Nate Silver: It's fitting he comes in right next to the Rays because his PECOTA projection system said they would win 89 games. People said he was crazy. As he proved with fivethirtyeight.com, he's just smarter than everyone else.
6. The New "90210": It's so bad it's good! Or at least that's what I keep telling myself. It's pretty amazing how much the "90210" branding affects me. If this show were called "Matter Of Chance," and was about a group of high school kids form Chance, Mich., I would never watch it (even if it had the greatest trailer ever). But because it's "90210" and it's had some appearances from original cast members, I'm hooked.
5. Heartless Bastards: There's nothing quite like the feeling of discovering a new band and finding out you like pretty much every one of their songs. And then you go see them in concert and they rock your proverbial balls off. Their third album is due out February 3, and as I'm sure you can tell, I'm excited.
4. Joe Posnanski's Blog: Even though he's a contributor to Sports Illustrated, my magazine's competitor, I will say that he is the best sportswriter out there. When I read his blog, I'm constantly thinking, "I wish I could write like that." In fact, if you like this blog a little, you'll probably love his blog and never come back here again. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have told you about his blog.
3. Shea Stadium: It was a bittersweet farewell for the legendary ballfield as the Mets choked away a postseason opportunity for the second straight September. If you care, you can read about my final experience at Shea. At least I went out on a high note.
2. Bruce Springsteen Concerts: I saw him live for the fourth time this summer, and it never gets old. In fact, if you want a great take on a Springsteen concert, check out Joe Posnanski's. Oh crap, I did it again.
1. David Tyree: If you've been reading this blog, you know my feelings on him. If you haven't been reading this blog, I wrote my definitive David Tyree post here.
Yes, I realize that this was a lot of links, but they were quality links. Just enough to get you through to ABCQ in 2009. Happy new year.
I got another Google Alert that linked me to BHB today because they released "The BHB Ten," which is supposed to be the most influential and important Brooklyn Heights' residents of the past year, and I got a kick out of seeing Daniel as No. 1. Not so much because that blog is super-relevant or anything, but because he ranked one spot ahead of Paul Giamatti, who earned the No. 2 spot based on his portrayal of John Adams the HBO mini-series about our second president.
Since I didn't have a great idea for an end-of-the-year post, I decided to steal BHB's idea and do my 8 for '08. Unlike BHB, I am not limiting my list to my neighborhood. If I did, it would definitely include (in no particular order), my roommates, my ping-pong table, Bergen Bagel, the free popcorn at Fourth Avenue Pub, the Prospect Park loop, my roof, and Los Pollitos' $3.95 half-chicken.
Without further adieu (you're getting bullet points again, deal with it) . . .
8. The Tampa Bay Rays: Yes, a small-market team can finish ahead of the Yankees. All they have
to do is be terrible for 10 years and be relatively successful with their plethora top-five draft picks. Seriously though, I want to thank them for keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs for the first time since people were wearing Cross Colours.7. Nate Silver: It's fitting he comes in right next to the Rays because his PECOTA projection system said they would win 89 games. People said he was crazy. As he proved with fivethirtyeight.com, he's just smarter than everyone else.
6. The New "90210": It's so bad it's good! Or at least that's what I keep telling myself. It's pretty amazing how much the "90210" branding affects me. If this show were called "Matter Of Chance," and was about a group of high school kids form Chance, Mich., I would never watch it (even if it had the greatest trailer ever). But because it's "90210" and it's had some appearances from original cast members, I'm hooked.
5. Heartless Bastards: There's nothing quite like the feeling of discovering a new band and finding out you like pretty much every one of their songs. And then you go see them in concert and they rock your proverbial balls off. Their third album is due out February 3, and as I'm sure you can tell, I'm excited.
4. Joe Posnanski's Blog: Even though he's a contributor to Sports Illustrated, my magazine's competitor, I will say that he is the best sportswriter out there. When I read his blog, I'm constantly thinking, "I wish I could write like that." In fact, if you like this blog a little, you'll probably love his blog and never come back here again. On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have told you about his blog.
3. Shea Stadium: It was a bittersweet farewell for the legendary ballfield as the Mets choked away a postseason opportunity for the second straight September. If you care, you can read about my final experience at Shea. At least I went out on a high note.
2. Bruce Springsteen Concerts: I saw him live for the fourth time this summer, and it never gets old. In fact, if you want a great take on a Springsteen concert, check out Joe Posnanski's. Oh crap, I did it again.
1. David Tyree: If you've been reading this blog, you know my feelings on him. If you haven't been reading this blog, I wrote my definitive David Tyree post here.
Yes, I realize that this was a lot of links, but they were quality links. Just enough to get you through to ABCQ in 2009. Happy new year.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
At The Movies, With Bullets!
Normally, I don’t like writing in bullet-point format. However, I have some thoughts about the holiday movie season, and I don’t really feel like weaving them together to make some broader point while maintaining the beautiful prose you’ve become accustomed to on this blog. As a result, you’re getting bullet points.
1. Oscar Buzz Makes Me Nauseous: For whatever reason(s), producers with aspirations of their film winning awards all try to get them released around the holidays. I’ve never really understood why, but that’s just how it is, and I’d estimate that about 60 percent of Best Picture winners were released after Election Day. The silliest thing about this process is that films start getting talked about as Oscar contenders before anyone has even seen them. Seriously, I’ve been reading about “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” and its Academy Award potential for months. Now it might be the greatest movie ever (I haven’t seen it yet), but why don’t we wait until it comes out before we start giving it the “Citizen Kane” treatment? Incidentally, I saw one review refer to it as "original." I don't know everything, but I do know that movies adapted from 87-year-old short stories are not original. Also, how did a movie based on a short story turn out to be 160 minutes? If you make a movie that long, you better be damn sure it's good. I plan on seeing the film because my girlfriend loves the short story, but the kind of "buzz" the film has received reminds of why the Oscars so stupid. It’s completely about hype, and never about the best movies. A perfect example of this phenomenon is . . .
2. The Dark Knight. It Was Stupid: The story had huge holes in it. The metaphors were heavy-handed. It was needlessly violent. The dialogue was moronic. It was just a bad movie, and I don’t get why it is receiving so much hype. In fact, just writing about it is reminding how much I despised it. If Heath Ledger hadn’t died, it wouldn’t be getting talked about for Oscars.
3. Marisa Tomei Is the Benjamin Button Of Movie Stars: A friend of mine was telling me about "The Wrestler," and he commented about how good Marisa Tomei looked, even as an over-the-hill stripper. That's the thing about Tomei, as the years pass, she just looks better and better. When she first emerged as Denise Huxtable's roommate on "A Different World," she was cute in a spunky New Yorker sort of way. That spunky NYC vibe was played up much more effectively during her Oscar-winning performance in "My Cousin Vinnie," and I remember thinking, "I never noticed it during 'A Different World,' but Marisa Tomei is kind of hot." And the recently-turned 44-year-old(!) just seems to be getting hotter.
4. Sean Penn Can Act: Another aspect of the Oscars that I don't like is that it's clear the best actors are not chosen. It's basically a pool of really famous people who got a big break at some point who happen to be in the right Oscar-type movie in a given year. There are hundreds of actors out there who are as talented (or better) than movie stars, they just never got that break for one reason or another. As a result, I never feel like movie stars are actually the best at what they do in the world, so it seems silly to heap even more unnecessary praise on them by giving them awards. Sean Penn is an exception to this.
I saw "Milk" last week, and he is simply exceptional. Unlike pretty much every other movie star this side of Meryl Streep, when I watch Sean Penn I feel like I am watching someone in the 99th percentile of actors in the world. The one major criticism I will make of the film is that the Jack character (played by Diego Luna) makes nails on a blackboard seem pleasant. But then again, the character is based on a real person, so maybe that is how he is in realy life. If that's the case, I wonder what Jack's reaction was to the film was. It's pretty clear that when Milk's friends spoke to the screenwriter, they did not speak kindly of Jack. If it were a work of fiction, I would say the writer should have left him out, but I guess they can't pretend Harvey Milk's long-time boyfriend didn't exist in a biopic about Milk's life. It's really a shame, because he brought nothing to the table.
***After writing this, I was reminded that Jack killed himself in the movie, so there was no way for him to react to the way he was portrayed. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the fact that he was dead emboldened the other people in Milk's life to talk shit about him.
5. Tropic Thunder Was Disappointing: To channel "David Spade's Hollywood Minute," I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called "Zoolander." Both are co-written and directed by Ben Stiller. Both feature a self-involved celebrity played by Stiller who doesn't realize he is past his prime and whose nemesis is another high-profile person of the same profession. One tries to spoof modeling (Zoolander), the other spoofs the movie business (Tropic Thunder), so a lot of the celebrity jokes are the same. Both feature a number of celebrities. Both have appearances by Christine Taylor, Stiller's wife. As an aside, besides playing Marcia Brady, has she ever been in anything when Stiller wasn't involved? She was once on Seinfeld, but Jerry Stiller was on that, so it doesn't count.
Unfortunately, "Tropic Thunder" is not nearly as successful of a parody as "Zoolander." For the most part, it was basically just a pointless action movie that wasn't even a parody of anything. There was great word-of-mouth about this film, but it was a let down for me.
6. I Rarely Like A Movie: I say this with full recognition that it's extremely difficult to make a really good movie that is successful in what it is trying to accomplish. As a result, I find myself truly enjoying about 10% of movies I see. In case you care, the only films I enthusiastically endorse from the past year are "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." Slumdog was a well-paced romantic adventure on par with "The Princess Bride." FSM was smartly-executed comedy that was both clever and amusing. Take that, Gene Shalit.
1. Oscar Buzz Makes Me Nauseous: For whatever reason(s), producers with aspirations of their film winning awards all try to get them released around the holidays. I’ve never really understood why, but that’s just how it is, and I’d estimate that about 60 percent of Best Picture winners were released after Election Day. The silliest thing about this process is that films start getting talked about as Oscar contenders before anyone has even seen them. Seriously, I’ve been reading about “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” and its Academy Award potential for months. Now it might be the greatest movie ever (I haven’t seen it yet), but why don’t we wait until it comes out before we start giving it the “Citizen Kane” treatment? Incidentally, I saw one review refer to it as "original." I don't know everything, but I do know that movies adapted from 87-year-old short stories are not original. Also, how did a movie based on a short story turn out to be 160 minutes? If you make a movie that long, you better be damn sure it's good. I plan on seeing the film because my girlfriend loves the short story, but the kind of "buzz" the film has received reminds of why the Oscars so stupid. It’s completely about hype, and never about the best movies. A perfect example of this phenomenon is . . .
2. The Dark Knight. It Was Stupid: The story had huge holes in it. The metaphors were heavy-handed. It was needlessly violent. The dialogue was moronic. It was just a bad movie, and I don’t get why it is receiving so much hype. In fact, just writing about it is reminding how much I despised it. If Heath Ledger hadn’t died, it wouldn’t be getting talked about for Oscars.
3. Marisa Tomei Is the Benjamin Button Of Movie Stars: A friend of mine was telling me about "The Wrestler," and he commented about how good Marisa Tomei looked, even as an over-the-hill stripper. That's the thing about Tomei, as the years pass, she just looks better and better. When she first emerged as Denise Huxtable's roommate on "A Different World," she was cute in a spunky New Yorker sort of way. That spunky NYC vibe was played up much more effectively during her Oscar-winning performance in "My Cousin Vinnie," and I remember thinking, "I never noticed it during 'A Different World,' but Marisa Tomei is kind of hot." And the recently-turned 44-year-old(!) just seems to be getting hotter.
4. Sean Penn Can Act: Another aspect of the Oscars that I don't like is that it's clear the best actors are not chosen. It's basically a pool of really famous people who got a big break at some point who happen to be in the right Oscar-type movie in a given year. There are hundreds of actors out there who are as talented (or better) than movie stars, they just never got that break for one reason or another. As a result, I never feel like movie stars are actually the best at what they do in the world, so it seems silly to heap even more unnecessary praise on them by giving them awards. Sean Penn is an exception to this.
I saw "Milk" last week, and he is simply exceptional. Unlike pretty much every other movie star this side of Meryl Streep, when I watch Sean Penn I feel like I am watching someone in the 99th percentile of actors in the world. The one major criticism I will make of the film is that the Jack character (played by Diego Luna) makes nails on a blackboard seem pleasant. But then again, the character is based on a real person, so maybe that is how he is in realy life. If that's the case, I wonder what Jack's reaction was to the film was. It's pretty clear that when Milk's friends spoke to the screenwriter, they did not speak kindly of Jack. If it were a work of fiction, I would say the writer should have left him out, but I guess they can't pretend Harvey Milk's long-time boyfriend didn't exist in a biopic about Milk's life. It's really a shame, because he brought nothing to the table.
***After writing this, I was reminded that Jack killed himself in the movie, so there was no way for him to react to the way he was portrayed. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the fact that he was dead emboldened the other people in Milk's life to talk shit about him.
5. Tropic Thunder Was Disappointing: To channel "David Spade's Hollywood Minute," I liked it better the first time I saw it, when it was called "Zoolander." Both are co-written and directed by Ben Stiller. Both feature a self-involved celebrity played by Stiller who doesn't realize he is past his prime and whose nemesis is another high-profile person of the same profession. One tries to spoof modeling (Zoolander), the other spoofs the movie business (Tropic Thunder), so a lot of the celebrity jokes are the same. Both feature a number of celebrities. Both have appearances by Christine Taylor, Stiller's wife. As an aside, besides playing Marcia Brady, has she ever been in anything when Stiller wasn't involved? She was once on Seinfeld, but Jerry Stiller was on that, so it doesn't count.
Unfortunately, "Tropic Thunder" is not nearly as successful of a parody as "Zoolander." For the most part, it was basically just a pointless action movie that wasn't even a parody of anything. There was great word-of-mouth about this film, but it was a let down for me.
6. I Rarely Like A Movie: I say this with full recognition that it's extremely difficult to make a really good movie that is successful in what it is trying to accomplish. As a result, I find myself truly enjoying about 10% of movies I see. In case you care, the only films I enthusiastically endorse from the past year are "Slumdog Millionaire" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall." Slumdog was a well-paced romantic adventure on par with "The Princess Bride." FSM was smartly-executed comedy that was both clever and amusing. Take that, Gene Shalit.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Flag Day
After Sunday night’s epic Giants-Panthers game, I’ve seen a number of columnists and pundits giving a list of “what they learned” from what could be a preview of the NFC championship. I’m not here to pick apart the pundits. Instead, I’m here to tell you what I learned from the game, besides the fact that Derrick Ward is the best player ever to come out of Ottawa University in Kansas. What I learned is this—penalties are pointless.
OK, that might be a bit of an overstatement, but I’m going for shock value here, folks. Let me explain.
Not all penalties are pointless. For example, it’s necessary to call false starts and offsides because if not, a team could get an unfair advantage on any given play. Additionally, I think it’s necessary to call egregious infractions that are dangerous, such as helmet-to-helmet hits, as well as obvious holding and pass interference penalties that directly and severely affect the play. Other than that, let them beat the crap out of each other without official interruption.
There were four penalties in Sunday night’s game. Four! No one complained, and the game was smooth without annoying stoppages that suck the life out of the football-watching experience. Typically, when they show replays of your average holding call, it looks like it could go either way, so why bother calling it? I can’t imagine there was never a case in the Giants-Panthers game when the officials could not have called illegal contact, or illegal motion, or illegal something. But they didn’t, and it made for a far more enjoyable viewing experiencing.
Furthermore, there are also a good chunk of penalties that no fan gives a rat’s ass about anyway. Seriously, who would really care if the NFL stopped calling illegal man downfield, illegal touching (although that one makes me chuckle), or illegal formation? I’ve watched football my entire life, I consider myself a relatively savvy fan, and I am still not entirely sure what makes a formation illegal, and I am not even sure what calling it is supposed to protect. In fact, I’ve asked people in my office who cover the NFL, and they can’t answer the question. When David Letterman make his “Top Ten Signs You Know Your Rule Is Pointless,” I’m pretty sure, “journalists who cover the sport for a living can’t explain it” would be high up there. I guess that’s a long way of saying that particular infraction is a waste of time.
In all seriousness, I think an official’s job in both football and basketball should be to keep both teams honest, without inserting themselves into the game unnecessarily. To me, there is nothing more annoying than officials taking the game into their own hands with a ticky-tack call that has little bearing on the play, such as a holding call away from the play, or an illegal contact, which you could literally call on 90% of pass plays if you wanted to. I remember watching the Giants-Eagles game two weeks ago, and there were fifteen penalties called, about half of which were accompanied by some sort of conference by the officials that made the already boring game drag on even longer. My plea to NFL officials is to get out of your own way, and don't bother calling about half the penalties you usually call. Everyone will be happier. Trust me.
To be fair, I’ll recognize that the Giants (my team) benefited from the two biggest penalties called last night. One was a pass interference in the end zone in the fourth quarter that put the Giants at the Panthers’ one-yard line, and another was a holding call on the Panthers’ Steve Smith that put Carolina back on the outer limits of Jon Kasay’s field goal range just a couple of plays before he missed a field goal that would have won the game. However, those were both pretty severe penalties, with the holding being particularly criminal. That being said, I might not be writing this had those two calls not gone in the Giants’ favor. But if you’ve watched football with me before, you’ve probably heard me rant about how too many stupid penalties are called. Last night was a good example of the type of officiating the NFL should strive for.
During the broadcast, John Madden kept saying that the crew on the field (I think it was Walt Coleman’s crew) had called the fewest penalties in the league. Keep it up guys, you’re doing a heckuva job.
***After writing this post, I looked up Walt Coleman and discovered he was the referee for the legendary “Tuck Rule” game, as well as last week’s controversial Ravens-Steelers tilt that ended on a controversial replay overrule. As it turns out, many people (or at the very least Raiders and Ravens fans) think he is Satan in Zebra stripes, and possibly the worst ref in the league. So maybe he isn’t adept when it comes to interpreting instant replay, but I’m a fan of the way his crew makes, or should I say doesn’t make, calls on the field.
OK, that might be a bit of an overstatement, but I’m going for shock value here, folks. Let me explain.
Not all penalties are pointless. For example, it’s necessary to call false starts and offsides because if not, a team could get an unfair advantage on any given play. Additionally, I think it’s necessary to call egregious infractions that are dangerous, such as helmet-to-helmet hits, as well as obvious holding and pass interference penalties that directly and severely affect the play. Other than that, let them beat the crap out of each other without official interruption.
There were four penalties in Sunday night’s game. Four! No one complained, and the game was smooth without annoying stoppages that suck the life out of the football-watching experience. Typically, when they show replays of your average holding call, it looks like it could go either way, so why bother calling it? I can’t imagine there was never a case in the Giants-Panthers game when the officials could not have called illegal contact, or illegal motion, or illegal something. But they didn’t, and it made for a far more enjoyable viewing experiencing.
Furthermore, there are also a good chunk of penalties that no fan gives a rat’s ass about anyway. Seriously, who would really care if the NFL stopped calling illegal man downfield, illegal touching (although that one makes me chuckle), or illegal formation? I’ve watched football my entire life, I consider myself a relatively savvy fan, and I am still not entirely sure what makes a formation illegal, and I am not even sure what calling it is supposed to protect. In fact, I’ve asked people in my office who cover the NFL, and they can’t answer the question. When David Letterman make his “Top Ten Signs You Know Your Rule Is Pointless,” I’m pretty sure, “journalists who cover the sport for a living can’t explain it” would be high up there. I guess that’s a long way of saying that particular infraction is a waste of time.
In all seriousness, I think an official’s job in both football and basketball should be to keep both teams honest, without inserting themselves into the game unnecessarily. To me, there is nothing more annoying than officials taking the game into their own hands with a ticky-tack call that has little bearing on the play, such as a holding call away from the play, or an illegal contact, which you could literally call on 90% of pass plays if you wanted to. I remember watching the Giants-Eagles game two weeks ago, and there were fifteen penalties called, about half of which were accompanied by some sort of conference by the officials that made the already boring game drag on even longer. My plea to NFL officials is to get out of your own way, and don't bother calling about half the penalties you usually call. Everyone will be happier. Trust me.
To be fair, I’ll recognize that the Giants (my team) benefited from the two biggest penalties called last night. One was a pass interference in the end zone in the fourth quarter that put the Giants at the Panthers’ one-yard line, and another was a holding call on the Panthers’ Steve Smith that put Carolina back on the outer limits of Jon Kasay’s field goal range just a couple of plays before he missed a field goal that would have won the game. However, those were both pretty severe penalties, with the holding being particularly criminal. That being said, I might not be writing this had those two calls not gone in the Giants’ favor. But if you’ve watched football with me before, you’ve probably heard me rant about how too many stupid penalties are called. Last night was a good example of the type of officiating the NFL should strive for.
During the broadcast, John Madden kept saying that the crew on the field (I think it was Walt Coleman’s crew) had called the fewest penalties in the league. Keep it up guys, you’re doing a heckuva job.
***After writing this post, I looked up Walt Coleman and discovered he was the referee for the legendary “Tuck Rule” game, as well as last week’s controversial Ravens-Steelers tilt that ended on a controversial replay overrule. As it turns out, many people (or at the very least Raiders and Ravens fans) think he is Satan in Zebra stripes, and possibly the worst ref in the league. So maybe he isn’t adept when it comes to interpreting instant replay, but I’m a fan of the way his crew makes, or should I say doesn’t make, calls on the field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)