tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-174143532024-03-07T02:39:46.028-05:00I Miss Skip and PeteExploring the baseball landscape as a confused, disillusioned Braves fan.Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.comBlogger367125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-69581511047761823382015-04-06T04:07:00.000-04:002015-04-06T04:11:50.809-04:002015 Predictions<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><span style="color: red;"><b>AL EAST</b></span></span><br />
<ol style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Boston Red Sox (88-74)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Toronto Blue Jays* (83-79)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Baltimore Orioles (80-82)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">New York Yankees (78-84)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">Tampa Bay Rays (76-86)</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<a name='more'></a><b style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">AL CENTRAL</b></div>
<ol style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Detroit Tigers (84-78)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Cleveland Indians (82-80)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Kansas City Royals (80-82)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Chicago White Sox (79-83)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Minnesota Twins (70-92)</span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;"> </span></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: red; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><b>AL WEST</b></span><br />
<ol style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Seattle Mariners (87-75)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Oakland Athletics* (83-79)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Los Angeles Angels (82-80) </span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Texas Rangers (73-89) </span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Houston Astros (72-90)</span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><b>NL EAST</b></span><br />
<ol style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Washington Nationals (96-66)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Miami Marlins* (84-78)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">New York Mets (81-81)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: black;">Atlanta Braves (76-86)</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Philadelphia Phillies (68-94)</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><b>NL CENTRAL</b></span><br />
<ol style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">St. Louis Cardinals (92-70)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Pittsburgh Pirates* (87-75)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Chicago Cubs (83-79)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Milwaukee Brewers (79-83)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cincinnati Reds (78-84)</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"> </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"><b>NL WEST</b></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;"> </span><br />
<ol style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px;">
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Los Angeles Dodgers (94-78)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">San Francisco Giants (83-79)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">San Diego Padres (81-81)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Arizona Diamondbacks (75-87)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Colorado Rockies (71-91)</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>POSTSEASON</b></span></u></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="more"></a><b>WC: </b>Blue Jays over Athletics; Pirates over Marlins</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>ALDS: </b>Red Sox over Blue Jays; Mariners over Tigers<b></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>ALCS: </b>Mariners over Red Sox</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>NLDS: </b>Nationals over Pirates; Cardinals over Dodgers<b></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>NLCS: </b>Nationals over Dodgers</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>WS: </b>Nationals over Mariners</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<u><b>AWARDS</b></u></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>NL MVP: </b>Giancarlo Stanton, Miami Marlins</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>NL CY YOUNG: </b>Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: </b>Kris Bryant, Cubs</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>AL MVP: </b>Mike Trout, Angels</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>AL CY YOUNG: </b>Felix Hernandez, Mariners</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: Trebuchet, 'Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.9149990081787px; text-align: center;">
<b>AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: </b>Daniel Norris, Blue Jays</div>
</div>
Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-73386584777291912392014-02-27T14:47:00.000-05:002014-02-27T14:47:26.595-05:002013 in Review<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>A</b><b>L EAST </b>(my prediction):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Toronto Blue Jays </b>(90-72)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Tampa Bay Rays* </b>(87-75)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>New York Yankees </b>(83-79)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Boston Red Sox </b>(80-82)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Baltimore Orioles </b>(77-85)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL EAST </b>(reality):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Boston Red Sox </b>(97-65) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+17 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Tampa Bay Rays* </b>(92-71) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+5 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Baltimore Orioles </b>(85-77) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+8 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>New York Yankees </b>(85-77) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+2 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Toronto Blue Jays </b>(74-88) <i><span style="color: red;">-16 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">I wasn't alone in my optimism for the Blue Jays. Just about everything went wrong for them last year. They're a good bet to bounce back this year; however, the sudden rebound by Boston (fueled by a legit farm system) and, soon, the Yankees (fueled by $, yet again) has narrowed Toronto's window considerably. I really can't look back at their 2013 and say that their plan was a bad one. It just didn't work.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i></i></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL CENTRAL </b>(my prediction):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Detroit Tigers </b>(93-69)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Cleveland Indians </b>(82-80)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Kansas City Royals </b>(79-83)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Chicago White Sox </b>(77-85)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Minnesota Twins </b>(66-96)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL CENTRAL </b>(reality):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Detroit Tigers </b>(93-69) <i><span style="color: blue;">Exactly right!</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Cleveland Indians* </b>(92-70) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+10 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Kansas City Royals </b>(86-76) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+7 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Minnesota Twins </b>(66-96) <i><span style="color: blue;">Exactly right!</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Chicago White Sox </b>(63-99) <i><span style="color: red;">-14 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">I'll pretend that my predictions for Detroit and Minnesota are due to my super-human intelligence and not just a bit due to good fortune. The Indians got a much better contribution from their pitching than I ever anticipated. Some of that is real (Danny Salazar), but they're going to have to do it again this year, sans Kazmir and Jimenez. I don't like them odds.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The White Sox were pluperfect awful. It's a shockingly moribund offense. Jose Abreu will help offset that, but only somewhat. </span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL WEST </b>(my prediction):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Los Angeles Angels </b>(93-69)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Texas Rangers* </b>(91-71)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Oakland Athletics </b>(83-79)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Seattle Mariners </b>(76-86)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Houston Astros </b>(56-106)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL WEST </b>(reality):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Oakland Athletics </b>(96-66) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+13 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Texas Rangers </b>(91-72) <i><span style="color: blue;">Exactly right!</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Los Angeles Angels </b>(78-84) <i><span style="color: red;">-15 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Seattle Mariners </b>(71-91) <i><span style="color: red;">-5 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Houston Astros </b>(51-111) <i><span style="color: red;">-5 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">I thought the 2012 A's had a lot of success with platoon players and role players, and the likes of Cespedes/Moss/Reddick wouldn't be as good again. I also thought their pitching staff was a work in progress, at best. I could argue that I was right, and yet the A's still won 96 games. I'm dumbfounded.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>You can't go wrong betting on Mike Trout, but you most certainly </i>can <i>go wrong betting on the Angels.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL EAST </b>(my prediction):</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Washington Nationals </b>(95-67)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Atlanta Braves* </b>(91-71)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Philadelphia Phillies </b>(79-83)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>New York Mets </b>(72-90)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Miami Marlins </b>(65-97)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL EAST </b>(reality):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Atlanta Braves </b>(96-66) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+5 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Washington Nationals </b>(86-76) <i><span style="color: red;">-9 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>New York Mets </b>(74-88) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+2 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Philadelphia Phillies </b>(73-89)<span style="color: red;"> <i>-7 wins</i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Miami Marlins </b>(62-100) <i><span style="color: red;">-3 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">No really massive misses here. The Nats' offense fell apart due to injury and some seemingly random ineffectiveness. Luckily, I didn't guess 103-105 wins for them like some did.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL CENTRAL </b>(my prediction):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Cincinnati Reds </b>(92-70)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>St. Louis Cardinals* </b>(89-73)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Milwaukee Brewers </b>(80-82)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Pittsburgh Pirates </b>(76-86)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Chicago Cubs </b>(68-94)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL CENTRAL </b>(reality):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>St. Louis Cardinals </b>(97-65) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+8 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Pittsburgh Pirates* </b>(94-68) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+18 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Cincinnati Reds* </b>(90-72) <i><span style="color: red;">-2 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Milwaukee Brewers </b>(74-88)<span style="color: red;"> <i>-6 wins</i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Chicago Cubs </b>(66-96) <i><span style="color: red;">-2 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">I really thought the Pirates peaked in 2012, but their pitching staff allowed ~200 fewer runs than I expected. Some of that is real, but there's a not of fluke there.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Cardinals are good. #analysis</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL WEST </b>(my prediction):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>San Francisco Giants </b>(90-72)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Los Angeles Dodgers </b>(88-74)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Arizona Diamondbacks </b>(86-76)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>San Diego Padres </b>(79-83)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Colorado Rockies </b>(68-94)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL WEST </b>(reality):</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Los Angeles Dodgers </b>(92-70) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+4 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Arizona Diamondbacks </b>(81-81) <i><span style="color: red;">-5 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>San Diego Padres </b>(76-86) <i><span style="color: red;">-3 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>San Francisco Giants </b>(76-86) <i><span style="color: red;">-14 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Colorado Rockies </b>(74-88) <i><span style="color: #38761d;">+6 wins</span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Giants continued to zigzag their way through the standings. The Rockies are actually showing signs of respectability, which would be good news if they had a clue. Look forward to one year above .500 in the next five.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></i>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-size: 12.222222328186035px; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>POSTSEASON</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>ALDS: </b>Tigers over Rays; Blue Jays over Angels<b></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>ALCS: </b>Tigers over Blue Jays</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NLDS: </b>Nationals over Braves; Reds over Giants<b></b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NLCS: </b>Nationals over Reds</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>WS: </b>Nationals over Tigers</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: left;">
<i>Not quite.</i></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-family: inherit;">AWARDS</span></u></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL MVP: </b>Joey Votto, Reds</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL CY YOUNG: </b>Adam Wainwright, Cardinals</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: </b>Shelby Miller, Cardinals</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL MVP: </b>Evan Longoria, Rays</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL CY YOUNG: </b>Yu Darvish, Rangers</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: </b>Kevin Gausman, Orioles</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>No really big misses. Gausman could have contended if he hadn't gotten injured; the AL ROY field was a bit bare this year, with Wil Myers not playing a full season.</i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 18.91499900817871px; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Until next year ... rather, next week.</i></span></div>
Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-48308966611956737762013-03-31T17:09:00.001-04:002013-03-31T17:09:41.252-04:002013 Predictions<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>AL EAST</b></span></span></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Toronto Blue Jays (90-72)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Tampa Bay Rays* (87-75)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">New York Yankees (83-79)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Boston Red Sox (80-82)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Baltimore Orioles (77-85)</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>AL CENTRAL</b></span></span></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">Detroit Tigers (9<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">3</span>-6<span style="font-size: small;">9</span>)</span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Cleveland Indians (8<span style="font-size: small;">2</span>-<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">8<span style="font-size: small;">0</span></span>)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Kansas City Royals (<span style="font-size: small;">79-83)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Chicago White Sox (77-85)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Minnesota Twins (6<span style="font-size: small;">6</span>-9<span style="font-size: small;">6</span>)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>AL WEST</b></span></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Los Angeles Angels (9<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">3</span>-6<span style="font-size: small;">9</span>)</span></span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Texas Rangers* (91-71) </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Oakland Athletics (8<span style="font-size: small;">3</span>-7<span style="font-size: small;">9</span>)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Seattle Mariners (7<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">6</span>-8<span style="font-size: small;">6</span>)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">H<span style="font-size: small;">ouston Astros (56-106)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">N</span>L EAST</b></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">Washington Nationals (9<span style="font-size: small;">5-<span style="font-size: small;">67)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Atlant<span style="font-size: small;">a Brav<span style="font-size: small;">es* (91-71)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Philadelphia Phillies (79-83)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">New York Mets (72-90)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Miami Marlins (65-97)</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">N</span>L CENTRAL</b></span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Cincinnati Reds (92-70)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">St. Louis Cardinals* (89-73)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Milwaukee Brewers (80-82)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Pittsburgh Pirates (76-86)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Chicago Cubs (68-94)</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">N</span>L WEST</b></span> <br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">San Francisco Giants (90-72)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Los Angeles Dodgers (88-74)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Arizona Diamondbacks (86-76)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">San Diego Padres (79-83)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Colorado Rockies (68-94)</span></li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">POSTSEASON</span></u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a name='more'></a><b>ALDS: </b>Tigers over Rays; Blue Jays over Angels<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>ALCS: </b>Tigers over Blue Jays</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>NLDS: </b>Nationals over Braves; Reds over Giants<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>NLCS: </b>Nationals over Reds</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>WS: </b>Nationals over Tigers</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u>AWARDS</u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>NL MVP: </b>Joey Votto, Reds</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>NL CY YOUNG: </b>Adam Wainwright, Cardinals</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: </b>Shelby Miller, Cardinals</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>AL MVP: </b>Evan Longoria, Rays</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>AL CY YOUNG: </b>Yu Darvish, Rangers</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: </b>Kevin Gausman, Orioles<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></div>
Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-58615766144294755152013-03-11T00:59:00.001-04:002013-03-11T00:59:27.884-04:001995 World Baseball Classic<p>While watching the World Baseball Classic, I couldn’t help but consider what this would have looked like in the past. Two hours later, I had come up with a provisional roster for the WBC if it had taken place in 1995.</p> <p>I chose the year basically at random. The first WBC was in 2006, so I started out just going back a decade. But then I thought that it would make sense to have the first WBC in ‘95 (in the summer, say) as a way for the industry to apologize for the player’s strike.</p> <p>I did the best I could to determine nationality for each roster, but it was difficult, as I was just going through <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com">Baseball Reference</a> and clicking on players to find out their nationality. After I was nearly done, I found <a href="http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/birthplace.php?y=1995">this</a> tremendously helpful page at Baseball Almanac which shows a list of players’ nationality by year. It almost saved me a lot of trouble.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>I combined the Baseball Almanac lists with a look at Baseball America’s <a title="1995 Top 100" href="http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time.php#1995">Top 100 Prospects</a> (top prospects are typically a big part of the WBC) and a look at the top AAA players, thanks to Baseball Reference. </p> <p>In general, I tried not to speculate about ethnicity. There were some people who I *thought* were Puerto Rican, even if their birthplace was New York, say. But unless I knew this for sure (or could confirm it), I thought it would be prudent not to err on the side of guessing someone’s ethnicity.</p> <p>The one exception is the Italian team. There are a couple people on the team who would eventually play for Italy in the WBC, so I could confirm their eligibility. Other than that, I will admit to adding people to the list based upon their last names. I intend no offense if I have accidentally added a Hungarian or a Macedonian to the list of ballplayers of Italian descent.</p> <p>I sorted the team into pools, based loosely on geography, but also in the interests of balancing good teams with poor ones. Here is my Pool A:</p> <p align="center"><strong><u><font color="#0000ff">POOL A</font></u></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#0000ff">Australia</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#0000ff">China</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#0000ff">Japan</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#0000ff">Korea</font></strong></p> <p align="left">Anything other than a Team Japan romp would be an upset.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM AUSTRALIA</strong></p> <p><strong>Key Players: </strong>Graeme Lloyd, Dave Nilsson, Craig Shipley</p> <p>These were the only three Australian players in the majors in 1995. I’m sure there were more players in the minors (and in Australia), but I couldn’t find them. How does one identify an Australian name? I didn’t come across anyone named “G’Day” Jenkins or “Oy, Sheila!” Williamson, so I’ll leave it at that.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM CHINA</strong></p> <p><strong>Key Players: ??</strong></p> <p>How old was Yao Ming in ‘95?</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM JAPAN</strong></p> <p><strong>Key Players: </strong>Hideo Nomo, Ichiro Suzuki</p> <p>I’d love to put together a full roster for Team Japan, but I just don’t know enough to do so. I thought about looking up the NPB All-Star teams for 1995 and throwing together some names, but that’s just sloppy. Let’s assume, then, that Team Japan is very good, with Nomo as their #1 pitcher and a young Ichiro leading off.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM KOREA</strong></p> <p><strong>Key Players: Chan Ho Park</strong></p> <p>See comment about Japan.</p> <p align="center"><strong><u><font color="#008000">POOL B</font></u></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#008000">Colombia</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#008000">Cuba</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#008000">Dominican Republic</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#008000">Panama</font></strong></p> <p align="left">Yes, the Dominicans are ridiculous favorites here.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM COLOMBIA</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Players: ???</strong></p> <p align="left">There weren’t many Colombians in organized baseball in ‘95. Or if there were, they were still at the lower levels.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM CUBA</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Players: Orlando Hernandez, ???</strong></p> <p align="left">I’m assuming that, as in the current WBC, Cuban defectors would not be eligible. So no Livan Hernandez, although I believe Orlando was still in Cuba at the time. Don’t let my lack of knowledge fool you, though; the Cuban team generally does quite well in international competition.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM DOMINICAN REPUBLIC</strong></p> <p align="left">Here’s why I started this project. My projected lineup and roster for the powerhouse Dominican team of 1995:</p> <p align="left"><strong>LINEUP:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B – Tony Fernandez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS – Alex Rodriguez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF – Sammy Sosa</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>DH – Manny Ramirez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF – Moises Alou</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B – Jose Offerman</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF – Vladimir Guerrero</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B – Quilvio Veras</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C – Tony Pena</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><em>This is pretty damn impressive. I should note that the Dominican had about 5 right fielders with a legitimate shot at making the team. A couple are on the bench, but I decided to move 20-year-old Vlad Guerrero (still just a prospect) to center, a move I think he could handle.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>There’s a lot of balance here in terms of different offensive skills, and it would also be a pretty sweet defensive group. My only real complaint is that it’s so heavily right-handed. I decided to just go with it rather than trying to get cutesy with a left-handed hitter who otherwise didn’t deserve to start.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>This is a very young group, but I really like the idea of Pena, as catcher, playing the role of elder statesman/unofficial coach.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>STARTING ROTATION:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Pedro Martinez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Ramon Martinez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Jose Rijo</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Juan Guzman</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><em>The problem with most of the non-USA teams was getting depth in the pitching staff. That wasn’t a problem for the D.R., as you can see. Rijo and Ramon didn’t have the “household name” quality that Pedro possessed, but both were still very good at this point.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BENCH: Geronimo Berroa, Tony Eusebio, Felix Fermin, Stan Javier, Raul Mondesi, Luis Polonia, Jose Vizcaino</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>In constructing a bench, I tried to make it functional, rather than just picking 6 first baseman and a right fielder. So I went with Eusebio as backup catcher (a fine hitter) with Vizcaino and Fermin as backup infielders. If I had another DH spot, I’d put Mondesi there, but instead, he’s the first bat off the bench. Berroa was also a good hitter, and Javier was an all-around talent who gives the manager great flexibility.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BULLPEN: Pedro Astacio, Armando Benitez, Bartolo Colon, Jose Lima, Melido Perez, Mel Rojas</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>This isn’t quite as good as it looks, as most of these guys (Benitez, Colon, Lima) had not yet reached their peak. But I like Astacio as the shadow starter, and Benitez could still throw flame even at a young age. There were a couple other mid-level starters (Carlos Perez, for one) who just missed the cut.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM PANAMA</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Batters: </strong>Roberto Kelly, Ruben Rivera, Orlando Miller, Einar Diaz, Sherman Obando, Fernando Seguignol</p> <p align="left"><em>Several decent parts here, but not any A-list talent, although Rivera was still considered an elite prospect in the Yankees system.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Pitchers: </strong>Mariano Rivera, Bruce Chen, Ramiro Mendoza, Rafael Medina, some guys you’ve never heard of</p> <p align="left"><em>Mo is the prize here, although he would have still been a starting pitcher at this point. He is, none the less, a better bet than young Bruce Chen. And don’t act like you know who Rafael Medina is.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong><u>POOL C</u></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#ff8000">Netherlands</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#ff8000">Nicaragua</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#ff8000">Puerto Rico</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#ff8000">Venezuela</font></strong></p> <p align="left">Venezuela is stacked with young talent, but then so is Puerto Rico.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM NETHERLANDS</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Batters: </strong>Andruw Jones, Randall Simon, Hensley Meulens, Robert Eenhoorn, Ralph Milliard, Rikkert Faneyte</p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Pitcher: </strong>Calvin Maduro</p> <p align="left"><em>Let’s hope that the Netherlands League itself was stocked with underrated talent. The Dutch West Indies were not as fertile in baseball talent as they would become.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM NICARAGUA</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Players: </strong>Dennis Martinez and some guys</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM PUERTO RICO</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>LINEUP:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B – Roberto Alomar</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>DH – Edgar Martinez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF – Bernie Williams</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF – Juan Gonzalez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B – Carlos Delgado</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C – Ivan Rodriguez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B – Carlos Baerga</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF – Danny Tartabull</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS – Wil Cordero</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><em>One through Six, this lineup matches anybody, including the Americans. Tartabull was finishing up at this point, and Wil Cordero was the only decent shortstop I could find. Baerga was still good, but I stuck him at third in the absence of a better option, leaving second to Robby Alomar and his terrific glove. </em></p> <p align="left"><em>This is also a righty-heavy order, but Alomar, Bernie, and Baerga (all switch-hitters) are able to break things up somewhat.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>Remember all the right fielders the Dominican Republic had? Yeah, there are about five catchers that could have made it onto team Puerto Rico. Conspicuous by his absence is a 23-year-old Jorge Posada.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>STARTING PITCHERS:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Jaime Navarro</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Ricky Bones</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Omar Olivares</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Jose Melendez</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><em>And here’s the problem. Navarro, Bones and Olivares were all mid-rotation guys at best, and Melendez was just a 29-year-old I found in Triple-A. </em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BENCH: Sandy Alomar, Jr., Joey Cora, Jose Hernandez, Javy Lopez, Orlando Merced, Rey Sanchez, Ruben Sierra</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>We’ve got great defensive coverage here, but not a lot of pop. Lopez and Sierra could be the first bats off the bench, depending on the platoon situation, which is nice. Merced wasn’t a bad hitter, I guess, and Jose Hernandez had some pop when he was making contact.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BULLPEN: Luis Aquino, Rafael Carmona, Roberto Hernandez, Angel Miranda, Rafael Montalvo, Bobby Munoz, Mike Perez</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>If you’ve heard of anyone on that list other than Roberto Hernandez, treat yourself to a cookie. That’s a list of mid-level prospects, cup-of-coffee guys, and Triple-A lifers. If Navarro gets lit up, this team is going to get mercy-ruled but quick.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM VENEZUELA</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>LINEUP:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF – Bobby Abreu</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B – Edgardo Alfonzo</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B – Andres Galarraga</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF – Richard Hidalgo</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>DH – Roberto Petagine</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF – Roger Cedeno</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS – Omar Vizquel</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B – Alvaro Espinoza</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C – Eddie Perez</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><em>A pretty impressive bunch, if young. Galarraga’s in his prime, but Abreu, Alfonzo, Hidalgo, Cedeno, and Petagine are all still prospects. </em></p> <p align="left"><strong>STARTING PITCHERS:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Wilson Alvarez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Omar Daal</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Giovanni Carrara</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Edwin Hurtado</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><em>This is not unlike the Puerto Rican team’s problem, except Venezuela at least has Alvarez, who is passable as an ace. But it thins out fast.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BENCH:  Pedro Castellano, Raul Chavez, Carlos Garcia, Ozzie Guillen, Jose Malave, Robert Perez, Luis Sojo</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Again, kudos if you’ve heard of anyone outside of Ozzie and Sojo. Chavez, at least, had a decent career as a backup in the majors.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BULLPEN:  Tony Castillo, Kelvim Escobar, Rich Garces, Geremi Gonzalez, Felipe Lira, Dilson Torres, Ugueth Urbina</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>A few more recognizable names here. Still, most of the guys you’ve heard of hadn’t reached their peak yet.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong><u>POOL D</u></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>Canada</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>Italy</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>Mexico</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>USA</strong></p> <p align="left">USA all the way … assuming, of course, that nobody backs out.</p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM CANADA</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Batters: Larry Walker, Matt Stairs, Nigel Wilson, Rob Butler</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>I debated adding Greg Gagne to the team, since his surname is French and he’s from New England. Surely his parents passed through Canada at some point … right?</em></p> <p align="left"><em>Along the same lines, it is hard to spot a “Canadian” name. I did click on a lot of names that sounded French, but all I found were a bunch of guys from Louisiana.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Pitchers: Jason Dickson, Paul Quantrill, Kirk McCaskill, Ryan Dempster, Denis Boucher, Rheal Cormier, Paul Spoljaric</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Much better! This is a serviceable pitching staff, although I’m not sure who the “ace” is here. I’m really fudging things by including Dempster, who was 18 years old and newly drafted in ‘95.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM ITALY</strong></p> <p align="left">To reiterate: these are just names that sound Italian. If half of them turn out to be Cuban, I apologize.</p> <p align="left"><strong>LINEUP:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF – F.P. Santangelo</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B – Randy Velarde</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C – Mike Piazza</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B – Gary Gaetti</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>DH – Jeff Cirillo</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B – Jason Giambi</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF – John Cangelosi</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS – Gary DiSarcina</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF – Carmine Cappuccio</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><em>Not a bad group at all! I like the power potential with Piazza-Cirillo-Gaetti-Giambi. Eight of the nine guys in this order all had significant major league careers. And no, I did not invent the most generically Italian name I could think of and stick him in center field. Carmine Cappuccio never played in the majors, but he did make it to the high minors. </em></p> <p align="left"><em>Yet again, I’m plagued by too many righties in the heart of the order. I thought about bumping Giambi up to the #4 spot, but he was just a rookie in ‘95 and wasn’t really </em>Jason Giambi <em>yet.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>STARTING PITCHERS:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Tom Candiotti</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Frank Viola</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Scott Kamieniecki</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>John Frascatore</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><em>OK, Kamieniecki is probably Polish or at least of Eastern European extraction. But it’s close enough.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BENCH: Rico Brogna, Ken Caminiti, Mike Gallego, Mickey Morandini, Mike Pagliarulo, Tom Pagnozzi, Joe Vitiello</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>This is actually one of the best benches in the whole tournament. Gallego may well be of Latin extraction, but dammit, I needed a shortstop.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BULLPEN: Mike Bertotti, Ricky Bottalico, Jim Corsi, Jerry DiPoto, John Franco, Rich Monteleone, Dave Righetti</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>I’m pretty sure Franco was issued honorary Italian citizenship by New York fans.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM MEXICO</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Key Batters: </strong>Not enough to form an actual lineup, but: <strong>Vinny Castilla, Fernando Vina, Ruben Amaro, Karim Garcia, Guillermo Velasquez, Benji Gil</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Individual statistics from the Mexican Leagues weren’t available.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>Starting Pitchers:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Ismael Valdez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Esteban Loaiza</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Armando Reynoso</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Fernando Valenzuela</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><em>Very competitive. And even if he’s not the fourth-best starter, you HAVE to have Valenzuela on this team. If you could get him to make a start in Mexico, that would make the whole tourney worthwhile.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BULLPEN: Juan Acevedo, Rigo Beltran, Elmer Dessens, Eddie Guardado, Teddy Higuera, Antonio Osuna, Rudy Seanez</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Higuera was done by this point, so this spot is more honorary than anything. It’s funny that the best Mexican pitcher in baseball right now is Yovani Gallardo – also with the Brewers.</em></p> <p align="center"><strong>TEAM UNITED STATES</strong></p> <p align="left">Man, I left out a zillion people.</p> <p align="left"><strong>LINEUP:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B – Craig Biggio</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B – John Olerud</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF – Barry Bonds</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>DH – Frank Thomas</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF – Ken Griffey, Jr.</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF – Albert Belle</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS – Cal Ripken, Jr.</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B – Wade Boggs</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C – Chris Hoiles</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><em>I count two Hall-of-Famers and four more that deserve to go. The only non-elite player here is Hoiles, who was actually darn good there for a while. It’s worth noting that Boggs was already declining at this point, and I did consider replacing him with Robin Ventura, but in the end, I stuck with the Hall-of-Famer.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>STARTING PITCHERS:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Greg Maddux</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Roger Clemens</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Kevin Brown</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Randy Johnson</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><em>As Mel Allen would say, “How ‘bout that?”</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BENCH: Jeff Bagwell, Rickey Henderson, Chuck Knoblauch, Barry Larkin, Kenny Lofton, Gary Sheffield, Terry Steinbach</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>Oh, the first basemen I cut from this team. I would have felt FINE putting Mark McGwire, Mo Vaughn, Will Clark, Fred McGriff, and Rafael Palmeiro on this team. Sacrifice!</em></p> <p align="left"><em>I ended up keeping Bagwell over McGwire because of his superior glove. Also, they were both right-handed, and I couldn’t justify keeping the two of them, not with Frank Thomas (another righty) already on the roster as a DH.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>There were a lot of good outfield choices here, and I hated cutting Paul O’Neill, Tony Gwynn, Tim Raines, and David Justice. But Sheffield could hit as well as any of them, was in his prime in ‘95, and could play third base if necessary.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>I really like Knoblauch and Larkin up the middle. Rookie Derek Jeter was on the team at one point, but I ended up cutting him due to youth and defensive concerns.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>I wanted to have a “jack of all trades” 25th man on the roster (well, I have 28 men on the roster, but work with me here) to fill multiple holes. I considered Tony Phillips and B.J. Surhoff, but in the end, I omitted them and went with the superstars.</em></p> <p align="left"><strong>BULLPEN: David Cone, Chuck Finley, Tom Glavine, Jeff Montgomery, Mike Mussina, Randy Myers, Curt Schilling</strong></p> <p align="left"><em>That’s a freakishly good bullpen. Can you imagine Curt Schilling as a closer? He would have been a pre-Kimbrel Kimbrel. </em></p> <p align="left"><em>Lots of painful cuts here, too. I only went with two true closers, so Dennis Eckersley and John Wetteland missed the cut. And it killed me, as a Braves fan, to cut John Smoltz, but I wanted Glavine’s leftiness out of the bullpen.</em></p> <p align="left">Summary: “Second Team USA” would still be the best team in this WBC. Don’t believe me?</p> <p align="left"><em>USA Second Team:</em></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF – Kenny Lofton</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B – Chuck Knoblauch</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B – Gary Sheffield</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B – Jeff Bagwell</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF – Rickey Henderson</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>DH – Mark McGwire</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF – Tony Gwynn</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS – Barry Larkin</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C – Terry Steinbach</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><strong>Starting Pitchers:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left">David Cone</div> </li> <li> <div align="left">Curt Schilling</div> </li> <li> <div align="left">Mike Mussina</div> </li> <li> <div align="left">Tom Glavine</div> </li> </ol> <p align="left">And that, as they say, is that.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-83505082985235581152013-01-09T21:15:00.001-05:002013-01-09T23:43:28.045-05:00Responding to RosenthalAfter no one was elected to the Hall of Fame today, baseball reporter Ken Rosenthal said, on the MLB Network, that the sabermetric community was similar to the Tea Party, presumably in its reckless zeal and narrow-mindedness. <br />
<a name='more'></a>A discussion ensued on Twitter which I, somehow, entered into. Here’s the play-by-play:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Wow. @<a href="https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal">ken_rosenthal</a>, who I really like, just compared sabermetric community to Tea Party. Not a great way to foster rational discourse!<br />
— robneyer (@robneyer) <a data-datetime="2013-01-09T19:42:01+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/robneyer/status/289094695001415680">January 9, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async="async" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Rosenthal responded thusly. Then I chimed in (twice):<br />
<b></b><br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-in-reply-to="289097551653789696">
<b>@<a href="https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal">ken_rosenthal</a> Have to dismiss crazies and listen to rational voices. If I judged BBWAA by loudest/meanest, that would also be unfair.</b><br />
<b>— Aaron Whitehead (@whiteheadaaron) <a data-datetime="2013-01-09T21:58:48+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/whiteheadaaron/status/289129119722123265">January 9, 2013</a></b></blockquote>
<br />
<b>And:</b><br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-in-reply-to="289097551653789696">
<b>@<a href="https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal">ken_rosenthal</a> And it's very hard to listen to some of your colleagues have the NERVE to complain about people who are condescending.</b><br />
<b>— Aaron Whitehead (@whiteheadaaron) <a data-datetime="2013-01-09T22:00:14+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/whiteheadaaron/status/289129481082400768">January 9, 2013</a></b></blockquote>
<b>
<br /><script async="async" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></b><br />
<script async="async" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><b> </b>As you can see, I had two things to say to him. And would ya believe Ken Rosenthal answered me?<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-in-reply-to="289139852442755072">
<b>@<a href="https://twitter.com/ken_rosenthal">ken_rosenthal</a> Yes,
but sadly, I think that's true quite often.</b><br />
<b>— Aaron
Whitehead (@whiteheadaaron) <a data-datetime="2013-01-09T23:04:45+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/whiteheadaaron/status/289145717635833857">January 9,
2013</a></b></blockquote>
<b>
<br /><script async="async" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></b>I was trying to say that in every endeavor, loud and mean people tend to be the most noticeable. What I wanted to say, but didn’t because I didn’t want to be too bitter, is that we sabermetricians have had to listen to blowhard know-nothings condescending to us for thirty years, and I’m not inclined to be sympathetic. But I didn’t say that. That’s why I added the word “colleagues;” I didn’t want Rosenthal to think I was talking about him. Because I wasn’t.<br />
And really, that’s what frustrates me the most. I don’t always agree with what Rosenthal has to say, but I do respect the fact that he seems to work as hard as any reporter in the industry (nicknamed “Robothal”) and is at least receptive to the idea of sabermetrics, even if he doesn’t completely buy into it. Which is fine. Just acknowledging that our point of view is valid makes him a uniquely reasonable commentator. I do hate to say “our” point of view, because that makes us sound like a mob obsessed with “groupthink” – a word Rosenthal has used to describe us before.<br />
Does Rosenthal have a point? Absolutely. There are plenty of morons, loudmouths and abusive pains-in-the-ass who I also happen to agree with. I haven’t checked his Twitter feed or looked at his email, but if I did, I’m sure I wouldn’t blame him for thinking less of humanity.<br />
The anti-Jack Morris bandwagon, while something I agree with in principle, did become abusive towards the end. It seemed like every other comment from certain writers was another way to bash Morris or remind people of his shortcomings. This prompted Kevin Goldstein to remark:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We get it. You don't think Jack Morris should be in the Hall of Fame. WE GET IT.<br />
— Kevin Goldstein (@Kevin_Goldstein) <a data-datetime="2013-01-08T21:12:55+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/Kevin_Goldstein/status/288755182832087041">January 8, 2013</a></blockquote>
I don’t know which “prominent” person Rosenthal was referring to in this case. I don’t follow all the same people he does; perhaps there’s a very vocal asshole of whom I’m not aware. But I’d be willing to bet that he was talking about <a href="https://twitter.com/joe_sheehan" title="Twitter">Joe Sheehan</a>.<br />
I love Joe Sheehan’s writing, but he can be a pain in the ass. I doubt he’d by offended by the remark; coming from the right person, it’s an epithet* he might wear with pride. Sheehan’s greatest strength as a commentator is also his greatest weakness: a sense of utter disgust toward inaccuracies and the people who perpetuate them. It makes his commentary incisive, biting and often brilliant. It also means that he attacks an issue with an off-putting ferocity, with his podcast co-host, <a href="https://twitter.com/jazayerli" title="Twitter">Rany Jazayerli</a>, often serving as the target by proxy. Sheehan himself admitted on one podcast that where other people tend to see an issue as 60/40, he tends to look at it as 99/1.<br />
<i><b>* </b>- (I wanted to choose the word sobriquet at first, instead of epithet, then I realized that I’m not a douche)</i><br />
<br />
Even though I bristled at the remark, I would have to say that his use of the word “condescending” is a pretty good descriptor for Sheehan. He is not one to agree to disagree. He will accept ideas different from his own, but as I’ve noticed on the podcast, the burden of proof is about 99/1 on you to prove him wrong, assuming you can get a word in edgewise. I don’t want to be too harsh on Joe, who’s one of my favorites. He is, as I said, aware of this part of his nature and is capable of being persuaded, albeit not easily.<br />
<br />
And, reluctantly, I think we as the sabermetric community have to accept Rosenthal’s “condescending” remark as an often valid criticism. Our preference for sarcasm and snark is quite strong. I’m not saying that <a href="https://twitter.com/keithlaw">Keith Law</a> is the king of snark, but he could be the subject of <a href="http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/snark/" title="Lewis Carroll">this poem</a>.<br />
<br />
As a response to this, I think we as a community need to ask ourselves something: are we more interested in communicating our point of view or in simply being right? The latter can be useful but, much like the flu*, can only <i>survive </i>by being communicated to others.<br />
<b>* </b>– <i>TOPICAL</i><br />
<br />
Mocking people and condescending to them will not convince them to change their minds. Indeed, many people have observed (and I agree) that the rallying of the BBWAA around Jack Morris is a defensive measure taken in response to the assault on Morris’s case by upstart outsiders (us). There are a few people who have been convinced that Morris’s case falls well short of Hall standards; however, I’d wager there are many more who never saw him as a superstar until he became the standard-bearer for their entire belief system. See also: Jim Rice, Dale Murphy.<br />
<br />
Having said THAT …<br />
<i>(removes gloves)</i><br />
<br />
I was really upset when Rosenthal dropped that Tea Party comp onto a community of generally good people (which includes myself, if only tangentially). I was even more angry when he complained about the mote of condescension coming from “our side” while essentially ignoring the beam of condescension in the eyes of the writers.*<br />
<i><b>* </b>– This was a thing Jesus said.</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
The condescension that we – and I’m including any independent-minded fan in this – have endured from the writers for three decades is gross and inexcusable. Yes, it seems like we’re making great strides – and then Mitch F’n Albom comes by and drops <a href="http://www.freep.com/article/20121116/COL01/311160108/detroit-tigers-miguel-cabrera-mvp-award">this</a> in the punch bowl. Does Rosenthal get this upset when Dan Shaughnessy, Murray Chass, Bill Plaschke or Bill Madden starts throwing mean-spirited, uncivilized barbs at all of us? Perhaps he does. Perhaps.<br />
<br />
But he didn’t tag them as overzealous extremists on national TV. That was just "us."<br />
<br />
Well, maybe the explanation is that Rosenthal is less likely to speak out against those who are his colleagues. Perhaps he is even forbidden (or discouraged) from doing so by Fox Sports. If so, however, he should be careful who he criticizes for zealous groupthink and condescension.<br />
<br />
Now it's true that web-based analytical commentators are getting TV time now, thanks mainly to the MLB Network. You can see Jay Jaffe, Dave Cameron, Rob Neyer and Jonah Keri on there from time to time. Sheehan and Craig Calcaterra show up on NBC Sports Talk. But when it comes down to it, we are still the anomalies; we are not given equal space at the table. What ends up happening almost invariably is that it is the standard Sports TV drones and BBWAA members who dominate the airwaves and, thus, the conversation. It is left to the few BBWAA members who see our cause as at least somewhat valid to defend us. (If there were an award for such a thing, obviously, it would go to Peter Gammons).<br />
<br />
Jim Bouton once said something to the effect that the owners had screwed the players for 100 years, and the players were due. I’ll admit that I feel a similar lack of sympathy for many baseball writers whose iron grip on sports narratives is starting to wither. When they all become so sad and irrelevant that they're reduced to blogging about "backne," I will not celebrate their tragic fall; but neither will I shed many tears.<br />
<br />
It pains me that, for one day at least, Ken Rosenthal found himself in the unenviable company of the Luddites. I say this not because he disagrees with me because I do respect his opinion. I say this not because he’s wary of the sabermetric vigilante brigade*. No, I say this because someone as reasonable as he has no business sharing space with the empty suits and talking heads.<br />
<i><b>* </b>– No, really, someone called us that.</i><br />
<i> </i> <br />
All will be forgiven, Ken, naturally. I’m honestly not mad at you. I don’t even want you to join our groupthink (or anyone's groupthink). All I ask is that before you start throwing around labels, take some time to see things from our perspective.<br />
<br />
We’re all being condescended to. So let’s break the cycle … okay?<br />
<br />
UPDATE:<br />
<br />
Ken Rosenthal read and responded to my article on Twitter, which I thought was very fair; he played right into my depiction of him as "reasonable."<br />
<br />
I spent the better part of an hour trying to "embed" those damn tweets, so I'll just quote him: <br />
<br />
Ken: "That's fair, Aaron. I made it clear in later tweet that I don't like a patronizing tone from either side. And . . .
as someone who often sides with sabermetricians in their positions, I would hope that my point would carry some resonance."<br />
<br />
Aaron: "Indeed it does. I guess I hold you to a higher standard (perhaps unfair), because you seem able to respectfully disagree.
But yes, yours is a reasonable voice and should be heard - no matter what "side" you're on (I wish there weren't "sides")."<br />
<br />
Neither Rosenthal nor I occupy the extremes of the two "sides" I mentioned. But even if we did, I reiterate the importance of communication just like this. If people like me can listen to Ken Rosenthal, and if Ken Rosenthal can listen to people like me, the discussion WILL progress. Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-32251152519223511322013-01-02T21:44:00.001-05:002013-01-02T21:44:30.928-05:002013 Prospectus: NL East<h3 align="center">ATLANTA BRAVES</h3> <p align="center"><strong>2012 W-L: </strong>94-68</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Per Game: </strong>4.32 (7th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Allowed Per Game: </strong>3.70 (4th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>Key Losses:  </strong>Chipper Jones, Michael Bourn, David Ross</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Lineup</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B:  Freddie Freeman</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B:  Dan Uggla</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS:  Andrelton Simmons</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B:  Martin Prado</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF:  ???</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF:  B.J. Upton</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF:  Jason Heyward</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C:  Brian McCann</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Pitching Staff</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Starters:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Tim Hudson</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Kris Medlen</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Brandon Beachy</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Mike Minor</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Paul Maholm/Delgado/Teheran</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>Closer: Craig Kimbrel</strong></p> <p></p> <p><em><strong>Strengths</strong></em></p> <p>This team has fantastic pitching and good depth. There’s not one starter out there who jumps out as a true ace (assuming Kris Medlen is, in fact, mortal), but there are so many good choices that even if someone doesn’t develop, there should be internal options available. It’s also possible that one (or more) of these guys takes a big step forward this year into that role.</p> <p>I really like the signing of B.J. Upton here. Upton’s not great at any one thing, but he’s got a broad base of skills that should age well (Next year will be Upton’s age 28 season, so he’s probably still got some prime years left). Upton adds to what was already a strong defense (they finished 1st in the NL last year in Defensive Efficiency), and the only real defensive liability is Uggla, who should be moved to left field if it weren’t so damn hard to find a good second baseman these days.</p> <p>This is good team, a young team and an athletic team that should be just as competitive in 2013 as it was in 2012.</p> <p><strong><em>Weaknesses</em></strong></p> <p>The much-vaunted pitching depth collapsed last year with injuries to almost every one of their young starters forcing them to deploy Emergency Plan “B. for Ben Sheets.'” Their offense is solid, but the only reliably plus hitter the Braves have is Heyward. Uggla, McCann and Prado could surprise me as strong supporting players. However, it would be nice for the Braves to get a solid bat for left field, even if that player isn’t a defensive gem (although there aren’t many of those guys left). And losing David Ross does actually hurt the team.</p> <p><strong><em>Projection</em></strong></p> <p>Just back of the Nats in the race for the division title.</p> <h3 align="center">MIAMI MARLINS</h3> <p align="center"><strong>2012 W-L: </strong>69-93</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Per Game: </strong>3.76 (15th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Allowed Per Game: </strong>4.47 (12th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>Key Losses: </strong>Their dignity</p> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Lineup:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B:  Logan Morrison</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B:  Donovan Solano</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS:  Adeiny Hechevarria</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B:  Placido Polanco</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF:  Juan Pierre</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF:  Justin Ruggiano</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF:  Giancarlo Stanton</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C:  Jeff Mathis</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Pitching Staff:</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Starters:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Ricky Nolasco</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Nate Eovaldi</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Henderson Alvarez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Jacob Turner</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Wade LeBlanc?</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>Closer: Steve Cishek</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Strengths:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">It takes a lot to look on the bright side here, especially at the major league level. Giancarlo Stanton is a superstar, so there’s that. Logan Morrison can hit, (I’m projecting him at first base since the team signed Juan Pierre, but that’s just a guess). Hechevarria might be decent. There’s some promise with Eovaldi and Turner.</p> <p align="left">I got nothin’.</p> <p align="left"><em><strong>Weaknesses</strong></em></p> <p align="left">Their owner and team president (with an assist from Uncle Bud) perpetrated a protection racket on the state of Florida and didn’t even follow through with the actual protection.</p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Projection:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">“What are you saying? You want us to lose?”</p> <p align="left">“No. We’ve been losing. What I want is for us to finish dead last.”</p> <p align="left">-- <em>Major League</em></p> <h3 align="center">NEW YORK METS</h3> <p align="center"><strong>2012 W-L: </strong>74-88</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Per Game: </strong>4.01 (12th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Allowed Per Game: </strong>4.38 (11th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>Key Losses: </strong>That R.A. guy … whatever</p> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Lineup:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B:  Ike Davis</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B:  Daniel Murphy</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS:  Ruben Tejada</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B:  David Wright</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF:  ???</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF:  Andres Torres</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF:  Lucas Duda</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C:  Josh Thole/John Buck</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Pitching Staff</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Starters:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Johan Santana</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Matt Harvey</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Jonathon Niese</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Dillon Gee</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Zack Wheeler?</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>Closer: Frank Francisco</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Strengths:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">That starting rotation may be risky, but it has a lot of promise. Harvey and Wheeler, in particular, could give the Mets the best 1-2 punch they’ve had in a long time (although I wouldn’t expect Wheeler to see much time in the majors in 2013).</p> <p align="left">The offense, however, is pretty bad and not likely to get much better. On the plus side? Well, other than the question mark that is Ike Davis, the infield is pretty solid. </p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Weaknesses:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">There is a lot of risk in the pitching staff, and not just with the young players. Johan looked awful down the stretch. The bullpen was an abomination, but that might actually be good news, since it’s bound to bounce back somewhat.</p> <p align="left">I mentioned the Mets had a solid infield, but the outfield is a wreck. Duda isn’t awful, but that’s not much of a compliment, and I don’t know who the Mets expect to give them quality production in left and center. Maybe Jordany Valdespin can bring back some magic and make home runs magically appear or saw Mr. Met in half.</p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Projection:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">Generally mediocre, but with some cautious optimism. If they can dig up a hitter or two, they might even finish above .500.</p> <h3 align="center">PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES</h3> <p align="center"><strong>2012 W-L: </strong>81-81</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Per Game: </strong>4.22 (8th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Allowed Per Game: </strong>4.20 (8th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>Key Losses: </strong>Shane Victorino, Placido Polanco</p> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Lineup:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B:  Ryan Howard</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B:  Chase Utley</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS:  Jimmy Rollins</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B:  Michael Young</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF:  John Mayberry, Jr.?</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF:  Ben Revere</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF:  Domonic Brown</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C:  Carlos Ruiz</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Pitching Staff</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Starters:</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Cole Hamels</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Cliff Lee</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Roy Halladay</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Kyle Kendrick</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>John Lannan?</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>Closer: Jonathan Papelbon</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Strengths:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">There’s still enough upside here for Phillie fans to dream on. The Phillies gave up a lot to get Ben Revere, but he does give them their only real plus defender. That, plus the possibility of Ryan Howard getting healthy and Domonic Brown just being left alone, it’s not too crazy to see an above-average offense here.</p> <p align="left">The pitching staff looks good, although they may look to add depth at the back of the rotation (and no, Lannan doesn’t count). Papelbon is overpaid, but he is still good, and the bullpen isn’t such a concern. Hamels is an ace, Halladay is still pretty close even as he ages, and Cliff Lee just had one of the best seasons ever for a guy who only won 6 games.</p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Weaknesses:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">There’s no one in the lineup who I can reasonably expect to be both healthy and productive for any significant length of time. Howard’s getting older and doesn’t mash like he used to, ditto for Rollins (who can at least still field) and Utley may never play more than 120 games again. I might have considered Ruiz, but then there’s the possibility that his spike in offense was artificially enhanced, and he’ll be suspended 25 games no matter what. Even with the addition of a young and vibrant center fielder, this lineup is held together by masking tape and memories. They may have one last hurrah left, but that’s hoping for a lot of stars to align.</p> <p align="left">Halladay is entering his age 36 season, while Lee will be in his age 34 season. Halladay showed some signs of breaking down in 2012, and while I don’t want to underestimate him, it may be that the old Roy Halladay isn’t coming back. That puts a lot of pressure on Lee, who is also getting older, and means we may see more of Kyle Kendrick than is healthy for a Philadelphia sports fan.</p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Projection:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">Who knows? Maybe they win 85-88 and chase the Wild Card, or maybe they implode and win 70. I’ll split the difference and predict a merely decent season. Although they’ve got the money to change this forecast very quickly.</p> <h3 align="center">WASHINGTON NATIONALS</h3> <p align="center"><strong>2012 W-L: </strong>98-64</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Per Game: </strong>4.51 (5th in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>2012 Runs Allowed Per Game: </strong>3.67 (2nd in NL)</p> <p align="center"><strong>Key Losses: </strong>Edwin Jackson, Adam LaRoche (maybe)</p> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Lineup:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <div align="left"><strong>1B:  Mike Morse</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>2B:  Danny Espinosa</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>SS:  Ian Desmond</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>3B:  Ryan Zimmerman</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>LF:  Jayson Werth</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>CF:  Denard Span</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>RF:  Bryce Harper</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>C:  Wilson Ramos</strong></div> </li> </ul> <p align="left"><strong>2013 Projected Pitching Staff:</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Starters</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Stephen Strasburg</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Gio Gonzalez</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Jordan Zimmermann</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Dan Haren</strong></div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Ross Detwiler</strong></div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>Closer: Tyler Clippard</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Strengths:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">The best-case scenario is what happened in 2012. They had an offense that turned out to be much greater than the sum of its parts and a dominant pitching staff. Almost all of the key players are returning, and there’s a chance that the team adds another piece or two in free agency (if LaRoche returns, that adds maybe a win or two for 2013).</p> <p align="left">The Nats cleverly nabbed Denard Span at very little cost, which is a surprise considering the money (and prospects) being spent on similar center fielders this year. Span isn’t a great hitter, but he gets on base at a good clip and can handler center, plus his contract is very team-friendly.</p> <p align="left">It’s also worth pointing out that there is some room for improvement over 2012. Ryan Zimmerman didn’t have his best year, Wilson Ramos got injured, Bryce Harper is on the verge of mega-stardom and Strasburg will presumably be free to pitch a full workload. All good news.</p> <p align="left"><em><strong>Weaknesses:</strong></em></p> <p align="left">There were also a few guys who played above their heads, meaning that regression might hit hard – particularly in the lineup. Ian Desmond apparently discovered a big bag of offense in his garage, Espinosa prospered despite a low contact rate and Adam LaRoche had a career year. Whether these trends continue is questionable. I also don’t know how much of Gio Gonzalez’s leap forward is legit. There’s evidence of a change in the process that should account for some of it, but I don’t know if I’m really looking at a top-five pitcher when I look at him.</p> <p align="left"><strong><em>Projection:</em></strong></p> <p align="left">Not 98-game winners, but strong contenders for the division title.</p> <p align="left"><strong>NEXT UP:  </strong>The N.L. Central won’t have the Astros to kick around any more …</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-25194009571502615462013-01-02T21:28:00.001-05:002013-01-02T21:28:29.649-05:00Writing Again<p>Every once in a while, an opportunity comes up to write for another website. I’ll prepare an email introduction about myself, which I hope will communicate the following:</p> <ol> <li>I know things about baseball – and not just stat things, but bits of wisdom.</li> <li>I have a strong grasp of grammar and vocabulary.</li> <li>I am a funny person – but my humor enhances rather than detracts from my analysis.</li> <li>I would be a perfect fit for your website.</li> </ol> <p>Number four is a problem. I will inevitably offer links to some of the best stuff I’ve written over the years … which is a problem, because I haven’t written with any regularity for well over three years.</p> <p>… but other than that, dear editor, don’t you want to hire me?</p> <p>Why don’t I write as much as I used to? I’m tempted to resort to bullet form, but lest any unsuspecting editor happens to read this entry, I will make a go of it with prose.</p> <p>I’ve been honest in the past about my struggle with serious depression and anxiety. For a while there – not surprisingly, about the time I stopped writing – it became a crippling struggle. Getting out of bed, taking meds, finding a job, going to that job … well, that felt like it took up all the energy I had in my very soul, and I didn’t much enjoy it at that. Who has time for writing, anyhow?</p> <p>But that’s too pat an answer, and I’m afraid there are a few less noble reasons that I’ve stopped writing regularly. I came out of my depressive haze about two years ago, so that’s not longer an excuse. Although, like any habit, it’s hard to get started again once you’ve stopped for a while.</p> <p>My attention span has gotten shorter and shorter over the past few years, to the extent that I actually looked at the symptoms for ADD to see if I qualify (I don’t). That means less patience with long baseball games (and they are long, aren’t they?) and a preference for highlights, that bane of comprehensive analysis. I followed the Reds, who are on local cable, but damned if I knew much about other teams. I realized there were top-notch All-Star players that I wouldn’t recognize even if I saw them in uniform.</p> <p>It’s also possible that I just wrote so damn much from 2005-2008 that I had a whole lot less to say. When I started writing about baseball (back in 2003, in the privacy of my own Word file), it was because my thoughts could no longer be confined to my brain. And, like solving a math problem, I had to be able to work out the problem before me. I had to be able to see what was going on with these players, so I could learn analysis by doing it (and by reading others … I still do that, thank God).</p> <p>Recently, though? Well, last semester I started a Master’s program in History, taking two classes with enough reading and writing to make Tolstoy blush. I was also working a full-time job and playing the lead role in a production of <em>The Rivals</em> at the community theatre. I do have friends and no longer live in my mother’s basement, so I did watch movies and talk to other human beings and stuff.</p> <p>It’s no wonder that I didn’t want to write after reading pages upon pages of Kenneth Pomeranz’s <em>The Great Divergence</em>, a book so dry that flipping through the pages is a fire hazard.</p> <p>So … that’s my alibi. But an alibi is all it is. After all, I do still want to be a writer (unless grad school kills it for me), and what kind of writer doesn’t write? Can I allow the Pomeranzes of the world to deny me a chance to mock Tim McCarver’s announcing? My God, man, I went the whole postseason without making fun of Delmon Young! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!</p> <p>I don’t go in for New Year’s resolution and all that nonsense. I won’t make a resolution to start writing in the blog again, because I’ve made those before. I will replace resolutions with action, as well as a determination to do whatever is necessary to take back the things I enjoy and make them my own again.</p> <p>Because you never know – an editor may be watching.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-60016628361388410532012-12-15T14:20:00.001-05:002012-12-15T14:20:32.914-05:002012 in Review<p>In which I revisit my preseason picks and marvel at the credibility one man can sacrifice in a year.</p> <h4 align="center">NATIONAL LEAGUE</h4> <p><strong>My NL East Predictions:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Philadelphia Phillies </strong>(90-72) </li> <li><strong>Miami Marlins* </strong>(86-76) </li> <li><strong>Atlanta Braves </strong>(84-78) </li> <li><strong>Washington Nationals </strong>(79-83) </li> <li><strong>New York Mets </strong>(65-97) </li> </ol> <p><strong>What REALLY happened:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Washington Nationals </strong>(98-64) <em><font color="#008000">+19 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Atlanta Braves* </strong>(94-78) <em><font color="#008000">+8 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Philadelphia Phillies </strong>(81-81) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>9 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>New York Mets </strong>(74-88) <em><font color="#008000">+9 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Miami Marlins </strong>(69-93) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>17 wins</em></font> </li> </ol> <p>This is an all-around misfire. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p>I underestimated the collapse of old age in Philly while overestimating the impact of some free agents in Miami. I underestimated the Braves – <em>my </em>Braves – I guess because I wasn’t confident in the offense. And the Nationals took us all by surprise; I actually thought I was being generous by putting them so close to .500. Oops.</p> <p><strong>My NL Central Predictions:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Cincinnati Reds </strong>(91-71) </li> <li><strong>St. Louis Cardinals* </strong>(89-73) </li> <li><strong>Milwaukee Brewers </strong>(84-78) </li> <li><strong>Pittsburgh Pirates </strong>(78-84) </li> <li><strong>Chicago Cubs </strong>(73-89) </li> <li><strong>Houston Astros </strong>(63-99) </li> </ol> <p><strong>What REALLY happened:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Cincinnati Reds </strong>(97-65) <em><font color="#008000">+6 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>St. Louis Cardinals* </strong>(88-74) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>1 win</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Milwaukee Brewers </strong>(83-79) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>1 win</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Pittsburgh Pirates </strong>(79-83) <em><font color="#008000">+1 win</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Chicago Cubs </strong>(61-101) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>12 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Houston Astros </strong>(55-107) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>8 wins</em></font> </li> </ol> <p>Redemption! I did far, far better in the Central Division, getting the order of finish exactly right. I tend to be cautious when predicting extreme performances, which is why I was a little bearish on the Reds and gave the Cubs and Astros the benefit of the doubt.</p> <p><strong>My NL West Predictions:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>San Francisco Giants </strong>(83-79) </li> <li><strong>Los Angeles Dodgers </strong>(81-81) </li> <li><strong>Arizona Diamondbacks </strong>(80-82) </li> <li><strong>Colorado Rockies </strong>(78-84) </li> <li><strong>San Diego Padres </strong>(66-96) </li> </ol> <p><strong>What REALLY happened:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>San Francisco Giants </strong>(94-68)<font color="#008000"> <em>+11 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Los Angeles Dodgers </strong>(86-76) <em><font color="#008000">+5 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Arizona Diamondbacks </strong>(81-81)<font color="#008000"> <em>+1 win</em></font> </li> <li><strong>San Diego Padres </strong>(76-86) <em><font color="#008000">+10 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Colorado Rockies </strong>(64-98) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>14 wins</em></font> </li> </ol> <p>I did pretty well at the top of the division. The Giants really played to the top of their potential in 2012, with very few things going wrong. Even those problems they did have (Lincecum screwed up, corner outfield problems), just about everything else went according to plan.</p> <p>The Padres’ run of success at the end of the season went well beyond my expectations, while the Rockies are looking like the most hopeless franchise in the league. San Diego may be turning things around, but it’s going to be a long, slow trip for Colorado.</p> <p align="center"><strong>MY NL Postseason/Awards Predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>NLCS: Reds over Phillies</strong></p> <p>Not a bad choice, all in all.</p> <p><strong>NL MVP: Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins</strong></p> <p>If 1) the Marlins had actually contended, and 2) Stanton had stayed healthy, this might have happened.</p> <p><strong>NL Cy Young: Cole Hamels, Phillies</strong></p> <p>Hamels was excellent.</p> <p><strong>NL Rookie of the Year: Devin Mesoraco, Reds</strong></p> <p>Mesoraco struggled in what playing time he did receive. </p> <h4 align="center">AMERICAN LEAGUE</h4> <p><strong>MY AL East Predictions:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>New York Yankees </strong>(93-69) </li> <li><strong>Boston Red Sox* </strong>(89-73) </li> <li><strong>Tampa Bay Rays </strong>(86-76) </li> <li><strong>Toronto Blue Jays </strong>(82-80) </li> <li><strong>Baltimore Orioles </strong>(68-94) </li> </ol> <p><strong>What REALLY happened:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>New York Yankees </strong>(95-67) <em><font color="#008000">+2 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Baltimore Orioles* </strong>(93-69) <em><font color="#008000">+25 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Tampa Bay Rays </strong>(90-72) <em><font color="#008000">+4 wins</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Toronto Blue Jays </strong>(73-89)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>9 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Boston Red Sox </strong>(69-93)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>20 wins</em></font> </li> </ol> <p>Pass.</p> <p><strong>My AL Central Predictions:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Detroit Tigers </strong>(91-71) </li> <li><strong>Cleveland Indians </strong>(83-79) </li> <li><strong>Kansas City Royals </strong>(78-84) </li> <li><strong>Minnesota Twins </strong>(74-88) </li> <li><strong>Chicago White Sox </strong>(70-92) </li> </ol> <p><strong>What REALLY happened:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Detroit Tigers </strong>(88-74) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>3 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Chicago White Sox </strong>(85-77)<font color="#008000"> <em>+15 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Kansas City Royals </strong>(72-90) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>6 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Cleveland Indians </strong>(68-94)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>15 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Minnesota Twins </strong>(66-96) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>8 wins</em></font> </li> </ol> <p>I can usually remember what I was thinking when I made my preseason predictions. But I have no f’ing clue why I thought the Indians would finish second. Nor do I know what I picked the Sox to finish last, behind the Twins. I’m funny that way.</p> <p><strong>My AL West Predictions:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Los Angeles Angels </strong>(96-66) </li> <li><strong>Texas Rangers* </strong>(93-69) </li> <li><strong>Seattle Mariners </strong>(76-86) </li> <li><strong>Oakland Athletics </strong>(68-94) </li> </ol> <p><strong>What REALLY happened:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Oakland Athletics </strong>(94-68)<font color="#008000">  <em>+26 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Texas Rangers* </strong>(93-69) <em><font color="#0000ff">Exactly Right!</font></em> </li> <li><strong>Los Angeles Angels </strong>(89-73) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>7 wins</em></font> </li> <li><strong>Seattle Mariners </strong>(75-87) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>1 win</em></font> </li> </ol> <p>The A’s had what looked like a pretty marginal offense made up of cast-offs. Their pitching staff was a bunch of rookies, an injury-prone Brett Anderson and Brandon McCarthy, and Bartolo Colon. Who knew? (Not I, obviously.)</p> <p align="center"><strong>MY NL Postseason/Awards Predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>ALCS: Angels over Yankees</strong></p> <p>Well, I had the Yankees losing, which is always a comfort.</p> <p><strong>World Series: Angels over Reds</strong></p> <p>Would’ve been fun.</p> <p><strong>AL MVP: Albert Pujols, Angels</strong></p> <p>Sadly, Albert lost a step.</p> <p><strong>AL Cy Young: Clay Buchholz, Red Sox</strong></p> <p>I went out on a limb, which snapped, leaving me to fall down the tree and hit every branch on my way down.</p> <p><strong>AL Rookie of the Year: Yu Darvish, Rangers</strong></p> <p>Darvish finished second to “Force of Nature” Trout</p> <p align="center">********</p> <p align="left">I’ll be back in late March to make a fool of myself once again.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-27485543621663392232012-12-15T13:47:00.001-05:002012-12-15T14:20:02.230-05:00NBR: Clash of the Champions 3<p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXVII: June 23, 1994</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Championship Unification Match <br />Sting (NWA International Champion) .vs. Ric Flair (WCW Heavyweight Champion)</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>“</strong>Sensational” Sherri comes out and goes to Sting’s corner. RIP Sherri.</p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left">They’re playing up the fact that Flair has been spooked by the arrival of Hulk Hogan. Indeed, Hogan is the third man in the match, and that’s not a good thing. </p> <p align="left">Sting accidentally hits Sherri, and in the confusion Flair gets the pin. Not to anyone’s surprise, but Sherri was with Flair all along. Sherri and Flair double-team Sting, and Sting gets saved by … Hogan. Oh, I weep for the future of WCW.</p> <p align="left">* 1/2</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXVIII: August 24, 1994</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>WCW U.S. Championship Match <br />”Stunning” Steve Austin (Champion) .vs. Ricky “The Dragon” Steamboat</strong></p> <p align="left">The pacing of this match isn’t great. That’s kinda nit-picky, I know.</p> <p>Nice sequence there at the end with Steamboat winning the match.</p> <p>***</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXXII: January 23, 1996</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Hulk Hogan & Randy “Macho Man” Savage w/ Miss Elizabeth & Kevin Greene .vs. Ric Flair & The Giant w/ Jimmy Hart</strong></p> <p align="left">It’s funny to think that Hogan, who was supposed to be the savior of WCW, got stuck in god-awful matches against the Giant (which were more Hogan’s fault than the Giant’s) with terrible booking, whereas Randy Savage started a feud with Ric Flair that actually drew pretty darn well in early ‘96. And I don’t really need to tell you that the matches were better.</p> <p align="left">Kevin Greene … yeah, that whole thing didn’t work. I know Dennis Rodman was a PR coup for WCW, but the rest of their attempts at pro sports/pop culture crossovers were pretty sorry.</p> <p align="left">The Giant beat Hogan for the WCW Title by disqualification, as Hogan’s manager Jimmy Hart turned on Hogan and inserted a “DQ clause” in the contract that let Hogan lose the belt that way. If that’s not the most pussy way to lose a title I’ve ever seen, I don’t know what is. And while I do blame Hogan somewhat, the real blame lies with Bischoff & co. for a) signing a contract that gave Hogan creative control in the first place and b) approving such godawful storylines that made their company look like crap.</p> <p align="left">About what you’d expect. Savage hits the elbow on Flair, but Hart interferes. but Flair hits Savage with the knux with the referee’s back turned. Flyin’ Brian and (snicker) Zodiac come out, but Hogan and Kevin Greene dispose of them. Embarassing.</p> <p align="left">1/2*</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXXIII: August 13, 1996</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Medusa .vs. Bull Nakano w/ Sonny Onoo</strong></p> <p align="left">I know there were a lot of lady wrestlers who were big in Japan and got the fanboys chattering. I never saw it.</p> <p align="left">It’s always sad when the referee obviously sees what he’s not supposed to see. And then he has to pretend that he didn’t see it, and everyone loses credibility.</p> <p align="left">I guess they wanted a lady match on here for balance. Whatevs.</p> <p align="left">0 stars</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXXIII: August 13, 1996</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Match for the Battlebowl Ring … because …. something <br />Eddie Guerrero .vs. Diamond Dallas Page</strong></p> <p align="left">Decent match. Eddie wins with the frog splash. </p> <p align="left">I can’t believe we had a match about a frickin’ ring.</p> <p align="left">* 1/2</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXXIII: August 13, 1996</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>WCW Tag Team Championship Triple-Threat Tag Match</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Sting & Lex Luger .vs. Steiner Brothers .vs. Harlem Heat w/Sherri</strong></p> <p align="left">Col. Parker walks out alone to join Sherri at ringside.</p> <p align="left">Disappointing.</p> <p align="left">**</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXXIV: January 21, 1997</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>WCW Cruiserweight Championship <br />Ultimo Dragon (Champion) w/ Sonny Onoo .vs. Dean Malenko</strong></p> <p align="left">Dusty was an underrated color commentator.</p> <p align="left">The Dragon gets a chance to perform the Asai moonsault; or as the Dragon calls it, the “Me'” moonsault.</p> <p align="left">Good match.Dragon submits to the Texas cloverleaf.</p> <p align="left">***</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXXV: August 21, 1997</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>WCW Cruiserweight Championship <br />Chris Jericho (Champion).vs. Eddie Guerrero</strong></p> <p align="left">Not bad, but only about half the match these two are capable of.</p> <p align="left"><strong>WCW World Tag Team Championship <br />Diamond Dallas Page & Lex Luger .vs. Scott Hall & Randy “Macho Man” Savage w/ nWo (sans Hogan)</strong></p> <p align="left">Kevin Nash announces that the World Tag Team Championship will be on the line, even though the Outsiders are the champions. Such was the ability of WCW to screw with the rules just a little too much, making title changes and such just seem random.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-57901360272203700802012-10-02T15:57:00.001-04:002012-10-02T15:57:37.757-04:00NBR: Clash of the Champions 2<p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XII: September 5, 1990</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>NWA U.S. Heavyweight Title <br />Lex Luger (Champion) .vs. Ric Flair</strong></p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left">Luger’s intro includes a clip from a cage match with Flair. Much better choice than his cage match with Bruiser Brody.</p> <p align="left">JR’s always big on talking up a guy’s college stats, but this is a first: Luger graduated with a 3.7 GPA.</p> <p align="left">I won’t say Flair is carrying Luger here, but … uh … reference to a thing that carries things. </p> <p align="left">Stan Hansen kicks the hell out of Luger to end the match.</p> <p align="left">** 1/2</p> <p align="center">CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XV: June 12, 1991</p> <p align="left">Fabulous Freebirds (Michael Hayes & Jimmy Garvin) & Badstreet w/ Big Daddy Dink, Diamond Dallas Page and a “Diamond Doll” .vs. <br />The Young Pistols & Z-Man</p> <p align="left">I don’t know who Badstreet is, other than some jabroni in a mask and a dumb outfit. And without Googling, I don’t know who the Young Pistols are, except that they’re announced as “Steve and Tracy.” Tracy Smothers, perhaps? Was there a Steve Armstrong? I need to Google that. (No, JR confirms that I have those names right.)</p> <p align="left">Boy, for all the flash the Freebirds have, there’s not much “there” there. Hayes worked best as the talker alongside Gordy and Buddy Roberts. And you’ve got two managers and a lady outside. </p> <p align="left">That damn WCW ring is too small. It was always too small.</p> <p align="left">JR tells us that PN News has Salt n’ Pepa with him tonight. Now, THAT I wish I could see.</p> <p align="left">A three-way sunset flip ends up, with the Pistols and Zenk victorious. Yipes.</p> <p align="left">1/2 *</p> <p align="center">CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XVI: September 5, 1991</p> <p align="left">BATTLE ROYALE: El Gigante, PN News, Big Josh, Barry Windham, One Man Gang, Z-Man, “Stunning” Steve Austin, Dustin Rhodes, Bobby Eaton, Tracy Smothers, Sgt. Buddy Lee Parker, Tommy (Thomas) Rich, Terry (Terrence) Taylor, Ranger Ross and The Great and Powerful Oz</p> <p align="left">I’m getting the names as best I can. The only entrance they showed was El Gigante’s.</p> <p align="left">This is my first live-action look at PN News. He is a blob of … stuff. What possessed them to give him a push, I haven’t a clue.</p> <p align="left">El Gigante wins. As far as he goes … you’d think a company with all of Ted Turner’s money would understand the concept of a sunk cost. You’ve blown millions on bringing this man to the US as a basketball player. That money is gone. It will not come back. Foisting him upon a wrestling company does nothing to help. I guess the concept of Gigante as a wrestler isn’t odious, but once it’s clear that he has no talent, you should just get rid of him.</p> <p align="left">The only thing worse would be if someone with no financial stake in the man would give him more money after he had clearly shown his inability to help a wrestling company in every possible manner. No who would be that stupid? Hint: he dressed him in a Slim Goodbody-ish nude bodysuit.</p> <p align="center">CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XVII: November, 19, 1991</p> <p align="left">WCW US Heavyweight Title <br />Sting (Champion) .vs. “Ravishing” Rick Rude w/ Paul E. Dangerously</p> <p align="left">Rude’s WCW music was even more porno-rific than his WWF tune.</p> <p align="left">Sting was evidently attacked earlier in the evening, enabling him to make a heroic return just in time for the main event, bad leg and all.</p> <p align="left">Rude should have gotten a fair shot at the WWF Title.</p> <p align="left">Rude hooks the tights and wins. Eh. I hope the return match gave these guys a real chance to shine.</p> <p align="left">* 1/2</p> <p align="center">CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXIII: June 17, 1993</p> <p align="left">WCW World Tag Team Championship <br />2 Out of 3 Falls <br />Ric Flair & Arn Anderson .vs. The Hollywood Blondes</p> <p align="left">Full disclosure: I might have something of an erection right now.</p> <p align="left">Austin mocks Anderson, miming a big gut. This guy was ust magic. “We Want Flair” chant begins. BIG pop when Flair tags in. It’s so unusual to see Austin sell like a cowardly heel. He really could do anything.</p> <p align="left">Thanks for your lawsuit, Jesse Ventura; now we have to listen to Tony Schiavone and awkward silence.</p> <p align="left">We don’t even get to the heat until about eight minutes in. How weird does Arn Anderson feel getting the heat put on <em>him</em>?</p> <p align="left">Yeah, the crowd is <em>right there </em>with them in this match. Fall #1 goes to the Horsemen. </p> <p align="left">Fall #2 is a bit more methodical than I would like. Even worse, it ends with a DQ when Barry Windham interferes, but the title can’t change hands on a DQ, blah blah blah.</p> <p align="left">What these guys could have done in a real blow-off barn-burner.</p> <p align="left">** 1/2</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXV: November 10, 1993</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Flyin’ Brian Pillman .vs. “Stunning” Steve Austin w/ Col. Rob Parker</strong></p> <p align="left">Yet another match with 50% commentary. Sounds like a conspiracy …</p> <p align="left">Disappointing.</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS XXVI: January 27, 1994</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>WCW Television Title Match <br />Lord Steven Regal (Champion) w/ Sir William .vs. Dustin Rhodes</strong></p> <p>My problem with Regal’s heel wrestling style at this point in his career is that it involves so much stalling. Yes, that’s typical for your snotty heel, but it really doesn’t work as well on TV. It also doesn’t complement his deliberate in-ring style, which is high-quality, but gets overly deliberate very quickly. I will note that I feel like Regal adapted his style much better during his WWF stint in the early 2000’s.</p> <p>You know, that Steven Regal is a real man’s man.</p> <p>Yessir … deliberate.</p> <p>Time limit draw.</p> <p>* 1/2</p> <p><strong>Elimination Tag Team Match <br />Sting & Ric Flair .vs. “Ravishing” Rick Rude & Big Van Vader w/ Harley Race</strong></p> <p>Vader appears to be wearing a white mink coat. Or is that ermine? It’s a touch out of character for Vader.</p> <p>Flair is the WCW Champion, whereas Rude is the International Champion. It’s a long story … well, not really long; just stupid.</p> <p>When Vader starts bouncing a man’s head off his forearms, it’s really sick in a darkly enjoyable way. It actually doesn’t look as good as a big punch, but I bet it hurts like a motherf*cker. I seem to recall Mick Foley expressing that opinion.</p> <p>Flair and Vader get counted out, which kinda sucks the big one. There’s a nice exchange between Vader and Race on one hand and new WCW Commissioner Nick Bockwinkel, who stops Vader from taking a chair in the ring.</p> <p>There seem to be several near-misses and confused half-measures in this match. Not at all what I expected from these pros.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-72464657857999222352012-10-02T15:29:00.001-04:002012-10-02T15:29:55.372-04:00NBR: Smacking Down Bad Historians<p>My response to Chapter 12 of <em>Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream</em> by Lerone Bennett, Jr. Excerpted from a message board discussion for a graduate history class at Western Kentucky University.</p> <p>Mark -- <br />I heartily agree with you. Bennett commits a number of crimes against critical thinking and honest discourse in his often smarmy effort to destroy what he considers to be the Lincoln myth. <br />Bennett believes that you cannot give much credence to what Lincoln said about ending slavery, since his words did not always match his political actions. There is a good deal of truth there, but Bennett undercuts himself since his greatest weapon against the Lincoln myth are Lincoln's words. Bennett bludgeons us with quotes from Lincoln's senatorial campaign (particularly on page 249), urging us to take Lincoln's words about white supremacy at face value. So according to Bennett, when Lincoln spoke of white supremacy his words should be wholly believed, but when he spoke of equality and emancipation, he was simply politicking. In other words, you should only believe Lincoln when it serves Bennett's thesis. This is confirmation bias at its worst. <br />Also, the Lincoln "myth" that Bennett attacks is an utter straw man argument; Bennett uses Dr. Seuss-ish parallelism in a juvenile attempt to attack Lincoln -- "He said it in Illinois. He said it in Michigan. He said it in Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, and New York. He said it everywhere." (Bennett, 249). (Bennett also claims on page 248 that during one speech Lincoln said it "in capitals," although I have yet to determine how someone can SAY something in capitals). Bennett says all of this to convince us that Lincoln was a racist in 1858. Among serious historians, though, that matter isn't really in dispute. <br />Bennett refers dismissively and in patronizing tones to "Carl Sandburg wannabes," (251) and the "fallacies of Lincoln historiography and museumography" (252) -- but not ONCE does Bennett actually quote anyone who is perpetuating the Lincoln myth that is, according to him, all-pervasive. Also on page 252, he refers to the shortcomings of "so many Lincoln enthusiasts" and yet refuses to name a real-life person. On page 254, Bennett attacks the myths that he sneeringly claims "that every schoolchild knows" (254) even though I am myself a schoolchild and didn't know that particular myth. On page 257, he refers dismissively to the "mythologists" while still leaving the reader wondering just who these bogeymen are. <br />As if that weren't enough, Bennett has the gall to claim that these Lincoln myths are perpetuated by a conspiracy among the white historical establishment. Lincoln loved the Constitution, "as almost every major white historian says" (Ibid., 260) -- a ridiculous claim that is not backed up. Perhaps the problem is that "twentieth-century scholars find it so difficult to decipher the Lincoln code in the white silence of their libraries." (Ibid., 264). Bennett's insinuation that the historiography of Lincoln is protected by a conspiracy within a racist historical establishment -- an insinuation that names no names and offers no evidence -- sullies the reputation of the many historians who have done so much to further our understanding of the period. The "white silence" he refers to is a myth that is easily dispelled by the works we've read so far in this class, which offer many different interpretations of Lincoln's character and attitudes, many of which are quite critical of his mythical role as the Great Emancipator. Not only that, but his depiction of the discipline as an insular white enclave is an insult to the diverse group of historians -- many of whom are African American -- who have added to the understanding of the period and been widely recognized and praised as having done so. <br />As if all this weren't enough, I wasn't able to find one Lincoln quote that was dated after September 1862, when Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Here Bennett has egregiously cherry-picked his data to make his argument seem stronger than it is. When you confine your work to pre-1862, it's much easier to make Lincoln look like an anti-emancipation racist. What Bennett is essentially telling us is that before Lincoln believed in emancipation, he didn't believe in emancipation. That he is able to take such a facile argument and add nothing but the most obnoxious cynicism -- "for the hard of hearing and those with reading difficulties" (Ibid., 262) is offensive. Any credibility behind Bennett's argument is therefore destroyed.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-60080230552356720832012-09-19T23:08:00.001-04:002012-09-19T23:08:05.500-04:00NBR: Clash of the Champions Part 1<p>Collected thoughts while watching the new WWE DVD Set The Best of Clash of the Champions.</p> <p>It’s so great to see Dusty Rhodes in promo mode.  It’s still spellbinding.</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS I: March 27, 1988</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>NWA World Championship Match: </strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Ric Flair w/ J.J. Dillon (Champion) .vs. Sting</strong></p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left">JJ will be in a cage suspended from the air. Your time limit is 45 minutes. </p> <p align="left">Your judges at ringside include Jason Hervey and the guy who played Eddie Haskell in <em>Leave it to Beaver</em>. Why are there judges for a wrestling match? Because TBS can’t run a fucking wrestling company without fucking something up.</p> <p align="left">We start off slow and steady, presumably to make sure Sting’s stamina lasts 45 minutes. Ric Flair, of course, invented stamina.</p> <p align="left">Your crowd, by the way, is HOT. I mean, hot like “1980s, no-bullshit” hot.</p> <p align="left">Five minutes in and JR has already referenced the Oklahoma Sooners.</p> <p align="left">Flair won the world title, like, 16 times, right? Now, a pessimist would point out that he also lost it 16 times. I, however, would argue that while it’s hard to win a world title, it’s a LOT harder to lose one and stay on top of the wrestling world long enough to get another shot. Flair had 16 shots. Kevin Nash held the WWF title for a whole year one time before he lost it. Kevin Nash was not good at losing. Flair was good enough to do it 16 times.</p> <p align="left">The ring announcer tells the crowd that 5 minutes have elapsed. 45 minute Broadway.</p> <p align="left">We’re working the headlock here, which isn’t thrilling me nearly as much as the live crowd. Next comes a bearhug. Bearhugs don’t really work when both guys are about the same size. You need a giant or a fat man.</p> <p align="left">Yes, I’m being very critical. No, it’s not fair. These guys are both really good, but they’re not at their best here. I shouldn’t have come in expecting to see The Match That Made Sting.</p> <p align="left">Time limit draw, so the judges get to decide who wins. No, fans, this isn’t fucking boxing. Judges rule Flair, naturally. </p> <p align="left">Call it *** maybe *** 1/2 before the ending</p> <p align="left"><strong>NWA World Tag Team Championship <br />Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard w/ J.J. Dillon (Champions) .vs. <br />Barry Windham & Lex Luger</strong></p> <p align="left">“YOU would have gotten over better than Luger. Hell, everybody DID get over better than Luger …” <br />-- <em>Jim Cornette</em></p> <p align="left">Geez, I am critical. A positive note, then: this match is the best fit for Luger: he gets to knock people around, look really strong and let Barry Windham do the work.</p> <p align="left">Arn Anderson is announced as hailing from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Yes, I know that the Andersons were originally known as the Minnesota Wrecking Crew (I think that was Gene and Ole), and it’s not Arn’s fault that he inherited this gimmick. But listening to Arn talk, it doesn’t take long to realize that he ain’t from Minneapolis. Not that I would ever complain about listening to Arn Anderson talk.</p> <p align="left">Still, a HOT crowd. They are ABLAZE.</p> <p align="left">Arn Anderson is hilarious when he sells, and I mean that as a big compliment. It was always a treat to watch him sell a sunset flip.</p> <p align="left">Did any wrestler ever look the part of a bratty heel better than Tully Blanchard?</p> <p align="left">JR refers to a breakneck pace, and he really isn’t kidding; these guys haven’t stopped moving yet. There hasn’t been a dip in the energy level at all, which is a testament to how good these guys are.</p> <p align="left">JJ’s interference backfires, as Arn takes a chair to the head and takes the fall.</p> <p align="left">**** Maybe that’s not enough. No wasted movement here. </p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS II: June 8, 1988</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>NWA World Tag Team Championship <br />Arn Anderson & Tully Blanchard w/ J.J. Dillon (Champions) .vs. <br />Dusty Rhodes & Sting</strong></p> <p align="left">Dusty Rhodes … I wouldn’t believe it if I didn’t see it with my own eyes. He’s some kind of wonder. And he knows exactly what to do in the ring every minute.</p> <p align="left">Sting and Dusty toss the referee aside, and we get a DQ. After the match, Flair and Windham attack. Windham grabs Dusty with the claw (runs in the family) and doesn’t let go all the way to the back. Dusty blades for the claw! Of course, Dusty did a lot of blading.</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS III: September 7, 1988</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Russian Chain Match <br />Ricky Morton .vs. Ivan Koloff w/ Paul Jones</strong></p> <p align="left">I wonder how old Koloff is here. It’s hard to tell; Ivan may be one of those people who looks 50 at the age of 35. Granted, pro wrestling must play hell with a man’s aging curve.</p> <p align="left">How do you know it’s a Russian chain? Because if you’re Russian, you better quit Stalin. Better punch lines will be accepted by submission.</p> <p align="left">Ricky wins! I am surprised. Koloff gets jumped by Paul Jones and some masked Russian fellows after the match. I guess that’s his face turn, though I can’t picture Ivan Koloff as a babyface.</p> <p align="left">** 1/2</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS IX: November 15, 1989</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>“I Quit” Match <br />Ric Flair .vs. Terry Funk w/Gary Hart</strong></p> <p align="left">Terry was always a goofball. Actually, that statement doesn’t do justice to the special talent that was (is?) Terry Funk. I saw this man, live and in person, tell an audience of wrestling fans that as a child he wanted to brush his teeth like British wrestler Billy Robinson. And he demonstrated what that would look like.</p> <p align="left">Funk would have been in his 40s in ‘89, but he really doesn’t look it.</p> <p align="left">Your announcers are Jim Ross and Gordon Solie, which is a rare treat.</p> <p align="left">Flair is chopping the piss out of Funk.</p> <p align="left">Funk gives Flair a piledriver (which was still a big deal back then), But Flair still won’t quit. Funk even references Flair's broken back, an injury suffered in a 1970s plane crash that should have ended his career.</p> <p align="left">Figure four seals the deal, as Funk says the magic words. It’s so nice to see a clean finish to an “I Quit” match. Or any match at all, these days.</p> <p align="left">Funk insists on shaking Flair’s hand, as promised. Gary Hart is pissed. He punches out Funk. The Great Muta and … some guy called the Dragon Master come out and lay out Flair. Sting comes out to the rescue (!), but Lex Luger comes out to put a stop to that.</p> <p align="left">*** 1/2 – a little more deliberate than I would have liked.</p> <p align="center"><strong>CLASH of the CHAMPIONS X</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Mil Mascaras .vs. Cactus Jack Manson</strong></p> <p align="left">This one goes down exactly as described by Mick in his book, <em>Have a Nice Day!</em>. Mascaras is able to look really good by, as Mick said, walking on his tiptoes and sucking in his stomach. If ever there were a poor fit for a lucha match, it’s Mick Foley.</p> <p align="left">Yay! I actually get to see the book <em>I Am In Urgent Need of Advice</em>. I think this is one of the only matches I’ve ever seen from Mick’s first stint in WCW.</p> <p align="left">Just as described, Mick gives Mascaras a backbreaker on the outside, and Mascaras doesn’t even take a bump; he puts down his hands and eases his butt to the floor.</p> <p align="left">Mick takes the Nestea Plunge, and damn it looks scary. After all of this research into concussions and head injuries in the NFL, it’s harder for me to watch Mick Foley’s matches. Mick goes splat, taking a flat back bump right on the concrete. Skulls aren’t supposed to bounce like that.</p> <p align="left">*</p> <p align="left"><strong>US Tag Team Championship <br />Midnight Express w/Jim Cornette (Champions) .vs. Rock n’ Roll Express</strong></p> <p align="left">A lackluster match (by their standards, at least) that ends in a DQ.</p> <p align="left">***</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-8010486184926529382012-08-31T14:48:00.005-04:002012-08-31T14:48:55.328-04:00NBR: The happy slave?I've just started graduate work at Western Kentucky University, working toward an MA in History degree. One of my first classes is entitled The African-American experience during the Civil War.<br />
We were asked on our discussion board to what extent southerners were deluding themselves in claiming that slavery was a benign institution that the slaves themselves were content with. My response:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I wonder, though, how much of the southern talk of the "happy, contented
slave" was not a true belief but rather a conscious attempt to refute
the claims about the horrors of slavery made by the abolitionists. In
this sense, it may be that southerners were willing to tell the tales of
happiness on the plantation for practical reasons and as propaganda,
even if it wasn't a concept they honestly believed in.<br />Levine quotes
Confederate congressman Henry S. Foote as asking the question "If this
government is to destroy slavery, why fight for it?" (5). The basic idea
here - that arming slaves would prove destructive to the institution -
is very telling, I think, in that it disputes the very claim that the
slaves were happy and content. For if they were indeed so happy with
their masters and content with their station, why would it be a threat
to arm them? Wouldn't one suppose that they would fight hard and well
for a society that they loved? <br />Neither Foote nor any other
anti-emancipation Confederates quoted by Levine couched their opposition
in purely racist terms; there was fear not just that slaves would make
poor soldiers for reasons of race, but that arming slaves would produce
revolt. The modern observer must remember that a slave insurrection was
the greatest fear of the Confederacy, moreso perhaps than Yankee
domination.<br />The story of southern slavery - enforced illiteracy, the
absence of freedom of movement and communication, the harsh discipline
of the whip - all of these imply a slave population that must be forced into
their societal role. The idea that the slaves embraced their lot in
life is belied by the words and actions of their very masters. Levine
quotes an Atlanta editor who refers to the condition of slavery as "an
enviable one" (7), but a modern observer must question whether the
editor a) truly believes this, b) is trying to rationalize and sanctify
his own worldview or c) is cynically lying to make slavery seem more
acceptable.<br />All three options mentioned above - a, b and c - could
explain the words and deeds of many of the words spoken by southerners
on the slavery question. I'm inclined to believe that explanations B and
C may explain the actions of these people moreso than A. Or am I just
being cynical? What do you think?</i></blockquote>
The text referenced is <i>Confederate Emancipation </i>by Bruce Levine, University Press of Kansas.Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-46613769489495957972012-04-17T00:04:00.001-04:002012-04-17T00:08:17.147-04:0010 Things That Books (Not Movies) Taught Me About the Nazis<ol> <li> <h4>The decision to invade Russia was stupid only in retrospect.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>They weren’t emotionless drones.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>They weren’t a ruthlessly efficient killing machine.</h4> </li> <li> <h4><em>(Despite what George Bush might say) </em>Things aren’t easier in a dictatorship.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>Nazi ideology was … flexible.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>Along the lines of Point 5, the Nazis were neither Christian nor Atheist.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>The holocaust didn’t just happen in concentration camps.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>Despite the billion Hollywood movies about D-Day, north Africa, Italy and the Pacific, the deadliest (and arguably most important) front in the war was in Eastern Europe.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>Many westerners preferred Hitler to the Communists.</h4> </li> <li> <h4>Hitler’s early successes were the worst thing that could have happened to him.</h4> </li> </ol> <p><em><font size="4">Taken one at a time …</font></em></p> <a name='more'></a> <p><font size="2"><strong>1.  The decision to invade Russia was stupid only in retrospect.</strong></font></p> <p><font size="2">We can, with the benefit of hindsight, clearly see that, as I shall detail in Point 4, the ravages of the Eastern Front proved disastrous to all of Hitler’s schemes.  Everyone knows the reasons why it’s not a good idea to invade Russia, centering mainly on the fact that a) it’s fucking cold, and b) it’s a huge country.  There were many people within his own Inner Circle (particularly generals) who realized the potential for a great folly, but (as I’ll go into in Point 10), Hitler didn’t listen to those few who dared to object to Operation Barbarossa (the official name for the attack on Russia).</font></p> <p><font size="2">However, I’d like to point out three very sound, logical reasons for invading Russia that, in the Spring of 1941, made a rather compelling case for the invasion.</font></p> <p><font size="2"><em>One: The Russians had just fought a long, hard-fought and narrowly-won war against … Finland.  </em>Read that again if it seems a bit hard to fathom.  As the Russians swept west into Poland with the Nazis, they also eyed Finland as territory they felt should be re-incorporated into the Russian Empire.  The invasion of Poland went pretty well, so the Russians expected to breeze past the pitiful Finnish army.</font></p> <p><font size="2">And then they didn’t.  The Russian Army was vastly unprepared to fight the Finns, who used superior scouting and maneuverability to get the upper hand over the massive Russian forces.  It was a telling preview of Hitler’s invasion of Russia; Russian forces were not ready to navigate the frozen north, and neither were they tactically prepared to fight an unconventional war.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The Finns fought bravely, but ultimately had to give in to the inevitable, resulting in a Russian victory.  Still, the Russians had been outfoxed and supremely embarrassed in front of the whole world.  Hitler especially took note of the Soviet Army’s public shaming.  He reasoned, and not without cause, that if the Soviets had such a tough time against the Finns, they would be annihilated by the <em>Wehrmacht </em>(Germany Army).  The Soviets were clumsy and leaderless and surely wouldn’t be able to overcome German superiority, especially in the air.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Now, as to the “leaderless” issue …</font></p> <p><em><font size="2">Two: Stalin’s great purges of the 1937-1938 eviscerated the Army’s officer corps and left it extremely vulnerable.</font></em></p> <p><font size="2">Joseph Stalin was paranoid.  And in another grand understatement, the sun is hot.</font></p> <p><font size="2">In the 1930’s, Stalin became greatly suspicious of the officer corps in the Russian Army.  Never one to dally, Stalin started purging the Army of many of its best and most qualified leaders, arguing that they were plotting treason (doubtful) and that they were a threat to his leadership (possible).  Any figure of prominence from the Bolshevik past was fair game for the murderous dictator.  This paranoia (or ruthless practicality, more like) led to great show trials (perhaps the first “show trials” in the modern sense of the term).  This was no group of a dozen generals; Ronald Hingley, in his book <em>Russia: A Concise History</em>, numbers the casualties at “tens of thousands of officers, including the majority of those who held the rank of colonel and above (179).”</font></p> <p><font size="2">Here’s an idea:  try playing a game of chess with nothing but a king and 8 pawns.  This isn’t an inaccurate picture of the Russian Army in 1938, just three years before the Germans crossed the border.</font></p> <p><em><font size="2">Three, Stalin was not expecting an invasion, and it caught the Army by surprise.</font></em></p> <p><font size="2">In 1939, the Nazis and Soviets had signed a mutual Non-Aggression Pact, an event that seemed, to the rest of the world, as likely as George Bush and Saddam Hussein entering into a civil union.  Everyone knew that the Russians and Germans hated each other, and the only question seemed to be which leader would be the first to betray the other.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Stalin wasn’t expecting an invasion.  It’s unlikely that Stalin trusted Hitler, but it’s possible that he thought he could predict him.  It’s not that the German buildup went unnoticed; word was sent to Moscow from several different sources remarking on a general German buildup along the border.  <em>Horror in the East, a</em> BBC Documentary on the Eastern Front, mentions a telegram sent to Stalin trying to warn him of a possible invasion.  In his own hand, Stalin scrawled an obscenity on the note.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Hitler’s attempt at a surprise invasion succeeded, and the Nazis were at the outskirts of Moscow by November.  Was this really a stupid mistake?</font></p> <p><font size="2">As it turned out, yes.  Because although the three points outlined above were valid, Hitler also made a number of disastrous mistakes, including (but not limited to):</font></p> <ul> <li><font size="2">Not equipping his troops for the Russian winter.  Hitler’s dangerous optimism led him to believe that he could dispatch the Russians as quickly as he did the French. Again and again through the ensuing years, Hitler would refuse to consider even the possibility of a defeat, turning ordinary military setbacks into utter disasters. <br />The description of the German soldiers’ plight is horrific to read.  I never thought I’d ever come across the phrase “congelation of the anus,” but I did, in Michael J. Lyons’ <em>World War II:  A Short History </em>(123).  (FYI:  Don’t poop outside when it’s -60 Celsius.)</font> </li> <li><font size="2">Confused strategic aims that resulted in splitting his forces.  Hitler’s generals wanted him to choose between heading for Moscow and heading south for the rich oil fields in Georgia.  Hitler vacillated and ended up choosing both, creating a defensive line thousands of miles long that managed to fail at both objectives.  He blamed the generals (who were right below the Jews on the list of Hitler’s scapegoats).</font> </li> <li><font size="2">Underestimating Stalin.  Despite the Finnish setbacks, Stalin proved much better able to adapt military defeat than his German counterpart.  He recognized the need to delegate power (and trust) to competent generals, which he managed to do, most successfully with Georgi Zhukov.  He also learned from his Finnish misadventures; this was not the same army (nor the same leader) that had been embarrassed on the Arctic coast. <br />Hitler, by contrast, was never able to learn from his military setbacks, not only because of his refusal to accept any responsibility for them, but because he increasingly began to inhabit a protective bubble which the rules of war and reality could not penetrate.</font> </li> </ul> <p><font size="2">The Germans were at the outskirts of Moscow in the winter of 1941 and came perilously close to taking the city.  It’s interesting to imagine how the rest of the war would have played out had they accomplished their goal.  Would they have been able to take Stalingrad?  Could they have relocated troops to the Western Front in a final attempt to overwhelm Britain?</font></p> <p><font size="2">As for me, I can’t see the Germans winning the war even if they do take Moscow, mainly because Stalin would have kept fighting, extending their supply lines and probably employing the scorched earth policy that proved so successful in turning back Napoleon.  But that narrow miss in the winter of ‘41 may have shortened the war by as much as a year.</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2">---------</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="2">Seeing as Point 1 took much longer than I anticipated, I’ll be back later with the rest of the Points.</font></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-84391093521039887482012-04-16T22:15:00.001-04:002012-04-16T22:15:32.243-04:00Actors Robbed of an Oscar, Part 2<p>Once again, an asterisk indicates that the actor was nominated for, but did not win, an Oscar.</p> <ul> <li> <h4>Peter O’Toole, <em>My Favorite Year*</em></h4> </li> <a name='more'></a> <li>Really, I could have picked so many things, but I decided to go with <em>My Favorite Year </em>because Peter O’Toole creates such a brilliantly funny and memorable character.  O’Toole plays Alan Swann, a swashbuckling film legend fallen on hard times.  When he’s invited to guest star on a <em>Your Show of Shows</em>-esque TV program, his alcoholism and inner cowardice make him impossible to deal with, yet strikingly human. <br /> <br /><strong>SEE ALSO:  Peter O’Toole, <em>Lawrence of Arabia*; </em>Peter O’Toole, <em>Becket*; </em>Peter O’Toole, <em>The Last Emperor <br /></em></strong></li> <li><strong> <h4><strong>Cate Blanchett, <em>Elizabeth*</em></strong></h4> </strong>Gwyneth Paltrow was cute in <em>Shakespeare in Love</em>.  And it was a really fun movie.  But what she did was merely good.  And it’s what she typically does in movies.  She’s no Cate Blanchett. <br /> <br />Cate Blanchett is one of the best working actresses today.  She is not only beautiful, but she has terrific range and an incredible presence.  Many actresses have tackled Elizabeth, but I don’t know that anyone has achieved what Blanchett did in this film. <br /> <br />As is often the case with the Academy, Blanchett took home an Oscar for a much less deserving role, as Kate Hepburn in <em>The Aviator</em>.  She was good, but she was barely in the film. <br /> <br /><strong>SEE ALSO:  Cate Blanchett, <em>Notes on a Scandal* <br /></em></strong></li> <li><strong> <h4>Sydney Greenstreet<em>, The Maltese Falcon*</em></h4> </strong>Greenstreet’s role as The Fat Man in <em>The Maltese Falcon </em>is one of the landmark roles in the pantheon of character actors.  Peter Lorre is quite good as Joel Cairo, and Bogart is Bogart, but Greenstreet’s disarming charm and candor add a truly menacing tone to the film.  His presence comes not from his girth, but from confidence and humor. <br /> <br />Greenstreet lost the Oscar to Donald Crisp of <em>How Green Was My Valley</em>, a film whose acclaim truly puzzles me.  It beat out not just <em>Falcon </em>for Best Picture, but <em>Citizen Kane</em>.  Oops. <br /></li> <li> <h4>Jim Broadbent<em>, Moulin Rouge!</em></h4> I am dumbstruck that Broadbent wasn’t nominated for this film, a tremendously charming picture whose engine was Broadbent’s personality and life.  Anyone who casts an appreciative eye toward supporting actors has to consider Broadbent one of the best today. <br /> <br />The odd thing about this case is that Broadbent did win the Oscar for Supporting Actor that year – but for his role in <em>Iris</em>, a film I sadly have yet to see.  If he truly is better in <em>Iris </em>than he was in <em>Moulin Rouge! </em>I must rush to see it. <br /> <br /><strong>SEE ALSO:  Jim Broadbent, <em>Topsy Turvy; </em>Jim Broadbent, <em>Richard III</em>; Jim Broadbent, <em>Bullets over Broadway <br /></em></strong></li> <li><strong></strong><em><strong> <h4><strong>James Stewart, </strong><em><strong>Harvey*</strong></em></h4> </strong>Harvey </em>is an object lesson in the wonders of charm.  The script doesn’t have a lot of guffaws, some of the costars are trying too hard, and if you don’t look closely, you’ll miss the pooka. <br /> <br />But Jimmy Stewart is so perfect for the character of Elwood P. Dowd.  He achieves the tremendously difficult task of presenting a happy, unpretentious and uncomplicated man while still making him seem real.  He makes us want to be more like Elwood. <br /> <br />Jose Ferrer won the Oscar that year for <em>Cyrano de Bergerac</em>.  While I can’t deny Ferrer’s skill in portraying the bombastic Bergerac, I admire even more the tremendous subtlety and charm employed by Jimmy Stewart. <br /> <br /><strong>SEE ALSO:  James Stewart, <em>Mr. Smith Goes to Washington*; </em>James Stewart, <em>Rope <br /></em></strong></li> <li><strong>Emily Watson, <em>Breaking the Waves</em></strong> </li> </ul> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-84499954692024780412012-04-16T22:14:00.001-04:002012-04-16T22:14:40.671-04:002012 Predictions (Late)<p><strong>AL EAST</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>New York Yankees </strong>(93-69)</li> <li><strong>Boston Red Sox* </strong>(89-73)</li> <li><strong>Tampa Bay Rays </strong>(86-76)</li> <li><strong>Toronto Blue Jays </strong>(82-80)</li> <li><strong>Baltimore Orioles </strong>(68-94)</li> </ol> <p><strong>AL CENTRAL</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Detroit Tigers </strong>(91-71)</li> <li><strong>Cleveland Indians </strong>(83-79)</li> <li><strong>Kansas City Royals </strong>(78-84)</li> <li><strong>Minnesota Twins </strong>(74-88)</li> <li><strong>Chicago White Sox </strong>(70-92)</li> </ol> <p><strong>AL WEST</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Los Angeles Angels </strong>(96-66)</li> <li><strong>Texas Rangers* </strong>(93-69)</li> <li><strong>Seattle Mariners </strong>(76-86)</li> <li><strong>Oakland Athletics </strong>(68-94)</li> </ol> <p align="center"><strong>AL MVP:  Albert Pujols, Los Angeles Angels <br /></strong><strong>AL Cy Young:  Clay Buchholz, Boston Red Sox <br />AL Rookie of the Year:  Yu Darvish, Texas Rangers <br />ALCS:  Angels over Yankees <br />WS:  Angels over Reds</strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>NL EAST</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Philadelphia Phillies </strong>(90-72)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Miami Marlins* </strong>(86-76)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Atlanta Braves </strong>(84-78)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Washington Nationals </strong>(79-83)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>New York Mets </strong>(65-97)</div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>NL CENTRAL</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Cincinnati Reds </strong>(91-71)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>St. Louis Cardinals* </strong>(89-73)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Milwaukee Brewers </strong>(84-78)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Pittsburgh Pirates </strong>(78-84)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Chicago Cubs </strong>(73-89)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Houston Astros </strong>(63-99)</div> </li> </ol> <p align="left"><strong>NL WEST</strong></p> <ol> <li> <div align="left"><strong>San Francisco Giants </strong>(83-79)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Los Angeles Dodgers </strong>(81-81)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Arizona Diamondbacks </strong>(80-82)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>Colorado Rockies </strong>(78-84)</div> </li> <li> <div align="left"><strong>San Diego Padres </strong>(66-96)</div> </li> </ol> <p align="center"><strong>NL MVP:  Giancarlo Stanton, Miami Marlins <br />NL Cy Young:  Cole Hamels, Philadelphia Phillies <br />NL Rookie of the Year:  Devin Mesoraco, Cincinnati Reds <br />NLCS:  Reds over Phillies <br />WS:  Angels over Reds</strong></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-56601505535314306452012-02-28T19:37:00.001-05:002012-04-16T22:15:12.937-04:00Actors Robbed of an Oscar, Part 1<p>I present:  Actors who deserved to win an Oscar but did not. An incomplete list:</p> <p>* – An asterisk indicates that the actor was at least nominated for the performance.</p> <ul> <li> <h4>Robert Duvall, <em>The Apostle* <br /></em></h4> <a name='more'></a> <p>This role was a revelation.  It’s one of the best acting performances I’ve ever seen.  <em>The Apostle </em>was a movie based around one titanic performance by one of the greatest living actors.  I swear I’m not given to superlatives, but this was a performance that transcended acting and sank into my soul. <br /> <br />And who did win the Oscar that year?  Jack Nicholson in <em>As Good As It Gets</em>.  I love Jack, but I hate it when famous actors play themselves with a <em>slight </em>twist and get an Oscar for it.  It could have been worse, though; Matt Damon was nominated that year for <em>Good Will Hunting. <br /> <br /></em><strong>SEE ALSO:  Robert Duvall, <em>Get Low; </em>Robert Duvall, <em>The Godfather*; </em></strong>maybe even <em>True Grit, The Godfather Part II </em>and <em>The Natural</em></p> </li> <li> <h4>Jennifer Lawrence, <em>Winter’s Bone*</em></h4> <p>As good as Natalie Portman was in <em>Black Swan</em>, Lawrence might have been better.  She was brilliantly understated, and <em>Winter’s Bone </em>was a haunting film.</p> </li> <li> <h4>Peter Lorre, <em>M</em></h4> <p>What, like I have to defend this?  I’ll admit that I haven’t seen Lionel Barrymore in <em>A Free Soul </em>(he won the Oscar that year), I refuse to admit that Lorre didn’t earn at least a nomination.  And it’s not because it was a German film, because Emil Jannings won the first-ever Best Actor Oscar.</p> </li> <li> <h4>Mickey Rourke, <em>The Wrestler*</em></h4> <p>Again I must offer the highest praise to the actor who did win the Oscar that year:  Sean Penn.  Sean Penn as Harvey Milk was a completely different person than Sean Penn in every other role he played.  If you could split an Oscar, I’d agree to give half to Penn and half to Rourke. <br />But <em>The Wrestler </em>was just SO good …</p> </li> <li> <h4>Charles Laughton, <em>The Hunchback of Notre Dame</em></h4> <p>Charles Laughton is my favorite actor, so I’m admittedly biased here.  But Laughton transformed himself from the typical stuffy British character he typically played into Quasimodo – flawlessly.  He deserves two Oscars for this role. <br /> <br />Perhaps he didn’t win because he’d just won a couple years earlier for <em>The Private Life of Henry VIII</em>, and deservedly so.  Also, <em>Hunchback </em>came out in 1939, the golden year for movies, so there was some stiff competition.  Robert Donat won the Oscar for his role in <em>Goodbye, Mr. Chips</em>, which was a good performance I suppose but not at all great.  Clark Gable was nominated for <em>Gone with the Wind</em>, and Jimmy Stewart was nominated for <em>Mr. Smith Goes to Washington</em>, which might be his best performance (except for one that shows up later on this list).  But Laughton wasn’t nominated, and Mickey Rooney was – for wearing blackface in the most insipid musical in the history of theatre and film, <em>Babes in Arms</em>. <br /> <br /><strong>SEE ALSO:  Charles Laughton, <em>Mutiny on the Bounty*; </em>Charles Laughton, <em>Advise & Consent</em>; Charles Laughton, <em>Hobson’s Choice.</em></strong>  Maybe even <em>The Island of Lost Souls?</em>  And I haven’t even seen him in <em>Spartacus, The Sign of the Cross, The Barretts of Wimpole Street </em>or <em>Les Miserables.</em></p> </li> <li> <h4>Claude Rains, <em>Casablanca*</em></h4> <p>Again, I don’t really feel like I need to defend this choice.  I always thought Rains was terrific; a truly underrated actor.  And he really is the one that places <em>Casablanca </em>in its own cinematic world; he’s the perfect enigmatic Frenchman with a dubious sense of loyalty who represents Vichy France – and its colonies – perfectly.  It’s hard for me to believe that Charles Coburn was better in <em>The More the Merrier</em>. <br /> <br /><strong>SEE ALSO:  Claude Rains, <em>The Invisible Man; </em>Claude Rains, <em>Mr. Smith Goes to Washington*; </em>Claude Rains, <em>Notorious*  </em>And with all due respect to Lon Chaney, Jr., he really made <em>The Wolf Man </em>what it was.</strong></p> </li> <li> <h4>Heath Ledger, <em>Brokeback Mountain*</em></h4> <p>Like I mentioned before, there are some years when you need to give out two Oscars.  One went to Phillip Seymour Hoffman for <em>Capote, </em>which is hard to argue with, but damned if I didn’t think Ledger was better in <em>Brokeback Mountain</em>.  It was, in my opinion, just as good – if completely different – than his turn as the Joker. <br /> <br />The same year also saw David Strathairn nominated for <em>Good Night, and Good Luck</em>.  So maybe there were three winners that year …</p> </li> <li> <h4>Bruno Ganz, <em>Downfall</em></h4> <p>Here’s a challenge for you, Mr. Jewish Person:  play the best Hitler in film history. <br />Challenge accepted; challenge won.</p> </li> <li> <h4>Imelda Staunton, <em>Vera Drake*</em></h4> <p>I wish I knew another word for brilliant, but nothing else comes to mind to describe Staunton’s work in Mike Leigh’s understated masterpiece.  I guess the greatest compliment I can give is that I never doubted for a second that she <em>was </em>Vera Drake. <br /> <br />Hilary Swank beat out Staunton that year for <em>Million Dollar Baby.  </em>I think Hilary Swank is a great actress, sure.  But how does she have two more Oscars than Peter O’Toole?  (Oops, spoiler alert!)</p> </li> <li> <h4>Toshiro Mifune, <em>The Seven Samurai</em></h4> <p>Very rarely does an actor possess a charisma so special that you lean forward in your seat every time they appear.  Mifune’s work in this film is even better, since you truly NEVER know what his unbalanced character is going to do next. <br /> <br />Hollywood decided not to nominate Mr. Mifune, but instead to hand the Oscar to Yul Brynner for <em>The King and I</em>.  I’ve never seen it, and I’m sure Brynner is fine.  But Mifune put on an acting clinic in Kurosawa’s film that any actor could learn from.</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>STILL TO COME IN PART 2:  </strong>Peter O’Toole, naturally; another Oscar to split between two people, this time in the same 1967 film; and Emily Watson.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-27296754000455352782012-01-01T00:57:00.001-05:002012-01-01T01:20:37.825-05:00World Champions – Best Player = ?<p>So I wanted to take a quick at World Champion teams that lost their best player in the same off-season.  Seeing Albert Pujols go the Angels makes the fate of the 2012 Cardinals interesting. The team has signed Carlos Beltran to fill in somewhere, and they will also be getting back ace starter Adam Wainwright from Tommy John surgery.  Will this be enough to keep them in contention?</p> <a name='more'></a> <p>I couldn’t think, off-hand, of any other World Champion teams that lost their best player before they even had a chance to defend their title.</p> <p>My idea is to look at a team’s best player, as determined by rWAR, (which isn’t perfect, but neither are you), and see if he came back to the team the following year.  If he did not, why not? Free agency? Trade? Injury? And what happened to his old team?  What happened to his new team? All fair questions. </p> <p>Let’s start asking them, beginning with the first World Champions to lose their best player. But first, a chart showing every World Champion ever to lose its best player in the ensuing offseason:</p> <table border="3" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="377"><tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">Year</td> <td valign="top" width="150">MVP (rWAR)</td> <td valign="top" width="124">Team</td> <td valign="top" width="54">How?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">1915</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Tris Speaker</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">Boston (AL)</td> <td valign="top" width="54">Trade</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">1931</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Chick Hafey</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">St. Louis (NL)</td> <td valign="top" width="54">Trade</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">1942</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Enos Slaughter</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">St. Louis (NL)</td> <td valign="top" width="54">War</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">1943</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Charlie Keller & <br />Spud Chandler*</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">New York (AL)</td> <td valign="top" width="54">War/ <br />Injury</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">1944</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Stan Musial</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">St. Louis (NL)</td> <td valign="top" width="54">War</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">1997</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Kevin Brown</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">Florida</td> <td valign="top" width="54">Trade</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="43">2011</td> <td valign="top" width="150"><strong>Albert Pujols</strong></td> <td valign="top" width="124">St. Louis</td> <td valign="top" width="54">Free <br />Agency</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p>* – The Yankees did lose Keller in ‘44, but while Chandler’s injury was severe, he did manage to make one start during the year.</p> <p>Quickly, the <em>Almost </em>Department<em>:  </em></p> <ul> <li>The 1914 Braves’ best player, starter Bill James, made just 13 appearances in 1915 due to injury. James’s career was essentially over, apart from one game pitched in 1919. </li> <li>The 1918 Red Sox’ best player was, not surprisingly, Babe Ruth. Ruth was infamously traded <em>two </em>years after that, after setting a new single-season home run record in 1919. </li> <li>After winning the 1926 World Series, Cardinals GM Branch Rickey finally got his wish (and a few death threats) when he traded franchise icon Rogers Hornsby to the Giants for Frankie Frisch and Jimmy Ring. Hornsby was the only player I KNEW would show up on this list – except that, according to rWAR, Hornsby wasn’t the most valuable Cardinal in ‘26. An off-year (by his standards) put him 0.1 WAR behind third baseman Les Bell. </li> <li>The ‘65 Dodgers’ ace, Sandy Koufax, only pitched one more year before being forced into retirement at age 30. He would have made the list if the Dodgers had won the ‘66 Series (they were swept by Baltimore). </li> </ul> <p>Back to the master list.  '</p> <p><font size="3">1915:  <em>Boston Red Sox trade <strong>Tris Speaker </strong>to Cleveland Indians for Sad Sam Jones, Fred Thomas and $55,000.</em></font></p> <p>Fifty-five grand was a lot of money back then. Almost enough to justify giving up a 27-year-old center fielder with a career batting line of 337/414/482 (in the deadball era!) and defense that ranks somewhere between “elite” and “best-ever.”</p> <p>To be fair, the Red Sox did get more than just cash.  Sad Sam Jones was a 22-year-old pitching prospect who went on to throw 1000+ innings with a decent 3.39 ERA in six seasons in Boston (a year after the Babe Ruth trade, the Sox sent Jones, Joe Bush and Everett Scott to the Yankees for Jack Quinn, 100 grand and some washed-up players. Ouch, again).  </p> <p>As for the other guy, Fred Thomas was a middle infielder didn’t make the major leagues until 1918, when he hit .257 with one homer in 44 games.</p> <p>Why in the world were the Red Sox so eager to get rid of Speaker?  Cash was a factor; as later trades would show, Red Sox owner Harry Frazee, while a wealthy man, had issues with liquidity (and no, he wasn’t trying to fund a Broadway play).</p> <p>The Red Sox in 1915 were plagued by internal conflict.  It didn’t hurt their winning percentage, but the club was made up of two warring factions trying to get their favorite appointed as manager.</p> <p>One faction was made up of Catholics, mostly the children of immigrants. This included Heinie Wagner, Duffy Lewis, Bill Carrigan and others. Speaker and Smoky Joe Wood were members of the opposing faction, the Protestant, middle-American freemasons (and, allegedly, KKK members).  It wasn’t exactly unusual for a ballclub to split into two cliques, but the religious and cultural issues made this an especially tricky brand of infighting.</p> <p>Ownership was helpless to resolve the crisis, and it didn’t help that the manager’s seat was the prize both sides fought for, with the losers then doing their best to undermine the manager. When Carrigan was named manager halfway through the 1913 season, this predictably upset the Protestant wing of the clubhouse.  I can’t say for sure without reading the mind of owner Frazee (or GM Ed Barrow), but this must have played a part in Speaker’s ouster.</p> <p>Tris Speaker isn’t just a Hall-of-Famer, he’s an inner-circle Hall-of-Famer.  The only comparable center fielders in major league history are guys like Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio and Ken Griffey, Jr.  None of those players, you will note, were traded away at age 27 for a quick fix of cash and a durable starting pitcher.  Many great players are traded either before, or after, their prime years.  Few are dealt away just as they’re entering their prime. Given Speaker’s sterling performance in Cleveland (which included a World Series victory in 1920 as player-manager), this has to be considered one of the worst trades in baseball history.</p> <p><font size="3">1932: <em>St. Louis Cardinals trade <strong>Chick Hafey </strong>to Cincinnati Reds for Benny Frey, Harvey Hendrick and cash.</em></font></p> <p><font size="2">Any deal by Branch “The Mahatma” Rickey, then GM of the Cardinals, may be assumed to include the phrase “and cash.”</font></p> <p><font size="2">The 1931 Cardinals went 101-53 and won the World Series.  Most teams would take that opportunity to reward the players who got them there, especially a 29-year-old star outfielder.  Instead, the Cardinals traded batting champion Chick Hafey, who hit 349/404/569 in 1931, to the Reds for two marginal players who would be sold back to the Reds before the year was out.</font></p> <p><font size="2">What was Rickey thinking?  Well, one cornerstone of Rickey’s philosophy was to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late.  He also preferred to replace players who got too expensive with products of his thriving farm system.</font></p> <p><font size="2">As to the latter point:  In 1932, 20-year-old Joe “Ducky” Medwick made his debut with the Cardinals on the way to a Hall-of-Fame career.  Medwick would eventually be better than Hafey ever was, and at a far cheaper price (until he too was traded; to the Dodgers for four nobodies and $125,000).</font></p> <p><font size="2">But was it the right time to get rid of Hafey?  Absolutely.  Rickey didn’t see Hafey as the defending NL batting champion; he saw a left fielder no longer able to patrol center whose value rested on a high batting average and decent power.  He also saw a less-than-durable player who’d only played more than 120 games three times in his career.  Such players are great to have, but they’re also pretty replaceable – especially in an era when offense is cheap.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Hafey still could have embarrassed RIckey if he’d had three or four All-Star years still left in him, but that was not to be.  He hit well with his new team in ‘32 – but played just 83 games.  Hafey bounced back to have two solid seasons in ‘33 and ‘34, but injury problems limited him to just 114 games after the age of 31.  Hafey’s last year in the majors was 1937, the same year that 25-year-old Joe Medwick won the Triple Crown and the MVP Award.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The Mahatma strikes again.</font></p> <p><font size="3">1942-44: The players go to war.</font></p> <p><font size="2">It’s not a surprise that World War II accounts for most of this list.  War is one of the few things that can take an MVP out of the league overnight.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The default answer for “best player on the Cardinals” during this era is Stan Musial.  But in 1942, as the Cardinals cruised to a World Championship, Musial (still just 21) had a very good year (315/397/490), but one that was still below his lofty standards (career 331/417/559).  Slaughter, meanwhile, was having the best year of his career.  He hit 318/412/494 with a team-leading 13 HR (Musial had just 10).</font></p> <p><font size="2">Defending a World Series title is hard enough without a star like Slaughter, but the Cards also lost center fielder Terry Moore, leaving them with 2/3 of an outfield to come up with for 1943.  The team succeeded by giving a full-time job to bench player Harry “The Hat” Walker and acquiring Danny Litwhiler from the Phillies in a trade.  Neither man was a star, but they were good enough to get the Cards back to the Series, where they lost to the Yankees.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Speaking of those ‘43 Yankees, they had two players tie for the team lead in WAR:  outfielder Charlie “King Kong” Keller and ace pitcher Spud Chandler.  Keller was in the army during the ‘44 season, and Chandler was sidelined with an injury that limited him to just one game.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Chandler’s 1943 – 20-4, 1.64 ERA – was good enough to win the MVP Award.  Keller didn’t any awards, but the underrated, unibrow-sporting outfielder mashed at the plate, to the tune of 271/396/525.  How could the Yankees replace these two?</font></p> <p><font size="2">Well, they are the Yankees.  First of all, Chandler’s MVP season was really just a nice surprise.  He was 35 years old and had only been decent for two seasons in his major league career.  The injury didn’t help things, but it’s doubtful that the Yanks were relying on another MVP season from Chandler.  The ‘43 team’s pitching staff was pretty darn slim to begin with, with Chandler backed up by non-household names such as Tiny Bonham, Butch Wensloff and Atley Donald.  Some of these guys were decent – and would be again in ‘44 – but there’s a reason the Bronx Bombers finished 83-71 and missed the World Series that year.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The Yankees outfield that lost DiMaggio in ‘42 now had another set of Kong-sized shoes to fill.  Hersh Martin – making his first big-league appearance in four years – actually performed well, hitting 302/371/445. But other than stalwart Johnny Lindell, all the Yanks could muster in the outfield was Bud Metheny, who hit 239/316/355. If Ruth hadn’t had lung cancer at this point, he might have been Plan C …</font></p> <p><font size="2">The last player on the war list is Stan Musial.  I mentioned that Musial had an off-year as a 21-year-old in ‘42 (351/397/490).  In 1943, Stan Musial the all-time great showed up, hitting 357/425/562 (all of which led the league) and winning the MVP.  He was the best player in the league by far again in 1944, but the voters decided to go for the “scrappy” guy, and fellow Cardinal Marty Marion won (a gold glover, yes, but the man was 116 points of OBP behind Musial).</font></p> <p><font size="2">Musial was 24 when he sat out the 1945 season in the service, and there’s simply no replacement for a 24-year-old Stan Musial.  The Cardinals improvised pretty well, though, bringing up rookie infielder Red Schoendienst and putting him in the outfield to fill the void.  The Cards still managed to win 95 games in 1945, but they finished second to the Cubs.</font></p> <p><font size="3">1997: <em>Florida Marlins trade <strong>Kevin Brown </strong>to San Diego Padres for Derrek Lee, Rafael Medina and Steve Hoff</em></font></p> <p><font size="2">The champagne on the clubhouse floor was barely dry when the 1997 World Champion Florida Marlins began gutting their team.  I’ve spilled a lot of <strike>ink</strike> megabytes over the destruction of the ‘97 Marlins in the past, most notably <a href="http://whizball.blogspot.com/2006/05/1993-expansion-pt-2.html">here</a>.  So I won’t recap that dark era of baseball history again.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Brown had one year left on his contract, and the Marlins sure as hell weren’t paying him, so they traded him to someone who wanted to win in 1998 (as the Padres did, taking the NL Pennant).  In return, they did get a serviceable first baseman who turned out to be a good deal better than that.  Lee was a good glove man with solid secondary skills who only became a star after he was traded to the Cubs (in a deal that netted the Marlins Hee-Seop Choi. Oops.) That’s still not enough for an elite pitcher in his prime, even for one year, but it’s one of the more balanced trades the Fish made during the purge.</font></p> <p><font size="3">2011:  <em><strong>Albert Pujols </strong>leaves the St. Louis Cardinals to sign a 10-year, $254 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels.</em></font></p> <p><font size="2">Obviously I can’t say how this one will turn out.  From the Angels’ point of view, I was hesitant at first, but I’ve largely come around to it.  It’s not a bargain by any means, and it relies on the fact that a) Pujols really is 31 and b) 2011 was just a bump in the road, and he has a pleasant, Musial-esque aging curve ahead of him.  Since the deal is heavily back-loaded, the aging curve is important.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Still, as Joe Sheehan has pointed out, Albert Pujols is the reason you spend big bucks on the free agent market.  The truly elite players are not, generally, overpaid on the free agent market. The real lost money is in paying big bucks to mid-level talent.  Compare:  the contract that the Rangers signed A-Rod to in 2001 would have ended prior to this season, had A-Rod not opted out and negotiated a new deal with the Yankees.  That deal, very nearly identical to the contract Pujols signed, was a blockbuster – and a bargain. A-Rod won multiple MVP Awards, and he even brought home a World Series win.  Of course, A-Rod was just 25 when that deal was signed and a shortstop. For the Angels, you have to be prepared to pay a 41-year-old (DH?) a ghastly amount of money.</font></p> <p><font size="2">But if the Angels win a World Series during the life of the contract, that heals wounds AND brings in cash, so everybody’s happy.  Plus, as Sheehan pointed out, Albert will be chasing a number of records during the life of the contract.  He’s already got 2000 hits, so it’s only going to be about six years before he gets to 3,000, and after that he’s likely going to end up with more hits than anyone since Pete Rose.  He’s also got a realistic shot at becoming the all-time home run king, challenging the record held by Barry Bonds (or, in a few years, perhaps Alex Rodriguez).</font></p> <p><font size="2">From the Cardinals’ point of view this is bad news.  No, I don’t charge money for such insights.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Since he’s gone, let’s not talk about what the Cardinals <em>could </em>have done and instead stress what they will do.  Not having to pay Pujols means they can easily bring back Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter without really feeling it in the pocketbook.  Lance Berkman, who “played” right field last year, moves back to <strike>his best position </strike>the position where he can do the least damage, first base. The Cards signed Carlos Beltran to a reasonable two-year deal to replace Berkman in right field.  Along with Matt Holliday*, Jon Jay, and Allen Craig, the Cardinals have plenty of guys to fill the corner outfield spots – and no true center fielder.  But I digress …</font></p> <p><em><font size="2">* – If I may borrow the “Pozterisk” from Joe Posnanski, do you remember a few years ago when everyone was debating who the better free agent was:  Matt Holliday or Jason Bay?  That seems like a LONG time ago.</font></em></p> <p><font size="2">The Cardinals are lucky to play in the NL Central, where no team looks like a favorite right now.  They’re stuck there with the Reds and Brewers somewhere between 85 and 90 wins, and it may just be up to chance who wins the division.  The Cardinals would be advised to take steps to remedy this, but even if they don’t, they’ve still got a fighter’s chance to repeat as division champions.</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2">****</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="2">If there’s anything to be learned from this exercise, it’s this:</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="2">A) Good teams get over the loss of a superstar surprisingly well.  They’re typically good at finding undervalued replacements (either through the draft or through trades) and can also improvise and patch up holes in the short-term, as the Cardinals did in the 1940’s when their Hall-of-Famers were called overseas.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="2">B)  Teams don’t let their superstars get away easily.  I really expected three or four more names to pop up in the free agency era, but to my immense surprise, Albert Pujols was the first World Series team MVP (as determined by WAR) to leave his team via free agency.  I’m sure I could get more results if I broadened the parameters – as I noted in the “almost division” – but I think great players tend to stay with teams for quite a while, in spite of the common view of free agency.</font></p> <p align="left"><font size="2">So take heart, Cardinal fans; the Yankees lost DiMaggio to the army in 1942 and won the World Series in 1943.</font></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-79481773695921932442011-12-11T14:49:00.001-05:002011-12-11T14:50:31.541-05:002011 in Review<p><em>In which I look back at my pre-season predictions with wonder and/or shame:</em></p> <p><strong>My NL East predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>Philadelphia Phillies </strong>(95-67) <br /><strong>Atlanta Braves* </strong>(89-73) <br /><strong>Florida Marlins </strong>(84-78) <br /><strong>New York Mets </strong>(79-83) <br /><strong>Washington Nationals </strong>(75-87)</p> <p><strong>The real 2011 NL East:</strong></p> <a name='more'></a> <p><strong>Philadelphia Phillies </strong>(102-60) <font color="#ff0000"><em><font color="#008000">+7 wins</font> <br /></em></font><font color="#000000"><strong>Atlanta Braves </strong>(89-73) <em><font color="#0000ff">exactly right!</font> <br /></em><strong>Washington Nationals </strong>(80-81) <em><font color="#008000">+5 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>New York Mets </strong>(77-85) <em><font color="#ff0000">–2 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>Florida Marlins </strong>(72-90) </font><font color="#ff0000">–<em>12 wins</em></font></p> <p><em>* – denotes Wild Card</em></p> <p>I was exactly right about the Braves except that they tragically did NOT win the Wild Card.  The Phillies and Nats were a little better than I expected; the Mets were slightly worse.  The only team I missed big on were the Marlins, who really seemed like they were better than a 90-loss club.</p> <p><strong>My NL Central predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>Milwaukee Brewers </strong>(87-75) <br /><strong>Cincinnati Reds </strong>(86-76) <br /><strong>St. Louis Cardinals </strong>(84-78) <br /><strong>Chicago Cubs </strong>(81-81) <br /><strong>Houston Astros </strong>(72-90) <br /><strong>Pittsburgh Pirates </strong>(63-99)</p> <p><strong>The real 2011 NL Central:</strong></p> <p><strong>Milwaukee Brewers </strong>(96-66)<font color="#008000"> <em>+9 wins</em></font> <br /><strong>St. Louis Cardinals* </strong>(90-72) <em><font color="#008000">+6 wins</font></em> <br /><strong>Cincinnati Reds </strong>(79-83)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>7 wins</em></font> <br /><strong>Pittsburgh Pirates </strong>(72-90)<font color="#008000"> <em>+9 wins</em></font> <br /><strong>Chicago Cubs </strong>(71-91)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>10 wins</em></font> <br /><strong>Houston Astros </strong>(56-106) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>16 wins</em></font></p> <p>I picked the Brewers to win the division, but I wasn’t at all close to any of the win-loss records.  I thought the Cubs would be decent, thought the Pirates still had a ways to go and didn’t think the Astros were ready to plummet yet.  I was wrong all around.</p> <p><strong>My NL West predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>San Francisco Giants </strong>(86-76) <br /><strong>Colorado Rockies </strong>(85-77) <br /><strong>Los Angeles Dodgers </strong>(84-78) <br /><strong>San Diego Padres </strong>(76-86) <br /><strong>Arizona Diamondbacks </strong>(70-92)</p> <p><strong>The real 2011 NL West:</strong></p> <p><strong>Arizona Diamondbacks </strong>(94-68) <em><font color="#008000">+24 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>San Francisco Giants </strong>(86-76) <em><font color="#0000ff">exactly right!</font> <br /></em><strong>Los Angeles Dodgers </strong>(82-79) <font color="#ff0000">–</font><em><font color="#ff0000">2 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>Colorado Rockies </strong>(73-89) <font color="#ff0000">–</font><em><font color="#ff0000">12 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>San Diego Padres </strong>(71-91)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>5 wins</em></font></p> <p>I did pretty well here (even getting the Giants’ decent record spot-on), but missed big on two teams.  I’m still a bit shocked that everything came together for Arizona in 2011, especially the great improvement in their pitching.  As for the Rockies, I’m puzzled by their return to mediocrity.  And if their offseason behavior is any indication, they’ll be sticking with mediocrity for a few years to come.</p> <p><strong>My NL awards predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>NLCS:  Phillies over Brewers</strong></p> <p>If the Phillies could have gotten past the Cardinals in the NLDS, this may well have happened.</p> <p><strong>World Series:  Phillies over Red Sox</strong></p> <p>And Boston weeps.</p> <p><strong>NL MVP:  Ryan Braun, Brewers</strong></p> <p>You’re welcome.</p> <p><strong>NL Cy Young:  Roy Halladay, Phillies</strong></p> <p>I think Halladay deserved it, but Kershaw had a darn good year.  I picked Kershaw to win the Cy Young last year, so I was just a tad early there.</p> <p><strong>NL Rookie of the Year:  Aroldis Chapman, Reds</strong></p> <p>The potential was there, but then he lost it completely for a few months in the summer.</p> <p><strong>My AL East predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>Boston Red Sox </strong>(96-66) <br /><strong>New York Yankees* </strong>(91-71) <br /><strong>Tampa Bay Rays </strong>(87-75) <br /><strong>Toronto Blue Jays </strong>(78-84) <br /><strong>Baltimore Orioles </strong>(78-84)</p> <p><strong>The real 2011 AL East:</strong></p> <p><strong>New York Yankees </strong>(97-65) <em><font color="#008000">+6 wins</font></em>  <br /><strong>Tampa Bay Rays* </strong>(91-71) <em><font color="#008000">+4 wins</font></em> <br /><strong>Boston Red Sox </strong>(90-72)<font color="#ff0000"> -<em>6 wins</em></font> <br /><strong>Toronto Blue Jays </strong>(81-81) <em><font color="#008000">+3 wins</font></em> <br /><strong>Baltimore Orioles </strong>(69-93) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>9 wins</em></font></p> <p>At various time over the past 6 years, I’ve said that “this” was the year the Orioles would finally take a big step forward.  They had the talent to do it this year.  And a fat lot of good it did them.</p> <p><strong>My AL Central predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>Minnesota Twins </strong>(90-72) <br /><strong>Chicago White Sox </strong>(87-75) <br /><strong>Detroit Tigers </strong>(83-79) <br /><strong>Cleveland Indians </strong>(69-73) <br /><strong>Kansas City Royals </strong>(65-97)</p> <p><strong>The real 2011 AL Central:</strong></p> <p><strong>Detroit Tigers </strong>(95-67) <em><font color="#008000">+12 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>Cleveland Indians </strong>(80-82) <em><font color="#008000">+11 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>Chicago White Sox </strong>(79-83)<font color="#ff0000"> –</font><em><font color="#ff0000">8 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>Kansas City Royals </strong>(71-91) <em><font color="#008000">+6 wins</font> <br /></em><strong>Minnesota Twins </strong>(63-99) <font color="#ff0000">–<em>27 wins</em></font></p> <p>Disaster.</p> <p><strong>My AL West predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>Texas Rangers </strong>(87-75) <br /><strong>Los Angeles Angels </strong>(82-80) <br /><strong>Oakland Athletics </strong>(80-82) <br /><strong>Seattle Mariners </strong>(73-89)</p> <p><strong>The real 2011 AL West:</strong></p> <p><strong>Texas Rangers </strong>(96-66) <em><font color="#008000">+9 wins</font></em> <br /><strong>Los Angeles Angels </strong>(86-66) <em><font color="#008000">+4 wins</font></em> <br /><strong>Oakland Athletics </strong>(74-88)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>6 wins</em></font> <br /><strong>Seattle Mariners </strong>(67-95)<font color="#ff0000"> –<em>6 wins</em></font></p> <p>Once again, this was NOT the year that the A’s won the division with a pathetic offense and unproven pitching.  What a shock. /s</p> <p><strong>My AL Awards predictions:</strong></p> <p><strong>ALCS: Red Sox over Yankees</strong></p> <p>And again, Boston weeps.</p> <p><strong>AL MVP:  Adrian Gonzalez, Red Sox</strong></p> <p>I was close.</p> <p><strong>AL Cy Young:  Felix Hernandez, Mariners</strong></p> <p>A safe bet, at least.</p> <p><strong>AL Rookie of the Year:  Jeremy Hellickson, Rays</strong></p> <p>Anybody who starts the year in the majors has an edge.</p> <p>More to come, as I discuss MY picks for all the major awards.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-15986826282410476702011-10-30T23:10:00.001-04:002011-10-30T23:10:56.715-04:00NBR: Laurel & Hardy<p>I have finally found the crown jewel of my DVD collection:</p> <p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Laurel-Hardy-Essential-Collection-Stan/dp/B005BYBZKY/ref=sr_tr_sr_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1320029060&sr=1-1"><img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px" title="l&hdvd" border="0" alt="l&hdvd" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnY5s3j_QLA5Mx8TJvc0C2VPYp3B6fMrukCvfWpRmJbCejGEE6CWhDXAq9xBuwEAD6IFqAN6gTZRgpXtxYMx6NcXtAWD7l1ZHqQsxhD_KUS9ijJ2sk_MNB4nx6b2sywEJ-RrZN/?imgmax=800" width="244" height="244" /></a> </p> <p>The films of Laurel & Hardy have been tragically absent from DVD, with the notable exception of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/TCM-Archives-Collection-Brother-Scotland/dp/B000E1MXTQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1320029060&sr=1-2" target="_blank">this</a> collection from Turner Classic Movies.  The complete films of Laurel & Hardy number 106, although three of those films are considered lost.  I own every commercially available Laurel & Hardy film on VHS (including a few tapes bought in England that I had to pay to convert to Region 1).  But getting them all together – the best available transfers along with newly-discovered and never-released footage and films – has been a dream I thought may never come to pass. </p> <a name='more'></a> <p>My understanding is that a complete Laurel & Hardy release was impossible because the video rights are owned by several different entities.  The silent films are held by one such entity, most of the MGM features they made are only available on the TCM set, two features (<em>The Flying Deuces </em>and <em>Utopia</em>) are in the public domain and the post-Hal Roach travesties are contained in another set.</p> <p>The DVD set above, though, has everything else.  And that <em>everything </em>includes more than I ever dreamed.  It includes every short film done with sound.  It includes the basic feature films made entirely at the Hal Roach Studios (<em>Pardon Us, Pack Up Your Troubles, Saps at Sea, etc.</em>).  It ALSO includes all of the Laurel & Hardy guest appearances and cameos, one of which – an Our Gang short called <em>Wild Poses – </em>I’ve never been able to track down.  There is also bonus material, including a short film with the works of Laurel & Hardy discussed by film historians and famous fans such as Dick Van Dyke.</p> <p></p> <p>The most amazing inclusion are about a half-dozen of the foreign-language versions of several early short comedies.  In brief, Hal Roach hit upon an expensive yet profitable way to keep his market share in foreign countries in the early days of sound film, when the English language suddenly became a barrier to a truly international film company.  Roach filmed several Laurel & Hardy shorts in different languages – as many as three or four – to give fans all over the world their own Laurel & Hardy films.</p> <p>Don’t misunderstand; these were not dubbed films.  Stan, Ollie and one or two key supporting players would re-learn their lines in several different foreign languages, aided by speech coaches who would teach them their lines phonetically.  The rest of the cast would be native speakers.  As expensive and time-consuming as this was, it made foreign audiences adore Laurel & Hardy even more, preferring these films much more than the cheaply-dubbed films from the major studios.  (Word is that Roach discontinued the practice because it was showing up his distributor, MGM).  If the boys’ stilted speech sounded awkward in a different language, then it proved a perfect fit for their characters.  (Although it must be said that Ollie takes to Spanish quite well, whereas Stan speaks it with a Midlands British accent).</p> <p>So you have entirely new versions of pre-existing films, many of which are extended with all-new footage and gags so that they could be sold as feature films abroad.  I was aware that some of these survived, but had never seen one before.  This DVD collection contains about six of these foreign-language Laurel and Hardy films.  It’s a positive delight to see new footage of Stan and Ollie.  Ollie’s long-suffering cry of “Why don’t you do something to help me?” becomes “Porque no me ayudas?”</p> <p align="center">*****</p> <p align="left">I really can’t overemphasize how important the films of Laurel & Hardy have been to me.  I’ve been laughing at them for as long as I can remember.  They bring such a charm and joy to their work that actually makes you feel better after watching them, a quality that is almost impossible to reproduce nowadays without being sappy or arch.</p> <p align="left">I also liberally steal from Laurel & Hardy, something I am not really ashamed of; I consider it more of a “tribute,” seeing as Stan – my muse – passed away more than 50 years ago.  I would give my right eye (and here I’m only slightly exaggerating) to be able to play Stan in a film biopic of the team.  If only I were taller, skinnier, gawkier and had red hair (or any hair, really).</p> <p align="left">I always hesitate to show Laurel & Hardy films to my friends.  One reason is that they’ll realize where I’m stealing all of my comic inspiration and bits of business.  The main reason is that I’m afraid they won’t like them as much as I do.  And that’s difficult, because they mean so very much to me.  If I am funny at all today, it is because of Laurel & Hardy.</p> <p align="left">When I still had an ounce of idealism, I always pictured myself accepting the Academy Award for Best Actor and dedicating it to Stan Laurel, a comic genius who has tragically never been given the respect or admiration of “auteurs” like Keaton and Chaplin.</p> <p align="left">This is what I did as a child; I watched and learned.  I scoured every film shop and video rental store (this was before the internet, kiddies) to see if they had any new Laurel & Hardy films released on video.  Even after the advent of eBay and the internet, my only hopes of improving upon my existing VHS collection was to buy existing 8mm film prints along with my own projector.</p> <p align="left">I’d like to continue this later with my thoughts on each of the short films contained on the collection.  If, that is, I can find the right words to express my unqualified happiness.</p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-39943514452783297622011-09-12T19:12:00.001-04:002011-09-12T20:47:00.489-04:00Miracle Teams Part 1: Miracle Braves<p><em>An idea occurred to me out of nowhere – as they so often do – that most of the great teams that people write about are the dynasties.  So I thought, “What about the non-dynasties?”  That is, what about the teams that were really good for one year, and then receded into the fog of history?  It seemed like these teams – out-of-nowhere success stories – would be just as interesting to write about, if not more so.</em></p> <p><em>So I compiled my list of teams with a few caveats.  One is that I generally wanted teams that made the postseason.  That may seem unfair at first, but then who would read a series of essays about “Worst-to-Third” teams?  Secondly, I wanted teams that were not very good before and after their season of success, since this would make their one good season an interesting oasis of winning.  And thirdly, I’ll admit that I was biased toward teams that were a good story and potentially fun to write about.  Hopefully then, they will also be fun to read about.</em></p> <p><em>The series will run in chronological order.  This sets up a potential anticlimax, since the first team in the series just might be the biggest miracle story in baseball history:  the 1914 Miracle Braves.</em></p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">In the first thirteen seasons of baseball’s modern era (1901-1913), only three different teams won the National League pennant.  Any modern columnist complaining about the lack of competitive balance in baseball is clearly ignorant of the facts of life in the early 20th century NL.  The Cubs, Giants and Pirates were kings of the senior circuit for more than a decade at the dawn of the century.  Not only did these three teams have a monopoly on first place, they had a near-monopoly on the top three places in the league; these three teams finished 1-2-3 in some fashion in eight of these thirteen seasons.</p> <p align="left">Fans of the Phillies, Braves, Cardinals, Dodgers and Reds would be forgiven for giving up on their respective teams, knowing that fourth place was the most you could hope for, unless lightning struck and the team finished second.</p> <p align="left">That started to change in the mid-1910s.  It’s difficult to pinpoint one specific reason for the rise of competitive balance at the time.  The birth of the outlaw Federal League in 1913 served to violently upset the status quo.  But the key reason, I think, was that NL teams were finally recovering from the devastating player raids of the American League from 1901-1903.  It’s no coincidence that the three dominant teams of the 1900s were the teams that best managed to keep their players from jumping to the AL.</p> <p align="left">And no team suffered player losses quite like the Boston Braves.</p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">The Red Stockings, as they were known at the time, had a glamorous entrance into the National League when it was formed in 1876.  The founding brothers of the franchise were George and Harry Wright, who so famously inaugurated professional baseball in Cincinnati with another team known as the Red Stockings.  Their move to Boston, bringing along several key players, pushed the Beantowners to NL pennants in 1877 and 1878.</p> <p align="left">But the true glory days of the franchise were the 1890’s.  Known by then as the Beaneaters, they dominated the NL, winning five pennants in the decade.  They were driven primarily by three Hall-of-Fame pitchers:  John Clarkson and Vic Willis, who were quite good, and Kid Nichols, who was easily the best pitcher of the 19th century.  Their lineup was based around Boston folk hero Mike “King” Kelly, along with other, younger Hall-of-Famers such as Hugh Duffy, Tommy McCarthy, Billy Hamilton and Jimmy Collins.</p> <p align="left">But along came the American League’s Boston Red Sox.  The 1901 Sox took two-thirds of the Beaneaters’ starting outfield, solid players Chick Stahl and Buck Freeman.  The third member, Billy Hamilton, retired after 1901.  The 1902 Beaneaters started an outfield of Billy Lush, Duff Cooley and Pat Carney, none of whom would likely be touring the vaudeville circuits to wow the multitudes with tales of their on-field exploits.</p> <p align="left">As if that weren’t enough, the Red Sox also made off with 24-year-old pitching phenom “Big” Bill Dinneen, who would, along with many former Beaneaters, play a big part in the team’s 1903 World Series victory.</p> <p align="left">By the time the league wars were settled in 1903, the Beaneaters’ cupboard was bare.  The team had come up with a decent catcher, Pat Moran, but the stars were all but gone.  Pitching ace Nichols threw his last pitch for the team in 1901 and then was out of the majors for two years.  The only good hitter left from the 1890’s dynasty was first baseman Fred Tenney.</p> <p align="left">The last pitcher standing was Vic Willis, who stayed with the team through 1905 and then was traded to the Pirates for spare parts after he led the league in losses, only to enjoy a career renaissance in the Steel City.  </p> <p align="left">After losing Willis, the team finally dropped from 7th all the way to last place in the eight-team National League.  They changed names three times along the way, from Doves to Rustlers to Braves (in 1912), but the cosmetic changes couldn’t bump the team into the first division.  In fact, the team finished last for four straight years from 1909 to 1912 before moving up to a surprising 5th place in 1913 (69-82), the smallest of omens that their luck might just change in 1914.</p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">Who presided over this monstrosity?  Other teams lost big names to the American League without being thrown into a death spiral.  What sort of management geniuses did the Braves have to turn the ship around?</p> <p align="left">For quite a while, there was no one.  Al Buckenberger was hired in 1902 to replace Hall-of-Fame manager Frank Selee but soon realized that he had few options.  In their book <u>Total Ballclubs</u><em>, </em>Donald Dewey and Nicholas Acocella attribute this to a) management’s cozy relationship with star Fred Tenney, whom they saw as the manager-in-training, and b) ownership’s mandate that cutting costs was more important than winning ballgames.  Arthur H. Soden had owned the team almost since its inception; he had seen the premature detonation of his dynasty and seen the Red Sox, staffed with his players, turn Boston into a solidly American League town.  It was after the 1906 season that Soden decided to sell out to one George B. Dovey (hence the team’s new nickname:  the “Doves”).</p> <p align="left">Despite starting off with a strong determination to repair the public relations mess left by Soden, the Dove years quickly degenerated into the sort of drama typical to moribund franchises:  Tenney was traded to the Giants despite still owning stock in the Braves, the league promised an investigation but never followed through, Tenney was brought back to the team when Dove’s partner sold out, and then Tenney was fired as manager after the team went 44-107 under him.</p> <p align="left">Management turnover was the story in Boston, both on the field and in the executive offices.  Things finally stabilized in 1912 when the team was sold to a syndicate with a pure baseball pedigree, represented by Hall-of-Famer John Montgomery Ward.  The money man was one James Gaffney, whose personal fortune owed much to his Tammany Hall connections.  Gaffney, not a man who favored power-sharing, soon replaced Ward as team president with himself.</p> <p align="left">Despite all this, there was one managerial change that proved to be positive.  In 1913, Gaffney brought in George Stallings as manager.  Stallings didn’t have a great pedigree, but he had done well in short stints managing the Phillies, Tigers and Yankees.  It was in 1913, Stallings’s first season at the helm, that the team surged forward to 5th place.</p> <p align="left">Stallings was also, even by the standards of baseball managers, an eccentric.  He was nicknamed “Gentleman George” for his snappy dress and was one of the most nervous men of his day.  An exhaustive list of his peccadilloes is impossible, but among other things* he:  slid up and down the bench so much that he wore out his pants, he hated seeing peanut shells of pieces of paper on the field, and if his team started a rally, he would freeze in one spot, comfortable or not.  But second baseman Johnny Evers said of him, “Mr. Stallings knows more base ball than any man with whom I have ever come in contact during my connection with the game.”</p> <p align="left"><em>* – The anecdotes in this paragraph are owed to the wonderful article on Stallings by Martin Kohout in SABR’s <u>Deadball Stars of the National League</u>.</em></p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">The team’s 5th-place showing in 1913 owed something to the stability in the front office, of course, but there was also an undeniable uptick in the quality of players on the field.  There were some veterans on the team who could still play:  thirty-seven-year-old John Titus hit a robust (for the era) 297/392/420 while longtime Giant Art Devlin held down third base.    </p> <p align="left">More important to the team’s long-term future was the arrival of some good, young talent.  The key man was 21-year-old Rabbit Maranville, a future Hall-of-Famer and defensive marvel at shortstop.  Maranville was never much of a hitter, even for a shortstop, but his tremendous defense, daring baserunning and expert clowning gave the team a presence on the field and in the clubhouse.</p> <p align="left">There were some other key contributors as well. Joe Connolly, salvaged from the minor leagues at the age of 29, continued to crush the ball, serving as the team’s best hitter in 1914. The team then dipped back into the minors to find a solid first baseman in Butch Schmidt, who’d been out of the majors for years. Also worth noting is catcher Hank Gowdy, pilfered from John McGraw in a trade for Buck Herzog, and later to become famous as the first major leaguer to enlist after the United States entered World War I.</p> <p align="left">The pitching staff was led by three aces no older than 25.  Lefty Tyler was purchased from the minors in 1910 and finished 1913 with a league-leading 28 complete games and a 2.79 ERA.  Dick Rudolph washed out of the New York Giants, but did well in his first season as a Brave, posting a 2.92 ERA.</p> <p align="left">But the man who would step forward as the ace of the Miracle Braves was “Seattle Bill” James.  In 1913, James went straight from minor-league Seattle to the majors at the age of 21, notching a 2.79 ERA in 135.2 innings as a starter and reliever.  But his best work was yet to come.</p> <p align="left">The Braves made a number of moves during the 1914 preseason in their efforts to build a pennant-winner, but none was more important than the trade that brought in Hall-of-Fame second baseman Johnny Evers.  Evers, known as the “Crab” for his style of defense and his prickly personality, was a veteran of the Chicago Cub dynasty of the previous decade.  But after a rough stint as player-manager, Evers’s departure from Chicago was acrimonious and complicated.  The Cubs tried to trade him to the Braves, and Evers eventually went, though only after the trade was nullified and he was declared a free agent.</p> <p align="left">The Braves had successfully plugged a number of holes in their roster, potent though it already was, and had even added a Hall-of-Fame second baseman and team leader.  With stable money in the owner’s box and a committed on-field tactician, this looked like a team that was going places.</p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">Where they were going, it turned out, was back into the cellar.  Not just the cellar, but dead last.  The team stank it up for the first half of the season, bottoming out at 11 games behind the first place Giants, with six teams in between.</p> <p align="left">And then, the Miracle.</p> <p align="left">The Braves finished July by going 10-2 and reaching the .500 mark, at 45-45.  This shifted them up to 4th place, but they were still 8 games out.  Things started getting serious in August, when the team went on an 18-6 romp that put them in 2nd place, just 1/2 game behind the Giants.  For two weeks, the squads traded first and second place.  As late as September 18, the Giants were still in it, just 3 games out.  But the Braves left them in the dust by ending the season at a 17-4 clip.  The race degenerated into a farce, with the second-place Giants finishing 10.5 games back.</p> <p align="left">The Braves had won their first pennant of the century and were going to their first-ever World Series.</p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">It’s impossible to credit the miracle pennant to any one person.  The Braves got solid offense and defense up and down the lineup.  Evers and Maranville worked wonders in the middle infield, and Joe Connolly again proved to be the team’s top hitter, finishing at 306/393/494.</p> <p align="left">If anything, the real Miracle in Boston in 1914 was the Braves’ pitching staff.</p> <p align="left">The Braves rode their top three starters, James, Rudolph and Tyler, for 940 total innings, or about 2/3 of the season total.  James went 26-7 with an ERA of 1.90.  Rudolph went 26-10 with a 2.35 ERA.  Tyler “only” managed to go 16-13 with a 2.69 ERA, which was above average even by the standards of the day.</p> <p align="left">The Braves had found the perfect balance of veterans, rookies, leadership and good management.  They had won the NL pennant back when winning the pennant alone was still cause for a ticker-tape parade.  The only thing they weren’t was the best team in baseball.</p> <p align="left">That was the Philadelphia Athletics.  The team the Braves would be facing in the World Series.</p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">At the turn of the century, bad baseball in Philadelphia was sort of like coming down with a head cold; if you didn’t get too upset about it, it would be gone before you knew it.</p> <p align="left">Granted, this was only true of <em>one </em>of the city’s franchises; the Phillies had been a joke ever since the American League ransacked them at the turn of the century, pilfering future Hall-of-Famers such as Nap Lajoie, Elmer Flick and Ed Delahanty.</p> <p align="left">But for the A’s - led since their inception by manager/president Cornelius “Connie Mack” McGillicuddy - winning was a habit.  It was a habit borne of hard work, discipline and high standards in an era where few baseball teams could master even two of those concepts.</p> <p align="left">The Mackmen (as the A’s were commonly called) were born in 1901 with the seeds of a dynasty already in place.  After a strong 4th-place finish in 1901, the A’s won the pennant in 1902.  They slipped to second in ‘03 and then fifth in ‘04, then roared back to win the pennant again in 1905 before losing a heartbreaking World Series at the hands of the New York Giants (or, specifically, the right hand of Christy Mathewson, who threw three shutouts).</p> <p align="left">The next four years saw no pennants, but the team finally righted itself in 1910 with an astounding 102-48 record, leaving the rest of the American League (and, in the World Series, the Cubs) in the dust.  The 1911 club “fell” to 101 wins, but still dispatched McGraw’s Giants in the series with some ease.</p> <p align="left">In 1912, the club’s 90-62 record was only good enough for a strong third place, but they quickly retooled and won the World Series in 1913, again over the Giants.</p> <p align="left">The 1914 Philadelphia Athletics had <em>five </em>future Hall-of-Famers on their roster:  pitchers Eddie Plank, Chief Bender, and Herb Pennock; second baseman Eddie Collins and third baseman Frank “Home Run” Baker.  That’s not including their Hall-of-Fame manager, who dwarfed “Gentleman George” Stallings not just with his six-foot-two stature but with his considerable resume: six pennants to just one for Stallings.</p> <p align="left">The only controversy swirling amongst the bookmakers prior to the series was whether the A’s would sweep the series or win it in five.</p> <p align="center">****</p> <p>For Game 1, Mack started Chief Bender, according to Mack “the greatest money pitcher in baseball.”  But Bender departed in the sixth after allowing six runs (a performance that would haunt him for some time), while Braves hurler Dick Rudolph pitched a complete game; he allowed just one run on five hits with eight strikeouts.</p> <p>For Game 2, the A’s started another Hall-of-Famer, Eddie Plank.  Plank held a shutout through eight innings, which was not nearly as surprising as the fact that Bill James was doing the same thing.  The Braves broke the scoreless tie in the ninth, when Charlie Deal doubled, stole third and was singled home by Les Mann.  The Braves had taken the first two games in Philadelphia from the defending champions.</p> <p>The Athletics sent their third ace, “Bullet” Joe Bush, to the mound for Game 3 against Lefty Tyler.  Again, the underdog Braves were able to match the A’s vaunted pitching, battling them to a 2-2 tie after nine innings.  Both teams allowed two runs in the 10th, and the Braves brought in Game 2 starter Bill James to seal the deal.  While Tyler was relieved, Joe Bush did go out for the 11th and then the 12th inning.  Hank Gowdy led off with a ground-rule double (which was nearly a home run), and then Bush intentionally walked pinch-hitter Larry Gilbert to set up the double play.  The next man up, leadoff batter Herbie Moran, laid down a bunt.  Bush made the fateful decision to throw to third to get the lead runner Gowdy, but the throw was wide, and Gowdy raced home with the winning run.</p> <p>By Mack’s own admission, the first three losses had nearly broken the spirit of his team.  It was up to another top-notch pitcher, Bob Shawkey, to turn the tide in Game 4.  Shawkey only made it through five innings, allowing three earned runs.  His replacement, Hall-of-Famer Herb Pennock, shut out the Braves the rest of the way, but three runs turned out to be enough for Dick Rudolph, who picked up his second win of the series with his second complete game victory of the series.  An estimated 35,000 Bostonians came out to Fenway Park (a better and more modern venue than the Braves’ South End Grounds) to see the David and Goliath myth played out on a baseball diamond.</p> <p></p> <p align="center">****</p> <p align="left">The myth of the Miracles Braves was only enhanced by their failure to recreate the magic of 1914 in subsequent years.  Stallings’s team finished 2nd in 1915 before falling to 3rd in 1916 and then back down to 6th in 1917.  They wouldn’t finish higher than 4th again until 1947.</p> <p align="left">Where did the talent go?  Some, such as Charlie Deal and Les Mann, jumped to the Federal League, which started poaching major leaguers the very year the Miracle Braves won the Series.  Johnny Evers, the team’s only name player, just got old.  If that weren’t enough, the team shot itself in the foot by dealing Rabbit Maranville to the Pirates in 1921 for pennies on the dollar.</p> <p align="left">As for the pitching staff, it just seemed to burn out.  Bill James threw just 73.1 innings after 1914 and was out of the majors at age 27, the victim of a sore arm.  Dick Rudolph’s arm held up for three more years before fading out, despite a slight resurgence in 1919.  Lefty Tyler was the only one whose arm survived 1914 intact.  As if to punish him for such insolence, he was traded away in 1918 in a series of moves that ultimately landed infielder Buck Herzog in Boston.  (Herzog had been a star, but he was an old 32, and his lone full season in Boston was a dud.)</p> <p align="left">To replace the departed stars, the Braves found … well, no one really.  Until the end of the World War II, the Braves were pathetic in player development.  The list of useful young players the team acquired in those years – Tony Cuccinello, Wally Berger, Johnny Cooney, Tommy Holmes, Vince DiMaggio – isn’t nearly as impressive as the list of the washed-up stars of yesteryear employed by the team – George Sisler, Rogers Hornsby, Rabbit Maranville (reacquired at age 37), Al Simmons, Paul Waner and, of course, Babe Ruth.</p> <p align="left">The strategy of Braves ownership in the intervening years seemed to be acquiring star players at the end of their careers to boost ticket sales.  The utter failure of this plan did not deter them from continuing to pursue it.  The most reliable way to sell tickets – winning – was not just beyond them, but often seemed to be of secondary importance entirely.  </p> <p align="left">Building a winning baseball team takes great patience and a great investment in that most unpredictable of assets – young baseball players.  This was especially true in the days before the amateur draft and the widespread adoption of farm systems.  Successful teams had to invest money in scouting and, if they didn’t have much of a minor league system (and the Braves did not), they had to be willing to pony up cash to buy the best minor league players on the free market.  The Braves’ unwillingness (or inability) to do some or all of these things sent the franchise into a downward spiral that took 30 years to correct, and even then wasn’t completely renewed until the franchise left Boston for Milwaukee in 1953.  </p> <p align="left">There were some managers who tried and failed.  There were even some executives who tried and failed (Christy Mathewson served as team president before a fatal case of tuberculosis forced him out of the game).  It would take a bold ownership group (led by Lou Perini) and a bumper crop of young talent (Spahn, Sain, Aaron, Mathews, Burdette, Crandall, Torre) to erase the decades-long stigma associated with the Boston Braves.</p> <p align="left">All of this makes the fact that the 1914 team won it all even more breathtaking.  In all fairness to Stallings, there was no master plan that put the team together.  There weren’t even many players on the team who were all that good.</p> <p align="left">But they became, for one year at least, the greatest Cinderella story in baseball history.  No one has surpassed it, nor will they ever.</p> <p align="right">AW</p> <p align="left"><em>Sources:</em></p> <p align="left"><em>Baseball-Reference.com.  Multiple sources, including stats for noted players and play-by-play for 1914 World Series.</em></p> <p align="left"><em>SABR Bio Project.  From SABR.org.</em></p> <p align="left"><em><u>Chief Bender’s Burden: The Silent Struggle of a Baseball Star</u> by Tom Swift. Bison Books.</em></p> <p align="left"><em><u>Connie Mack and the Early Years of Baseball</u> by Norman Macht & Connie Mack III.  University of Nebraska Press.</em></p> <p align="left"><em><u>Deadball Stars o</u></em><em><u>f the National League</u> Ed. Tom Simon. Specifically, “Johnny Evers” by David Shiner, “Fred Tenney” by Mark Sternman, “Lefty Tyler” by Wayne McElreavy, “George Stallings” by Martin Kohout, “Bill James” by David Jones and “Dick Rudolph” by Dick Leyden. Brassey’s, Inc.</em></p> <p align="left"><em><u>My Sixty-Six Years in the Big Leagues</u> by Connie Mack. Dover Press.</em></p> <p align="left"><em><u>Total Ballclubs</u> by Donald Dewey & Nicholas Acocella. Sport Classic Books.</em></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-54090235935020376112011-05-06T21:10:00.001-04:002011-05-07T00:39:21.421-04:00Organizational Rankings Pt. 2 (11-20)<p></p> <p>The problem with taking a one-month break in between installments of a series containing analysis is that your clever pre-season work can be made to look silly in a month.  No, the Indians aren’t nearly this good, but I also may have spoken too soon when I dropped the “pathetic” tag on the franchise.</p> <p>Still, continuing where I left off, at #20 in my <a title="Fangraphs" href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2011-organizational-rankings-introduction/" target="_blank">organizational rankings</a>:</p> <h4 align="center">20.  Seattle Mariners</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>17th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  D <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  C </strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p></p> <a name='more'></a> <p>Given that this team has lost more than 100 games in two of the past three seasons, ranking at #20 isn’t such a terrible thing.  The main problem is that despite the furious work put in by new GM Jack Zduriencik and his staff, the team is clinging to a small core of impact talent (basically Ichiro and King Felix).  They do have some big-time prospects on the move; second baseman Dustin Ackley and starting pitcher Michael Pineda have star potential, and both of them should affect an immediate improvement.  Even considering that, though, the M’s will still have a small core of useful talent that will get a lot smaller when (if?) Ichiro’s batting average starts to slip.</p> <p>I like a lot of what Jack Z has done in Seattle, so I feel kind of bad throwing out that “C” in operations.  It hasn’t been all roses for the new GM, but what really affected my rating was a difficult clubhouse environment that doesn’t reflect kindly on the on-field personnel.</p> <p>As 100-loss teams go, the Mariners have some promise, but they’re still the fourth-best team in a four-team division.</p> <h4 align="center">19.  Baltimore Orioles</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>15th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  D <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  C </strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p>The Orioles franchise is in better shape than it’s been in a decade.  This is mainly represented by the strong talent the organization has on hand, both at the major league level and in the high minors.  It’s also an indication of the good work done by team executive Andy MacPhail, as well as the non-interference by feisty owner Peter Angelos.</p> <p>Still, the Orioles are the fifth-best team in a five-team division.  Sure, I guess you could argue them past the Blue Jays, but their best-case scenario is finishing third, and that’s assuming that a tremendous catastrophe befalls one of the division’s powerhouses.</p> <p>The Orioles do have an impressive array of young talent and low-cost veterans.  The days of splurging on C-level players like Jay Payton and Kevin Millar seem to be a thing of the past, with a new emphasis on low-cost talent.  The Orioles start the season with nine good position players and no obvious hole anywhere in the starting lineup (unless you’re really pessimistic about Vlad Guerrero).  They’ve got three or four legitimate pitching prospects in the majors, with at least one more on the way.  In any other division, they’d be contenders.  Unfortunately, they’re stuck behind the Yankees, Red Sox and Rays.</p> <h4 align="center">18.  Los Angeles Dodgers</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>23rd </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  D </strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p>The Dodgers are facing two major, potentially fatal problems heading into the 2011 season.  The first, and most obvious, is the battle for ownership of the team, a contentious public display that has limited the ability of the front office to properly utilize the still-potent team revenues.</p> <p>The more immediate problem is that the core talent developed by Logan White is getting ever-closer to free agency with little sign that it will be enough to push the team into contention.  This isn’t to say that there aren’t some really bright spots on the team.  Clayton Kershaw has the upside of a #1 starter, and by that I mean the #1 starter in all of baseball.  Chad Billingsley is a solid #2, and the team has some strong relief options, starting with closer Jonathan Broxton.  The front office was also able to add some good depth to the starting rotation, re-signing the underrated Hiroki Kuroda and picking up Ted Lilly.  If the Dodgers do contend in the next three-to-five years, it will probably be on the strength of their pitchers.</p> <p>The starting lineup is something else entirely.  Player development of position players has been almost uniformly disastrous.  Catcher Russell Martin was broken (probably by Joe Torre) and discarded, but not before the team also traded away a potential superstar replacement in Carlos Santana (in exchange for non-superstar Casey Blake).  Center fielder Matt Kemp has shown the ability to turn his potent tools into run production, but not with consistency, leaving many to wonder if he’ll ever really be <em>that </em>guy.</p> <p>Perhaps the most amazing thing here is that the Dodgers were supposed to have a dynamic, homegrown infield.  The idea was that James Loney would play first, with Andy LaRoche manning third.  The middle infield would be covered by some combination of Chin-Ling Hu, Ivan DeJesus, Jr., Blake Dewitt and Delwyn Young.  Three of those middle-infield guys have already bombed out of the organization, as has LaRoche.  DeJesus, age 24, still could be a contributor, whereas James Loney looks like a capable if utterly uninspiring first baseman (career 286/346/435).</p> <p>The Dodgers’ Plan B for dealing with this failure hasn’t been uniformly bad.  They picked up Andre Ethier in a steal of trade from Oakland.  They signed Rafael Furcal to a free agent deal.  And while he’s not as good as Santana, Casey Blake has been pretty useful.  But the combination of brittle veterans, busted prospects and a woeful defensive outfield leaves the Dodgers placing all their faith in the pitching staff to get them back to October.</p> <p>It may seem a stretch to give the Dodgers a “D” in Baseball Operations, especially since the team was able to develop a tremendous crop of young talent in a short period of time (their big-league performance notwithstanding).  The drag on this rating isn’t just the batsh*t-crazy McCourts, but bumbling GM Ned Colletti.  If not for the work of White’s minor league machine, Colletti’s time in L.A. would have been a dismal failure, punctuated as it was by the terrible contracts handed out to the likes of Juan Pierre, Jason Schmidt and Andruw Jones, not to mention the unforgivable loss of Carlos Santana to the Indians.</p> <p>The Dodgers’ window of opportunity has probably closed, and while they did manage to make a couple of trips to the NLCS, it will probably be looked upon as a failure in light of the tremendous potential that was squandered.</p> <h4 align="center">17. Detroit Tigers</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>16th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong> C <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong> C <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong> B</strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong> D</strong></p> <p>The Tigers are squeezing the last drops of contention out of the team that won the 2006 pennant. And while Justin Verlander and Miguel Cabrera are two guys you can build a franchise around, the Tigers’ list of impact players ends there.</p> <p>Like many teams that experience unexpected success, the Tigers spent a lot of money rewarding the team that went to the ‘06 World Series. Contract extensions were handed out to Verlander, Jeremy Bonderman, Brandon Inge, Carlos Guillen and Nate Robertson. Other than Verlander’s deal, those contracts have been uniformly embarrassing. Bonderman and Robertson are out of the organization, and Guillen will be soon. But instead of taking the opportunity to find a new core of young talent, the Tigers seem obsessed with wringing one last year of contention out of the present group, spending big money on mid-level guys like Jhonny Peralta, Joaquin Benoit and Jose Valverde. The commitments to these players have left the team with a few stars surrounded by several gaping holes filled by marginal major-league talents such as Brennan Boesch and Brad Penny. </p> <p>The Tigers have consistently fielded a payroll that seems to suggests a bigger market than they currently enjoy. Those numbers are coming down, though, and given the current state of the city of Detroit, I can’t anticipate any great increase in revenues. I wouldn’t expect the Tigers to outspend the Red Sox again in the near future.</p> <h4 align="center">16.  Milwaukee Brewers</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>22nd </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  B <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  C</strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong></p> <p>I think I’m much higher on the Brewers than most people.  I seem to have them a letter grade higher than the general consensus.  I’ll try to justify that in a few short words.</p> <p>As to financial resources, the Brewers do reside in one of baseball’s smallest media markets, but they’ve also managed to average about 3 million in attendance over the past four years.  They also have an owner who has proven willing to commit money to the team to keep key talent in place.  Their payroll is a bit low this year (~$80 million), but I feel safe in giving the team a rating above what you’d expect based simply on the size of their market.</p> <p>I picked the Brewers to win the NL Central, so it should come as no surprise that I like their present talent.  Even with Zack Greinke on the DL, the Brewers have a fine starting rotation of Greinke, Yovani Gallardo, Shaun Marcum, Randy Wolf and Chris Narveson.  I don’t think the bullpen is as bad as many are expecting, and while the defense is bad, I think there are enough bright spots there to prevent a catastrophe.  When you consider that the Brewers have a potent middle of the order, and I don’t see why everyone considers this to be a third-place team.</p> <p>While I think GM Doug Melvin has made his share of mistakes on the player acquisition front (namely Randy Wolf and Jeff Suppan), he’s also done an awful lot to bring a formerly moribund franchise back to life.  He presided over the drafting and development of an impressive nucleus of talent, made some very impressive trades (none moreso than the Richie Sexson deal) and managed to acquire some very useful veteran pieces (Doug Davis, Ray Durham, Mike Cameron) without having to commit to ten-figure annual salaries.  I don’t want to marginalize his errors, but surely this is what a small market franchise is supposed to do.</p> <p>Future talent includes <em>all </em>talent contributing to the team in the near future, not just the farm system.  This helps the Brewers, who have (by acclamation) the worst farm system in baseball, having cleaned house to acquire Shaun Marcum and Zack Greinke.  The Brewers won’t be adding a lot of new talent in the new few years, but they will still have Ryan Braun, Yovani Gallardo, Rickie Weeks, Corey Hart and Casey McGehee.</p> <h4 align="center">15. Cincinnati Reds</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>9th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong> D <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong> B <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong> C</strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong> B</strong></p> <p>The Reds end up at #15 because they play in one of the smallest media markets in baseball and, despite notching a division title last year, have had trouble attracting fans to a lovely ballpark.</p> <p>Last year, the Reds <a title="Ballparks of Baseball" href="http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-10attendance.htm" target="_blank">drew</a> 2,060,551 fans to Great American Ballpark. This was an 18% increase over 2009, which looks great until you put it in context; in 2009 attendance dropped 15% from 2008 levels. So the division title win in 2010 only got the Reds a minor boost over 2008 levels, a bounceback that still saw them ranked 12th in the NL.</p> <p>It’s true that a winning team typically sees their biggest attendance increase in the following season. According to ESPN.com, however, the Reds are drawing <em>fewer </em>fans this year; they’re on pace to draw a little over 1.8 million fans, which would be a 12% decrease from last year’s high. Even if you account for the league-wide drop in attendance this year, this can’t be too encouraging for the Reds. It will take a while for the franchise to erase memories of the forgotten decade from 2000-2009, and until it does, cash will be hard to come by.</p> <p>The Reds get a B in Present and Future Talent, and neither rating seems too far-fetched to me. The Reds probably aren’t a 90-win team, but they’re a strong contender in the NL and should be for a while longer. They’ve got a very strong core of young talent (the best in their division by far) which should serve them quite well for the near future.</p> <p>I’m not the biggest fan of what Walt Jocketty’s done so far as Cincinnati GM, as a lot of his moves seem like they stem from a basic misunderstanding of roster construction. This has been offset somewhat by a strong crop of young talent (most of which was in place before he came. To be fair, though, it was Jocketty who won the bidding for Aroldis Chapman, and he also made moves to lock up Joey Votto and Jay Bruce to team-friendly contracts. I do have confidence in Jocketty’s management abilities, having seen him do a lot of good work in St. Louis. My optimism is tempered, though, by the continued presence of Dusty Baker, holding a talented crop of young pitchers in his scissor-hands.</p> <p>This may seem like a low ranking for the Reds, but I’m really optimistic about the team in most things not involving cash flow.</p> <h4 align="center">14. Los Angeles Angels</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>12th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong> B <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong> C <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong> C</strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong> C</strong></p> <p>When I started this list, I gave the Angels an “A” in Financial Resources.  It was a stretch, sure, but I thought they were a top-tier team when it came to cash.  After the Vernon Wells deal, I downgraded them to a “B.”  I just can’t ignore a team that throws that much cash down a sinkhole.</p> <p>I did not downgrade the team’s baseball operations after the Wells deal, although you could argue that I should have.  The grade didn’t so much reflect confidence in Tony Reagins and his staff, who have done little of note outside of vulturing Dan Haren from the Diamondbacks.  I stuck to my “C” rating because, despite his narrow-minded attitude toward team-building, I do think Mike Scioscia is an asset.</p> <p>The Angels aren’t a bad team now and probably won’t be anytime soon.  But even with the arrival of uber-prospect Mike Trout, I think they’ll be stubbornly mediocre for some time to come.  It’s hard to look at the colossal failure of their infield prospects and still be upbeat about their future.</p> <h4 align="center">13. Chicago Cubs</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>19th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong> A <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong> C <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong> C</strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong> C</strong></p> <p>How in the world could you rank the Cubs as the 19th-best franchise in baseball when financial resources are such a large part of your formula?  Considering the financial troubles currently plaguing the Mets and Dodgers, the Cubs are the highest-rated team in their league when it comes to money.  That’s important, even if every other factor surrounding the team is average at best.</p> <p>The current iteration of the Cubs isn’t really a bad team at all.  Their offense isn’t great, certainly, but Alfonso Soriano isn’t dead yet, and they’ve got two key young talents in Geovany Soto and Starlin Castro.  Depth is non-existent until some prospects arrive, but compared to the rest of the NL Central, their short- and long-term prospects aren’t too bad, especially with the possibility that they add Albert Pujols in the offseason.</p> <h4 align="center">12. Minnesota Twins</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>6th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong> B <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong> B <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong> C </strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong> C</strong></p> <p></p> <p>The big surprise here is giving the Twins a “B” in Financial Resources. Surprising, since former owner Carl “Penury” Pohlad was reluctant to put money into the team. But with a new ballpark finally <strike>extorted from</strike> approved by the taxpayers, the Twins have shown that they’re ready to spend money by plunking down Yankee-esque money to keep Joe Mauer in town. 3.2 million fannies in the seats will change things.</p> <p>I feel I might have overrated the team by giving them a “B” in Present Talent. This was influenced, obviously, by the presence of Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau.  Plus, I think they’re in pretty good shape, returning as they are the same club from last year plus Joe Nathan and a healthy Morneau.  What makes me pause is the number of things that could go wrong (these have already begun in earnest).</p> <h4 align="center">11. Colorado Rockies</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>10th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em> </p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong> C <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:</em><strong> B <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong> B</strong> <br /><em>Future Talent:</em><strong> B</strong></p> <p>Did you notice that the Rockies became one of the best franchises in the National League?  It happened without any great fanfare, maybe because they’re so un-sexy and un-magnificent.  They don’t get an A in anything, but they’re surprisingly good in every aspect.  The only thing that keeps them out of the top 10 is a lack of cash.</p> <p>The Rockies have stars aplenty in Troy Tulowitzki, Ubaldo Jimenez and Carlos Gonzalez.  The bottom of the lineup is thin (Jose Lopez?), as is the bottom of their rotation, but there are no juggernauts in the NL West, making it anyone’s game.</p> <p>It surprised me as much as anyone to give this team a “B” in Baseball Operations, but haven’t they built a darn good team?  The only good reason I could think of to give them a “C” was the always-infuriating manager, Jim Tracy.  The Rockies don’t have a catchy turn of phrase to describe their organizational philosophy, but it’s worked pretty darn well for them over the past few years, and it should continue to do so for some time to come.</p> <p><strong><u>UP NEXT:</u>  The Top 10</strong></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-27170264702730752672011-03-26T23:33:00.001-04:002011-03-26T23:55:16.217-04:00Organizational Rankings<p>You may have recently come across <a title="Org. Rankings Overview" href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2011-organizational-rankings-introduction/" target="_blank">this</a> at fangraphs.com.  Basically, the Fangraphs writers were asked to rank each major league organization according to four factors.  The resulting  organizational rankings are being posted at <a title="The Source" href="http://www.fangraphs.com/" target="_blank">Fangraphs</a> (they’re halfway through as I write this.</p> <p>I saw this as an opportunity to rank the organizations myself and then see how my rankings compared to those of the Fangraphs team of experts.</p> <p>The four factors used to determine the rankings are (with their weighted value in parentheses):</p> <a name='more'></a> <p><strong>1.  Financial Resources </strong><em>(30%)</em></p> <p>Pretty self-explanatory.</p> <p><strong>2.  Present Talent </strong><em>(30%)</em></p> <p>Also pretty self-explanatory.</p> <p><strong>3.  Baseball Operations </strong><em>(25%)</em></p> <p>Refers to the front office, major and minor league staff and all contained therein.</p> <p><strong>4.  Future Talent </strong><em>(15%)</em></p> <p>Refers not to just to minor-league talent, but talent that will contribute for a significant period into the future.</p> <p>And, in descending order*, here are my rankings: <br /><em>* – In case of a tie, I used the team’s 2010 record as a tiebreaker.</em></p> <h4 align="center">30.  Houston Astros</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>30th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:  </em><strong>D <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:  </em><strong>F <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  F <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  F</strong></p> <p>In my NL Central recap, I referred to the Astros as the most pathetic franchise in baseball.  Others may be inclined to favor the Pirates, the Orioles, the Nationals, or some other team with a long history of losing.  The Astros may not have the history, but this ranking is about where they are right now:  dead last.</p> <p>The only bright spot here is the “D” I gave the team in Financial Resources.  Normally, I would give the Astros a “C”; they’re a mid-market team with a mid-market payroll that’s not afraid to roll out the bucks under the right circumstances.  But given the pressing financial situation of owner Drayton McLane and his subsequent <a title="ESPN.com" href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5826885" target="_blank">decision</a> to put the team up for sale, I have to knock this rating down to a “D”.</p> <p>I gave the Astros an F in Present Talent somewhat reluctantly.  The team does have some promising starting pitchers, among them the capable Brett Myers, Wandy Rodriguez, Bud Norris and J.A. Happ.  But none of those guys is a front-line talent, and really, the rest of the team is bad enough to drag the ranking down to the cellar.  I gave just four teams an “F” in present talent, so this really does represent the bottom.  Future talent goes along the same lines, as the team is starting to replenish its farm system, but any hope is very far away, which means that the major league team will be wretched for the next 3-5 years, at least.</p> <p>The two-fisted villain that’s clubbing this franchise into a coma is owner McLane on the left and General Manager Ed Wade on the right.  The Astros have been penny-foolish <em>and </em>pound-foolish, doling out the crippling Carlos Lee contract while cutting back spending in the amateur draft.  This long-term problem made the club very top-heavy, and with the trades of Lance Berkman and Roy Oswalt, the top is gone, and we’re left with dreck.</p> <p>GM Wade, left to sign mid-level free agents to float the payroll up to $100 million, has made a dazzling series of blunders, picking up the desiccated remains of Pedro Feliz, a less-than-youthful Miguel Tejada and any number of overpaid part-time players such as Jason Michaels, Darin Erstad and (admittedly inherited) albatross Brad Ausmus.</p> <p>When you’re looking <em>up</em> at the Pirates – in any situation – you’re screwed.</p> <h4 align="center">29.  Pittsburgh Pirates</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>28th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  F <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:  </em><strong>F <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p>It may be painful, but the Pirates are moving away from the bottom of this list.  The team has capable front-office talent, even if that hasn’t yet translated into any progress at the major league level (hence my split-the-difference “C” rating).  But if there’s anything to brighten the hopes of Pirate fans, it’s that “C” the team rates for future talent.  Not only is there a growing nucleus of talent in the majors (McCutchen, Alvarez, Tabata, Walker), there’s some high-end talent on the way.</p> <p>I don’t really think of the Pirates as the 29th-best franchise in the majors, but it’s hard to do much better when you get an “F” in the two most important categories.  Even there, present talent is improving to the point that they could merit a “D” as soon as next year, and any growth in that regard will improve the team’s access to ready cash.</p> <p>Ranking 29th may be a dubious victory, but any victory at all is a comfort to Pirate fans.</p> <h4 align="center">28.  Cleveland Indians</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>26th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:  </em><strong>D <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:  </em><strong>F <br /></strong><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong></p> <p>It was a tough decision to give the Indians an “F” for present talent.  After all, they do have Grady Sizemore, Carlos Santana and Shin-Soo Choo.  And if you asked me again tomorrow, I might change my mind and give them a D-minus.  But when I sat down to make my preseason picks, I had to think long and hard before I decided to rank the Indians ahead of the Royals.  And that tells you all you need to know.</p> <p>The “D” in financial resources doesn’t just refer to the team’s small, recession-damaged media market, but also to the fact that they’re having a tough time drawing fans.  The Indians have under-performed expectations for half a decade now.  Many fans may have forgotten the mini-dynasty of Manny, Thome and Albert Belle, but they have NOT forgotten the superstars (Cliff Lee, C.C. Sabathia, Victor Martinez) sold off for a questionable return.  Until the Tribe starts winning again, they’re going to have to keep <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/tipoff/index.ssf/2010/09/cleveland_indians_plan_to_turn.html" target="_blank">creatively mining new revenue streams</a>. </p> <p>The Indians experienced a minor shift in baseball operations recently, with longtime General Manager Mark Shapiro moving up to become president, with longtime assistant Chris Antonetti now in the GM’s chair.  Shapiro’s legacy includes few highlights – mainly the team’s near-pennant run in 2007 – and a lot of disappointments, such as the team’s endemic underperformance and tragic decision to sell early on so many stars.  With no new talent coming in from the minors (a fact that may come to define the Indian teams of the 00’s), Shapiro needed to get a <em>brilliant</em> return for Sabathia, Lee, et al.  He did not.  His best trade actually involved mid-level star Casey Blake, bringing back Carlos Santana from the Dodgers.  I’m struggling now to think of one* homegrown star that appeared in Cleveland during Shapiro’s tenure as GM.  Sabathia and Martinez came into the system under former GM John Hart.  Lee, Sizemore, Hafner, Santana, Choo, Ronnie Belliard, Jake Westbrook and even Asdrubal Cabrera were all trade acquisitions.  That leaves … who, exactly?  I guess Shapiro’s last hope is that <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=chisen001lon" target="_blank">Lonnie Chisenhall</a> makes it in the bigs.</p> <p><em>* – Notable players drafted by the Indians from 2001-2010:</em></p> <p><em>2001:  </em><strong>Luke Scott </strong><em>(traded to Houston for Jeriome Robertson)</em></p> <p><em>2002:  </em><strong>Jeremy Guthrie </strong><em>(pitched 16 games for Cleveland before being lost on waivers to the Orioles.  Became mid-level innings-eater for Baltimore, and thus would be #2 pitcher on the Indians’ staff</em>); <strong>Ben Francisco </strong><em>(traded with Cliff Lee to Phillies)</em></p> <p><em>2003:  </em><strong>Michael Aubrey </strong><em>(bust.  Now with Washington); </em><strong>Ryan Garko </strong><em>(fair 1B traded to Giants for Scott Barnes); </em><strong>Kevin Kouzmanoff </strong><em>(decent third baseman traded to Padres for mega-bust Josh Barfield); </em><strong>Aaron Laffey </strong><em>(5th starter)</em></p> <p><em>2004:  </em><strong>Jeremy Sowers </strong><em>(mega-bust)</em></p> <p><em>2005:  </em><strong>Trevor Crowe </strong><em>(4th outfielder); </em><strong>Jensen Lewis </strong><em>(spare arm); </em><strong>Desmond Jennings </strong><em>(too bad he didn’t sign); </em><strong>Tim Lincecum </strong><em>(umm … ditto)</em></p> <p><em>2006:  </em><strong>David Huff </strong><em>(not to repeat myself, but:  spare arm)</em></p> <p><em>2007:  </em><strong>Beau Mills </strong><em>(college 1B hit 241/312/377 as a 23-year-old in AA last year)</em></p> <p><em>2008:  </em><strong>Lonnie Chisenhall </strong><em>(here’s hopin’)</em></p> <p><em>2009 & 2010:  </em><em>(It’s too early to judge the last few drafts)</em></p> <p><em>It would be unfair to blame this poor showing entirely on Shapiro.  But as de facto head of baseball ops, this does reflect poorly on him as well as the entire organization.  Small market franchises don’t survive dry spells like this.  Here’s hoping Antonetti breaks free of the glass (low-)ceiling.</em></p> <h4 align="center">27.  Arizona Diamondbacks</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>29th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:  </em><strong>D <br /></strong><em>Present Talent:  </em><strong>D</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  D <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong></p> <p>These rankings reflect a franchise that is consistently mediocre, which is pretty much how the press has described the Diamondbacks’ spring training.  The “D” for baseball operations isn’t a reflection on the highly-qualified Kevin Towers; Towers hasn’t been on the job for long, so that rating is a reflection of the dismal state of the team before he got there.</p> <p>If there’s one place I might have short-changed the team, it’s on future talent.  The D-Backs’ farm system was ranked middle-of-the-road by most pre-season projections, but I think it’s weighed down by a lack of impact talent at the big-league level, at least until Justin Upton turns it around.</p> <h4 align="center">26.  Kansas City Royals</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>25th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  D</strong> <br /><em>Present Talent:  </em><strong>F</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  D <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  A</strong></p> <p>“One of these things is not like the other …”</p> <p>As bad as the Royals are, and as frighteningly inept as the baseball ops staff has proven itself, one simply cannot discount a farm system that many say is the best in recent memory.  This only slightly counters the raging incompetence displayed by GM Dayton Moore at the big-league level.</p> <h4 align="center">25.  Florida Marlins</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>27th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  F</strong> <br /><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  D <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p>Simply by giving a damn, the Marlins could propel themselves ten spots up this list.  If they were to spend a decent amount on a ballclub (enough to rate a “C”) and stop sabotaging the club from above (enough to rate at least a “C” in baseball ops), they would rank 17th on my list.  And when you consider that this act of giving a damn would result in a commensurate rise in present or future talent, the Marlins would easily be among the top half of baseball clubs.  But the arch-villainy of the Florida ownership is an old, old story …</p> <p>I should say that my low rating for baseball ops is not a reflection on the <em>talent </em>of the team executives.  Larry Beinfest does a good job with the team, especially considering what he has to deal with from above.  But the owners are, unfortunately, also a big part of baseball ops, and so Beinfest and his staff get a rating that it doesn’t really deserve.</p> <p>I have the Marlins listed higher than FG, I think, because I’m slightly more enthusiastic about their present and future talent.  Twist my arm, and I could say that the team’s prognosis isn’t too bright.  The farm system isn’t in great shape and, of course, the team isn’t in the habit of keeping the good players it has.  But with Hanley Ramirez, Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco, Mike Stanton and Logan Morrison in the fold for the near future (as well as Matt Dominguez), I think the Marlins can at least remain decent.</p> <h4 align="center">24.  Washington Nationals</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>24th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  C</strong> <br /><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  D <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p>It says a lot about this franchise that they only merit a “C” in future talent, despite the fact that they’ve got both Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg in the fold.  Other than those two, though, who else will be helping this team will in the years to come?  Ryan Zimmerman and Jordan Zimmermann (or as I call them, <a title="as in Venezuela" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_and_Thompson" target="_blank">Thomson and Thompson</a>).  Derek Norris and the handful of prospects on the farm?  None of these are really viable answers, and the GDP of Ecuador the team owes to Jayson Werth won’t help anything.</p> <p>GM Mike Rizzo has brought the farm system along from the days when it was run into the ground by the MLB and then sprinkled with magic beans by Jim Bowden.  But there’s still a long way to go, and the moves made at the major league level aren’t encouraging.  I don’t know if it’s Rizzo or his bosses who want to throw away money turning a 70-win team into a 75-win team, and for the purposes of this rating, it doesn’t matter.</p> <h4 align="center">23.  Oakland Athletics</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>18th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  F</strong> <br /><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  B <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong></p> <p>I’m no longer a believer in the Billy Beane magic.  That’s a relative statement, of course, as evidenced by the “B” rating, no kind of insult.  But while I have a great deal of respect for David Forst and the staff, I can’t be nearly as optimistic about this team as so many of my colleagues.</p> <p>I think it started a couple of years ago, when the team decided to win now (Matt Holliday trade) and win later (Haren, Blanton, etc. deals) at the same time.  Maybe I’ve been listening too much to those rumors that Beane is more interested in soccer now.</p> <p>I think I’ve just been swayed by the fallow nature of the Oakland farm system for nearly a decade.  Since the (in)famous <em>Moneyball </em>draft that saw the A’s pick up Nick Swisher, the team has done an abysmal job at drafting and developing position players.  They’ve done only marginally better with pitchers, although that’s been helped by some canny trades, the one thing you can still depend upon the A’s for.</p> <p>I hate to put too fine a point on this, and I freely acknowledge the shadow cast by that solitary “F” upon every part of this franchise.  And sure, we’d all be better off if the MLB finally decided what the f*ck to do with this team.  But the A’s are getting better by very small degrees (I cannot get too excited by David Dejesus and Brian Fuentes), and no small-market franchise can win like that.</p> <h4 align="center">22.  New York Mets</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>21st </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  C</strong> <br /><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  C <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong></p> <p>The Mets are in serious financial trouble.  As with the A’s above, that status casts a serious shadow over every other aspect of the franchise.  Normally, the Mets would get an easy “A” for finances; they’re in the nation’s #1 market and regularly sport one of the league’s top payrolls.  But given the uncertainty of the current situation as well as a possible sale on the horizon, I think a “C” might actually be charitable.</p> <p>That the owners (with an assist from the outgoing baseball operations staff) got the team into this mess carries over into my “C” rating for baseball ops as a whole.  I have a great deal of respect for Sandy Alderson and Paul DePodesta; it’s because of them that baseball ops doesn’t rate an “F.”</p> <p>The Mets do have some promising talent in the minors, but it’s not enough to replace the talent that is hemorrhaging from the roster.  In the next three years, the only players the Mets will really be able to count on are David Wright, Jason Bay and whatever’s left of Johan Santana.  The Jennry Mejias of the world will offer some assistance, but this is a team whose <em>best</em>-case scenario for the near future is 3rd place.</p> <h4 align="center">21.  San Diego Padres</h4> <p align="center"><em>Ranked </em><strong>20th </strong><em>by Fangraphs</em></p> <p align="center"><em>Financial Resources:</em><strong>  D</strong> <br /><em>Present Talent:</em><strong>  D</strong> <br /><em>Baseball Operations:</em><strong>  B <br /></strong><em>Future Talent:</em><strong>  C</strong></p> <p>Despite their amazing showing in 2010, the Padres are still dealing with the financial disruption caused by Tom Werner’s fire sale.  The Adrian Gonzalez deal swapped out present talent for future talent, and it’s there (along with a clever front office) that the Padres’ hopes reside.</p> <p><strong><u>UP NEXT:</u></strong>  <strong>Part 2 (#11-20)</strong></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-91347256497060265262011-03-18T00:04:00.001-04:002011-03-18T00:25:07.588-04:00NBR: The Best of the 00’s (Film)<p></p> <p>I’ve spent a lot of time preparing my article on the best baseball players of the 2000’s (2000-2009).  I’ve put a lot of time and thought into it, so it’s taken me longer than I expected.  Then I got the idea to list the best <em>films </em>of the 2000’s.  It didn’t take nearly as long as I expected and was fun to put together.</p> <p>I’ll start by naming my favorites by genre, and then I’ll finish with the best acting performances of the decade.  The following is based solely on my opinion, of course.  Keep in mind that I haven’t seen everything, even including some really notable films that everyone ELSE has seen, but I haven’t gotten around to yet.  Feel free to leave a comment if you wish to dispute my rankings.</p> <h4 align="center">The Best Action/Adventure Films:</h4> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong><em>The Dark Knight</em></font></font></p> <p>This was as nasty and brutish as anything Thomas Hobbes could have envisioned.  It was also pretty brilliant.  I only had a few problems with it, notably the fact that it was crammed with a little <em>too </em>much plot.  But Heath Ledger was an inspiration.  I doubt he would have won the Oscar had he survived, but in any case I think he deserved it.  </p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong><em>Iron Man</em></font></font></p> <p><font size="3"><font size="2" face="Trebuchet MS">I really don’t know what to say about <em>Iron Man </em>that hasn’t been said.  Every bit of it was just a good movie, superhero or not.  You can’t say that about many “franchise” movies.</font></font></p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>Kill Bill Vol. 1 <br /></em></font></font><a name='more'></a> <p>I’ve never been so truly delighted by a film that used so many buckets of blood.  It walks the line between fantasy and irony with perfect aplomb.  I didn’t care as much for Volume 2, as it was more of a character study (especially at the end), and that didn’t really work for me given the context.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Children of Men <br /></em></font></font> <p>I’m always frustrated when a great movie like <em>Children of Men</em> merits nothing more than a passing notice at the Oscars (in this case, a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay).  Granted, I’m much more cynical about the Oscars than I used to be, but I still like to see brilliance rewarded.  I don’t know that I could single out one individual part of the film for praise, but I have to mention the superb use of one long, continuous shot in the action scenes.  It really makes you realize how over-cut most action films are, and it does nothing but reduce the human impact.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Sin City <br /></em></font></font> <p><em>Sin City </em>was made for my generation.  It’s not so much a film as a tremendous gift of utter visual brilliance.  I enjoyed watching this so much that I was literally bouncing in my seat.  Yes, this movie was about boobs and bullets, but I’m not ashamed to say that I loved every bit of it.</p> <p align="center"><strong><em>Action/Adventure Summary:</em></strong></p> <ol> <li><strong><em>Sin City</em></strong> </li> <li><em>Children of Men</em> </li> <li><em>Kill Bill Vol. 1</em> </li> <li><em>Iron Man</em> </li> <li><em>The Dark Knight</em> </li> </ol> <p><strong></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>Honorable Mentions:  </strong></p> <p><strong><em>Casino Royale </em></strong>was a terrific addition to the Bond franchise.  As much as I miss the old Bond movie formula, it was time to break the mold … <em><strong>Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon</strong> </em>was phenomenal …<em> <strong>Enemy at the Gates </strong></em>isn’t as good as the other films on this list, but there’s something about it that I find very appealing.  It’s the history nerd in me …<em> <strong>Hero </strong></em>is easily my favorite Jet Li film …<em> <strong>The Incredible Hulk </strong></em>was good enough to make me forget Ang Lee’s <em>Hulk</em>, and that’s saying something … <em><strong>V for Vendetta </strong></em>left me feeling a bit iffy, but I’ve really warmed to it since then.  Plus, I’ve got a soft spot for strong supporting characters, so I loved Steven Rea and Stephen Fry … <strong><em>The X-Men Trilogy </em></strong>gets inducted as one, even if the third movie was a bit disappointing.  Studio executives:  see what happens when you cast legitimate actors in superhero films?</p> <h4 align="center">The Best Comedies:</h4> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong><em>A Mighty Wind <br /></em></font></font>There was something very sentimental and human about <em>A Mighty Wind </em>that set it apart from the other Guest/Levy comedies and made it, in my opinion, the best of them all.  I wouldn’t have guessed that adding more sentiment to the mockumentary format would work so well.  But it did.  Thanks also to some fabulous original songs.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong><em>Rat Race <br /></em></font></font>My all-time favorite movie is <em>It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World</em>.  It’s no surprise, then, that I was unusually fond of <em>Rat Race</em>.  The cast wasn’t the all-star affair you’d expect for a chase comedy, but they worked out quite well.  And I kind of fell in love with Amy Smart … </p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>Hot Fuzz <br /></em></font></font>I actually liked this a lot better than <em>Shaun of the Dead</em>.  I thought <em>Shaun </em>was spotty and unusually serious towards the end.  <em>Hot Fuzz, </em>though, was just plain old fun.  Dark humor done well.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Love, Actually <br /></em></font></font>Romantic comedy is, actually, my least favorite genre.  Which tells you all you need to know about this film. </p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>O Brother, Where Art Thou? <br /></em></font></font>I cannot begin to describe how delighted I was to watch this film.  It connected to me on a personal level, being from the south and a diehard fan of classic bluegrass and gospel music.  I tend to run hot and cold on the films of the Coen brothers (as you’ll see below), but here they managed to make one of the most charming films of all time.  <p align="center"><strong><em>Comedy Summary:</em></strong></p> <ol> <li><strong><em>O Brother, Where Art Thou?</em></strong> </li> <li><em>Love, Actually</em> </li> <li><em>Hot Fuzz</em> </li> <li><em>Rat Race</em> </li> <li><em>A Mighty Wind</em> </li> </ol> <p><strong></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>Honorable Mention:  </strong></p> <p>There have been a lot of movies like <em><strong>Dodgeball</strong> recently, </em>and I usually don’t like them.  But this was an absolute pleasure.  Thank you, Ben Stiller … <strong><em>Juno </em></strong>almost didn’t make my list, but although I wasn’t as crazy about it as some were, I genuinely enjoyed it (once I got used to the friggin' dialogue) … <em>, <strong>Mrs. Henderson Presents </strong></em>was just charming and delightful.  No surprise there from old favorites Judi Dench and Bob Hoskins …<em> <strong>Sideways </strong></em>was a great deal of fun<em>, </em>even if I don’t understand why I liked it so much.  Maybe I identified too much with Paul Giamatti’s character … <em><strong>Tropic Thunder</strong>  </em>was just … words cannot describe it.  As outrageous and hilarious as everything was, nothing – but <em>nothing </em>– compares to Robert Downey, Jr.  “I don’t read the script – the script reads me.”  Comic brilliance … <em><strong>Up in the Air </strong></em>really was a treat.  That was one movie where everything came together pretty seamlessly to form a really enjoyable film experience.  The star turn here was by Anna Kendrick.</p> <h4 align="center">The Best Documentaries:</h4> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Super Size Me <br /></em></font></font>This is just a top two list.  I don’t watch a whole lot of docs, and I didn’t want to fill out the list with movies I didn’t think belonged there.  That said, Morgan Spurlock’s breakthrough film easily earns its spot here, especially since it’s inspired so many other comic docu-health films.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Sicko <br /></em></font></font>Michael Moore knows how to push buttons.  I’m a leftist myself, so I generally agree with what he has to say.  What I dislike is his over-simplification of the issues.  For example, the potential problems of a state-run health care system are never mentioned, nor does he bat an eye at the great hospitality shown him by Cuba.  But <em>Sicko </em>was, to me, his best film of all.  There weren’t as many useless stunts, and more time was spent talking to people and actually using a sensible approach to evaluating the problem.  <p><strong>Honorable Mention:  <em>Fahrenheit 9/11 </em></strong>made me angry, as does much of recent history …<em> <strong>The Fog of War </strong></em>was a really fascinating look at former Secretary of Defense McNamara.  I’m really amazed he allowed the filmmakers to essentially conduct a study of him.</p> <h4 align="center">The Best Dramas:</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong><em>Brokeback Mountain <br /></em></font></font>This will forever be known as The Gay Movie.  But the best compliment I can possibly put forward is that the film would have been brilliant if the characters were gay or straight.  This was simply a great film with an unbelievable, Oscar-worthy performance by Heath Ledger.   The fact that it deals with issues of homosexuality is not the only thing that makes it noteworthy.  <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong><em>Munich <br /></em></font></font>After watching <em>Munich</em>, I wondered why in the hell I’d never heard more about this film.  It was absolutely excellent and timely and controversial and everything that usually gets a lot of press.  Surely a Spielberg film has never been so quietly received – even if you consider the Oscar nomination for Best Picture. <br />I saw the answer to my question in the DVD introduction by Spielberg himself.  Actually, it wasn’t so much an introduction as a disclaimer.  Spielberg clarified what the film was meant to be and tried to calm some more hysterical interpretations of it.  The only time I’ve ever seen a disclaimer before a film warning of its controversial nature was before watching some old cartoons with offensive racial stereotypes. <br />I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.  Any movie that engages in an honest discussion about terrorism, retribution and the state of Israel is just hitting too many hot buttons.  I’m not implying some vast Jewish conspiracy to silence the film, just a typical Hollywood attempt to distance itself from any <em>real </em>controversy, controversy that hurts rather than helps a film.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>Letters from Iwo Jima <br /></em></font></font>As the credits rolled on <em>Letters from Iwo Jima, </em>I wondered if this might be the greatest war movie I’d ever seen.  In retrospect, I don’t know if I’d go that far.  And yet the film is so marvelously unique that I can’t help but single it out for praise.</p> <p>What really makes LFIJ stand out is its hybrid Japanese-American production.  Director Clint Eastwood is, of course, an American, but the film still manages to offer a uniquely Japanese look at World War II, something heretofore unheard of in American cinema.</p> <p>LFIJ pulls of a rare feat; it takes on larger issues of war, culture and morality but presents them through the lives of very specific characters.  This gives us new insight into the Japanese experience during World War II.</p> <p>Some common war movie themes emerge, such as the conflict between duty to one’s country and duty to what’s right.  LFIJ goes one step further, examining the clash between traditional mores and the emerging neo-samurai subculture of honor that prevailed in the military/political spheres in imperial Japan.</p> <p>I really can’t tie together all the positive things I have to say about this film.  I hate to rate it as low as number three, but then it’s got some stiff competition.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Downfall <br /></em></font></font><em>Downfall </em>has to be considered the best film study of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.  It takes us inside Hitler’s bunker during the final days of World War II (and his life), giving us a shocking look at the grotesque decay of fascism on one hand, and Hitler’s personal descent into some sort of madness.</p> <p>Bruno Ganz is an absolute revelation as Hitler.  How he escaped an Oscar nomination is amazing (well, it’s unfortunately not that amazing).  Ganz brilliantly portrays Hitler’s delicate, personable side while also manifesting an ego and mental state of profound malignancy.</p> <p>We also get a glimpse into the life of those around Hitler, pathetically stroking his ego and jockeying for position.  Albert Speer is the only one who retains a shred of dignity, and even that’s because the film seems to accept Speer’s version of the events of the final days.  We get to see Martin Bormann, more powerful even than Hitler toward the end, conniving until the end to turn Hitler against Goring, Himmler and others.  And most importantly, we have the ordinary German citizens and workers (notably Hitler’s secretary) who find themselves stuck in some grotesque tragicomedy.</p> <p>The most memorable scene, though, may belong to Josef and Magda Goebbels, who poison their six children before taking their own lives.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>In the Valley of Elah <br /></em></font></font>You know you’re talking about a special film indeed when words fail you completely.  So it is with <em>In the Valley of Elah, </em>a film<em> </em>that defies any attempt to do it justice in print.</p> <p><em>Elah </em>tells the story of an army veteran (Tommy Lee Jones) and his wife (Susan Sarandon) dealing with the death of their son, an Iraq War veteran.  The unusual aspect of the case is that the soldier doesn’t die in Iraq; he’s murdered on a deserted road near his base.  The father, a former Army investigator, stubbornly seeks to find out what happened, with the grudging assistance of a police detective (Charlize Theron).</p> <p>There was every chance that this film would be generically anti-war.  I am anti-war myself, but I don’t enjoy seeing these things presented as a melodramatic morality play where good an evil are easy to tell apart.  Fortunately, the film was nothing like that.  Jones gives the best performance of his career in presenting this very complicated man trying to make sense of insensible things.  The dead soldier’s comrades are neither glorified nor demonized.  They’re just <em>real. </em></p> <p>That’s the best world to describe this film:  real.  It deals with so many complex and troubling issues.  Not just broad ones like war and peace, but the very real complexities of this family.  This refreshingly realistic portrait of humanity shows us again what movies can do.</p> <p>And I LOVED the ending.</p> <p align="center"><em><strong>Drama Summary:</strong></em></p> <ol> <li><strong><em>In the Valley of Elah</em></strong> </li> <li><em>Downfall</em> </li> <li><em>Letters from Iwo Jima</em> </li> <li><em>Munich</em> </li> <li><em>Brokeback Mountain</em> </li> </ol> <p><em></em></p> <p align="center"><strong>Honorable Mention</strong></p> <p>Too many to discuss in detail, so I’ll cut my comments short … <em><strong>Atonement</strong>; <strong>Capote</strong>; <strong>Good Night, and Good Luck</strong>; <strong>Gosford Park</strong>; <strong>Hotel Rwanda</strong>; <strong>The Hurt Locker</strong>; <strong>The Last King of Scotland</strong>; <strong>Notes on a Scandal</strong>; <strong>The Pianist</strong>; <strong>The Queen</strong>; <strong>There Will Be Blood</strong>; <strong>The Wrestler</strong></em></p> <h4>The Best Horror Films:</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>The Grudge <br /></em></font></font><em></em> <p><em></em></p> <p><em>The Grudge</em> was the first horror movie in years to really – pardon the phrase – freak my shit out.  I can’t say what it was about the “ghosts” specifically that kept me up nights.  But the if the filmmakers wanted to scare/haunt me, they succeeded – <em>ridiculously </em>so.</p> <p>One specific thing I can point out is how the film eliminates “safety zones.”  In every horror movie, there are several scenes in which somewhat spooky things may happen, but no big scares are coming.  Scenes with big scares are usually given a big build-up.  That’s not always so in <em>The Grudge</em>.  And if you’re not expecting this, it can cause you to yell out an obscenity in a crowded theater (not that such a thing could happen to me …).</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>The Others <br /></em></font></font><em></em> <p><em></em></p> <p>If <em>The Grudge</em> was scary in new and unpredictable ways, <em>The Others </em>was just a classic suspense film.  It manages to combine the best of horror and suspense, without the gore of the former.  It manages to use subtlety to create a truly suspenseful atmosphere, thereby making the scary moments even more effective.</p> <p>The moral of the story is that, even with all the CGI monsters in the world, we’re still more scared of dark corners in rooms or footsteps in the night.  Sometimes the scariest thing of all is silence.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Dawn of the Dead <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>The re-make of George Romero’s classic zombie flick uses more action-horror than suspense.  The result is a film that is, apologies to Mr. Romero, better than the original.</p> <p>A cast of very effective actors and a well-tuned script creates a variety of new situations that don’t just involve shooting the undead in the face.  Different characters create different dynamics that gives the film a depth unmatched in other splatter films.</p> <p>Not that there isn’t a lot of splatter here – they’re zombies, duh – but there’s a lot more here for the viewer to appreciate, and it’s pulled off with a very skilled hand.</p> <p align="left"><strong>Honorable Mention:  </strong><em>Paranormal Activity </em>comes a close second to <em>The Grudge </em>on the freak-your-shit-out meter.  It also has perhaps the biggest scare I’ve ever experienced in the theater … <em>Grindhouse: Planet Terror </em>knows what it is and who it is for, and just goes with it.  If that doesn’t sound like fun, trust me – it’s an absolute blast.</p> <h4>The Best Musicals:</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>De-Lovely <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>There’s a real charm about <em>De-Lovely, </em>even if there’s not any one thing you can point to that’s really outstanding.  Kevin Kline is good, but maybe not at his best.  The film is interesting, but not entirely compelling.  Perhaps it’s just good ol’ Cole Porter that makes this film such a treat.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Chicago <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p><em>Chicago </em>really isn’t a good musical.  The music is great, sure, but as a production, it’s just a poorly-connected series of musical numbers whose tone is hard – if not impossible – to fathom.  Imagine my surprise, then, that the film version of such a poor musical could be this good.</p> <p>Director Rob Marshall makes the songs work by setting them off slightly from the world of the characters.  Most of the songs take place in an imaginary world that depicts the inner lives of the characters.  This together with a number of brilliant concepts for each song – namely the puppet number – makes <em>Chicago </em>a great deal of fun.  The stars are all good, but none as good as Marshall, who keeps things moving quickly, so that you don’t notice how paper-thin the whole thing is until long after you’ve left the theatre.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Moulin Rouge! <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p><em>Moulin Rouge! </em>is one of those magical movie experiences that a review simply cannot do justice.  I could talk about what a memorable, charming and dynamic experience that film was as a whole.  Or I could focus on the details – I can’t think of any film in the past 20 years that got the details <em>so </em>right.</p> <p>Therefore, my attempt to review <em>Moulin Rouge! </em>will inevitably sound like an Oscar acceptance speech.  I’d like to thank Jim Broadbent, first of all, for being such a fantastically talented actor and a brilliant, inspired comedian.  I’d like to thank Nicole Kidman and Ewan McGregor for kicking it up a notch.  I’d like to thank the design team for creating the most memorable visual experience of any film in recent memory.  I’d like to thank whomever chose those wonderful, wonderful songs.  </p> <p>Last, but not least, I’d like to thank Baz.  For the magic.</p> <p align="left"><strong>Honorable Mention:  </strong>If anything, <em><strong>Sweeney Todd</strong>.  </em>The film was good, but then I came into it with impossible expectations.  I think Sondheim’s seminal work is the best musical of all time, so any film adaptation – even a good one – will inevitably disappoint me.  </p> <h4>The Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy:</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>Star Trek <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p><em>Star Trek </em>probably wasn’t a great film.  But it was a fresh one, and I truly didn’t think such a thing was possible.  There were a lot of small things about this film that bugged me, but overall I was thrilled watching it and thrilled when I left the theater.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>This was, I think, the best of the Potter films so far.  There’s a great narrative underpinning this story, and I thought it was really well-captured here.  The last couple Potter films seemed in too much a hurry to cram in as many details as possible.  <em>Half-Blood Prince</em> somehow managed to believably condense a huge book into a mid-sized movie while still telling the story well.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Lord of the Rings:  The Return of the King <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Choosing just one film from the trilogy is tough, but I’ll agree with the Academy that they saved the best for last.  Any superlatives that might be used to define this trilogy have been exhausted already.  I can only think that it will take its place among the great and iconic film series of all time.  And honestly, after barely ten years, I think it’s already there.</p> <p align="center"></p> <p align="center"><strong></strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Honorable Mention:  <em>Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban </em></strong>was the best of the films before <em>Half-Blood</em> came along …<em> <strong>LOR:  The Fellowship of the Ring </strong></em>and<em> <strong>LOR:  The Two Towers </strong></em>should probably rank #2 and #3 on this list, but I opted for a bit more variety … <em><strong>Minority Report</strong></em><strong> </strong>annoyed me, probably because it was a good movie that was oh SO close to being a really good movie.  I found the denouement to be a thorough disappointment, turning a unique and exciting movie into just another action/thriller, albeit a good one. </p> <p></p> <h4>The Best Thrillers:</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Michael Clayton <br /></em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>I hesitate to make this a category unto itself because, as you can see, most films that are thrillers are better listed under another genre.  It’s rare that I see a true “thriller” that isn’t really an action/adventure or sci-fi/fantasy at heart.</p> <p>That said, I picked a good place to start with <em>Michael Clayton</em>.  When I first tried to rank this movie, I didn’t see any one exceptional thing to make it one of the best of the decade.  But when I tried to pick out the things they did wrong, I was stumped.  This is just a really fun time, a movie that does its job and does it well.  I guess if anything here is exceptional, it’s the work of Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton.  And yes, I am an Anglophile when it comes to actors.</p> <p align="left"><strong>Honorable Mention:  </strong>I enjoyed <strong><em>Memento; </em></strong>I just didn’t see it as a real game-changer.  The unique plot structure made it a good watch, but it didn’t appeal to me a great deal beyond that … <em><strong>Red Dragon</strong> </em>was a really pleasant surprise, especially after sitting through the dud known as <em>Hannibal</em>.  Without copying <em>The Silence of the Lambs, </em>the filmmakers were able to present a truly compelling film that was far ahead of my expectations.  And here again, we have very good (English) actors:  Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson.</p> <h4><em></em></h4> <h4>The Best Leading Actors of the 2000s</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#10:  </strong>David Strathairn, <em>Good Night, and Good Luck</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>It’s always inspiring to see great non-“star” actors like Strathairn get the recognition they deserve.  Strathairn has been doing good work for years, anchoring <em>Eight Men Out, </em>providing strong support in <em>Memphis Belle </em>and <em>Sneakers</em>, and even propping up otherwise disappointing efforts such as <em>Dolores Claiborne</em>.  As Edward R. Murrow, Strathairn was appropriately understated, a tactic that works for the role but rarely brings nominations.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#9:  </strong>Jeremy Renner, <em>The Hurt Locker</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Speaking of understated, Renner did a great job as the star of a great movie without resorting to the histrionics that so often typify the big “acting” roles.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#8:  </strong>Tommy Lee Jones, <em>In the Valley of Elah</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Jones has always been a great actor, but he shone in this film.  In yet another extremely reserved performance (I swear I didn’t plan it this way), Jones manages to portray an utterly believable character whose lack of big emotional swings doesn’t prevent him from being tremendously compelling.  </p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#7:  </strong>Phillip Seymour Hoffman, <em>Capote</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Hoffman made this film work.  Not only did he manage a great impression of Capote, he did so while still being able to define the character within the bounds of the film – no easy task.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#6:  </strong>Forest Whitaker, <em>The Last King of Scotland</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Whitaker is another actor who’s been doing good work on the fringes without ever getting a real chance to shine.  I think <em>Good Morning, Vietnam </em>was the first time I saw him, and I was duly impressed.  He impressed me further as the heart of an otherwise unexceptional film, <em>Panic Room</em>.</p> <p>Few roles offer an actor the chance to break out like Idi Amin.  Whitaker took advantage of the opportunity and then some.  He was exactly what he needed to be, and yet he was still so dynamic and creative that he was always a joy to watch.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong>Heath Ledger, <em>Brokeback Mountain</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Ledger lost the Best Actor Oscar to Hoffman’s Truman Capote.  They both made the list, so it’s not like either choice was <em>wrong . . . </em>but I really think Ledger did something really special in this film.  I came into this movie thinking of Ledger as just another generic movie star, but I came away thinking of him as one of the best actors in the business.  He was not unlike Tommy Lee Jones in his ability to create an intriguing, complex character with a minimalistic style.  And hell, he just <em>was </em>the character.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong>Mickey Rourke, <em>The Wrestler</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>I’m not sure what I can say that hasn’t already been said, except to point out that as a long-time wrestling enthusiast, I think Rourke captured <em>everything </em>about wrestling in one performance.  And yet he was still believable as an individual.  Breathtaking.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong>Bruno Ganz, <em>Downfall</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Best. Hitler. Ever.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong>Sean Penn, <em>Milk</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>I used to think Sean Penn was a good actor.  But after seeing this film, I think he’s been slacking.  Has he always had the abilities of a chameleon?  I didn’t know Penn – or anyone, really – could transform themselves so completely.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong>Daniel Day-Lewis, <em>There Will Be Blood</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Is Daniel Day-Lewis the best actor of his generation?  If so, then he’s done it without becoming an iconic name on the level of, say, Robert Duvall.</p> <p>Not that it matters, I guess.  It’s impossible to imagine anyone else doing what he does.</p> <p align="center"><strong>Leading Actor Summary:</strong></p> <ol> <li><strong>Daniel Day-Lewis, <em>There Will Be Blood</em></strong> </li> <li>Sean Penn, <em>Milk</em> </li> <li>Bruno Ganz, <em>Downfall</em> </li> <li>Mickey Rourke, <em>The Wrestler</em> </li> <li>Heath Ledger, <em>Brokeback Mountain</em> </li> <li>Forest Whitaker, <em>The Last King of Scotland</em> </li> <li>Phillip Seymour Hoffman, <em>Capote</em> </li> <li>Tommy Lee Jones, <em>In the Valley of Elah</em> </li> <li>Jeremy Renner, <em>The Hurt Locker</em> </li> <li>David Strathairn, <em>Good Night, and Good Luck</em> </li> </ol> <h4>The Best Leading Actresses of the 2000s</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong>Helen Mirren, <em>The Queen</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Yet another understated performance by an English person.  Maybe I should give them their own category …</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong>Anne Hathaway, <em>Rachel Getting Married</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>This film was like a clinic on good acting.  Someday we’ll look back at <em>The Princess Diaries </em>and realize, to our surprise, that that was the same Anne Hathaway.  And I’m kind of in love with her (don’t judge!).</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong>Cate Blanchett, <em>Notes on a Scandal</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>As beautiful and talented as she is, I don’t think Blanchett is appreciated enough, and that’s taking into account her elite status and Oscar win.  This film just took the character study to a whole new level, thanks to Blanchett and another lady on this list.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong>Imelda Staunton, <em>Vera Drake</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>GR.U.P.E.P:  GReat Understated Performance by an English Person.  Even among a top-notch ensemble cast, Staunton <em>defined </em>this film, an underrated gem.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong>Judi Dench, <em>Notes on a Scandal</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>The other people on this list are great actresses.  Dench inhabits a plane one step above that.</p> <h4>The Best Supporting Actors of the 2000s</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#7:  </strong>Eddie Marsan, <em>Happy-Go-Lucky</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Marsan is British, but I wouldn’t call this performance understated.  There was something very angry and very modern about this character, which is a challenging combination.  Marsan met the challenge and made the character seem like a believable inhabitant of the Mike Leigh universe.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#6:  </strong>Toby Jones, <em>W.</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Toby Jones is probably most famous for starring in the <em>other </em>Truman Capote film.  As such, he’s somehow missed out on the reputation of a top character actor, but that’s what he is.  His work as Karl Rove in <em>W. </em>was excellent, the best performance in an otherwise disappointing film.</p> <p>He was also excellent in <em>The Painted Veil</em>, an unjustly forgotten film with several fine actors at their peak.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong>Tom Wilkinson, <em>Michael Clayton</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Yet another great character actor who finally got an Oscar nomination.  And if it were up to me, he would have won.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong>Robert Downey, Jr., <em>Tropic Thunder</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>One of the great comic performances of recent years.  You must see it; nothing I say can do it justice.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong>Jim Broadbent, <em>Moulin Rouge!</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>I simply <em>delight </em>in the work of Jim Broadbent.  It seems like he’s been in <em>everything </em>over the past ten years, but his best work came in a charismatic, charming and multi-faceted performance that anchored one of the decade’s great films.  “Like a Virgin …”</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong>Willem Dafoe, <em>Shadow of the Vampire</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p><em>Shadow of the Vampire </em>had one of the best set-ups for any film of the 2000’s.  And while it was good, it largely failed to deliver on that promise … except for Dafoe, who was both hilarious and haunting in one of the most unique performances I’ve ever seen.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong>Heath Ledger, <em>The Dark Knight</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>If he were still alive, perhaps I (and everyone else) wouldn’t have been so crazy about this performance.</p> <p>But crazy we were.</p> <p>It’s almost like he wasn’t really <em>acting, </em>as such.  What he was doing was something different, something I can’t really describe.  And it came in a superhero movie.  How very <em>delicious</em>.</p> <h4>The Best Supporting Actresses of the 2000s</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong>Emily Watson, <em>Gosford Park</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>The most talented film actress whose name wouldn’t ring a bell for 95% of filmgoers.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong>Amy Adams, <em>Doubt</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Maybe the fastest-rising stock in Hollywood.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong>Rosemarie Dewitt, <em>Rachel Getting Married</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>She’s never heard of you, either.  She was great in this film, as was pretty much everyone.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong>Mo’Nique, <em>Precious</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Words?  They fail me.  The only thing that comes to mind is … catharsis.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong>Tilda Swinton, <em>Michael Clayton</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Did I really say that there was nothing exceptional about this film?  Perhaps I spoke too soon.</p> <h4>The WORST Pictures of the 2000s</h4> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#10:  </strong><em>Mirrors</em> <br /></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>I probably shouldn’t put this on the list, since it wasn’t meant to be anything but B-level horror.  Even by that standard, though, it was pretty sorry.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#9:  </strong><em>The Spirit</em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>If I may present a metaphor:  think of the film <em>Sin City</em> as an apple.  Now, hollow out that apple so that there’s nothing left but the skin and a stem.  That’s <em>The Spirit</em>.  The only redeeming qualities here are the occasional bits of acting that are bad enough to produce a good belly laugh.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#8:  </strong><em>A Scanner Darkly</em></font></font></p> <p>Phillip K. Dick’s novels have been adapted into some high-quality, successful films:  <em>Total Recall, Blade Runner, Minority Report</em>.  But I’d yet to see a film that took me inside Phillip K. Dick’s head.</p> <p>Then I saw <em>A Scanner Darkly</em>.  I can report that the inside of this man’s head is not fit for human consumption.  Watching this movie was like swallowing a spike laced with meth.</p> <p>Imagine what it would have been like <em>without</em> Robert Downey, Jr.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#7:  </strong><em>Ready to Rumble</em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>This was the film vehicle for the now-defunct wrestling company World Championship Wrestling (WCW).  WCW was notorious for its failures, and this film continues in that proud tradition.  Just consider these two phrases:  “David Arquette” and “starring vehicle.”</p> <p>The wrestlers – even Sid Vicious – were the best actors.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#6:  </strong><em>Walk Hard:  The Dewey Cox Story</em></font></font></p> <p>I try to give every movie a fair shake when I watch it.  I gave <em>Walk Hard </em>fifteen minutes – which was MORE than fair.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong><em>Hairspray</em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>Maybe I didn’t give this one a fair shake.  But I honestly couldn’t recognize the appeal here – not at all.  </p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong><em>30 Days of Night</em></font></font></p> <p>Vampires in Alaska?  How could that possible go wrong?</p> <p>Oh … like this.  Where the filmmakers somehow managed to avoid the appeal that even most terrible horror films offer.</p> <font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>Hamlet 2</em></font></font> <p><em></em></p> <p>I didn’t finish this one, but I did give it more time than I gave <em>Walk Hard</em>.  And that’s time that I will never, EVER get back.  Let’s just say that I don’t automatically think that obnoxious = funny.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>Halloween 2</em></font></font></p> <p>I thought Zombie’s first <em>Halloween </em>was all right, but that the things he changed tended to be the parts that most appealed to me.  The sequel lacked any redeeming qualities; it was just awfulness.  So much so that it upset me.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Drag Me to Hell</em></font></font></p> <p>I walked out on this one.  It’s the only time I’ve EVER done that at a movie theater.  </p> <h4>The Most <em>Disappointing </em>Films of the 2000s</h4> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#10:  </strong><em>300</em></font></font></p> <p>Peter Griffin’s complaint about <em>The Godfather </em>was that “it insists upon itself.”  I always thought that was an odd thing to say until I saw <em>300.</em>  Sure enough, this film <em>insists </em>upon itself.  It presents a sweeping, epic quality to the story that it never earns – at ALL.  The result is mindless spectacle and unintentional comedy.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#9:  </strong><em>Van Helsing</em></font></font></p> <p>There was the seed of a good idea here, but it was overwhelmed by the blight of the screenplay.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#8:  </strong><em>Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull</em></font></font></p> <p>“Nuking the fridge” has entered our vocabulary.  It’s one step beyond “jumping the shark.”</p> <p>It’s only fitting that this film’s only contribution to the world of film was a new verbal representation of awfulness, unbelievability and decay.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#7:  </strong><em>Gods and Generals</em></font></font></p> <p>One of the key questions Roger Ebert asks about a film is if it would be more interesting to watch the actors have lunch.  I’d like to propose a similar question:  would it be more interesting to watch the author read the book aloud?</p> <p>Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#6:  </strong><em>Sleuth</em></font></font></p> <p>I’m a tremendous fan of both the stage play and the 1982 film that this was adapted from.  Jude Law and Michael Caine are great actors.  Kenneth Branagh is a great director.  And screenwriter Harold Pinter … fucked it all up in the third act.  In fact, I think it would be more apt to say that Pinter took a brilliant script and “Pinter-ized” it.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#5:  </strong><em>Pirates of the Caribbean 2:  Dead Man’s Chest</em></font></font></p> <p>The first <em>Pirates </em>film was pretty good, I thought; not great, but good.</p> <p>In cancer patients, a tumor starts inside otherwise healthy tissue and grows to grotesque sizes, stretching the original organ to an obscene mockery of its former self.</p> <p>The first <em>Pirates of the Caribbean </em>grew an odious, 200-minute tumor that became this sequel.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#4:  </strong><em>The Village</em></font></font></p> <p>Why beat a dead horse/directorial career?</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#3:  </strong><em>Avatar</em></font></font></p> <p>Pass.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#2:  </strong><em>The Black Dahlia</em></font></font></p> <p>This was a noir film in the sense that it was often quite dark onscreen.  Otherwise, bleh.</p> <p><font size="3"><font face="Cambria"><strong>#1:  </strong><em>Crash</em></font></font></p> <p>One of the worst things I’ve ever seen, and I’m not just talking about movies.</p> <p>I tried this one twice.  The first time, I made it just 15 minutes in before my sense of shame forced me to turn it off.  The second time, I made it as far as 45 minutes before my soul became nauseous.  <em>Crash </em>is a fairy tale intended to scare simple-minded liberals.</p> <p>And I say this as a left-wing radical myself.</p> <h4 align="center">FIN</h4> <p align="left"><strong>Up next:  The 1990’s</strong></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17414353.post-54796174886616062432011-03-14T23:10:00.001-04:002011-03-14T23:15:06.674-04:002011 MLB Predictions<p align="center"><u><strong>AL EAST</strong></u></p> <p align="left"><strong>Boston Red Sox </strong>(96-66)</p> <p align="left"><strong>New York Yankees* </strong>(91-71)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Tampa Bay Rays </strong>(87-75)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Toronto Blue Jays </strong>(78-84)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Baltimore Orioles </strong>(78-84)</p> <p align="center"><u><strong>AL CENTRAL</strong></u></p> <a name='more'></a> <p align="left"><strong>Minnesota Twins </strong>(90-72)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Chicago White Sox </strong>(87-75)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Detroit Tigers </strong>(83-79)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Cleveland Indians </strong>(69-93)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Kansas City Royals </strong>(65-97)</p> <p align="center"><strong><u>AL WEST</u></strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Texas Rangers </strong>(87-75)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Los Angeles Angels </strong>(82-80)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Oakland Athletics </strong>(80-82)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Seattle Mariners </strong>(73-89)</p> <p align="center"><strong>ALCS:  Red Sox over Yankees</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>WS:  Phillies over Red Sox</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>AL MVP:  Adrian Gonzalez, Red Sox</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>AL Cy Young:  Felix Hernandez, Mariners</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>AL Rookie of the Year:  Jeremy Hellickson, Rays</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><u>NL EAST</u></strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Philadelphia Phillies </strong>(95-67)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Atlanta Braves* </strong>(89-73)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Florida Marlins </strong>(84-78)</p> <p align="left"><strong>New York Mets </strong>(79-83)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Washington Nationals</strong> (75-87)</p> <p align="center"><strong><u>NL CENTRAL</u></strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>Milwaukee Brewers </strong>(87-75)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Cincinnati Reds</strong> (86-76)</p> <p align="left"><strong>St. Louis Cardinals</strong> (84-78)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Chicago Cubs </strong>(81-81)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Houston Astros </strong>(72-90)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Pittsburgh Pirates</strong> (63-99)</p> <p align="center"><strong><u>NL WEST</u></strong></p> <p align="left"><strong>San Francisco Giants </strong>(86-76)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Colorado Rockies</strong> (85-77)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Los Angeles Dodgers </strong>(84-78)</p> <p align="left"><strong>San Diego Padres </strong>(76-86)</p> <p align="left"><strong>Arizona Diamondbacks </strong>(70-92)</p> <p align="center"><strong>NLCS:  Phillies over Brewers</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>WS:  Phillies over Red Sox</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>NL MVP:  Ryan Braun, Brewers</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>NL Cy Young:  Roy Halladay, Phillies</strong></p> <p align="center"><strong>NL Rookie of the Year:  Aroldis Chapman, Reds</strong></p> Aaron "W.K."http://www.blogger.com/profile/14400695003021398499noreply@blogger.com0