A lot of people seem to miss the point about how enjoyability and quality are not always tied together. This is in regard to all sorts of things, music, movies, books, etc. For me it most often is tied to movies most often, and books secondly. I am good at separating the two and seeing the enjoyability in a poor movie, and seeing the quality in a movie that I did not enjoy at all. Pretty much my favorite movie of all time is Big Trouble In Little China. Does that mean I think its the best movie of all time? Hell no, its not even the best movie of its year, but its my favorite. It is highly enjoyable for me, even though I can see that its not the most quality movie ever. The opposite is true for some other movies that I don't enjoy. For example, I didn't enjoy, for example, Cold Mountain. Actually I really hated it, but I can see that it is high quality movie making. This is an important thing to keep in mind when looking at rottentomatoes.com. RT is a great GREAT way to get a general feel for the quality of a movie. They are pretty spot on with that since it takes a whole bunch of critical reviews instead of just one. If its a high rating its a well made movie, if its a low rating its not a very well made movie. However, thats not always a good measure of enjoyability, and that is something to keep in mind.
On a side note, this is something I always kind of use in those silly Harry Potter versus Twilight debates. Sure there are a ton of people that find both of them enjoyable, and obsess over them even. However, J.K. Rowling is the clear winner. Although both series can only be classified as highly entertaining, Rowling wins because not only is it enjoyable, its well written as well. Rowling is a good writer, although not great, by almost all opinions. Meyer is a terrible, terrible writer, and she and Christopher Paolini should totally have a crappy writer competition. The same can be said for the movies, where as the Harry Potter movies generally get pretty good objective movie reviews, the two Twilight movies rank just a hair above Old Dogs and Willard on "objective" movie reviews. Just my two cents worth.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day Movie Review 5.5/10!
Ok, firstly, I loved the first movie and I am utterly fascinated by the train wreck that is Troy Duffy. But lets be honest, what he is is a huge ass who somehow came up with a good movie idea and script and even more unbelievably got major funding with no movie experience whatsoever. Then he got blackballed because he was such an ass and his movie didn't even get main stream released. However, despite that, it became a cult classic, and is actually a pretty creative and well made movie. However, it appears, and quite predictable so, that he is a bit of a one bullet Barney. His second film does not capture the same feel or charm of the first one, and it is quite obvious that he is pressing and trying to capture the same magic and feel that he stumbled upon. It, for the most part, fails. The story is supposed to be a bit more epic, a lifelong tail, but its cumbersome flashback scenes make it less than powerful. The secondary antagonist has all this interested set up, but never gets evolved and eventually he just goes down like a chump. Also, one thing I never though I would say, THIS MOVIE NEEDS MORE WILLEM DEFOE. His role as FBI Agent Smecker was hilarious and fantastic in the first movie, and his presence is sorely missed in the second one. In the end, I gave this a slightly better than average rating because I loved the characters and the first one. However, where as I recommend the first one to just about everyone, I will only recommend the second one to hardcore fans of the original.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Avatar Movie Review 6.5/10!
Ok, first of all I would like to say that the special effects in this film are in fact fantastic. At times its hard to tell where real actors end and CGI begins. However, that doesn't hold a lot of water with me. James Cameron is the Yankee's of film making. If you throw enough money at something then eventually you will get what you want in the end. Sure, the special effects were fantastic, but pretty much anybody could have thrown that much money at enough design studios and accomplished the very same thing. This is the kind of special effects you get when you throw three times the average blockbuster at a movie. If you spent 300 million freaking Gremlins it would be the most realistic CGI ever, its just the nature of the beast. The point I am trying to make is that you can't throw a lot of shiny glitz my way and expect me to go ga ga over it. I will enjoy it perhaps, but in no shape or form do special effects make a movie good. There are terrible movies with GREAT special effects, and there are great movies with terrible special effects. So kudos for the design studio, but the quality of the effects does not terribly alter the way I rate a movie much either up or down, it does some of course, but it is not going to change a 5 into an 8 or vice-versa. The idea, which gets so much credit for being original, is absolutely not. This Avatar concept is old, well used, and not original. In fact most of the stuff in the film isn't all the original. That's not a bad thing, there aren't a whole lot of original stuff out there, I am just saying that Cameron gets no originality points with this film, the Avatar idea, things named Pandora, and especially, most especially the aboriginal people are not new thoughts. ( "I see you" Mudpeople from Sword of Truth anyone?) This movie is essentially been made already. This movie is essentially "Dance with Wolves" on a distant moon. Ok, its exactly "Dances with Wolves" on a distant moon. Personally, I am not much of a fan of James Cameron, I don't care much for his brute force style of films, and his dialogue is sketchy at best. He has come up with some memorable lines, but on the whole his writing is not terribly consistent. Which is proven by this film. There are some GREAT moments. Very visceral, very intense. But there are some slow, slow parts. Its almost as if you could break this into two movies, one of which is great and one of which is pretty bad. The real problem with it seems to lie more with whats on the cutting room floor. This movie is edited terribly with what seems to be a large chunk of pertinent story line that didn't make it into the film. I could very well see a 4 hour directors cut coming out in a year or so, and I could also very well see me changing my opinion on this film and liking it very, very much. As it is, in its current cut there were to many times during the film where I was asking myself, "why in the world is this happening." Not because I didn't understand the plot, its pretty simple, but because things kind of happened with very little explanation, however, they had the feel that it was originally set up to explains these situations in a lot of detail. I can only infer in the originally story that there was some sort of prophecy involved that was explained on the story board but only briefly alluded to in the final cut. Even with all of my misgivings about the film though, I still enjoyed it. I thought it was an entertaining movie with incredibly visceral battle scenes that affected me more than I have been emotionally affected by a battle scene in a very long time. But my no stretch of the imagination is this the best movie of all time as some are proclaiming, or even the best movie of the year. Its a spectacle, its something you should see, IN THEATER. Don't wait for DVD even on BLU-RAY this will be lacking. In fact, I doubt I will ever watch this movie again because I think it will just lose so much on the small screen. Oh, and Sam Worthington, whom I thought was the one redeeming feature of Terminator Salvation, disappointed me at times in this film. Some of the better lines of the film come out sort of garbled by him, as if he has a big jawbreaker in is mouth. Don't know why that happened, but I didn't like it. FINAL WORD: See this movie, See this in theater, see it in 3D IMAX if you can, its worth the higher priced ticket. Its emotional, visceral, and enjoyable, but its not that revolutionary.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Men Who Stare at Goats Movie Review 5/10!
Alrighty, this is one of the stranger movies I have seen lately. The closest I can categorize this movie is as a dark comedy, but its really not quite dark or cynical enough to really be called "dark." Its sort of a tweener movie, its not light enough to be a regular comedy, but its not quite dark enough to be a cynical dark comedy. In a movie like this, the thing that makes it is quality dialogue and well written characters. Not just the main characters, but all of the little bit parts as well. This is something that a director like Quinten Tarantino excels at. Grant Heslov and Peter Straughan not so much. The movie started promising, with a nice Ewan McGregor voice over, and the meeting with the first "psychic" he encounters, a man named Gus Lacy. It was quirky, entertaining, and set the pace for what I thought would be a very good movie. But it sort of went downhill from there. What it seems to be is a group of good actors given a very mediocre scripts with characters that they had very little that they could do with. They seem to be mailing it in. Kevin Spacey is just particularly wasted. There is nothing about his character that uses his talents, or requires him to be playing it. I could have played that character just as effectively. Its not really Spacey's fault I don't think, he just wasn't given anything to work with. George Clooney's character was also a null, it could have been played much more over the top. Jeff Bridges is entertaining but he is really just channeling the "dude" into a similar role, definitely nothing that we haven't seen before. Another odd thing about this movie is that it was a completley male cast except for a line or two by MgGregor's ex-wife in the movie. This isn't a good or bad thing, I just thought it was interesting. I did find Clooney calling McGregor a Jedi, but that was funny for the wrong reason I think. All in all I was very disappointed with this movie, I am glad I only paid 5 bucks to see it. Its not the worst movie in the world, if you were looking for a Friday night movie to rent then it would possibly be a decent choose, but don't waste a movie ticket on it.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Why the word myth is a myth.
The other day I was watching Mythbusters. Why you might ask would I watch such a terribly annoying show? My brother is obsessed with it for some reason, so I was forced into it. This show annoys on a variety of different levels, one of them being that they don't bust any thing all they do is pick one string of facts and fail analysis any of the variables that could make something plausible outside of their ridiculously shortsighted experiments. The other being that their name itself is somewhat an affront to what I got my degree in. I admit that the word "myth" is commonly used to represent a falsehood, or something that has questionable truth to it. But I guess its like someone repeatedly using horrible grammar around someone who has an English degree. (ok wait that is essentially what my degree is in, and that doesn't annoy me) The word myth academically has nothing to do with falsehoods, legends, tales, or fables. I have from time to time abused this common misconception, once I referred to the bible as mythology around a bunch of church goers just to see what would happen. It wasn't really a pleasant experience for me. But the bible, particularly the book of Genesis, is a pure example of what a myth, or mythology is. It is, to avoid an even longer discourse, a creation story. Every religion, culture, or people has a mythos or mythology, and those words do not imply falseness or truth, they simply are. They are a way of given a particularly archetype to a specific part of a religion or culture. Every time someone says "oh thats just a myth," it just makes me think about that. Its 99.9% of the time completely a statement made in error. Most of the time I disregard it, but when it really bugs me is when Professors use the word in this content when lecturing, often in related fields, when they really, really should know better. One time when I was having a really bad day I corrected a professor on this and I would really recommend this tactic to anybody. Of course, it was just Wilkerson-Freeman so piling on to here is a bit gratuitous since she makes herself look silly enough on her own. The whole moral of this story is that the show Mythbusters really should be called UrbanLegend Busters, or just LegendBusters. I guess those names were already trademarked.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Movie Review: Zombieland 8/10!
When I think about Zombie movies there are two things that generally come to mind first. George Romero and Shaun of the Dead. They are pretty much the pinnacle of zombie greatness. Romero has pretty much mastered the zombie genre, and Shaun of the Dead sort of spun it on its head. Zombieland doesn't really resemble either of these. Zombieland is a good movie, good but not great. It is not a scary movie at all, as its pretty much a straight comedy. I mean its not scary at all, its a coming of age story that just sort of happens to have zombies in the background. The laughs are good, but not great, and the story is cute. I think I laughed out loud twice at the most. That doesn't mean it wasn't funny, and admittedly, and I don't laugh that much during movies, but still it was not a super crazy laugh your ass off type movie. The cast is good, Woody Harrelson is great in this movie, and Emma Stone is hot, and has the most freaky big eyes I have ever seen. I think she must be an anime character. Jessie Eisenberg really doesn't do it that much for me though, he basically does a Michael Cera impression, but he just isn't quite as good at it than the original. There are two things though that sold the movie for me though, one was a suddenly touching at sad moment with Woody's character about 3/4 of the way through involving a duct tape wallet, and a particularly awesome cameo by a very cool guy. All in all I recommend seeing this movie, its no Shaun of the Dead as its laught just aren't anywhere near its caliber, but its cute, funny, and worth seeing.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Retro Movie Review: Big Trouble in Little China 9/10.
There are a lot of movies from the 80's that have made cult status, and Kurt Russell happens to star in my two favorites, which also both happen to be John Carpenter flicks. The first one of course is "Escape from New York" with Kurt Russell playing the trench coat wearing Snake Pliskin. My favorite however, is the classic "Big Trouble in Little China." This movie is to this day one of my all time favorite movies, and I routinely put it into my top fives. This great thing about this movie is John Carpenter knew what he was doing. Unlike a lot of other campy cheesy horror/action movies from the 80's this ones camp and cheese is by design rather than by accident. Its funny cheesy moments are still funny, the corny one liners still hold up. Sure the special effects are bad, but you know what, its a testament to a great movie when its still entertaining even if they have terrible special effects. How can you go wrong with a movie that has a villain that is 1 part 1000 year old decrepit old man and 1 part 8 foot tall Chinese sorcerer? Who knew green eyes were so important? I do know one thing though, its all in the reflexes.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Retro Movie Review Dead Alive 5.5/10!
Ok, many of you know me and know that I have healthy interest in the horror movie genre. This is one of those films that I have been wanting to watch for a few years, but just never got around to watching. Now I know why. Its actually known as the bloodiest movie of all time by volume. This movie was so over the top gore fest that even I, the horror movie veteran, had trouble stomaching it. Before we get to those gory details though let me give you a bit of background information about this little movie.
This is an independent film made in New Zealand and released in 1993. It is directed by none other than Peter Jackson, yes the Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson. Turns out before he was doing wizards and hobbits he was actually quite the king of splatterhouse. This movie is pretty simple. Boy meets girl, boy has issues with his mother, boy's mother gets bitten by a Sumatran rat monkey, turns into a zombie, boy has bigger issues with his mother. That pretty much sums of the plot. Along the way there are some veiled attempts at this foreign concept called acting, but really such inconsequential notions aren't needed in this flick.
This movie is over the top gory, and is thin on anything other than the gore. I mean seriously there are parts where it looks like they just turned on a bunch of bloody sprinklers, soaked the set in blood and then were like "Damn, we need a lot more blood." The special effects are terrible, and I guess blessedly, the blood doesn't even really look like blood at all. Its kind of an orangey watered down ketchup really. I am trying to think of something positive things to right, or even things to actually give a critique about, but it just isn't there. This movie is gross, gory, bloody, disgusting, and absolutely a must watch if your a horror junky. I really think this movie was just a gimic to try and see if they could make the bloodiest low budget movie ever. Its a tough match between this one and "Zombie Strippers."
This is an independent film made in New Zealand and released in 1993. It is directed by none other than Peter Jackson, yes the Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson. Turns out before he was doing wizards and hobbits he was actually quite the king of splatterhouse. This movie is pretty simple. Boy meets girl, boy has issues with his mother, boy's mother gets bitten by a Sumatran rat monkey, turns into a zombie, boy has bigger issues with his mother. That pretty much sums of the plot. Along the way there are some veiled attempts at this foreign concept called acting, but really such inconsequential notions aren't needed in this flick.
This movie is over the top gory, and is thin on anything other than the gore. I mean seriously there are parts where it looks like they just turned on a bunch of bloody sprinklers, soaked the set in blood and then were like "Damn, we need a lot more blood." The special effects are terrible, and I guess blessedly, the blood doesn't even really look like blood at all. Its kind of an orangey watered down ketchup really. I am trying to think of something positive things to right, or even things to actually give a critique about, but it just isn't there. This movie is gross, gory, bloody, disgusting, and absolutely a must watch if your a horror junky. I really think this movie was just a gimic to try and see if they could make the bloodiest low budget movie ever. Its a tough match between this one and "Zombie Strippers."
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Dan Brown Book Review "The Lost Symbol" 5/10
Have you ever noticed how in movies that have sequels they all have a similar pattern of quality? Generally the first one is decent, but not great. The second one normally gets all the elements right, and improves all of the negatives in the first to create a pretty damn good finished product. The third one generally regresses pretty hardcore and is generally a contrive attempt to profit off the success of the first two. This appears to be the format Dan Brown has followed, and “The Lost Symbol” appears to be a situation where Mr. Brown was obviously trying to hit on the success of the first two, and try to emphasize the highlights of those books. What that means is the use of the symbols and secret societies is now in your face instead of subtle and surprising. He has found a formula for success and he is sticking to it. To be quite honest, Dan Brown is not a good writer, actually quite the opposite, he is terrible. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he is entertaining, as I enjoyed his first two books quite a bit, however, he is no wordsmith. He is never going to make a living on his ability with words. His books are interesting despite his lack of writing talent, not because of it. It was his ability to work a plot, winding and interesting that makes his books popular. This one however, was transparent. It was easy to see what was going on from the beginning; there were not good plot twists, and frankly no really good plot period. At the end when it came to big reveal it was a terribly let down. Brown was really pushing to make something important and of something that didn’t make that much sense at all. I was hoping that would be a good read, something that would be interesting. Instead all I got was a contrived mess of predictable plot.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Top Five Shortstop!!
As listed in my previous blog, I don’t consider Ernie Banks to be a shortstop. The majority of his career was actually spent as a first sacker. Also I am leaving off Arod because it seems he is going to go in as a third-baseman, not as a shortstop.
5. Ozzie Smith- Ozzie Smith is not an offensive force, but he didn’t contribute some with the stick in his career. He eventually became a respectable average guy and a pretty decent on base guy as well. He also had 580 career stolen bases to only 148 times caught. That’s a pretty good number. However, Ozzie is not here because of his batting prowess. He is here because he is, by any statistical analysis you choose to employ, the single greatest and most valuable defensive player of all time. At a position where defense is important that counts for a lot.
4. Derek Jeter- With all apologies to Cal Ripken Jr., he isn’t going to make my top five. This is a bit of a surprise to me, as much as it is to the people who know me. First of all Jeter isn’t done. He may actually go into the number 3 spot, even though he has actually been a pretty terrible defensive player for most of his career. He has finally learned to be an average to slightly above average shortstop the last couple of years. No bones about it, his Gold Gloves are a travesty and anybody who thinks that they aren’t should be ashamed. That being said, Jeter is still one of the exception shortstops of all time. To this date he has amassed 2742 hits, and put up slash numbers of .317/.388/.459. And he is a gamer, and a leader, which although not heavily waited, is important. He has the personality that Arod should have, but doesn’t. All in all, I feel confident in putting him in my top 5.
3. Joe Cronin- This may be a controversial pick as well, but he was a damn good player. First of all Cronin was a great fielder. Absolutely superb, and one of the best ever. But no only could he field the ball, he could hit it as well. His percentage numbers are a very solid, .301/.390/.468. These are very, very good, particularly for a short stop, and even rarer for a shortstop who can field his position.
2. Arky Vaughn- The proud owner of the best season by a shortstop not named Honus Wagner. This guy could hit, this guy could field, and frankly I am just a sucker for players with career OBP’s over .400. His slash numbers are .318/.406/.453. His 1935 season was truly amazing. In that particular season he hit .381/.491/.607. That’s an absolutely sick season.
1. Honus Wagner- This is pretty much a given, and beyond debate. Hans Wagner is the greatest shortstop of all time, bottom line, end of story. 7 time batting champion and the best defender of his time. His career numbers are .327/.391/.466. This doesn’t look all that impressive but given the average season of his time he was leaps and bounds better than everyone else. Putting up a near 1.000 ops, which he did often, was a near super human feat in early baseball. And according to his peers he was far and away the most feared hitter in the National League.
Cal Ripken Jr.- Cal Ripken Jr. is, of course, one of the great players in baseball history. However, I have a hard time putting him in the top 5. Sure he had the games streak, and that is one of the most impressive records in baseball, but that in itself does not make you the best player at your position. His career OPS is .788. Frankly this is just a bit low to put him in, even counting that he played in an offensively repressed era. Defensively he was very very good, but not great. I have no qualms putting him in the Hall of Fame, and among baseball’s greats, but he doesn’t crack the top five.
5. Ozzie Smith- Ozzie Smith is not an offensive force, but he didn’t contribute some with the stick in his career. He eventually became a respectable average guy and a pretty decent on base guy as well. He also had 580 career stolen bases to only 148 times caught. That’s a pretty good number. However, Ozzie is not here because of his batting prowess. He is here because he is, by any statistical analysis you choose to employ, the single greatest and most valuable defensive player of all time. At a position where defense is important that counts for a lot.
4. Derek Jeter- With all apologies to Cal Ripken Jr., he isn’t going to make my top five. This is a bit of a surprise to me, as much as it is to the people who know me. First of all Jeter isn’t done. He may actually go into the number 3 spot, even though he has actually been a pretty terrible defensive player for most of his career. He has finally learned to be an average to slightly above average shortstop the last couple of years. No bones about it, his Gold Gloves are a travesty and anybody who thinks that they aren’t should be ashamed. That being said, Jeter is still one of the exception shortstops of all time. To this date he has amassed 2742 hits, and put up slash numbers of .317/.388/.459. And he is a gamer, and a leader, which although not heavily waited, is important. He has the personality that Arod should have, but doesn’t. All in all, I feel confident in putting him in my top 5.
3. Joe Cronin- This may be a controversial pick as well, but he was a damn good player. First of all Cronin was a great fielder. Absolutely superb, and one of the best ever. But no only could he field the ball, he could hit it as well. His percentage numbers are a very solid, .301/.390/.468. These are very, very good, particularly for a short stop, and even rarer for a shortstop who can field his position.
2. Arky Vaughn- The proud owner of the best season by a shortstop not named Honus Wagner. This guy could hit, this guy could field, and frankly I am just a sucker for players with career OBP’s over .400. His slash numbers are .318/.406/.453. His 1935 season was truly amazing. In that particular season he hit .381/.491/.607. That’s an absolutely sick season.
1. Honus Wagner- This is pretty much a given, and beyond debate. Hans Wagner is the greatest shortstop of all time, bottom line, end of story. 7 time batting champion and the best defender of his time. His career numbers are .327/.391/.466. This doesn’t look all that impressive but given the average season of his time he was leaps and bounds better than everyone else. Putting up a near 1.000 ops, which he did often, was a near super human feat in early baseball. And according to his peers he was far and away the most feared hitter in the National League.
Cal Ripken Jr.- Cal Ripken Jr. is, of course, one of the great players in baseball history. However, I have a hard time putting him in the top 5. Sure he had the games streak, and that is one of the most impressive records in baseball, but that in itself does not make you the best player at your position. His career OPS is .788. Frankly this is just a bit low to put him in, even counting that he played in an offensively repressed era. Defensively he was very very good, but not great. I have no qualms putting him in the Hall of Fame, and among baseball’s greats, but he doesn’t crack the top five.
Here come the 1950's Hall of Fame blog Part 6!!
Alrighty boys and girls, I know it’s been a long time since my last installment into the wonderful world of the Baseball Hall of Fame, but here we are the 1950’s.
1959- Zack Wheat
Zach Wheat- Yes- Zach Wheat is fairly marginal as far as Hall of Famers go, but I do think he is a Hall of Famer. His slash numbers are .317/.367/.450, which aren’t spectacular, but are very good. He accumulated 2884 hits, 1248 RBI, and 1289 Runs. He was known as a quality defensive outfielder and was considered one of the best players in baseball by his peers.
1957- Sam Crawford
Sam Crawford-Yes- Sam Crawford is nearly and identical player to Zach Wheat with the exception that he was one of the great defensive outfielders of his generation. His percentage numbers are .309/.362/.452. He gets extra points for playing Right Field next to Cobb for several years without killing him. Overall, it is basically the same thing as Wheat. A few more hits, a few more Runs, and quite a few more RBI’s.
1956-Hank Greenberg, Joe Cronin
Hank Greenberg- Yes- Normally I don’t go for the short career guys, but you know what there are seldom guys who have been truly this great. .313/.412/.605. Yep folks that’s a career 1.017 OPS. That’s pretty damn good.
Joe Cronin-Yes- Joe Cronin is actually in my top five greatest shortstops of all time. His slash numbers are a very, very solid .301/.390/.468. He was an amazingly good defender, one of the best. As far as shortstops there are very few who can combine his defensive prowess with the ability to hit both for a decent average and with some pop. His .857 OPS ranks very high amongst shortstops.
1955-Dazzy Vance, Ray Schalk, Ted Lyons, Gabby Hartnett, Joe DiMaggio, Home Run Baker.
Dazzy Vance-Maybe- Dazzy Vance is a tough person to rate. I put a lot of weight towards how their peers viewed them in their playing days. Dazzy Vance was always considered one of, if not the best by the hitters he faced. There is no question that he was tough to hit, and his 1924 season is one of the greatest of all time. He also led the National League in K’s 7 years running. However, other than his 3 great seasons, he wasn’t all that good and he didn’t pitch for very long. He has a career 3.24, which would have been a lot higher is his ERA hadn’t been ridiculously low in his 3 great seasons. In the rest of his seasons he was only average or a little above or below. He only had 197 wins to 140 losses. He does have 2045 career K’s, which given the strikeout rates of players in his day, is very impressive. Its equivalent of about 3200 k’s now. All in all it’s a tough case to judge, so I am putting it at maybe, but I think I am inclined to leave him out.
Ray Schalk-No- This pick is one of the ones that gets the most attention as being a farce. This is because his career slash numbers are .253/.340/.316. That is the lowest batting average of any player in the Hall of Fame. His OBP is actually pretty remarkable considering how little of a threat he was with the stick. What’s even worse than his batting average is his putrid .316 slugging average. He was a good defensive player, a great one even. But he is not the greatest defensive catcher off all time. Maybe not even in the top five greatest. He was an excellent base stealer for a catcher and he did have some speed, but its not enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.
Ted Lyons-No- As far as I can tell, Ted Lyons isn’t really all that good a player. He had a career 260-230 record, for a less than stellar .531 winning percentage. His career high in k’s for a season was 74, for a career total of 1073. I am not a big fan of pitchers that walk more than the strikeout and Lyon’s did that for his career. His career ERA of 3.67 is not really indicative of him having a Hall of Fame career.
Gabby Hartnett-Yes- Gabby Hartnett was an excellent catcher. He was great defensively with a rocket arm, and he could hit. He could hit very well. His percentage numbers are .297/.370/.489. That gives him a very solid .858 OPS. His cumulative numbers are lacking, of course, but with catchers especially you have to make an exception for that. Due to the nature of their profession they are always going to have less games played than other positions.
Joe DiMaggio-Yes- Three time MVP, great defensive centerfielder, and a great hitter. His career OPS of .977 make him a HOF lock. A curious thing about DiMaggio, he was known as a very speedy player but his career high in SB’s was 6. In fact he only had 30 career stolen bases. I know it wasn’t a stolen base era, and that he was a middle of the order type hitter, but you would think he would have gotten at least twice that accidently.
Home Run Baker-Yes- Mr. Frank Baker was known as Home Run Baker because of his ability to knock the ball out of the park. Of course 12 was his career high and he only hit 96 in his career. His career slash number are .307/.363/.442. Given the time period in which he played he was a legitimate big time slugger. He was considered by his peers to be the best third basemen in the game. His 12 home runs were also a record until Babe Ruth broke it. He is a Hall of Famer without question.
1954-Bill Terry, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Dickey
Bill Terry-Yes- I am not a huge Bill Terry fan. His .401 average is incredibly over rated and should not be considered with the same reverence as the other .400+ hitters. Basically anything offensive that was done in 1930 shouldn’t really count. Outside of that he was a very good player. His career .341 average is extremely impressive and he had a little bit of pop in his bat as well.
Rabbit Maranville-No- He got in because he was a media riot. His numbers certainly don’t verify Hall of Fame status. His career OPS of .658 is unimpressive to say the least. He was not that exceptional a fielder to make up for the poor average. I am really not sure why he is in the Hall of Fame to be honest.
Bill Dickey-Yes- Mr. Dickey grew up in Kensett, Arkansas, which is a little town that is basically a part of Searcy. After he finished his career he moved back to Arkansas until his death in Little Rock in 1993. Most people rate Yogi Berra as the greatest Yankee catcher of all time, but my vote goes to Bill Dickey. He was a man that was well liked and a leader on his team. He was a smarter player than Yogi, he was a much better defender and had a rocket arm. And in my opinion he was much more consistent hitter. He put up a nice career .313 batting average, with a .382 OBP, and .486 SLG. He is a no doubter as a Hall of Famer, and one of the greatest catchers of all time.
1953-Bobby Wallace, Al Simmons, Dizzy Dean, Chief Bender.
Bobby Wallace-No- Bobby Wallace was a whole lot of average over a very long career. He was a career .268 hitter with no power. He managed to rack up 2309 hits but it took him 25 seasons to get them. He didn’t steal bases, he was only a slightly above average fielder, he only batted over .300 once. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about him.
Al Simmons-Yes- Al Simmons is no doubter of a Hall of Famer, but one that flies under most people radar. “Bucket-Foot” Al could flat out hit the baseball. He racked up 2927 hits, ending up just shy of 3000, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt there. His percentage numbers are a more than solid .334/.380/.535 for a career .915 OPS. He tends to get overlooked because he played on team with about seven other Hall of Famers.
Dizzy Dean-Yes- Dizzy gets into the Hall but I don’t know that I would put him in if he hadn’t been a Hall of Fame type broadcaster too. I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he was a great player, and because of his overall contribution to baseball. And because he is just a damn interesting guy. First of all he one 30 games in 1934. He followed that up with 28 wins the next year. The problem is he only has 150 career wins. On the plus side he had a career winning percentage of .644. That’s pretty spectacular.
Chief Bender-Yes- Charles Albert Bender could play some baseball. He had a career 212-127 record for a .625 career winning percentage. Not to shabby, especially when combined with his career 2.46 ERA. He was always considered one of the best pitchers in the league.
1952-Paul Waner, Harry Heilman
Paul Waner-Yes- Big Poison was a much better player than his brother, Little Poison. He put up a career .333 batting average, and unlike his brother he could slug the ball a little and tossed up a career .473 slg to go along with his good batting average. For good measure he tossed in 3152 career hits, 1627 Runs, and 1309 RBI’s.
Harry Heilman-Yes- A guy most people don’t think about, or have even heard of, Harry could flat out rip the ball. He put up a .342 batting average and put up a .410 OBP and a .520 slugging percentage just for good measure. That gives him a career .930 OPS which is pretty stellar. He put up 2660 career hits, 1291 career runs, and 1539 career RBI’s. No question he belongs.
1951-Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx
Mel Ott-Yes- No doubter. 511 career home runs, with .304/.414/.533. This gives him an outstanding .947 OPS. Mr. Ott was a professional slugger and his numbers show that. He also put up a very respectable 2876 career hit total and had over 1000 career extra base hits. 1859 career runs with 1860 career RBI’s are also very impressive.
Jimmie Foxx-Yes- Another no doubter, Jimmie Foxx goes into the argument as one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time. 534 homers, 1751 runs, 1922 RBI and 1000 extra base hits. His slash numbers are even more impressive .325/.428/.609. There is no question to membership into the Hall of Fame.
1959- Zack Wheat
Zach Wheat- Yes- Zach Wheat is fairly marginal as far as Hall of Famers go, but I do think he is a Hall of Famer. His slash numbers are .317/.367/.450, which aren’t spectacular, but are very good. He accumulated 2884 hits, 1248 RBI, and 1289 Runs. He was known as a quality defensive outfielder and was considered one of the best players in baseball by his peers.
1957- Sam Crawford
Sam Crawford-Yes- Sam Crawford is nearly and identical player to Zach Wheat with the exception that he was one of the great defensive outfielders of his generation. His percentage numbers are .309/.362/.452. He gets extra points for playing Right Field next to Cobb for several years without killing him. Overall, it is basically the same thing as Wheat. A few more hits, a few more Runs, and quite a few more RBI’s.
1956-Hank Greenberg, Joe Cronin
Hank Greenberg- Yes- Normally I don’t go for the short career guys, but you know what there are seldom guys who have been truly this great. .313/.412/.605. Yep folks that’s a career 1.017 OPS. That’s pretty damn good.
Joe Cronin-Yes- Joe Cronin is actually in my top five greatest shortstops of all time. His slash numbers are a very, very solid .301/.390/.468. He was an amazingly good defender, one of the best. As far as shortstops there are very few who can combine his defensive prowess with the ability to hit both for a decent average and with some pop. His .857 OPS ranks very high amongst shortstops.
1955-Dazzy Vance, Ray Schalk, Ted Lyons, Gabby Hartnett, Joe DiMaggio, Home Run Baker.
Dazzy Vance-Maybe- Dazzy Vance is a tough person to rate. I put a lot of weight towards how their peers viewed them in their playing days. Dazzy Vance was always considered one of, if not the best by the hitters he faced. There is no question that he was tough to hit, and his 1924 season is one of the greatest of all time. He also led the National League in K’s 7 years running. However, other than his 3 great seasons, he wasn’t all that good and he didn’t pitch for very long. He has a career 3.24, which would have been a lot higher is his ERA hadn’t been ridiculously low in his 3 great seasons. In the rest of his seasons he was only average or a little above or below. He only had 197 wins to 140 losses. He does have 2045 career K’s, which given the strikeout rates of players in his day, is very impressive. Its equivalent of about 3200 k’s now. All in all it’s a tough case to judge, so I am putting it at maybe, but I think I am inclined to leave him out.
Ray Schalk-No- This pick is one of the ones that gets the most attention as being a farce. This is because his career slash numbers are .253/.340/.316. That is the lowest batting average of any player in the Hall of Fame. His OBP is actually pretty remarkable considering how little of a threat he was with the stick. What’s even worse than his batting average is his putrid .316 slugging average. He was a good defensive player, a great one even. But he is not the greatest defensive catcher off all time. Maybe not even in the top five greatest. He was an excellent base stealer for a catcher and he did have some speed, but its not enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.
Ted Lyons-No- As far as I can tell, Ted Lyons isn’t really all that good a player. He had a career 260-230 record, for a less than stellar .531 winning percentage. His career high in k’s for a season was 74, for a career total of 1073. I am not a big fan of pitchers that walk more than the strikeout and Lyon’s did that for his career. His career ERA of 3.67 is not really indicative of him having a Hall of Fame career.
Gabby Hartnett-Yes- Gabby Hartnett was an excellent catcher. He was great defensively with a rocket arm, and he could hit. He could hit very well. His percentage numbers are .297/.370/.489. That gives him a very solid .858 OPS. His cumulative numbers are lacking, of course, but with catchers especially you have to make an exception for that. Due to the nature of their profession they are always going to have less games played than other positions.
Joe DiMaggio-Yes- Three time MVP, great defensive centerfielder, and a great hitter. His career OPS of .977 make him a HOF lock. A curious thing about DiMaggio, he was known as a very speedy player but his career high in SB’s was 6. In fact he only had 30 career stolen bases. I know it wasn’t a stolen base era, and that he was a middle of the order type hitter, but you would think he would have gotten at least twice that accidently.
Home Run Baker-Yes- Mr. Frank Baker was known as Home Run Baker because of his ability to knock the ball out of the park. Of course 12 was his career high and he only hit 96 in his career. His career slash number are .307/.363/.442. Given the time period in which he played he was a legitimate big time slugger. He was considered by his peers to be the best third basemen in the game. His 12 home runs were also a record until Babe Ruth broke it. He is a Hall of Famer without question.
1954-Bill Terry, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Dickey
Bill Terry-Yes- I am not a huge Bill Terry fan. His .401 average is incredibly over rated and should not be considered with the same reverence as the other .400+ hitters. Basically anything offensive that was done in 1930 shouldn’t really count. Outside of that he was a very good player. His career .341 average is extremely impressive and he had a little bit of pop in his bat as well.
Rabbit Maranville-No- He got in because he was a media riot. His numbers certainly don’t verify Hall of Fame status. His career OPS of .658 is unimpressive to say the least. He was not that exceptional a fielder to make up for the poor average. I am really not sure why he is in the Hall of Fame to be honest.
Bill Dickey-Yes- Mr. Dickey grew up in Kensett, Arkansas, which is a little town that is basically a part of Searcy. After he finished his career he moved back to Arkansas until his death in Little Rock in 1993. Most people rate Yogi Berra as the greatest Yankee catcher of all time, but my vote goes to Bill Dickey. He was a man that was well liked and a leader on his team. He was a smarter player than Yogi, he was a much better defender and had a rocket arm. And in my opinion he was much more consistent hitter. He put up a nice career .313 batting average, with a .382 OBP, and .486 SLG. He is a no doubter as a Hall of Famer, and one of the greatest catchers of all time.
1953-Bobby Wallace, Al Simmons, Dizzy Dean, Chief Bender.
Bobby Wallace-No- Bobby Wallace was a whole lot of average over a very long career. He was a career .268 hitter with no power. He managed to rack up 2309 hits but it took him 25 seasons to get them. He didn’t steal bases, he was only a slightly above average fielder, he only batted over .300 once. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about him.
Al Simmons-Yes- Al Simmons is no doubter of a Hall of Famer, but one that flies under most people radar. “Bucket-Foot” Al could flat out hit the baseball. He racked up 2927 hits, ending up just shy of 3000, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt there. His percentage numbers are a more than solid .334/.380/.535 for a career .915 OPS. He tends to get overlooked because he played on team with about seven other Hall of Famers.
Dizzy Dean-Yes- Dizzy gets into the Hall but I don’t know that I would put him in if he hadn’t been a Hall of Fame type broadcaster too. I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he was a great player, and because of his overall contribution to baseball. And because he is just a damn interesting guy. First of all he one 30 games in 1934. He followed that up with 28 wins the next year. The problem is he only has 150 career wins. On the plus side he had a career winning percentage of .644. That’s pretty spectacular.
Chief Bender-Yes- Charles Albert Bender could play some baseball. He had a career 212-127 record for a .625 career winning percentage. Not to shabby, especially when combined with his career 2.46 ERA. He was always considered one of the best pitchers in the league.
1952-Paul Waner, Harry Heilman
Paul Waner-Yes- Big Poison was a much better player than his brother, Little Poison. He put up a career .333 batting average, and unlike his brother he could slug the ball a little and tossed up a career .473 slg to go along with his good batting average. For good measure he tossed in 3152 career hits, 1627 Runs, and 1309 RBI’s.
Harry Heilman-Yes- A guy most people don’t think about, or have even heard of, Harry could flat out rip the ball. He put up a .342 batting average and put up a .410 OBP and a .520 slugging percentage just for good measure. That gives him a career .930 OPS which is pretty stellar. He put up 2660 career hits, 1291 career runs, and 1539 career RBI’s. No question he belongs.
1951-Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx
Mel Ott-Yes- No doubter. 511 career home runs, with .304/.414/.533. This gives him an outstanding .947 OPS. Mr. Ott was a professional slugger and his numbers show that. He also put up a very respectable 2876 career hit total and had over 1000 career extra base hits. 1859 career runs with 1860 career RBI’s are also very impressive.
Jimmie Foxx-Yes- Another no doubter, Jimmie Foxx goes into the argument as one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time. 534 homers, 1751 runs, 1922 RBI and 1000 extra base hits. His slash numbers are even more impressive .325/.428/.609. There is no question to membership into the Hall of Fame.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Ernie Banks a shortstop?
Ok, I get quite a bit of flack from time to time because I don't include Ernie Banks in my top five shortstops list. But there is a logical and sound reason why he isn't on my list of all-time great shortstops. The first reason is his career numbers aren't all that spectacular. However, that is actually not the reason why he doesn't make my list. He doesn't make my list because he didn't spend his entire career as a shortstop. He didn't even spend HALF of his career as a shortstop. Ernie Banks gets publicity as the only shortstop in the 500 club, but frankly, this publicity is 100% not deserved. Not because he didn't hit 500 homers, that's not in question of course, but because he spent more of his career as a first basemen then he did as a shortstop. Here is the breakdown of Ernie Banks career by position:
As a 1st Basemen:
Games played: 1238
PA: 5091
AB: 4658
R: 565
Hits: 1209
2B: 195
3B: 31
HR: 207
RBI: 758
BB: 305
SO: 659
BA: .260
OBP: .308
SLG: .448
OPS: .756
As a Shortstop:
Games Played: 955
PA: 4083
AB: 3670
R: 609
Hits: 1066
2B: 174
3B: 41
HR: 248
RBI: 691
BB: 348
SO: 450
BA: .290
OBP: 353
SLG: .564
OPS: .916
There is no question that Banks was a much better player as a shortstop, but the problem is he stopped being a shortstop by the age of 29. And when he stopped being a shortstop he really stopped being a shortstop, he never played a game there again, and he played until he was 40. He played 140 games or more at shortstop in his career only six seasons, and in a career that lasted 19 seasons I don’t think its fair to identify him with that position. It’s not fair to the other shortstops that legitimately played that position their entire career. Looking at the stats it’s easy to see which position he spent the most time at. He had more at bats, hits, and RBI’s playing first base than he did at short. He did hit more homers at short than he did at 1st but not by a wide margin. He is pretty close to half and half there. So what in the hell do we give him credit as being a shortstop in the 500 club? Especially since he only hit 248 homers as a shortstop. There is no question that he should be associated with first basemen, not with shortstops. This is a situation in which propaganda and media has affected our perception of a player. Ernie Banks was well liked, especially by the writers. They had to press the issue with the shortstop part of his career because he looks like a much better player, a top ten or top five players because of his home run total. If he was compared as a first-basemen he just doesn’t stack up. His numbers probably wouldn’t crack the top 15. Of course this blog doesn’t even go into the fact that for half of his career Banks was actually not a very good player at all, or that when he was a shortstop it was a stretch to say he was average defensively, but I am not denying that he should be a Hall of Famer, just that he should not be considered a shortstop, because that is misleading. This is the reason why Banks is not on my top five list, and this is the reason why he shouldn’t be on ANYBODIES top five list at short. Because he just isn’t a shortstop.
As a 1st Basemen:
Games played: 1238
PA: 5091
AB: 4658
R: 565
Hits: 1209
2B: 195
3B: 31
HR: 207
RBI: 758
BB: 305
SO: 659
BA: .260
OBP: .308
SLG: .448
OPS: .756
As a Shortstop:
Games Played: 955
PA: 4083
AB: 3670
R: 609
Hits: 1066
2B: 174
3B: 41
HR: 248
RBI: 691
BB: 348
SO: 450
BA: .290
OBP: 353
SLG: .564
OPS: .916
There is no question that Banks was a much better player as a shortstop, but the problem is he stopped being a shortstop by the age of 29. And when he stopped being a shortstop he really stopped being a shortstop, he never played a game there again, and he played until he was 40. He played 140 games or more at shortstop in his career only six seasons, and in a career that lasted 19 seasons I don’t think its fair to identify him with that position. It’s not fair to the other shortstops that legitimately played that position their entire career. Looking at the stats it’s easy to see which position he spent the most time at. He had more at bats, hits, and RBI’s playing first base than he did at short. He did hit more homers at short than he did at 1st but not by a wide margin. He is pretty close to half and half there. So what in the hell do we give him credit as being a shortstop in the 500 club? Especially since he only hit 248 homers as a shortstop. There is no question that he should be associated with first basemen, not with shortstops. This is a situation in which propaganda and media has affected our perception of a player. Ernie Banks was well liked, especially by the writers. They had to press the issue with the shortstop part of his career because he looks like a much better player, a top ten or top five players because of his home run total. If he was compared as a first-basemen he just doesn’t stack up. His numbers probably wouldn’t crack the top 15. Of course this blog doesn’t even go into the fact that for half of his career Banks was actually not a very good player at all, or that when he was a shortstop it was a stretch to say he was average defensively, but I am not denying that he should be a Hall of Famer, just that he should not be considered a shortstop, because that is misleading. This is the reason why Banks is not on my top five list, and this is the reason why he shouldn’t be on ANYBODIES top five list at short. Because he just isn’t a shortstop.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Five best names in baseball history!
I like names and baseball has sure had some good ones. I am not talking nicknames here, this are the actual given names of these guys.
5. Johnny Dickshot- I can't imagine what the origination of this last name is but I certainly wouldn't want to grow up with it. To make matters worse this guys nickname was Ugly. Ugly Dickshot. What a terrible name.
4. Biff Pocoroba- Absolutely a great name.
3. Razor Shines- I love it when the Cardinals play the Mets just because I know that I will get to see Razor Shines send someone homes from third. Its really a great name.
2. Sixto Lezcano- If only this guy actually had six toes.
1. Rusty Peters- Seriously what was this guys mom thinking. That is just a bad idea.
5. Johnny Dickshot- I can't imagine what the origination of this last name is but I certainly wouldn't want to grow up with it. To make matters worse this guys nickname was Ugly. Ugly Dickshot. What a terrible name.
4. Biff Pocoroba- Absolutely a great name.
3. Razor Shines- I love it when the Cardinals play the Mets just because I know that I will get to see Razor Shines send someone homes from third. Its really a great name.
2. Sixto Lezcano- If only this guy actually had six toes.
1. Rusty Peters- Seriously what was this guys mom thinking. That is just a bad idea.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Flu
I know a thing or two about epidemics. I guess one good thing about focusing on medical history in my M.A. is that I have gotten a good working knowledge about how epidemics work particularly those that are reoccurring epidemics such as influenza. People don’t understand a lot about what is going on with H1N1 virus. To understand the issue and why it is so frightening to a lot of people you have to go back to the Spanish Influenza epidemic from the early part of the 20th century. That epidemic was truly frightening. It had a high fatality rate and the most terrifying thing about it is that it was an indiscriminate killer. Most diseases rarely kill people in the prime of life. They focus on the elderly and the young or those that already have compromised immune systems. The Spanish Flu was not one of these. It killed people just as readily that was in perfect condition as those that were not. People could wake up feeling fine and be dead by night fall. It is theorized, though not definitively confirmed, that the Spanish Influenza was a mutated strain of avian flu. That is where the fear of these avian and swine flu’s are derived from. The fear is that eventually an avian flu will mutate to where it can be spread person to person. Then the fear is that after it does that it can mutate into the incredibly virulent and dangerous form that it has taken in the past. People think that the CDC and WHO are over reacting to these flu strains and that they are no big deal. The people who say this are right to some extent. The H1N1 as it is right now is really no big deal. It’s basically a really bad case of the flu, and unless you have a pre-existing condition then all you have to fear is really feeling like crap for a while. However, the Health Organizations are not over reacting. They have to start implementing protocols now. If they wait until the virus mutates then it will be too late and will be in mass pandemic stage before they can begin to do anything. Only by pre-emptively planning can they hope to do anything if it becomes a major worldwide pandemic. The best thing that can be done for such a situation is for them to begin planning for the worst, and to try and increase the herd immunity to the highest level that it possibly can be. If you don’t plan for the worst then if the worst happens you will be unprepared.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Where were you on 9/11?
I always here people saying "I will never forget where I was on 9/11." That is generally the way it goes with things like this. My mother said she never forgot the moment she heard the JFK has been killed, and my grandfather said he would never forget Pearl Harbor. For my generation this is our defining event, and hopefully, will always remain so. What I was ruminating about today though was why do I, the person who remembers his first year in school about as well as his tenth, remember very little detail about that day? I remember where I was of course, but other than impressions and emotions I really remember very little detail. I remember that I found out in chapel when I was at Harding University. I say my friend Trey Laminack who sat next to me in chapel that year and a ran to catch up with him as we were leaving the dorms. But other than that its quite a haze. We walked into together and immediately I felt something was wrong, the aura of the place, for lack of a better word, was oppressive. I doubt I will ever again in my life feel what its like to be in a room with 4000 other people all of home have just received the most stunning news of their life. I know many of you on my facebook friends list can relate to this, most of you were in chapel that day as well. I do remember that Kimberly was not in chapel, she was running late for chapel and had caught the news coverage before she left and then couldn't make herself leave, so the seat to my right was vacant. But after that I remember nothing about that day until noon. I don't remember what Dr. Burk said that day after Trey and I, who were also late, figured out what was going on. I was in a daze I guess, and from looking at Trey so was he. The next thing I remember was going to Cone at noon, where I was supposed to meet some friends. I remember then that we had to explain it all to Drew Dasher who had just woken up because he had slept in. He hadn't heard any of it. I remember we tried to come up with words that were adequate but we just said, "go in there and turn on the news." I remember that was probably my most vivid memory of the day, watching someone else learn the news when I myself was no longer reeling from it. At no time before then or since then have I felt myself so small, so incapacitated, and so useless before an event. I didn't think there was a situation that could so completely make my brain shut down and panic. That was the situation, and although the feeling didn't last long, that was my honest reaction, and the feeling of that helplessness and shock comes back every time the anniversary rolls around. I can't help but wonder if that was the way I felt in Arkansas how much more terrible was it for those around ground zero.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Five Most Memorable Movie Bad Guys
I like movie bad guys, they can really make or break a movie. I am not going to list Darth Vader, or Sauron, or Voldemort, or any of the obvious choices. I am going for those with a little more quirky flair.
5. Hans Gruber, Played by Alan Rickman in ""Die Hard and the Sheriff of Nottingham from "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves." I decided to give a tie for this spot to two characters especially since both or these characters were played by the same actor. His character in Robin Hood is an excellent combination of cruel and evil, yet scared and whiney, a perfect portrayol of this particular character. In Die Hard is gives an iconic eighties performance in an iconic movie. Plus he is named for a character from "Our Man Flint" which is funny to me.
4. David Lo Pan,played by James Hong in "Big Trouble In Little China"
This movie is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. Its not the best movie I have ever seen, but it is still my favorite nonetheless. David Lo Pan is an ancient shriveled old man, EXTREMELY ancient and shriveled, who turns into an incorporeal seven foot tall unstoppable mound of magic. He is actually more terrfying as a shriveled old man than he is as a big ass magician.
3. Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg played by Gary Oldman in “The Fifth Element." Has there ever been a quirkier villian? Gentile southern accent in an evil corporate president that wears a plastic plate on his head and walks with a limp. His performance of this character is hilarious and although a bit campy, it fits the tone of the movie perfectly.
2. The Joker played by Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight." Honestly its just the joker in general, not just the Ledger Joker. The joker is a great combination of funny, honest, and completely terrifying. You know when you see him on stage that he is completely insane and that even his brief moments of kindness are scary as hell. Ledger brings the most visceral and real life version of this character that there has ever been.
1. Cruela DeVille from "101 Dalmations." When I saw this movie in theater as a very young child, the fact that she was after the puppies to make a coat out of them AND was actually wearing a puppy skin coat absolutely scared the hell out of me. Not only that her demeanor with the skunk hair and the cigarette holder just add to the menace. To this day I can't see someone using a cigarette holder without instinctively thinking that they are evil.
5. Hans Gruber, Played by Alan Rickman in ""Die Hard and the Sheriff of Nottingham from "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves." I decided to give a tie for this spot to two characters especially since both or these characters were played by the same actor. His character in Robin Hood is an excellent combination of cruel and evil, yet scared and whiney, a perfect portrayol of this particular character. In Die Hard is gives an iconic eighties performance in an iconic movie. Plus he is named for a character from "Our Man Flint" which is funny to me.
4. David Lo Pan,played by James Hong in "Big Trouble In Little China"
This movie is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. Its not the best movie I have ever seen, but it is still my favorite nonetheless. David Lo Pan is an ancient shriveled old man, EXTREMELY ancient and shriveled, who turns into an incorporeal seven foot tall unstoppable mound of magic. He is actually more terrfying as a shriveled old man than he is as a big ass magician.
3. Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg played by Gary Oldman in “The Fifth Element." Has there ever been a quirkier villian? Gentile southern accent in an evil corporate president that wears a plastic plate on his head and walks with a limp. His performance of this character is hilarious and although a bit campy, it fits the tone of the movie perfectly.
2. The Joker played by Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight." Honestly its just the joker in general, not just the Ledger Joker. The joker is a great combination of funny, honest, and completely terrifying. You know when you see him on stage that he is completely insane and that even his brief moments of kindness are scary as hell. Ledger brings the most visceral and real life version of this character that there has ever been.
1. Cruela DeVille from "101 Dalmations." When I saw this movie in theater as a very young child, the fact that she was after the puppies to make a coat out of them AND was actually wearing a puppy skin coat absolutely scared the hell out of me. Not only that her demeanor with the skunk hair and the cigarette holder just add to the menace. To this day I can't see someone using a cigarette holder without instinctively thinking that they are evil.
My Top Five Most Hated Sports Teams
You know people always assume that I hate the Cubs because I am an extreme Cardinals fan. The truth is I don't really hate the Cubs. I don't particularly like their fans, and I think their booing and heckling gets a little old, but hey they can do what they want. They are only hurting themselves anyway, which is why they have some issues getting some free agents to sign there. But the point is I still don't hate the Cubs. As it is its sort of a one sided rivalry anyway. However, there are some sports teams I really do hate. And I have decided to list them here in no particular order from least hated to worst hated.
5. The Dallas Cowboys- I have always hated the Dallas Cowboys. I don't really have a reason, I just hate them. I hate the "America's Team" label and I hate Jerry Jones. They are just a very hateable team. I do root for Felix Jones to do well, but if I could wish for him to have a monster season and them to go 0-16 I would would be ok with that.
4. Milwaukee Brewers- This is more of a I hate them now situation rather than one of long term despise. I think for the most part they operate in a completely unprofessional manner, and they are a team in a bad need of a veteran leader. Most of this teams problems are because they are led by Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder. They aren't evil guys, but frat boy immature are the words that come to mind.
3. University of Texas- I can't help it, it comes with being a lifelong Hog's fan. Honorable mention in this spot to University of Tennessee for the same reason.
2. The New England Patriots- Tom Brady? An insufferable overrated prick. Bill Belichick, basically a man who makes a farce of the game with his willingness to break the rules. I absolutely LOVED it when the Patriots lost to the Giants in the superbowl. What was great about it is beforehand when Brady got upset at the Giants player who said they wouldn't score more than 21 points. Brady was like "come one, you have got to give us more credit than that." And of course they didn't meet the mark in which he considered a given. I was happy about that for a week.
1. New York Yankees- This is almost a cliche, but alas, its true for many in baseball. I hate the spending. I hate the pretentious we play the game better than you attitude. I hate the fans who call themselves the best fans in the game, but who flee the turnstiles with the speed of the Flash when the team has had losing seasons. I hate Arod and his corporate delivery of cliches and his complete lack of social skills with the press and his teammates. I hate just about every stinking thing about them. I root for them to lose every single game, and when they are in the playoffs I cheer for the other team to kick their ass no matter who they are. This year I kind of want them to make the World Series though, because I would sure the love the Cardinals to have a chance to beat them like a drum in their new ballpark.
5. The Dallas Cowboys- I have always hated the Dallas Cowboys. I don't really have a reason, I just hate them. I hate the "America's Team" label and I hate Jerry Jones. They are just a very hateable team. I do root for Felix Jones to do well, but if I could wish for him to have a monster season and them to go 0-16 I would would be ok with that.
4. Milwaukee Brewers- This is more of a I hate them now situation rather than one of long term despise. I think for the most part they operate in a completely unprofessional manner, and they are a team in a bad need of a veteran leader. Most of this teams problems are because they are led by Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder. They aren't evil guys, but frat boy immature are the words that come to mind.
3. University of Texas- I can't help it, it comes with being a lifelong Hog's fan. Honorable mention in this spot to University of Tennessee for the same reason.
2. The New England Patriots- Tom Brady? An insufferable overrated prick. Bill Belichick, basically a man who makes a farce of the game with his willingness to break the rules. I absolutely LOVED it when the Patriots lost to the Giants in the superbowl. What was great about it is beforehand when Brady got upset at the Giants player who said they wouldn't score more than 21 points. Brady was like "come one, you have got to give us more credit than that." And of course they didn't meet the mark in which he considered a given. I was happy about that for a week.
1. New York Yankees- This is almost a cliche, but alas, its true for many in baseball. I hate the spending. I hate the pretentious we play the game better than you attitude. I hate the fans who call themselves the best fans in the game, but who flee the turnstiles with the speed of the Flash when the team has had losing seasons. I hate Arod and his corporate delivery of cliches and his complete lack of social skills with the press and his teammates. I hate just about every stinking thing about them. I root for them to lose every single game, and when they are in the playoffs I cheer for the other team to kick their ass no matter who they are. This year I kind of want them to make the World Series though, because I would sure the love the Cardinals to have a chance to beat them like a drum in their new ballpark.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Inglourious Basterds Movie Review 10/10
Oh where to start, where to start? This movie, in this moviegoer’s humble opinion, is Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece to date. I am sure many will argue and say that it is and will always remain Pulp Fiction, and there are even a few who claim that title for Reservoir Dogs. I will still contend that this movie bests all of those. This is what he wants to make, a spaghetti western. If you were to go back and watch, say, Fistful of dollars or the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly you will see the comparison, most noticeably in the slow pacing, cinematic framing, and the intense prominence of dramatic music in the score, which is fantastic. This movie would not be what it is without Tarantino’s use of music, particularly of note is his use of Fur Elise during the opening scene.
First of all this movie uses a little bit of misdirection in its marketing. Not in a bad way I would say, just in way to try and keep a little mystery about it. It is an ensemble cast movie, and even though Brad Pitt is featured heavily in the preview, the movie is not focused primarily on him. He is a major character in the movie, but he gets no more screen time than any of the several other major characters. Like Pulp Fiction, this movie has several different character driven plots going on at the same time. This movie is not an action movie, and the violence, although typically Tarantino intense and gory is not the focus of the movie and is actually pretty sparse. This movie is, first and foremost character and dialogue driven, and folks, it is brilliant. The opening scene sets the pace, with a drawn out suspenseful scene completely driven by character dialogue and pacing, before given into the action. This type of thing seldom affects me, but towards the end of the scene I was sitting towards the edge of my seat. It’s this way for the entirety of the film.
And speaking of the dialogue, this movie almost counts as a foreign language film. If you have issues with subtitles this will be a problem. I didn’t count, but, I would say there is more French and German used than English in this film. However, Tarantino made a very smart move. He cast all foreign language actors to speak the French and German language sections. So all of these scenes are accurate and the accents believable. Other than Pitt probably the most recognizable actor is Diane Kruger from National Treasure 1 and 2. Even she, although you wouldn’t know it from her acting, is a native German speaker and has citizenship in Germany. I am used to subtitles as I watch a lot of foreign language films, and by 20 minutes in I had forgotten the subs and was immersed in the wonderful acting by the French and German speakers. Tarantino also uses this convention where if the point of view character cannot speak the language then the subtitles are not given for what other people are saying. It’s a nice touch of realism.
Brad Pitt does play one of the main and most memorable character and he does a fine job. However, a foreign film veteran named Christoph Waltz really steals the show. His performance, which he gives in three languages, English, French, and German, is fan-freaking-tastic. He is an absolute scene stealer, and is riveting anytime he is on the screen. If he doesn’t at least receive a nomination for Best- Supporting actor it is an injustice. I will say though, this movie overall is very well acted, and he is just the best of what is actually an incredibly stellar cast.
I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. I am aware that its few extremely brutal scenes means that it will not appeal to everyone, but those that could stomach it should see this movie. I also recommend that it be seen in the theater. The cinematography is such that it really is best to appreciate it on the big screen.
First of all this movie uses a little bit of misdirection in its marketing. Not in a bad way I would say, just in way to try and keep a little mystery about it. It is an ensemble cast movie, and even though Brad Pitt is featured heavily in the preview, the movie is not focused primarily on him. He is a major character in the movie, but he gets no more screen time than any of the several other major characters. Like Pulp Fiction, this movie has several different character driven plots going on at the same time. This movie is not an action movie, and the violence, although typically Tarantino intense and gory is not the focus of the movie and is actually pretty sparse. This movie is, first and foremost character and dialogue driven, and folks, it is brilliant. The opening scene sets the pace, with a drawn out suspenseful scene completely driven by character dialogue and pacing, before given into the action. This type of thing seldom affects me, but towards the end of the scene I was sitting towards the edge of my seat. It’s this way for the entirety of the film.
And speaking of the dialogue, this movie almost counts as a foreign language film. If you have issues with subtitles this will be a problem. I didn’t count, but, I would say there is more French and German used than English in this film. However, Tarantino made a very smart move. He cast all foreign language actors to speak the French and German language sections. So all of these scenes are accurate and the accents believable. Other than Pitt probably the most recognizable actor is Diane Kruger from National Treasure 1 and 2. Even she, although you wouldn’t know it from her acting, is a native German speaker and has citizenship in Germany. I am used to subtitles as I watch a lot of foreign language films, and by 20 minutes in I had forgotten the subs and was immersed in the wonderful acting by the French and German speakers. Tarantino also uses this convention where if the point of view character cannot speak the language then the subtitles are not given for what other people are saying. It’s a nice touch of realism.
Brad Pitt does play one of the main and most memorable character and he does a fine job. However, a foreign film veteran named Christoph Waltz really steals the show. His performance, which he gives in three languages, English, French, and German, is fan-freaking-tastic. He is an absolute scene stealer, and is riveting anytime he is on the screen. If he doesn’t at least receive a nomination for Best- Supporting actor it is an injustice. I will say though, this movie overall is very well acted, and he is just the best of what is actually an incredibly stellar cast.
I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. I am aware that its few extremely brutal scenes means that it will not appeal to everyone, but those that could stomach it should see this movie. I also recommend that it be seen in the theater. The cinematography is such that it really is best to appreciate it on the big screen.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Here come the 1960's. Hall of Fame Blog Part 5.
Well here come the sixties. Groovy Man.
1969-Stan Musial, Waite Hoyt, Stan Coveleski, Roy Campanella
Stan Musial-Yes- Its impossible to find one blemish on Stan the Man’s record that goes against him being one of the greatest players of all time. .331 career batting average, .417 career OBP, with a .559 career slg percentage. That gives him a very salty .976 career OPS. He was a seven time batting champion and nearly won the Triple Crown in 1948. He gathered 3630 career hits, 475 career home runs, 1949 career runs, and 1951 career RBI’s. He was a three time MVP and easily could have won three more, and probably should have. Plus he was just a hell of a nice guy. He is one of the top ten greatest players of all time.
Waite Hoyt-No- The veteran’s committee strikes again. Apparently they thought their job back then were to pick out marginal guys and make their families happy by putting them in the Hall of Fame. Waite had 237 career wins with a 3.59 ERA. Not exactly hall of fame stuff. He pitched 21 seasons, most of them bad with a few good seasons sprinkled in. I don’t really know why he is in the Hall of Fame.
Stan Coveleski- Yes- Now here is a guy that might be worthy of the Vet’s committee’s pick. He only won 215 games, but at a much better percentage than Hoyt. (.602) and he had a much better career ERA. (2.89) Even though his career was somewhat limited he won 20 games five times, with a good percentage each year. I never really count a 20 win season if you lost 20 games as well, that just means you had a ton of decisions, Coveleski could pitch.
Roy Campanella- Yes- A tragic case, Campanella was a great, great player. Roy was a great defensive catcher, and like Yogi Berra he was a three time MVP. The difference between he and Yogi, is that Roy probably actually deserved them, or at least was as good a choice as the competitors. As it is, although his career was shortened due to the car accident that left him in a wheel chair, he had a career OPB of .860 and was an All-Star in every season other than his rookie year and his last. His career was brief, but I don’t really have the heart to exclude a great player who ended his career in a wheelchair.
1968-Joe Medwick, Goose Goslin, Kiki Cuyler
Joe Medwick- Yes- A triple crown winner and MVP winner, and put up a great career average of .324 which he coupled with a career .505 slugging percentage for good measure. He only had 2471 hits, but he was a great player, and had some monster seasons, so that really doesn’t matter. Medwick was a bit of a prickly person and wasn’t particularly well liked in baseball. He wasn’t hated, but he wasn’t exactly liked either.
Goose Goslin-Yes- Goose Goslin was one of the strongest men of his time, and although he was a terrible defensive outfielder, he sure could hit. He has a career .316 BA with a .387 OBP and a .500 Slugging. For good measure he threw in 2734 career hits, 1609 RBI, and 1483 Runs.
Kiki Cuyler- Yes- A little bit marginal, but he was truly respected by his piers as one of the best in the game. He was an excellent defensive centerfielder, with a rocket for an arm, and he could hit as well. He tossed good percentage numbers of .321, .386, and .474. He also led the league in stolen bases 4 times, and in runs twice. He had some decent power, and for a non-RBI slot hitter, had some very respectable RBI totals.
1967-Red Ruffing, Lloyd Waner
Red Ruffing-No- What in the hell was the voters thinking? Less than 2000 career strikeouts, and a 273-225 record. That is a lot of wins, but he pitched 22 seasons, he is supposed to have a bunch of wins. The real issue with him is his career 3.80 ERA, that is entirely too high to be a hall of famer. For at least half of his career he put up an ERA over 4.00. That’s no greatness.
Lloyd Waner-No- Perhaps I am a bit biased, but this is the exact kind of player that I think is overrated. Lloyd did one thing. He hit singles and he hit them well. But that’s all he did. He didn’t walk, and even though he hit .316, he only got on base at a .353 clip. There are lots of players that hit far lower, but were far more productive due to his lack of on base percentage. Not only that he has a tiny percentage of his careers hits that weren’t singles. His career slugging is only .393. An argument could be made that he belongs, because he was a good player. However, I really just dislike this type of player. If he hit .325 plus I would be a bit more likely to take him.
1966-Ted Williams
Ted Williams- Yes – (Explicit Warning Here) Ted used to refer to himself as Teddy Fucking Ballgame, the greatest hitter than game has ever seen. Now everybody that hears it generally hates that type of arrogance, however, he maybe just have been right. He was a fighter pilot as well, and by all accounts he was exceptional at that too. Ted Williams was a ridiculous player. He refused to hit the ball the other way, and he was a terrible outfielder that could often be seen practicing his swing out in the field, but that doesn’t matter. He was that good a hitter. His career percentage numbers are .344, .484, and .634. Those are video game type numbers. He led the American League in OPS 11 times, and posted an OPS over 1.000 18 times. Keep in mind he only played 19 seasons. Yep, that means he has a ridiculous career OPS of 1.116. He put up 521 homers, 525 doubles, and although he only had 2654 hits, a bit part of that is because he took a ridiculous 2021 walks. And keep in mind he did this even though he missed 3 years of his career right in the prime of it due to WWII and he missed sometime for Korea as well. Truly a legend, even if he was a very unlikeable guy.
1965- Pud galvin-Pre-1900 Player, Pass.
1964- Heinie Manush, Tim Keefe, Burleigh Grimes, Red Faber, Luke Appling
Heinie Manush-Yes- This guy could hit the baseball. He is one of the more unknown of the Hall of Famers but he deserves his place. He hit a very robust .330, .377, and .479. To go with the good percentage numbers he also tossed up 2524, which although not a stellar overall total, is very respectable nonetheless. To be honest, I don’t know a ton about this guy, so I don’t really have any anecdotal research to add to his case, and particularly know very little about his defense, since that is pretty much purely extracted from anecdotal research. Like Bill James I think I will revise this list from time to time and hopefully in its next version I will have more to say about Mr. Manush.
Tim Keefe-Pre-1900 player, Pass.
Burleigh Grimes-No- Another guy I don’t know a ton about. He was a spitballer, the legal kind, and he was one of the last legal spitballers to toe the rubber. Just looking at his stats I would have to say he is probably a no. 270 wins, with a good .560 winning percentage, but his ERA are a bit high at 3.53. His strikeout total is a bit low at 1512, but guys didn’t strike out all that much during the ERA he pitched. For now he is a no, but eventually I will do my due diligence on his anecdotal research.
Red Faber-No-If I don’t take Grimes then I can’t take Faber. They are very similar pitchers. Their careers overlapped, and Grimes one a few more games at a better percentage and Faber had a better ERA. Faber had 1471 K’s to Grimes 1524. Neither pitcher was stellar.
Luke Appling-Yes- Appling could hit the ball pretty well, and he new how to take a walk. He won two batting titles and walked over 100 times in three seasons. His career percentage numbers are .310 .399 and .398. The slugging is a bit low, but the OBP is stellar. He was a sure handed quality shortstop if not spectacular at his position. And oddly he seems to be better at short defensively when he was 40 than he was at 30, which is a pretty unusual trend. Anecdotally he is supposed to be one of the best at defensive position, which would account for that anomaly.
1963-Eppa Rixey, Sam Rice, Elmer Flick
Eppa Rixey-No- Although I know this is always indicative of the quality of a pitcher but Mr. Rixey led the league in losses twice as often as he led the league in wins. Ok that is not quite fair to leave it at that, he led the league in wins once, and losses twice. Still, an interesting fact to note. Other than that it seems Mr. Rixey was about a .500 pitcher, to be more exact a .515 pitcher. He posted a career record of 266-251. Definitely nothing to write home about. He also walked about as many as he struck out and gave up quite a few more hits than innings pitched, which isn’t always a bad thing either, but it does mean he has a relatively high WHIP. All in all, there is no way he was close to one of the best pitchers of his era.
Sam Rice-Yes- This man could play the game. He was an excellent fielder, with a good arm and he could hit the baseball. He put up a .322 career batting average with a .374 OBP and a .427 Slg. He also came up just 13 hits short of 3000 for his career. He scored 1514 and for good measure stole 351 bases.
Elmer Flick-pass- I am going to take a pass on Flick at this time, I would like to have the input from the peanut gallery on him if I could.
1962-Edd Roush, Jackie Robinson, Bob Feller,
Edd Roush-Yes- Mr. Roush was a capable hitter, he put up some really good percentage numbers of .323 .369 and .446. The career slugging of .446 is really good for his era. He was known as a good defender as well, and how can you not vote for a guy named Edd with 2 D’s.
Jackie Robinson-Yes- He only played for ten years, but this is a situation where you have to give a guy some credit for projected years. There is no reason to think that he wouldn’t have had five or six more years at the start of career that would have been comparable to his prime. As for the years he did have they were quite good. He put up a .311 average a great .409 OBP and a respectable .474 slugging. He was a great player who also put up 197 stolen bags in a era where people didn’t really still bags. As a defender he was adequate but not great, his reputation with the glove has become a bit overinflated. However, he was a professional hitter no doubt about it.
Bob Feller-Yes- This is a guy through the years that probably should have kept his mouth shut on a few different occasions. Despite that he was a mighty quality pitcher. He had some of the same problems as Nolan Ryan, but he corrected his wildness where Ryan never did. He did have over 200 walks in a season once though. He led the league in strikeouts 7 times and has a reputation as a big time strikeout pitcher, which he was at times, but contrary to what most people believe he never got to 3000 k’s. Bob was generally a better pitcher than the teams he was on and lead the league in wins 6 times with a very good .621 career winning percentage. He also lost 4 prime years to wartime service, and of all factors that play upon what could have been, I am more prone to giving people the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to wartime service.
1961-Max Carey-Yes- Max Carey was a great leadoff man. He posted a .361 career OBP with 738 careers steals. Caught stealing stats aren’t available for a good portion of his career, but when it is he stole a very good percentage. Also anecdotally he is known as a very high percentage base stealer. He was also an excellent fielder and amassed 2665 career hits and 1545 career runs. He led the league in steals 10 times.
1960-There were no players elected in 1960.
1969-Stan Musial, Waite Hoyt, Stan Coveleski, Roy Campanella
Stan Musial-Yes- Its impossible to find one blemish on Stan the Man’s record that goes against him being one of the greatest players of all time. .331 career batting average, .417 career OBP, with a .559 career slg percentage. That gives him a very salty .976 career OPS. He was a seven time batting champion and nearly won the Triple Crown in 1948. He gathered 3630 career hits, 475 career home runs, 1949 career runs, and 1951 career RBI’s. He was a three time MVP and easily could have won three more, and probably should have. Plus he was just a hell of a nice guy. He is one of the top ten greatest players of all time.
Waite Hoyt-No- The veteran’s committee strikes again. Apparently they thought their job back then were to pick out marginal guys and make their families happy by putting them in the Hall of Fame. Waite had 237 career wins with a 3.59 ERA. Not exactly hall of fame stuff. He pitched 21 seasons, most of them bad with a few good seasons sprinkled in. I don’t really know why he is in the Hall of Fame.
Stan Coveleski- Yes- Now here is a guy that might be worthy of the Vet’s committee’s pick. He only won 215 games, but at a much better percentage than Hoyt. (.602) and he had a much better career ERA. (2.89) Even though his career was somewhat limited he won 20 games five times, with a good percentage each year. I never really count a 20 win season if you lost 20 games as well, that just means you had a ton of decisions, Coveleski could pitch.
Roy Campanella- Yes- A tragic case, Campanella was a great, great player. Roy was a great defensive catcher, and like Yogi Berra he was a three time MVP. The difference between he and Yogi, is that Roy probably actually deserved them, or at least was as good a choice as the competitors. As it is, although his career was shortened due to the car accident that left him in a wheel chair, he had a career OPB of .860 and was an All-Star in every season other than his rookie year and his last. His career was brief, but I don’t really have the heart to exclude a great player who ended his career in a wheelchair.
1968-Joe Medwick, Goose Goslin, Kiki Cuyler
Joe Medwick- Yes- A triple crown winner and MVP winner, and put up a great career average of .324 which he coupled with a career .505 slugging percentage for good measure. He only had 2471 hits, but he was a great player, and had some monster seasons, so that really doesn’t matter. Medwick was a bit of a prickly person and wasn’t particularly well liked in baseball. He wasn’t hated, but he wasn’t exactly liked either.
Goose Goslin-Yes- Goose Goslin was one of the strongest men of his time, and although he was a terrible defensive outfielder, he sure could hit. He has a career .316 BA with a .387 OBP and a .500 Slugging. For good measure he threw in 2734 career hits, 1609 RBI, and 1483 Runs.
Kiki Cuyler- Yes- A little bit marginal, but he was truly respected by his piers as one of the best in the game. He was an excellent defensive centerfielder, with a rocket for an arm, and he could hit as well. He tossed good percentage numbers of .321, .386, and .474. He also led the league in stolen bases 4 times, and in runs twice. He had some decent power, and for a non-RBI slot hitter, had some very respectable RBI totals.
1967-Red Ruffing, Lloyd Waner
Red Ruffing-No- What in the hell was the voters thinking? Less than 2000 career strikeouts, and a 273-225 record. That is a lot of wins, but he pitched 22 seasons, he is supposed to have a bunch of wins. The real issue with him is his career 3.80 ERA, that is entirely too high to be a hall of famer. For at least half of his career he put up an ERA over 4.00. That’s no greatness.
Lloyd Waner-No- Perhaps I am a bit biased, but this is the exact kind of player that I think is overrated. Lloyd did one thing. He hit singles and he hit them well. But that’s all he did. He didn’t walk, and even though he hit .316, he only got on base at a .353 clip. There are lots of players that hit far lower, but were far more productive due to his lack of on base percentage. Not only that he has a tiny percentage of his careers hits that weren’t singles. His career slugging is only .393. An argument could be made that he belongs, because he was a good player. However, I really just dislike this type of player. If he hit .325 plus I would be a bit more likely to take him.
1966-Ted Williams
Ted Williams- Yes – (Explicit Warning Here) Ted used to refer to himself as Teddy Fucking Ballgame, the greatest hitter than game has ever seen. Now everybody that hears it generally hates that type of arrogance, however, he maybe just have been right. He was a fighter pilot as well, and by all accounts he was exceptional at that too. Ted Williams was a ridiculous player. He refused to hit the ball the other way, and he was a terrible outfielder that could often be seen practicing his swing out in the field, but that doesn’t matter. He was that good a hitter. His career percentage numbers are .344, .484, and .634. Those are video game type numbers. He led the American League in OPS 11 times, and posted an OPS over 1.000 18 times. Keep in mind he only played 19 seasons. Yep, that means he has a ridiculous career OPS of 1.116. He put up 521 homers, 525 doubles, and although he only had 2654 hits, a bit part of that is because he took a ridiculous 2021 walks. And keep in mind he did this even though he missed 3 years of his career right in the prime of it due to WWII and he missed sometime for Korea as well. Truly a legend, even if he was a very unlikeable guy.
1965- Pud galvin-Pre-1900 Player, Pass.
1964- Heinie Manush, Tim Keefe, Burleigh Grimes, Red Faber, Luke Appling
Heinie Manush-Yes- This guy could hit the baseball. He is one of the more unknown of the Hall of Famers but he deserves his place. He hit a very robust .330, .377, and .479. To go with the good percentage numbers he also tossed up 2524, which although not a stellar overall total, is very respectable nonetheless. To be honest, I don’t know a ton about this guy, so I don’t really have any anecdotal research to add to his case, and particularly know very little about his defense, since that is pretty much purely extracted from anecdotal research. Like Bill James I think I will revise this list from time to time and hopefully in its next version I will have more to say about Mr. Manush.
Tim Keefe-Pre-1900 player, Pass.
Burleigh Grimes-No- Another guy I don’t know a ton about. He was a spitballer, the legal kind, and he was one of the last legal spitballers to toe the rubber. Just looking at his stats I would have to say he is probably a no. 270 wins, with a good .560 winning percentage, but his ERA are a bit high at 3.53. His strikeout total is a bit low at 1512, but guys didn’t strike out all that much during the ERA he pitched. For now he is a no, but eventually I will do my due diligence on his anecdotal research.
Red Faber-No-If I don’t take Grimes then I can’t take Faber. They are very similar pitchers. Their careers overlapped, and Grimes one a few more games at a better percentage and Faber had a better ERA. Faber had 1471 K’s to Grimes 1524. Neither pitcher was stellar.
Luke Appling-Yes- Appling could hit the ball pretty well, and he new how to take a walk. He won two batting titles and walked over 100 times in three seasons. His career percentage numbers are .310 .399 and .398. The slugging is a bit low, but the OBP is stellar. He was a sure handed quality shortstop if not spectacular at his position. And oddly he seems to be better at short defensively when he was 40 than he was at 30, which is a pretty unusual trend. Anecdotally he is supposed to be one of the best at defensive position, which would account for that anomaly.
1963-Eppa Rixey, Sam Rice, Elmer Flick
Eppa Rixey-No- Although I know this is always indicative of the quality of a pitcher but Mr. Rixey led the league in losses twice as often as he led the league in wins. Ok that is not quite fair to leave it at that, he led the league in wins once, and losses twice. Still, an interesting fact to note. Other than that it seems Mr. Rixey was about a .500 pitcher, to be more exact a .515 pitcher. He posted a career record of 266-251. Definitely nothing to write home about. He also walked about as many as he struck out and gave up quite a few more hits than innings pitched, which isn’t always a bad thing either, but it does mean he has a relatively high WHIP. All in all, there is no way he was close to one of the best pitchers of his era.
Sam Rice-Yes- This man could play the game. He was an excellent fielder, with a good arm and he could hit the baseball. He put up a .322 career batting average with a .374 OBP and a .427 Slg. He also came up just 13 hits short of 3000 for his career. He scored 1514 and for good measure stole 351 bases.
Elmer Flick-pass- I am going to take a pass on Flick at this time, I would like to have the input from the peanut gallery on him if I could.
1962-Edd Roush, Jackie Robinson, Bob Feller,
Edd Roush-Yes- Mr. Roush was a capable hitter, he put up some really good percentage numbers of .323 .369 and .446. The career slugging of .446 is really good for his era. He was known as a good defender as well, and how can you not vote for a guy named Edd with 2 D’s.
Jackie Robinson-Yes- He only played for ten years, but this is a situation where you have to give a guy some credit for projected years. There is no reason to think that he wouldn’t have had five or six more years at the start of career that would have been comparable to his prime. As for the years he did have they were quite good. He put up a .311 average a great .409 OBP and a respectable .474 slugging. He was a great player who also put up 197 stolen bags in a era where people didn’t really still bags. As a defender he was adequate but not great, his reputation with the glove has become a bit overinflated. However, he was a professional hitter no doubt about it.
Bob Feller-Yes- This is a guy through the years that probably should have kept his mouth shut on a few different occasions. Despite that he was a mighty quality pitcher. He had some of the same problems as Nolan Ryan, but he corrected his wildness where Ryan never did. He did have over 200 walks in a season once though. He led the league in strikeouts 7 times and has a reputation as a big time strikeout pitcher, which he was at times, but contrary to what most people believe he never got to 3000 k’s. Bob was generally a better pitcher than the teams he was on and lead the league in wins 6 times with a very good .621 career winning percentage. He also lost 4 prime years to wartime service, and of all factors that play upon what could have been, I am more prone to giving people the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to wartime service.
1961-Max Carey-Yes- Max Carey was a great leadoff man. He posted a .361 career OBP with 738 careers steals. Caught stealing stats aren’t available for a good portion of his career, but when it is he stole a very good percentage. Also anecdotally he is known as a very high percentage base stealer. He was also an excellent fielder and amassed 2665 career hits and 1545 career runs. He led the league in steals 10 times.
1960-There were no players elected in 1960.
Retro Movie Review, Our Man Flint 7.25/10.
How many of you enjoyed the Austin Powers movie series? This movie is the original Austin Powers type of character. Our Man Flint is movie that was made in 1966 and was made as a parody to the recently popular James Bond series of movies. The movie chronicles the Ultra cool super agent Derek Flint (play by James Coburn) as he takes on a trio of mad utopian scientists that are controlling the world’s weather. This movie is often described by watchers and cheesy or just plain goofy, but really it’s just a whole lot of fun. It is of course very tongue and cheek and very campy, but this is by design not because it was just a bad movie. The strong point of this movie is the performance that James Coburn put in. Many who know this actor would find it hard to believe he would be able to play the suave, ultra chic, ultra-competent sex magnet that the character Derek Flint is supposed to be, however he pulls it off very nicely. James Coburn is very different than Austin Powers or any of the Bonds in his characterization. He is very polite in his rebelliousness, and instead of being condescending to his superiors he is always polite and says sir. Rather than being the suave rebel he is more that annoying person you know that absolutely knows everything about everything and is the best at everything he does and on top of that is also the most polite person you have ever met. He has a boyish smile and disarming manner that makes him both charming and despicable at the same time. This works exceedingly well for the role of Derek Flint, because it distinguishes him from the Bond role very well. I won’t go into a lot of detail because this is not an incredibly thought provoking movie. What it is though is a very fun movie that if you choose to enjoy it and not take to seriously will provide a good two hours of entertainment.
District 9 Movie Review 9.5/10.
District 9 is one of the most original movie ideas I have ever encountered and I have seen a ton of movies. The idea is relatively simple it is an alien movie that is a comment on the human condition. Think to yourself as you are reading this these questions: What would you do if an alien race came to your city? What would you do if these people were refugees needing sanctuary in your city? What would you do if you discovered they were emaciated and badly in need of food and care? What would you do if it seemed they were not smarter, and perhaps in many ways were not as advanced as we are? These key questions are the pivotal ideas of this movie. We, as humans, do not have a good track record when dealing with people that are different on first contact, and we have an even worse track record of dealing with refugees. I wish to regress a little bit and talk about the production before I continue you into the plot points. It is important to point out that this movie was made on 30 million dollars, which of course by today’s standard is a pittance. Despite the low budget this is an effects heavy movie, and I must say that given the budget the effects look fantastic and the shot of the space ship hovering about J-Berg is fantastic. The main actor has never really been in anything other than this, he is reprising his role from the movie short that this movie was adapted from. It was shot in South Africa and acted by South African’s, which I think is very important, that essentially makes this a foreign film, and this should not be overlooked. Anyway back to the plot at hand. This movie in some ways reminds me of another alien movie, “Signs.” Not because the plot or style is in anyway similar, but because , like “Signs” is an alien movie that isn’t really about the alien part. Yes, this is an alien movie, but despite the fact it’s full of aliens, and DNA shifting and advanced weaponry this is more than any of that a comment on the human condition. And frankly, although riveting, it’s difficult to watch. For example the aliens are referred to always as “prawns” which is what they call shrimp in some other countries. They are called this because they do in fact resemble shrimp in some ways. This is of course a parallel for racial slurs that have been used in South Africa, or as we are in the U.S. some particularly nasty slang that we are all familiar with. In the movie they use the same rationale that people have always used, to paraphrase “well that is what they look like, so it is ok right?” That’s the kind of things people are always saying to rationalize the cruel things that they say. This movie touches on everything that has happens in regards to refugees or to those of the minority race. A termination of rights, thoughts of them being less than human (I mean human in the sense that they are viewed as being below the need for basic rights much the way slave owners used to refer to African Americans) serious exploitation and controlling of monopolies, and every similar theme, such as the common racial epithet “they all look the same.” And of course the usual movie them is there, that everything is always about weapons and money.
As for the actual production of the movie, it was pretty spot on. The actors are talented and perfect for their parts. The movie is shot in a documentary sort of way, it starts out as a documentary on the aliens and on the lead character Wikus, and in the middle it drifts from the documentary footage and starts showing you the actual events in Wikus’ life that lead to his notoriety. The two approaches are very well integrated and it doesn’t seem clumsy at all. This movie is not one that is going to make you feel good. In fact it is going to make you feel like crap more than likely. I realized as I was watching this movie that I totally bought everything they were trying to convey, and I realized at that point that I have very little faith in humanity. However, despite that I think this is the one film this year that I think everybody should see, but be warned it’s depressing and has some fairly gross parts.
Best Scene: When Wikus’ has his hand bandage removed by the Doctor.
Best Line: “there you go, souvenir from your first abortion. “
As for the actual production of the movie, it was pretty spot on. The actors are talented and perfect for their parts. The movie is shot in a documentary sort of way, it starts out as a documentary on the aliens and on the lead character Wikus, and in the middle it drifts from the documentary footage and starts showing you the actual events in Wikus’ life that lead to his notoriety. The two approaches are very well integrated and it doesn’t seem clumsy at all. This movie is not one that is going to make you feel good. In fact it is going to make you feel like crap more than likely. I realized as I was watching this movie that I totally bought everything they were trying to convey, and I realized at that point that I have very little faith in humanity. However, despite that I think this is the one film this year that I think everybody should see, but be warned it’s depressing and has some fairly gross parts.
Best Scene: When Wikus’ has his hand bandage removed by the Doctor.
Best Line: “there you go, souvenir from your first abortion. “
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
AFI Top 100 Movies.
So this is the current 2007 list of the AFI's top 100 movies. I, as many of you know, am a huge fan of film. I love to read, but there is just something about a cinematic experience that makes me a bit giddy. I have decided that I would post the list and mark the ones I have read, and then invite you guys to compare your lists to mine. Feel free to do it on facebook, just tag me in the note. Just ignore the extra information to the right of the title, that was just stuff from the rankings I didn't want to go through and delete. The ones I have seen will be underlined.
1 CITIZEN KANE (1941) 1 0
2 GODFATHER, THE (1972) 3 1
3 CASABLANCA (1942) 2 -1
4 RAGING BULL (1980) 24 20
5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (1952) 10 5
6 GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) 4 -2
7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) 5 -2
8 SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993) 9 1
9 VERTIGO (1958) 61 52
10 WIZARD OF OZ, THE (1939) 6 -4
11 CITY LIGHTS (1931) 76 65
12 SEARCHERS, THE (1956) 96 84
13 STAR WARS (1977) 15 2
14 PSYCHO (1960) 18 4
15 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) 22 7
16 SUNSET BLVD. (1950) 12 -4
17 GRADUATE, THE (1967) 7 -10
18 GENERAL, THE (1927) N/A
19 ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) 8 -11
20 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946) 11 -9
21 CHINATOWN (1974) 19 -2
22 SOME LIKE IT HOT (1959) 14 -8
23 GRAPES OF WRATH, THE (1940) 21 -2
24 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982) 25 1
25 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962) 34 9
26 MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939) 29 3
27 HIGH NOON (1952) 33 6
28 ALL ABOUT EVE (1950) 16 -12
29 DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944) 38 9
30 APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) 28 -2
31 MALTESE FALCON, THE (1941) 23 -8
32 GODFATHER PART II, THE (1974) 32 0
33 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975) 20 -13
34 SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937) 49 15
35 ANNIE HALL (1977) 31 -4
36 BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI, THE (1957) 13 -23
37 BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, THE (1946) 37 0
38 TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, THE (1948) 30 -8
39 DR. STRANGELOVE (1964) 26 -13
40 SOUND OF MUSIC, THE (1965) 55 15
41 KING KONG (1933) 43 2
42 BONNIE AND CLYDE (1967) 27 -15
43 MIDNIGHT COWBOY (1969) 36 -7
44 PHILADELPHIA STORY, THE (1940) 51 7
45 SHANE (1953) 69 24
46 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934) 35 -11
47 STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, A (1951) 45 -2
48 REAR WINDOW (1954) 42 -6
49 INTOLERANCE (1916) N/A
50 LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, THE (2001) N/A
51 WEST SIDE STORY (1961) 41 -10
52 TAXI DRIVER (1976) 47 -5
53 DEER HUNTER, THE (1978) 79 26
54 M*A*S*H (1970) 56 2
55 NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) 40 -15
56 JAWS (1975) 48 -8
57 ROCKY (1976) 78 21
58 GOLD RUSH, THE (1925) 74 16
59 NASHVILLE (1975) N/A
60 DUCK SOUP (1933) 85 25
61 SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (1941) N/A
62 AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973) 77 15
63 CABARET (1972) N/A
64 NETWORK (1976) 66 2
65 AFRICAN QUEEN, THE (1951) 17 -48
66 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981) 60 -6
67 WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? (1966) N/A
68 UNFORGIVEN (1992) 98 30
69 TOOTSIE (1982) 62 -7
70 CLOCKWORK ORANGE, A (1971) 46 -24
71 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998) N/A
72 SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, THE (1994) N/A
73 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969) 50 -23
RANK FILM 1997 CHANGE SEEN IT OR NOT
74 SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE (1991) 65 -9
75 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967) N/A
76 FORREST GUMP (1994) 71 -5
77 ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976) N/A
78 MODERN TIMES (1936) 81 3
79 WILD BUNCH, THE (1969) 80 1
80 APARTMENT, THE (1960) 93 13
81 SPARTACUS (1960) N/A
82 SUNRISE (1927) N/A
83 TITANIC (1997) N/A
84 EASY RIDER (1969) 88 4
85 NIGHT AT THE OPERA, A (1935) N/A
86 PLATOON (1986) 83 -3
87 12 ANGRY MEN (1957) N/A
88 BRINGING UP BABY (1938) 97 9
89 SIXTH SENSE, THE (1999) N/A
90 SWING TIME (1936) N/A
91 SOPHIE'S CHOICE (1982) N/A
92 GOODFELLAS (1990) 94 2
93 FRENCH CONNECTION, THE (1971) 70 -23
94 PULP FICTION (1994) 95 1
95 LAST PICTURE SHOW, THE (1971) N/A
96 DO THE RIGHT THING (1989) N/A
97 BLADE RUNNER (1982) N/A
98 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942) 100 2
99 TOY STORY (1995) N/A
100 BEN-HUR (1959) 72 -28
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)