The Year In Review and Charlie Manual is an idiot.

Generally, I have always felt that the MLB All-Star game did a much better job than any of the other sports all-star games.  They generally do a better job of putting them team together, fan voting notwithstanding.  This year just shot all of that built of tolerance right out the window.  Charlie Manual, your an idiot.  That is absolutely all there is to it.  Last year I railed on and on about Manual picking Ryan Howard for the team when he was about the tenth best first-basemen in the National League.  It was embarrassing then, and its even more embarrassing this year.  Why?  Because he left Joey Votto off the team.  Joey Votto who is probably the front runner for MVP.  Joey Votto who is leading the league in OPS.  THE Joey Votto that is a much better hitter at 26 than Ryan Howard is at 30.  Then he has the nerve to add a fifth Brave to the team over Votto.  A guy that isn't a full time player, isn't a regular on his on team, is putting up a .337 OBP with a .706 OPS.  Yes, folks, come on down Omar Infante.  Thats right, the same Omar Infante that was a super prospect with the Tigers way back when.  Apparently his .706 OPS in limited action is more impressive than a .997 everyday OPS.  To put it bluntly this is bullshit, and I hope Joey Votto sticks it to you in the playoffs.  I have no doubt that hitting bombs against the Phillies will be at least a bit sweeter than before.

Yes, folks, Stephen Stasburg is the real deal.  Yep, he will probably win a Cy Young award injuries not withstanding.  Yes, he is only 2 down from leading his team in K's with only a fraction of the innings.  But no he does not belong on the All-Star team, not this year anyway.  He will have plenty of those in his future, he has enough hype, let him earn it, and for once Manual actually got something right.  Also, keep in mind he hasn't even been the best rookie pitcher this season so far.  Jaime Garcia takes that honor, and he isn't an All-Star either, although he probably should be.  Thems the breaks of being a rookie.

I just don't like Colby Rasmus.  He is dumb as a box of hammers, makes dumb mistakes, can't throw the ball straight, doesn't learn from his mistakes as he repeats them, runs the bases like he has his eyes closed, has a diva complex, and his father things he should be on staff just to coach his swing.  The possible upside just isn't worth the negative baggage, plus I think he might be peaking this year.  At the end of the season I will break down his retrosheet, and I am quite certain I will discover he does poorly in games that matter, against quality pitching, and that his RISP numbers with 2 outs will be terrible because damn it, every time he comes up with runners on and two outs its generally a strikeout.  If you could get a good trade out of him that could make the difference this year I say do it.

Trevor Hoffman, call it quits, your just embarrassing yourself.

I have decided that on the whole I really just despise baseball journalists.  The beat writers anyway.  I used to think I liked Rob Neyer, but after following him on Twitter he really is just a pretentious prig.  The Cardinals beat is mainly covered by 4 guys, Matthew Leach, Joe Strauss, Derrick Gould, and Bernie Miklasz.  Leach is  talented writer, but practically just gushes at the seams trying to show the fans how well rounded he is and what a cool hipster he is.  Always talking about the new album or whatnot and reviewing it mostly during the Cardinals games.  Apparently it became enough of an issue that his bosses censured him and told him to focus more on baseball and less on being cool.  As it is, he basically spends his time trying to be a journalist, bookwriter, music reviewer, and stat guru, and unfortunately he just does a half-assed job at all of them.  He likes to gripe about managerial decisions with the pitchers and gripes constantly about the bunt.  Here is a hint Matt, if you think you are a better manager than TLR grow a pair and say so, if not quite being such a whiner, that type of stuff is not productive for the fan base or the team.  Joe Strauss is an all right who talks enough about poker and horse races that it makes me suspect he has a problem.  Miklasz is a confrontational burnout that rarely says anything relevant.  That leaves Derrick Gould, who is mostly just boring.  I think the state of journalism is really just depressing.  Getting to the point where now, I don't even like baseball writers, and that was pretty much the last group of journalists I had any tolerance for left.

When Roy wants out of Houston you know things have gotten REALLY bad.  I have a feeling its going to be a long 3 or 4 years there.  That team is pretty terrible, and it might get worse next year.  Fortunately at least Pittsburgh is in the division, and they might not could win in Double-A.

Which brings me to Pittsburgh.  In all the 17 years they have been losing, this might be the worst of those seasons.  The fans truly don't seem to care anymore.  They are going to see that cool ballpark more than to see that team.  Even at homes games the players often hear louder cheers for the away team than the home team.  Sad state of affairs for such a historic franchise.

Whats the deal with Ike Davis?  People talk about him like he is, well, good.  But, the numbers just don't really support that he is anything hype worthy.  I just don't get it.  East coast bias?  Last I heard . An average in the .250's a low .300 OBP and low .400 SLG were not anything to be exciting about in a corner infielder, even if he is a rookie.  Literally has next to the worst numbers at the position in the league.

Retro Movie Review L.A. Confidential 9/10!

I get asked every now and then what my favorite movies are and for some reason even though its definitely one my five or six favorite movies, I always forget that this one exists.  This is an absolutely fantastic movie folks, and if you haven't seen it you need to go add it to your Netflix queues right this minute.  It has an absolutely fantastic cast, featuring Kevin Spacey, Guy Pierce, and an early career showing for Russell Crowe.  They each play very different but equally conflicted police detectives on the 1950's L.A.P.D.  Their boss is the always good James Cromwell, and the rest of the extended cast, although not so well known, turn in some very good performances.  The plot is twisty, with a sort of noir flair storyline but not shot in the film style of film noir.  There is really much to say about this film except GO SEE IT NOW!!

The Last Airbender 0/10!

I have never, ever, received so little for the price of a movie ticket than I did with this movie. This is, probably the worst movie I have ever seen in a mainstream release. It has replaced Eragon as the worst movie with a budget I have witnessed and has created absolutely new lows in movie making. I don't know if ever I have left a movie theatre with absolutely nothing good to say about a movie. The only thing I can say is that I laughed a lot. At the terrible dialogue. 

Firstly, the special effects were terribad. The opening scenes in the snow were laughable and you could actually pick out the halos around the characters where they were either put on a screen of imposed over CGI. That beautiful trailer we all saw that had all the ships and the kid in the tower in an epic war scene, totally not in the movie, and in fact nothing anything near that good or cool is in the movie. Truly hack work. This movie is so melodramatic that from hence forth all melodramas shall be known as airbenders, but that’s the least of this movies worries really. I don't really prescribe to all the hubbub about them not casting enough Asians. This is a made up world, and if they wanted to cast some white folk, and some Indo/Pak kids that’s fine with me. This movie had people of all flavors and there were plenty of Asians cast. However, they should have casted some kids in the lead roles that had at least a smidgen of acting talent. Sadly the worst of the worst were two of the characters that received a lot of air time. Noah Ringer, who plays Aang, the Last Airbender was terrible, even when held to standards for his age. This was his first gig, and frankly, I am wondering if he dad knew the casting director or something, because he should still be an unknown. He wasn't the worst though, Jackson Rathbone takes that honor. He plays Sokka a non-elemental bending semi-warrior who serves no real purpose to the plot but to say stupid things and deliver lines with all the emotion of a robot. Of course this is probably how they taught him to do things on the Twilight set. 

Perhaps, though, these guys could have done something if they were giving anything, and I mean ANYTHING to work with. This is the worst script I have ever had the misfortune to stumble across. The lines are absolutely laughable. This literally makes Twilight look like an Oscar winner. Its generally a pretty good sign of poor script writing when actors that are generally average to good in quality are as equally terrible as the untested young talent. Dev Patel, who has talent, place a flat, completely non-dynamic character. Cliff Curtis, Shaun Taub, Aasif Mandvi are all at least adequate, but all come up short here. The other problem is this movie lacks any sort of resolution whatsoever. It was clearly made to be in a series of movies, but it makes it shamefully obvious that its part of a series. Unlike most other series, which has a full arc in each film this one just sort of ends like the first night of a three night mini-series on NBC. What makes it worse is that since its so terrible and is getting such terrible reviews there won't be anymore movies. Given the way this one ends THERE IS NO REASON TO WATCH IT. Its seriously like watching half of a movie and then stopping right before a lot of stuff happens, and never going back to it. Tell you what, I will sum it up for you: 

There are a bunch of 14 year olds standing around, giving bad lines with even worse delivery, they do monumentally stupid acts for no particularly reason while one or more of them watch and say with little emotion "no don't you dare do that exact act in which you are going to do." Then they do that act and something else happens, then they get on a terrible CGI'd luck dragon clone and go somewhere else where they do some sort of combat that looks like it should be part of stomp. Then he doesn't something with water and the movie blacks out. The fire lord says something to his daughter blah blah blah, then you get ready for the real parts of the movie to start, oh but then it ends. Generally I believe that quality and enjoyability are not mutually exclusive, but there is a point in which a movie is just so bad that there really just can't be an reason to enjoy it. This movie is one of those. I just can't see how anyone can honestly say they enjoyed this movie. And from the rotten tomatoes reviews it doesn't really look like anyone has.

The A-Team Movie Review 7.5/10!

There are various ways in which to judge a movie.  Sometimes you don't judge purely on the quality of the product.  The A-Team is ridiculous.  The plot doesn't always make sense, there is very little logic, the action is huge and over the top, the characters are caricatures, but, it works.  Why does it work?  Why do components that generally make a bad movie result in an entertaining movie here?  Well, its because it captures and epitomizes the spirit of the TV series perfectly.  Sure, they could have made a gritty, dark, artistic movie, and it probably would have been high quality, but, that wouldn't have fit very well, the characters would have been off and it would have born no resemblance to the action series that so many people love.  And, its darn funny as well.  The characters are very well done, with the only stretch being Rampage Jackson, and his performance wasn't to terrible for a guy that’s really just not an actor.  Bradley Cooper was excellent as Faceman but Sharlto Copley truly stole the show with his characterization of Murdock.  He is not exactly a household name but he played Wikus in District 9 and he is very, very good.  Very surprising given his inexperience.  He is a guy to watch for in the future.  Jessica Biel doesn't really add anything, but she is hot, and this type of movie does require at least one really hot girl to be in it.  Its not going to win an Oscar or anything, but if you liked the television show you will love this movie, and if you are not a fan of the television show you can do a lot worse than watching this flick.  

Video Games aren't art? Anything is art.

Roger Ebert is quoted as having said that "Video games can never be art."  His logic for this is that you cannot take the pinnacle of its creation and compare it to the great works in filmmaking, art, poetry, literature, etc.  To use a metaphor quoted in his blog about this, video games are much closer to the chicken scratches on the inside of caves than they are to the Sistine Chapel.  This is an incredibly idiotic statement.  Actually amazingly idiotic, rarely does  a critic say something that makes me wish I could actually talk to the guy face to face and really see why he thinks this.  Perhaps he thinks that this will keep his fading reputation in with the pretentious bigwigs of the art house scene, or this is just last ditch efforts at staying relevant.  Regardless there are many reasons as to why this is just a purely flawed statement.  Firstly, no one can say what is or isn't art.  You can fully have the right to say something is bad art, or terrible art, or something even a third grader could do, but you don't have the right to say that something somebody put their hard work and soul into "ISN'T" art.  If someone considers what they are doing art, then it is art and no one can say different.  Secondly, saying something has to have reached its apex to be art is also idiotic.  Since the Sistine Chapel was achieved that means that all painting is art? Merely because one person was great in that field that means all others who could never hope to achieve that level are creating art because one person was great in it?  How about graphic art?  No offense to anyone in that field, I have seen a lot of quality work, a lot of really great work, but I have yet to see anything that belongs in the Louvre.  Does that mean that it's not art?  According to Ebert it does, and I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that Graphic art and design isn't a form of art.  Even in my field of art, photography, there have been many greats, but I don't think a single photography has reached the transcendental level of Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Joyce, Van Gogh, Etc.  Is that any less art because of this? NO its not.  And to follow on that line of though, I am a moviephile, I appreciate good movies, and I would doubt that 1/10 people I know have even seen even close to as many movies I have. I know cinema history, theory, and I know the great movies of all time.  And the greatest reason why Ebert's logic is flawed is because his field is no more art than video games are by his theory.  In no way shape or form has there been a movie made that can match the pure genius of the great works of art.  Hell, a large portion of the "greatest" movies of all time use Shakespeare as the direct basis of their screen plays.  The point is very few things can rival the beauty and awe inspiring nature of the works of the masters, saying that a field has achieved that mastery to be art is going to prevent most fields from being considered art.  And then saying because one great person practiced an art makes all of that form art regardless of who does and quality is also just pure idiocy.  Video games are developing as any art.  REGARDLESS of what you think about video games even in its beginning its essentially animation.  Its developed with hand drawn concept art.  Notice the term concept art.  Well, wait a minute Roger, since the sprites are rendered by hand generally first doesn't that make it art?  Then it tells a story.  Just like a movie does.  In fact most games nowadays are movies broken up by periods of time in which you blow shit up, or hit it with a sword , or driving around looking for stuff and progressing to the next point in which the plot advances.  The recent game "Heavy Rain" is a an example of what video game as art can be.  It is an incredibly detailed plot driven game that allows for virtually all aspects of the plot to be controlled.  It is cinematic, story driven, and has a better script than 60% of the new movies coming out.  Not all scripts for video games are great, but several games companies have been telling a great story for many years.  I was affected more by the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy 7 than I have been by any movie by that point in my life.  The story of Chrono Trigger was amazing and that was on a 16 bit system.  Ever heard of Final Fantasy 3/6?  That game has more detailed characters with more nuance than most movies could ever hope for.  And Square Enix is not the only game company that can tell a story.  Bioware's Knights of the Old Republic had a better story than the Star Wars Episode I did.  Rockstar hit it out of the park with their tale of revenge in GTA IV.  I can go on and on.  Video games can hold a narrative, tell a compelling story, and provides often awesome displays of CGI.  If James Cameron can make Avatar (which has a far inferior plot to most video games) through out a bunch of CGI and get praised for his "art." Then its absolutely idiotic to deny video game there place as an art.  It may not be quite to a level of a Sanjuro or an 8 1/2 but its getting damn close.   

Repost of an old blog from 07 on medical testing.

So I am taking a class at ASU and it is an online graduate class on the History of Medicine. One of our discussion topics was Medical Testing in prisons. Here is what one of our brilliant and ranking ASU police officers posted in the discussion board. 

"Well this week discussion is a tossup for me. The men and women in prison are there for a reason, they have been convicted of a crime. I'm not saying that everyone in the prison system is guilty, but they have been tried and convicted and sentenced to prison. Once convicted the inmates loses their right to anything.( Examples- right to vote, right to carry weapons, ect). I think that the companies should use the men and women in the prison systems especially the ones on death row. I don't think the inmates need consent to do this. Yes, you can in return for participating in the study give extra commissary. I think that most inmates are educated, being in law enforcement, we deal with the same people a lot on the street from the prison system and they come out smarter than when they went in. Most men and women in the prison system get their GED or read law books to try and make them smarter. I don't think they should be asked for consent."

Brilliant, not only does a law enforcement officer think they all prisoners no longer have any human rights, but he is under the delusion that apparently prison is good for them, and that it is an improvement for them. He thinks they are essentially animals. Actually maybe not that highly... this is another quote on the same thread.

" Its not that I am a bad police officer cause I take my job very serious. I have been in Law Enforcement since 1992. The thing that gets me is that once someone's convicted and sent to the state prisons, that they belong to the state. which means we have to pay for all there meals, all there doctors appointments, everything, even though they are locked up and guarded 24 hours a day seven days a week, we have to foot the bills. You are right they are humans,and I can see where some of the men and women have the right to consent.

I am a big animal lover to, so why test the animals, they have rights too. I don't think its right to do the animals either.

sorry to get the class stirred up, but just to let you all now that I do take my job very serious to protect and serve the state of Arkansas. Everyone has there own feelings about this, I knew this one would be a tough week for me. I just know that arriving on some of the scenes that I have in the past, just gets to you sometimes. Again I hope you can accept my apology for stirring things up."

Apparently he actually value animals to a greater extent than human life. Pretty amazing really.

My Guitar Project

Way back in the day when I was a gigging drummer I used to have this idea that I would take a drum set and sand down the finish then take baseball cards and attach them to the drum frame and refinish it. The drum set would then have the cards as collage finish and I always thought that would be quite awesome. I still want to do this, but I know longer really play drums, so I have decided that I will do it to a guitar.

I will probably go with a strat body, one of the unfinished ones. The rounded edges will make it easier, and prevent me from having to cut a bunch of cards up with an exacto knife to get the precise fit needed. I will probably go with the 1987 Topps set as my source for cards.  The 1987 set as seen to the left has a wood grain look and I think it would look quite nice as the finish.  I will probably use all St. Louis Cardinals cards, and 1987 isn't a bad year to do that with since it was a world series team.  The other sets I am considering are 1983, primarily because I really like that set, and 1978, mostly because I have a complete set collecting dust.  It will be some work to get it done, but I think it will make a good project.  1970's and 80's cards will make a good base for this project because the card stock is so thin and they feature virtually no gloss on the card whatsoever.

The Losers Movie Review 6.5/10

So what is the difference between a summer pop corn flick that is enjoyable and one that makes you want to shoot the screen with a .50 caliber sniper rifle? Generally with me its how serious the movie takes itself. This is, of course, mostly due to who is directing. Some directors think they are creating a dramatic masterpiece no matter how crappy the premise and load it with dramatic chipmunk type shots and overly dramatic lines filled with gravitas like they are all being uttered by David Caruso in his most serious of moments. The converse is movies like The Losers. This movie is fun, and it knows what it is. A movie filled with over the top characters that quip one liners and blow crap up. Its fun, its quick, its mindless. Its not the best movie in the world, but its summer popcorn entertainment and its worth seeing. There are no Oscar winners in this movie, but the acting is good enough considering all they have to do is shoot stuff and do their best Spider-man one-liner impression. And Zoe Saldana, man, she is smoking. You know a girl is attractive when she still manages to look hot as a CGI alien, so of course she is good looking in this film. This movie is sure a heck of a lot better than any Miley Cyrus/Nick Sparks compilation.

Michael Bay's worst movies list!!

All of them.

Easiest blog ever.

Robin Hood Movie Review 7.5/10

So I really liked this movie. I am not sure why its not doing so well with the critics. Some of the reviews say that it isn't an original take on the Robin Hood legend (notice the proper use of the word legend rather than myth) but I question what they really mean by that. I am not sure what they were expecting, it not something that can have a numerous about of different takes. But I digress. To put it in today's comic book nomenclature perhaps this movie should be entitled Robin Hood: Origins. This is not a retelling of the events of Robin Hood and his merry men stealing from the rich to give to the poor, this is the story of the events and circumstances that put him there. This movie does have an excellent cast and they do a good job in this film. Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett are really good, and in all truth the movie would actually be better with more scenes of them interacting. The movie has freaking MAX VON SYDOW in it, how can you go wrong with that? Mark Addy is good, and frankly I have always wanted to see him play the role of Friar Tuck, although I certainly do wish that the movie had more of him. Denis Menochest made me smile in a small role, mainly because he was so good in Inglourious Basterds. And Mark Strong is his typical villain (go go Sinestro, is he even capable of playing a good guy?) William Hurt and Kevin Durand also do well in supporting roles as William Marshall and Little John (his line, "What are you getting at? I am proportional" which of course makes me wonder where an uneducated 12 century thug knows the word proportional)The action scenes are good, although not great, and the final battle really seems to be set up to look like a bit of a Normandy re-creation. I will admit that I am a Robin Hood fanboy, I have been since I saw the old Disney Robin Hood cartoon, and this movie is good enough to have kept me entertained and enjoy the retelling of one of my favorite legends.

If Howard is worth 25 million then Adam Dunn is worth 22 Million!!!!

What I take from Howard's contract is that Adam Dunn is apparently worth 20-25 million dollars, or the Phillies drastically overpaid. The Nationals are getting Dunn on a two year 20 million deal, and I think they are getting the far better deal. Firstly, to spoil the popular impression of people saying that Howard is worth 25 million because of his age, he is not a young player. For some reason it seems that he is, but he is not. He is 30 years old. Adam Dunn is also 30 years old. It seems like he should be much older, but he is not, he just started young. I keep bringing up Dunn because they are excellent comparisons. Dunn is also a first basemen now, and they are both slow, poor fielding first basemen, who strikeout about 200 times a year. In fact Dunn was the perennial leader until Ryan Howard burst onto the scene and wrestled first place from him with a 199 strikeout performance. No doubt they would be battling out for first every year now, but of course Mark Reynolds is in fact in the league and the reigning strike out king. Alas, but I digress, back to the subject at hand. To take a look over the last three years, Howard and Dunn's offensive numbers are incredibly similar. In 2009 Howard put up percentage numbers of .279 .360 .571 for an OPS of .931. Dunn put up a .267 .398 .529 for a .928 OPS. That’s 3 points different and Dunn played in a park that was much, much less hitter friendly than Howard. To abbreviate a little in 2008 Howard put up an .881 OPS to Dunn's .898. In 2007 Howard had a .976 and Dunn had a .940. Howard's 2006 was much better than Dunn's as that was his MVP year. Howard does have an MVP which I guess is worth something, but Dunn has 5 more years proving that he is good for a .900 OPS pretty much every year. This players are nearly identical with Howard having a slight edge in percentage numbers, and a huge edge in RBI's. But folks, RBI's are a stat dependant on your teams offense, and looked out with little value in today's baseball. And Howard has played in the middle of the lineup for an EXCELLENT offensive team. And I am not advocating that Dunn is a better player than Howard. But it’s a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE contract by Howard. At best he is a worth 2-4 million more a year than Dunn, and NOBODY in baseball believes Dunn is worth 20 million. Then why in the heck does Philly think that Howard is worth 25 million?

The Season in Review - April

AHHH, the long wait is over, baseball is back and all is right with the world. So far we have put about 15 games underneath our collective belts and in the relatively small sample sizes there have been a few surprises although none of them earth shattering.

Firstly, Ubaldo Jimenez is good. I don't think anyone is surprised he pitched the years first no-hitter. The kid has some absolutely filthy stuff and when he is on he is practically unhittable. He followed up his no-hitter with another dominate start. His name should be in the mix at the end of the year for the Cy Young even though he pitches half his games in Coors.

I wonder if the Cardinals increased strikeouts and higher reliance on home runs is a side effect of Big Mac being the new hitting coach. Honestly, I don't really know what wisdom he has to impart, he wasn't a very good hitter honestly. He swung as hard as he could at pitches in the strike zone and missed them at a fairly high rate. I am not sure that his approach to hitting works for anyone without super human strength or a super soldier serum running through his veins. If his work was in evidence throughout that 20 inning exercise in futility then its going to be a long year for the Cardinals with runners in scoring position.

Anybody surprised by the Rays being good? I am not, they have a ton of talent. Nor am I surprised by the fact the Nats can at least play .500 ball. I am equally not surprised that the Mets are terrible. How much longer can Omar blame Steve Phillips? The Mets are just lucky that they fired Steve Phillips before the got Kris Benson. I am sure the Steve Phillips Anna Benson combo would have been tabloid worthy. Also is there any question that the Padre's aren't pretenders?

Jim Edmonds can still hit boys and girls. His Gold Glove certainly has some tarnish on it, but his swing is looking pretty sweet after sitting out a year. My guess is that he wants to play at a decently high level for this year and maybe one more so that he can eclipse the 400 career homer mark. He is 17 homers short and although it is a relatively minor thing it would increase his chances of making the Hall of Fame. His percentage numbers are excellent with a career OPS of .906. Oh yea, and this just in, the Brewers may not have any class, but they sure can hit the baseball.

The AL East could be the most exciting division in baseball this year. There are three high quality teams in that division, with only two possible playoff spots. A good team is going to get left out in the cold. And yes folks, the Red Sox aren't going to struggle like this all year, they just haven't started hitting yet.


The Astros may not have the best team in the world but few teams would end up with a winning record after running through Lincecum, Cain, Wainwright, plus others. They aren't going to be a contender in the Central but they aren't nearly as bad as their 0-8 start indicates. Carlos Lee has been terrible and Lance Berkman has been injured so the middle of their lineup will only get better from here on out.

How To Train Your Dragon Movie Review, 8.5/10!!!

There isn't really much to write about this movie. Its animated, its not deep, there isn't much to analyze. But it is a darn fine movie. The animation is excellent, the dragons are ridiculously cute, the voice acting is sharp, the jokes are funny, the characters loveable, the ending storybook. Its a good diversion to go and see a movie like this. A well made movie without the sadness and bad endings that seem to be the Hollywood norm nowadays. I enjoyed just going to see a movie that made me laugh without raunchy humor, gimics, and didn't make me feel sad at the end. All in all time well spent at the theatre.

Clash of the Titans Movie Review 5.5/10!

It seems to be that lately we have been inundated with a rash of movies that are perfectly content with being decent, but not great. Particularly this year I was left the movie theatre feeling that I was entertained, but that what I saw was just missing something. Maybe movie makers don't really want to take chances anymore, and they like to retread the same old formulas out there because they are safe. They would rather a movie be safely average and make money than take chances on greatness and have a bomb. I don't know that I really fault them for this logic. Great movies don't always equal more money, or even any money at all. Greatness in film is often not appreciated by the masses and the benign blockbuster film with good advertising generally is. In fact a couple of movie insiders from the Scene Unseen Movie review podcast often have said that the key to making money with a movie actually has nothing to do with its quality, only the quality of its advertising. This movie has that sort of thing going for it to a certain degree. They advertised the fooey out of this thing. Lots of epic shots of monsters and of Liam Neeson saying "Release the Kraken." This movie was going to make a decent amount of bank just because of the advertising campaign, and recoup a lot of its making costs. Once again I can't really fault the movie companies for this, it does make them money. However, I really don't like it when the advertising is the best part of the film, and when the trailers give a false impression as to the plot of the movie. (in this film its who the primary antagonist is) On the whole I didn't leave the theatre feeling that I hadn't enjoyed my time, I found the film enjoyable enough, and I didn't feel like it was wasted. Its not a bad movie and I wouldn't tell people that they shouldn't see it if they like this type of film. But it was a decidedly average film, not great and the question I keep asking myself is with this wealth of source material how can you not make a great film? I mean seriously this is a remake of an already pretty darn good film, so they can only go up from there right? This film does a few things right. The period people (although no more accurate than any other movie) felt right. I bought into the fact that these were an ancient people. The costumes looked really good, with the exception of Zeus' light can't quite focus on you armor, which just looked silly and cheesy. Sam Worthington, although not exceptional, gave a far better turn than he did in Avatar, and his performance was solid. Ralph Fiennes was as freaky and scary as he always is in these roles, and frankly I think the movie could have benefitted from more of his. Liam Neeson was fine, but he wasn't really given all that much to do. Zeus was actually far less epic and frequent in the film that the trailers would have you believe. Once again, not Neeson's fault, and he wasn't bad, aside from his terrible armor, he just wasn't given much to do. The movie did a few things badly that really detracted from the film. Firstly, I immediately got popped out with believability with Sam Worthington in this role. I know he was a demi-God, and physically stronger and all of that, but young Perseus has a conversation with his adopted father when he was, at the oldest ten. Then it pops up 12 years later, and it shows Worthington. I leaned over to my friend that was watching the movie with me and said "Huh, 22 years old and he already has crows feet." He responded, "hard life man." Its just really hard to buy him as a 20 year old kid. Even a 20 year old demi-god kid. My question is, why pop up the 12 years later subtext at all? It had no bearing to the plot, its not like it wasn't obvious this was sometime in the future, why do it? All it did was make people go huh, that 20 year old looks 35. But that’s just a personal peeve of mine, and I am sure that wouldn't annoy most people. Other than that this movie had real problems in production, not so much in the acting and story. It looked like the shot the film with actually 8mm retro color film. Sometimes that’s not a bad look, but in this film it kind of made things look washed out, with a lack of vibrancy. Everything kind of looked gray scale and it was not pleasing at all. The monsters looked a little to cartoony for the gravity of the situation, and for you old school gamers the Kraken totally looked like one of the Weapon's bosses from Final Fantasy 7, or even Bahamut from Advent Children. If you haven't seen the original go and see that one instead of this one, it’s a better movie, but this one is still entertaining enough despite its flaws, so if this type of movie interests you, then by all means go out and see it. If you love the original, you will probably be disappointed, but if not, you will just have a couple hours of mindless action entertainment.

RepoMen Movie Review 3/10 *spoilers*

I am tired of going to see movies that have a good idea behind them but have lousy script writing and direction that forces them to crash and burn in a miserable experience. This movie has the potential to be excellent. In fact some of the elements are very good indeed. Liev Schreiber was really fantastically smarmy and slimy in his bottom line make the money role as Frank. However, he really is the highlight of the movie. *Spoiler* Normally I attempt to do reviews of movies without giving any spoilers, but with this one I am not going to do that. There were a couple of things with this movie that just completely ruined it. I hate movies like this, movies that try to suck you in, make you involved in the plot and then bam, some ridiculous twist that invalidates everything you have watched. Like, for example, the movie Identity where you discover the entire movie took place amongst the multiple personalities in a killers head, or like Stutter Island, another movie that has this type of result. I think its cheap. I think it’s a cliché, cheap, non-thinking way of turning a plot twist, and utterly useless to telling a good story or delivering a quality movie. In this particular movie this twist happens when Jude Laws character gets smacked in the head with a large hook. In the movie he wakes up later, goes on to invade the Union and escapes with both the girl and his best friend to the beach, where he writes a best selling book. But the twist so to speak was he never woke up from getting hit in the head with that hook, Jake just had a neural net installed on him so that his coma would be a happy one. This was poorly done, first of all, because it should be fairly obvious. Fake heart or no, Jude Law's character is just human, and no human could survive the amount of force. As soon as it happened I literally said out loud in the theatre "no one wakes up from that." And point of fact, he didn't. Terrible movie making there. After this point it turns into your standard kill everyone to infiltrate the blah, blah, blah, and it culminates in a terribly melodramatic scene in which they scan each others internal organs sans pain killers to get them erased from the system. It was a disgusting and ridiculous scene that was supposed to show how far true unfettered love would go, but in reality, they were trying to give a slap in the face to the people who believe this type of unfettered, unending love is possible. More like a punch into the face of the people who find this appealing. Why? Because even in the convention of the movie this type of love was in fact, not possible. This only existed in a very badly damaged brain. So, so sad that the second half of the movie destroyed what could have possibly been a very decent flick.

Greenzone Movie Review 3/10!

I really wanted to like this movie, I am a big fan of the Bourne Series of films so I thought that a new film with Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon would likely be very enjoyable. I was wrong, everything about this film is generic and bland. It wasn't that it was a terribly made film, it wasn't. What it was, though, was terribly boring. Rarely can I remember ever being completely bored in a movie theatre. Well, I was during this film. The story is interesting, as it attempts to explain the scenario for why there were no WMD's found in Iraq. But it is poorly done in its execution. In Greengrass style the camera is hand held and shaky. But it doesn't seem to work as well as it does in the Bourne series, it plays more like motion sickness than realism in this film. The characters themselves are bland and vanilla. I never really related to Damon's character because he just didn't really seem believable, he just seemed like a stock character from a generic war movie. The supporting cast should have been great, but they really didn't have much to work with so they were really a non-entity in this movie. All in all, I felt like it was the first time this year I felt like I had truly wasted my time at the theatre.

My List of Players for the Hall of Fame

Here is the list of players I decided to keep in the Hall of Famer:
Rickey Henderson
Cal Ripken Jr.
Tony Gwynn
Wade Boggs
Paul Molitor
Ryne Sandberg
Eddie Murray
Ozzie Smith
Kirby Puckett
Carlton Fisk
Joe Gordon
George Brett
Don Sutton
George Davis
Larry Doby
Phil Neikro
Vic Schmidt
Vic Willis
Richie Ashburn
Steve Carlton
Reggie Jackson
Rollie Fingers
Tom Seaver
Rod Carew
Fergie Jenkins
Tony Lazzeri
Joe Morgan
Jim Palmer
Carl Yastremski
Johnny Bench
Willie Stargell
Billy Williams
Willie McCovey
Ernie Lombardi
Hoyt Wilhelm
Arky Vaughn
Enos Slaughter
Lou Brock
PeeWee Reese
Harmon Killebrew
Brooks Robinson
George Kell (purely because he is from Swifton, otherwise no)
Juan Marichal
Frank Robinson
Hank Aaron
Johnny Mize
Bob Gibson
Duke Snider
Chuck Klein
Al Kaline
Willie Mays
Eddie Matthews
Addie Joss
Joe Sewell
Ernie Banks
Ralph Kiner
Billy Herman
Earl Averill
Mickey Mantle
Whitey Ford
Warren Spahn
Roberto Clemente
Sandy Koufax (I am actually still on the fence about him)
Yogi Berra
Harry Hooper
Lou Boudreau
Stan Musial
Stan Coveleski
Roy Campanella
Joe Medwick
Goose Goslin
Kiki Cuyler
Ted Williams
Heinie Manush
Luke Appling
Sam Rice
Edd Roush
Jackie Robinson
Bob Feller
Max Carey
Zach Wheat
Sam Crawford
Hank Greenberg
Joe Cronin
Gabby Hartnett
Joe Dimaggio
Frank “Homerun” Baker
Bill Terry
Bill Dickey
Al Simmons
Dizzy Dean
Chief Bender
Paul Waner
Harry Heilman
Mel Ott
Jimmie Foxx
Charlie Gehringer
Mordecai Brown
Pie Traynor
Carl Hubbell
Lefty Grove
Frankie Frisch
Mickey Cochrane
Ed Walsh
Rube Waddell
Johnny Evers
Frank Chance
Eddie Plank
Joe McGinnity
Jimmy Collins
Roger Bresnahan
Fred Clarke
Rogers Hornsby
George Sisler
Eddie Collins
Lou Gehrig
Grover Cleveland Alexander
Nap Lajoie
Cy Young
Tris Speaker
Honus Wagner
Ty Cobb
Babe Ruth
Walter Johnson
Christy Matthewson

The Final Hall of Fame Blog, here are the 1930's.

Here it is, finally the last decade of my year my year Hall of Fame evaluations. I have kicked a lot of players out of the Hall of Fame. The 30's are pretty much a formality. All of these guys were amongst the first elected and some of the games greats of all time.

1939. George Sisler, Lou Gehrig, Eddie Collins.

George Sisler-Yes- The man hit .420. Yes I think he is overrated, yes I think pure batting average is overrated. Yes the man couldn't walk. But he is still a Hall of Famer.

Lou Gehrig- Yes, emphatically- Where as Cal Ripken was a slightly above league average player during large portions of his streak, Lou Gehrig was in the lineup everyday, and one of the greatest ballplayers of all time everyday. His career percentage numbers are .340 .447 .632. Yes folks that’s a career OPS of 1.080. He is constantly overshadowed by the fact he played on a team with Babe Ruth, so as amazing as it is it’s a possibility he was slightly undervalued as a player.

Eddie Collins- Yes- Cocky Collins is on pretty much every top five second basemen of all time list. The conversation generally goes around him, Lajoie, Hornsby, Gehringer, and thanks to sabermetrics, Joe Morgan, Oh and Just for Andy's sake I will toss in Craig Biggio. Collins was a fantastic defensive player and a fantastic hitter. He also stole 741 bags to go along with 3315 hit. His career numbers were a salty .333 .424 .429. He is a no doubt Hall of Famer.

1938. Grover Cleveland Alexander

Grover Cleveland Alexander- Yes- I recommend the book Wicked Curve to anybody who likes baseball. Grover is a sad figure. His most famous moment was probably as a Cardinal while he was a drunk nearly washed up reliever. But he rose to glory one last time in the 1926 World Series when the lowly Cardinals beat the mighty Yankee's to win their first ever World Championship. (Sorry we were late to the party Cubs fans, but at least we didn't duck out early) Grover was a pretty phenomenal 373-208 and is unquestionable one of the great pitchers of All-Time.

1937. Cy Young, Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie

Cy Young- Yes- Probably not a good idea to kick the guy whom the pitching award is named after from the Hall of Fame. Most well known for being the career leader in wins with 511. Of course he is also the career leader in losses with 316. We won't hold that against him though since he had a career winning percentage of .618. All in all he was perhaps slightly overrated, but still one of the greatest pitchers of All-Time.

Tris Speaker- Yes- Spoke has the distinction of being one of the few guys that called Ty Cobb a friend. He also sadly has the distinction of being tied to a gambling rumor with Cobb (they were very likely innocent) and having to give up managing to finish up their playing career A's. (By the way I don’t know another team that had more future Hall of Famers the 1928 A's team. Mickey Cochrane, Al Simmons, Ty Cobb, Jimmie Foxx, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, and Lefty Grove were all on that team) Tris was a great player, a historically great centerfielder, and a great hitter. He was a career .345 hitter with a .428 OBP and .500 SLG. Yea, this guy could play.

Nap Lajoie- Yes- Lajoie was generally not a nice man while he was a Philly. He had a lot of problems with drinking, and was generally a world class insubordinate ass. However, he could play. He was not the greatest defensive second basemen of all time by any stretch but he was one of best offensive players of his time.

1936. Honus Wagner, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Matthewson

Honus Wagner -Yes- Of course Honus is in the Hall of Fame, he is the greatest shortstop of All-Time. He was without a doubt far and away the best player in the National League during his playing days. He brought home 8 batting titles in his career. He was a career .328 .391 .467. He was leaps and bounds better than any other shortstop defensively during his time in baseball.

Babe Ruth-Yes- Babe Ruth was ridiculous. Other than possibly his teammate Lou Gehrig Babe was a man playing amongst boys. Anyone that thinks Barry Bonds is a better player than Babe Ruth is deluded. (and that has nothing to do with his steroids allegations, just his stats) Sure some of Bonds stats may be comparable, but you can't compare stats straight against each other generation to generation. You have to look at how much better that player was than the people he was playing with. Bonds was better than everybody else, but not ridiculously so. Ruth was in a league of his own. There just weren't people doing what he could do. Hitting for average, hitting more homeruns than entire teams. He was a legend, Bonds will continue only to be a legend in his own mind. .342 .474 .690 were his career percentage numbers.

Ty Cobb-Yes- 11 batting titles. .366 career average. 897 Stolen bases. World class ass. Great Hitter.

Walter Johnson-Yes- He is a frontrunner in the conversation for greatest pitcher of all time. 417 wins to only 279 losses, pretty damn good considering the Senators were not a top flight team. He lead the league in wins 5 times and in ERA 4 times. He also garnered two MVP awards, one at the ripe old age of 36. He was the premier strike out artist of his time and lead the league in K's 11 times.

Christy Mathewson-Yes- He is one of my All- Time favorite players in history. He was an educated man, he went to Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, which was an extreme rarity at this early and rowdy stage in baseball history. He was a good man, an American Hero kind of guy, who was an officer in World War I. He died early in 1925 because of a lung complication due to his being gassed during WWI. Ty Cobb narrowly missed being gassed in the same incident, he got his mask on a second quicker than Matty. His career record was an amazing 373 and 188 for a very robust .665 winning percentage. His career ERA was a very low 2.13. He had a pitch called the "fadeaway" which has generally been thought to have been a screwball, but very likely could have been an early version of a changeup.

Here come the Forties. 1940's Hall of Fame Blog

The 1940's was an interesting decade for the Hall of Fame. Most of the candidates were actually elected by the Old Timer's Committee, which was the first iteration of the Veteran's committee. The committee seemed to have issues with separating a playing career from a managing career, and elected some players in as managers that couldn't possibly have been elected solely on their playing stats without the help of their managing career as well.

1949- Kid Nichols, Charlie Gehringer, Mordecai Brown

Kid Nichols- 1800’s player. He only spent 3 or 4 season past the 1900 decade. I am efforting greatly to improve my ability to judge players before 1900 but I am still lacking so I am still not voting yay or nay on this players. I will live it to the old tyme scholars.

Charlie Gehringer- Emphatically Yes- Charlie inevitably makes it into any conversation of the greatest second basemen of all time. He makes it into this discussions because of course, he was damn good. He ended with a solid career hit total of 2839 and over 1400 RBI’s. He was an excellent Gold Glove type defender and his percentage numbers are very, very good. He racked with a .320 .404 .480 line. Without question this man could play and belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Mordecai “Three Finger” Brown- Yes- I will always lament the fact that Mordecai’s rookie season was spent as a Cardinal and that he was traded to the Cubs for a bag of peanuts. He was possibly the greatest fielding pitcher of all time, and definitely the best at fielding the bunt. He spent hours working on this, even when a lot of people at the time neglected fielding practice for pitchers all together. But he knew he was a control pitcher, and that he was not going to strike a ton of guys out. He knew that limiting base runners was key, and that his ability to get them out with the glove would be an advantage. He was a great pitcher, he pedigree is not in question and who am I to kick a man with Three-Fingers out of the Hall of Fame?

1948-Pie Traynor, Herb Pennock

Pie Traynor-Yes- Pie Traynor is incredibly overrated. That being said he is still tough to kick out of the Hall of Fame. He gets some publicity as being the greatest defensive thirdbasemen. He was great defensively, but I think it’s a stretch to say he is the best. Jimmie Dykes, Clete Boyer, Brooks Robinson, and Scott Rolen are all very likely his equal or superior. A good part of his reputation was built on fond remembrances of his playing days by teammates, and that is a bit of a biased source of course. From what we have its hard to extrapolate that he was the greatest of all time, but its pretty clear that he was an excellent defender. He gets credit as a great hitter too, but that’s a bit inflated as well. He was a singles hitter that didn’t walk. Which leads to a career .320 batting average, but a pretty weak .797 OPS. I am including him, but he is definitely a marginal inclusion.

Herb Pennock-No- To be honest when I saw his name on the list I had to think about it a second. I really couldn’t remember much about him at all other than he pitched on some of the great Yankee’s Murderers Row teams. Then I looked up his stats and realized that that’s about his only redeeming quality and claim to fame. His career ERA is a less than impressive 3.60. Very high for a Hall of Fame level pitcher. His win-loss record was 241-162 for a very nice .598 winning percentage. But giving the fact that he played on mostly great teams in his career, that’s about where it should be, actually maybe a little low. He was an above average pitcher that benefited from playing on historically great teams. He has no place in the Hall of Fame.

1947-Carl Hubbell, Lefty Grove, Frankie Frisch, Mickey Cochrane

Carl Hubbell-Yes-Carl threw a screwball and is most often remembered for two things. Throwing at guys and striking out a zillion matters in a row in an all-star game that’s lineup looked like an All-Time greats list. Hubbell was a great pitcher. He lead the league in ERA 3 times and wins 3 times. He sported ERA’s of sub-3 and sub-2 in the early part of the 1930’s when even good pitchers were getting rocked for about five runs a game. His winning percentage was an excellent .622. I have no problems including him.

Lefty Grove-Yes- Lefty may be the greatest pitcher of all time, so obviously I am putting him in the Hall of Fame. 4 time leader in wins, 9 time leader in ERA. He won exactly 300 games with 141 losses for a spectacular .680 winning percentage. In 1931 he went 31-4. Winning 30 games when people didn’t really do that anymore. That season he tossed up a 2.06 ERA in a season when most teams hit over .300 as a team. This may very well be the most impressive season of all time.

Frankie Frisch-Yes- An excellent player and a good manager. He did a variety of things well, and he was an educated man. That’s where he got the nickname “The Fordham Flash.” He was an excellent defender, and excellent hit and run man, a good hitter, had great speed, had a little pop in his bat, and could steal some bases. He hit .316 for his career with a .369 OBP and .432 SLG. He stole 419 bags in his career and garnered 2880 hits. Not the greatest secondbasemen ever by a long stretch, but still one of the best there has ever been.

Mickey Cochrane-Yes- One of my favorite players of all time he was one of the greats. He has a shortened career due to injury, but since he was a catcher it is about the same as all the others. Mickey was a rarity, even back then, he was a catcher with some good speed. He didn’t really steal bases, but he could scoot around the basepaths pretty well. He was an excellent defensive catcher and one of the best throwers of his time but where he truly excelled was as a hitter. His percentage numbers are a very solid .320 .419 .478. It is kind of funny that his numberes are nearly identical to Charlie Gehringer’s career numbers, they teammates in Detroit.

1946- Ed Walsh, Rube Waddell, Joe Tinker, Eddie Plank, Joe McGinnity, Johnny Evers, Jack Chesbro, Frank Chance, Jesse Burkett.

Ed Walsh-Yes- Big Ed was pretty ridiculous. He had an ERA of 1.82 and won 40 games once. Yep that’s 40 games. Also had the misfortune to go 18-20 while leading the league in losses AND ERA. That is one hell of a tough luck season. He lost 20 with an ERA of 1.27. Ridiculous.

Rube Waddell-Yes- Known primarily for being one of the premier strikeout artists of his generation. He led his league in k’s 6 years in a row with some very respectable totals. He was hard to hit, because players just didn’t strike out that much back then. He was a quality pitcher, who didn’t put up many big win totals, but nonetheless was a great pitcher.

Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance- Tinkers, Evers, and Chance all went into the Hall of Fame in the same year, all elected by the Veteran's Committee. Part of the reason, I believe, they were all elected is because it is hard to separate them from each other. They are associated together more than any 3 players in history, and Tinkers and Evers is the most famous double play combo by far. So the question is do all three of them belong in the Hall of Fame? I am going to analyze these guys all under the same column, because it just seems appropriate. First up is Joe Tinker. Tinker was the less fiery of the double play combo, and apparently much easier to get along with than Evers, whom wasn't particularly popular amongst anybody who knew him. However, putting him into the Hall of Fame is a stretch at best. He really just didn’t hit very well. His percentage numbers were a paltry .262 .308. .353 for an incredibly anemic .661 OPS. That is pretty terrible, even for the time. He had one very good year, but also a good half of his years were just pretty darn terrible. He was a plus defender, being above the league fielding percentage for his position pretty much every year, and had marginally above average range. By the subjective accounts he was an excellent defender, and there is no real evidence to dispute that that is possible. However, with anemic hitting, and less than 1700 career hits, his defense does not seem anywhere near enough to merit inclusion in the Hall. Joe Tinker DENIED. Next up is Johnny Evers Evers is probably best known for being the one who recovered the ball and got the umps attention to get the force out in the famous Merkle's Boner play versus the New York Giant's. Evers is similar to Joe Tinker, not quite as good a defender, and quite a bit better hitter. The other numbers are similar but Evers could get on Base quite a bit better with a career .356 OBP. He could also steal you a base pretty frequently. The difference between Tinker and Evers though is this. Evers had some pretty damn good years. One was truly great and another was very good, oddly, he won an MVP award in his second best season. The fact he has an MVP award and was generally a much better player than Tinker, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Johnny Evers ACCEPTED Frank Chance Known as the peerless leader because he was the team leader turned manager for the great Cubs teams in the early part of the 20th century. He started out as a catcher, he was pretty terrible at it, and was smart enough to realize he needed to move himself to first base when the team got Johnny Kling. The question is, I believe Chance got in as a player. Which is just preposterous. He played in less than 1300 games, which is just not enough time to be a Hall of Famer as a player. As a player he was a good defensive first basemen and a much better hitter than either of the other two. He his .294 with a .394 OBP. These are damn fine numbers for the time, and in one season he had an amazing .450 OBP. But the career is just not long enough or distinguished enough to merit being in the Hall of Fame. If you give him credit as a manager then perhaps you can include him, he was the manager for some legendary teams as well as playing for them. So my final verdict Chance as a player DENIED Chance as a player manager ACCEPTED. Poor Joe Tinker, I guess that leaves him as the odd man out.

Eddie Plank-Yes- Eddie plank was a hell of a pitcher. When I think of him, the first thing that pops into my mind has absolutely nothing to do with his playing career, its that his card is the second most valuable in the T-206 set, second only to the famous Honus Wagner card. That probably is an injustice to Mr. Plank. He put up a 326-194 record for his career, for a very nice .627 winning percentage. He also had a career ERA of 2.36. With that amount of wins, with such a good winning percentage, it would be hard for anybody to rationalize him not being in the Hall of Fame.

Jack Chesbro-No- I have a hard time including Jack Chesbro because he only played for 9 seasons. Two of those 9 seasons were fantastic, legendary even. But the rest was merely good, not great. He never won an ERA title. Which I think is telling, as he was never truly the best, which I believe you need to prove if you are going to get in with a tiny sample size.

"Ironman" Joe McGinnity-Yes- This guy is known primarily for his ability to pitch a ridiculous number of innings a year. Perhaps if he hadn’t pitched so many innings his career would have lasted longer than ten years. Actually that’s not really fair, because he got a late start to his career. I am inclined to take him where I didn’t take Chesbro because he pitched about twice as many innings in the same span. Ok that is an exaggeration, but he really did start a ton more game than any pitcher during that time. He lead the league in wins 5 times of his ten years in the league. This would not be impressive given the number of innings he pitched except for the fact that he did it with a good winning percentage. At time with a GREAT winning percentage.

Jesse Burkett-Yes- I generally don't judge players before the turn of the century, but with this guy I am making an exception. He like Delahanty, is a sure thing, because this guy could just knock the cover off the ball.

1945-Ed Delahanty, Jimmy Collins, Fred Clarke, Roger Bresnahan.

Ed Delahanty-Yes- Another Pre-1900 type player, but like Jesse Burkett he is a no-doubter. Ed Delahanty is one of the all time greats, and his death is one of the great mysteries of history.

Jimmy Collins-Yes- Jimmy was one of the best third basemen of his time, both offensively and defensively. .294 .343 .409 is a very good line for a player of his time period. Plus he was an excellent defensive third basemen. During this period of baseball third base is probably the premier defensive position on the diamond due to the high number of bunts down the line.

Fred Clarke-Yes- A good hitter, a good defender, and a good manager. His percentage numbers are a very solid .312 .386. .429. He was one of the most well respected players of his generation by his peers.

Roger Bresnahan- Yes- Roger looks like he shouldn't be a Hall of Famer, but he was probably the best catcher of his time. He could hit a bit, and he had a good OBP to boot, but this was at a time when catchers were some of the worst players on the field due to all the injuries.


1942-Rogers Hornsby- Yes- Another no doubt Hall of Famer, his percentage numbers are phenomenal .358 .434 .577. He won six straight batting titles and he hit over .400 3 times. That’s just silly good.

Retro Movie Review: Yojimbo 10/10

When one watches this movie for the first time its easy to be look at it and go "huh, I am see all of this before." Well, thats because you have. Yojimbo is one of the most revered and influential movies ever. Mifune of course is fantastic, as he always is, and I am sure the "man with no name" plot is not original with Yojimbo, however, it is the movie is most thought of as inspiring all of the others that came after. Movies, frankly, just don't get better than this one. The film techniques are amazing, and the plot and dialogue is fantastic. The acting is spot on as well, with not just Mifune shining. The plot might be most recognized in the Clint Eastwood-Sergio Leone classic spaghetti western "A fistful of Dollars." There is a good reason for this as Kurosawa successfully sued Leone for ripping off his movie. Everyone who appreciates good film should see this movie. YES it is in black and white, YES it is subtitled, and unfortunately many people have a problem watching black and white films and watching subtitled films. However, this is one of the greats of all time, and you owe it to yourselves to get over this hitch and watch. It is currently available on Netflix streaming.

Top Five Movies of 2009.

As we get closer to Academy Award time I though it was just about time for me to whip out a list of my choices for the five best movies of the year. Personally I think this is a down year, and there isn't a single movie as good as last years Slumdog Millionaires or The Wrestler, but there were some decent flicks out there. I feel better though, that after I put my list together 4 of the 5 I chose were also nominated for best picture. That is probably the most the movies I though were good were also nominated for an Oscar.

5. District 9 - This movie made me feel like crap. It made me realize that humans aren't nice, and that I truly bought the way humanity reacted in this movie. It made the list because I have never encountered a movie that made me feel like such trash just for being a human.

4. Star Trek - I don't like Star Trek. I don't like any of the other movies, and I didn't like the show. But this movie was really great, really enjoyable, and made me excited to see if the reboot would live long and prosper.

3. Up - There isn't much to say about this movie, I think its Pixar's best effort, and that they have really created a masterpiece here. Cartoons aren't supposed to make adults cry damn it!!!!

2. Inglourious Basterds- In my opinion this is Tarantino's master work. Brilliant paced and of course it has amazing dialogue, written in about 17 languages. This movie should count as a foreign entry.

1. The Hurt Locker - This is the best film of the year, hands down I think. Incredibly tense, gritty, and believable. The type of war movie that I enjoy, because it delivers believable drama. Plus I think Jeremy Renner is exceptional. If I were going to recommend someone only watch one movie this year, it would probably be Inglourious Basterds, because it will probably remain somewhat iconic due to the director and actors, but I believe this movie is the most well crafted, well written, and well acted movie of the year.

Honorable Mentions: Up in the Air, An Education (yea I watched it, thanks Market Cinema)

Edge of Darkness Movie Review 5.79/10!

Mel Gibson graces us with his presence once again on the silver screen. What's it been, like ten years? Of course he has directed and been in the news, but this is his first screen appearance in quite some time. This is pretty vintage Mel Gibson. A role that he can play well falling out of bed after a hard night of drink at a Bar Mitzvah. It is his bread a butter, a revenge flick. A wise man once told me that almost all movies can be broke down into only three categories: Love stories, coming of age stories, and revenge stories. This man is for the most part right, and as far as crazy ass revenge goes, Mel Gibson has cried over more lost children and dead lovers than most Hollywood stars. He does what he always does in this movie. If you like him in that roll then you will like this movie, if you don't and that annoys you then this movie isn't for you. The story is interesting, although none of the characters are really fleshed out and it feels like you only get snapshots of each one. The story feels like there should be a lot there, and there is a reason for that. This was a six part BBC miniseries that was compressed into one not very long movie. So you get a skeleton outline of a story that was supposed to be much more complex and interesting, and instead is only mildly intriguing. Its a decent movie, worth passing a couple of hours with if you have nothing better to do, but I would recommend that you wait for netflix and watch it on a night when your snowed in.

Book of Eli Movie Review 5.5/10!

This movie was kind of a disappointment. I thought that having Gary Oldman and Denzel Washington opposite each other in a pseudo-biblical post-apocalyptic battle field would be highly entertaining. I was disappointed. It was somewhat entertaining, but it was nearly as good as I thought that it would be. The movie is your standard post-apocalyptic nightmare. Basically a Mad Max/Postman/The Road standard fair kind of stuff with a bit of Fahrenheit 451 thrown in. Of course nothing is ever really explained as to what happened in the world to make it this way except for some vague allusions to things that happened like "a whole was ripped in the sky" and "after the big flash." I guess, that's ok as it wasn't all that important to the plot, but still that sort of sets the tone for this movie as it seems to have lots of things that just are with no explanation for what the heck is going on. This movie was bad, and would have received rating probably of 6.5 or 7 except for a couple of things. There is a big twist of sorts and the end and to be honest it was bad for the movie as it really just didn't make that much sense. My issue with can't really be discussed without giving out a ton of spoilers which I prefer not to do, and the ending just left me with to many unanswered questions and to much Why the hell did this happen this way to get more than a slightly above average rating. As is kind of a theme it seems with the movies I have watched this year this movie had a lot of potential but underachieves and fails to reach that potential.

Legion Movie Review 4/10!

From the previews I really didn't think this movie was going to be that good, but since I have a mancrush on Paul Bettany I knew I was going to go see it as soon as I saw the first trailer. Essentially this is a Zombie apocalypse movie but instead of some virus the zombies are created by Angel possession. Yea, I know, sounds silly, it was pretty silly when I was watching it. Listening to an audience can sometimes give you a clue as to the quality of a movie. If the entire audience is laughing at inappropriate times then its probably a good example of a poorly written script. I don't expect my action movies to have Oscar quality scripts, but I do expect them to no be so painfully bad as to make the audience laugh when it should be feeling something else. There isn't really that much action in the movie, and the dialogue scenes between the characters are painfully cheesy and forced. The one bright spot of the film is how they implemented the angel wings into the big fight scene. Basically the bottom line on this film is that it had an interesting idea but do to poor, poor pacing, cheesy melodramatic over acting, and a script that lacked the proper cohesion to tell the story kept it from actualizing any of he potential that was there. If your going to the theatre and you have to choose between this movie and Book of Eli, see Book of Eli, its better, although only marginally. It somehow manages to take itself far less seriously, which is saying something considering how seriously Book of Eli took itself.

Five Movies you should see right now.

5. In Bruges- An odd but incredibly well made little flick with a lot of good acting and a drunken midget. Can't go wrong with that combination.

4. Grey Gardens- Creepy, disturbing, and utterly fascinating. I know not everyone is interested in documentary film making, but if you are this is one to see without a doubt.

3. Dances With Wolves- Not only is it a very good movie it will remind all of you who watched Avatar that its a complete rip off of this movie.

2. L.A. Confidential- It has Guy Pierce, Kevin Spacey, and Russell Crowe, how can you go wrong there? This is a really great movie with an excellent script and snappy acting from the ensemble cast. Its my favorite cop movie by far.

1. Twilight- PSYCH!!!! You should never see that trash. The real number one is YOJIMBO. A great samurai movie from possibly the greatest director of all time Akira Kurasawa. It stars Toshiro Mifune as the samurai with no name. This is the inspiration behind Leone's Dollars Trilogy, and in fact the first movie of said trilogy was a complete rip off of Yojimbo, so much in fact that Kurasawa sued his ass in court, and won. This is an excellent movie, and is a little lighter than Sanjuro, or some of his other works like Throne of Blood.

Repost of my Sosa block with a little extra about McGwire

I wrote this blog a while back about Sosa and it still applies with whats going on with McGwire. I still believe what I wrote in the Sosa blog, but I have a few more things to add. Firstly, its really silly to see all of these media types who kept pressuring McGwire to come clean turn around and have a field day with it. Seems incredibly hypocritical, of course I wouldn't know what to do if journalists weren't hypocritical. What's even worse is all the guys who were just upset that he didn't come clean in the way they thought he should, so they are critical of that. Secondly, I still think the media has a completely blind eye to the fact that all of their so called clean players from before the steroid era were all popping greenies (amphetamines). They are just as much a PED as steroids are. Stop turning a blind eye just so you can make a story, or protect the sanctity of an era that is not nearly as clean as you would have us believe.

THE SOSA BLOG

Ok, so its true that apparently Sosa did test positive for a performance enhancing drug and it made headlines in the sports world yesterday. But lets be honest about this, is anybody actually surprised anymore when a name like Sosa's pops up testing positive? I for one am not shocked by any name that comes up from the late 90's and early 2000's anymore. And frankly did we need confirmation to know that Sosa was on them? Anybody that watched him play had to have him on their top 2 or 3 list of players most likely to be taking a shot in the butt. My top 4 list was Big Mac, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens. I have been screaming for a while now that Roger Clemens was the one pitcher I was certain of to hitting the juice, and truthfully he is the only player other than Bonds that I have felt a certain vindication and satisfaction in seeing the news come out. The question though that I feel needs to be asked is was it worth what Big Mac and Sosa did to themselves and the game? I would have to say yes. Those of you who know me well know that I am a rules nazi. I am fair to the rules to a fault, when I play softball I have actually called myself out when an umpire was umping that didn't know all the rules. I hate it when my team gets the benefit of a bad call and I tell an umpire when I think he missed a call, even if it is one that helped my team. But at the same time, 1998 was a magical season for baseball fans. Outside of hard core baseball fans, baseball was not doing well after the 1994 strike and 1995 lock out ( I do believe the owners were more at fault than the players, and they get a bum rap on this, but thats a blog for another day) and he game was struggling mightily to get butts in the seats. Sosa and McGwire's home run chase changed that. It created interest in the game on a national level that baseball had not enjoyed in a long time. That interest did not go away, it maintained through the 2000's and even though baseball can't compete with football for television ratings (this mostly has to do with the number of games) people were going to game at a great rate in most cities, Florida and Montreal of course were exceptions. Montreal baseball was destroyed by the strike, and never recovered. They had a hell of a team in 1994 and had real chances of going places that year, and their fans got their hearts ripped out. But for most teams 1998 was magical. Not only was it home runs in numbers never seen before, but it was a rivalry between two players in the same division, and each on teams that historically have one of the best rivalries in baseball. Everbody was watching, everybody wanted to know what was going to happen next, and everybody was enchanted by the fact Sosa and McGwire were pushing each other to play better via encouragment rather than animosity. Sure the steriods make the season seem a bit hollow now, but you can't take away what it did for baseball, even now baseball is doing all right and its in part due to that season. And you can take away some of the gloss on what they accomplished on the field with their numbers, but you can't take away the grace they handled themselves with during that chase and embracing what they were to baseball. And lets keep in mind that in 1998 they weren't technically even breaking any baseball rules, which means that perhaps baseball administration is far more on the hook for steroids than the individual players are. Was it worth it, yea, it probably was, without 1998 contraction was a very real and ugly possiblity, and the face of baseball could have been drastically different. Would baseball have been better if the owners and administration had been more responsible in their drug testing? Absolutely, but us and the players have to play with the hand they were dealt, and we still have to look for a silver lining in a cloudy sky.

Undefeated Seasons

So why all the big deal and hub bub about the Colts deciding they don't care about going 16-0? Why does it matter? The answer is it doesn't not one little bit. The only thing that is important is winning the Super Bowl. It doesn't matter if you go 8-8 during the regular season or if you 16-0. The Championship is the same regardless of how many wins you have, the super bowl ring looks the same, the Champagne tastes just as sweet. The Colt's had nothing to gain by playing their starters and going 16-0 and everything to lose. They could have lost Peyton Manning, it is football and anything can happen at any time. If that happened they might as well just forfeit. And for what? The Colt's had already secured home field, so what else was there? The fans at the game that boo'd the team should be ashamed of themselves, because they sure as hell would have lit Jim Caldwell up if they had suffered a catastrophic injury that cost them a chance at a championship. In fact Jim Caldwell was in a complete no-win situation. If he pulls his starters and rest them then he gets blasted, if he plays his starters and one gets injured then he gets blasted by the press. He chose the right answer in choosing the solution that gets him blasted by the press but doesn't cost his team a chance at winning the championship. In fact I feel terribly sorry for poor Jim Caldwell, if he was Tony Dungy he wouldn't be facing nearly as much criticism. Tony Dungy was in the exact same situation as head coach of the Colts and he did the exact same thing, yet most of these same fans and critics that are yelling at Caldwell complimented him about his savvy coaching and ability to keep focused on the target. I know, I am a Colt's fan and I remember it well. Basically the bottom line is the fans and media need to quit their bitching. Winning the division and locking down homefield early gives the team the right to rest their starters, why should the Colt's squander that advantage over some useless thing like an undefeated season?

MVPs on Bad Teams

It is pretty easy to tell how a pitcher who pitches on a bad team is affected. Generally speaking it means less wins, as his team will score fewer runs, and more wins blown by the bullpen. It can also mean a higher earned run average, or more unearned runs allowed because bad teams often have a terrible defense as well. But not many people think about how playing on a terrible team alters the statistics of a truly great hitter. I think how these players are treated has changed in the last decade. Previously, I think one great hitter on a bad team had their stats inflated. Now I haven't done in detailed analysis on this theory yet, this is purely from observation of games in the 80's and 90's. I will do research on retrosheet to back it up though, and I think it will prove true, but I hypothesize that players on bad teams had their stats inflated because pitchers then didn't want to put guys on base and waste pitches. So instead of pitching around the good hitter in the lineup, they just pitched to him knowing they had a lead and that he couldn't really hurt them. You get a whole lot of meaningless fastballs down the middle of the plate, I.e. the Jack Morris school of pitching. However, lately, with pitchers not going deep into ballgames, and the intentional walk a much bigger part of the game, pitchers are approaching it differently. Why pitch to a guy who can hit a homerun when you can just walk him and get the next guy out? The difference in mind set is the difference in the pitching mentality then and now. When I get a chance, I will pick out some players and pour through the box scores and see how exactly they were treated with runners on base in the games there teams were behind by a large margin. I think I will be proven correct.

Sherlock Holmes Movie Review 8/10!

I personally am a huge fan of the Sherlock Holmes. I have read every single one of the stories many, many times. As such, I was concerned that this movie rendition would for lack of a better word, suck. It wasn't the best movie I have ever seen but it was pretty quality. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are an excellent combination for Holmes and Watson. Of course there are some liberties taken to fit them to the roles. Watson is a much older, less clever, and more portly character than that portrayed by Law, and Holmes is in general much less charming than Downey portrays him, however, those are some changes to be expected given it would be pretty hard to relate to a cocaine addled ass. Although as with Iron Man, it seems Downey gets to play a lot of characters that kind of resemble him in real life.... Other people will have an issue perhaps with the rather proficient fighting nature of Holmes in the movie, but frankly, that part is rather true to form. Holmes was an excellent pugilist, an excellent fencer, and uncannily strong. If anything, they actually downplayed his incredible strength from the stories. He once bit a piece of solid iron back straight after a strong man had struggled to bend in curved. Regardless I digress. Its a simple movie, that stays true to the form of Sir Doyle's stories pretty well. And of course its going to have a sequel because you can't make a movie about Holmes and leave it at just one unless Moriarty is the primary antagonist. The plot is a bit thin, but there is enough wit and humor to make up for it, and it somehow manages to all make sense in the end, somehow. All in all if I was recommending a movie in theaters right now I would wholeheartedly recommend this one over Avatar. Or as I like to call it "Dances with Blue People."