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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.