Some may say it’s too soon to put up baseball rankings, others may say it’s way too soon to put up baseball rankings, but to them I say, you’re right.
None-the-less, here are my first impressions of the 2009 MLB season, along with what each team needs before the season starts and what they can do to get it.
1. Chicago Cubs – Just to be clear, rankings are based on how I feel a team will do in the regular season. The Cubbies, in my estimation, have the #1 pitching staff and the #3 offense, which easily makes them this year’s team to beat. They are lacking a solid 5th starter, but how many teams can say they have 4 quality starters? They could also use a middle infield upgrade over Theriot and Miles, but that’s nitpicking. The Cubs could potentially win 105-110 games, IF they sign Brian Roberts as a leadoff man and Heilman develops well into a starter.
2. Boston Red Sox – Signed some old guys, but could strike gold with the winner of the Smoltz/Penny sweepstakes for the 5th starter. They could definitely use upgrades on the left side of their infield, and at catcher. Health for their pitchers, which has been a big problem, also will determine their fate. SS help is hard to find this season, but signing Varitek to mentor their young catchers and perhaps Kevin Millar as insurance if Lowell goes down (Youk moves to 3B) would certainly upgrade this team.
3. Tampa Bay Rays – One of the rare teams that don’t need much help, but they will need their young pitchers to continue to mature, and would love for the new guys, Burrell and Joyce, to put up decent numbers.
4. New York Yankees – Quite a start for the AL East with 3 of the top 4 teams, but that shouldn’t catch many off guard. The Yanks will benefit hugely from bounce back seasons for their Japanese talent. An upgrade in CF would also help, but the options are slim. I’m not quite sure why they did not resign Abreu when they need an OF.
5. Philadelphia Phillies – The defending champs find themselves in a decent spot in the rankings, but time will tell if they can hang with the big guys. After Hamels, the Phillies rotation is average at best, and injury problems, namely Utley, have plagued them. Getting another consistent season from Ibanez to replace Burrell, signing a decent backup infielder as insurance, and maybe signing one more quality starter would put these guys over the top.
6. Los Angeles Angels – This team might be missing out on their window to win a championship as their core ages, namely Vlady, Torii and Lackey. They need their youngsters to step up, healthy pitchers, Guerrero to make it through another season without needing a walker, a quality 1B, and a backup option should they need Guerrero to DH often. Fuentes will also have some big shoes to fill. I think Wiggington or Millar could really help this team since they are versatile and could fill in at first if needed.
7. New York Mets – These guys are starting to get pretty old too, so they need to start winning soon. Other than Wright and Reyes, no set starter is under the age of 30. BUT, they have Johan, and they will once again need him to be huge. All in all, they could use a big league left fielder, an upgrade at catcher, and another starting pitcher. Oliver Perez seems to be set to sign, so that would make their staff one of the best, but finding a better catcher just isn’t going to happen. Daniel Murphy could be a future star in left, but getting Manny for this season would not hurt.
8. Arizona Diamondbacks – The Garland signing jets these guys up a few spots as their pitching staff is now top 5 in the league. They need Scherzer to develop quickly, Felipe Lopez to turn things around and give them a decent lead off hitter, and consistency from their young hitters. This team could really go either way, as they’ve shown the last two years, but I think with another year of maturity they will make a run at it.
9. Detroit Tigers – Don’t count out Leyland and Co. just yet, they still have some youth and talent. I LOVE Granderson, and think he could be a top 5 fantasy OF this year. I disagree with their decision to move Inge to 3B to “improve” their defense. His career batting average barely clears the Mendoza Line, so I don’t see how defense will make up for that. I say put Guillen at 3B instead of LF, and start Thames in LF. Has Thames ever had a full season under his belt to show what he can do? These guys sorely need their pitching staff, starters and relievers, to step up big time. If so, they could win an AL Central that is completely up for grabs (see KC Royals entry below).
10. Los Angeles Dodgers – It’s a shame their glaring hole is LF, where Juan Pierre will somehow find himself in a major league starting lineup once more, and Manny doesn’t seem to want to sign. They could also use another starting pitcher to complete the rotation, and are looking at Wolf and Looper for help. Too bad Randy Wolf is probably the most overrated pitcher of all time.
11. Cincinnati Reds – The first surprise on the list, I really like the Reds this year. Their pitching staff could be as good as any in the year, or if Volquez takes a step back, could be only average. But, I think they could compete for a wild card if they can get help at SS or OF. A healthy Alex Gonzalez will move Hairston into LF, but they could use a Bobby Abreu to shore things up. These are the 2009 Milwaukee Brewers.
12. Colorado Rockies – Like the Dbacks, this team could swing either way year to year. I think they will be in a tight three-way battle for the NL West, and with their decent rotation and lineup, could take it. They lack a true ace so someone like Jake Peavy would do wonders, but they lack the budget and will have to live with what they have.
13. Cleveland Indians – Grady Sizemore is in the peak of his career, and that does not bode well for AL pitchers. If Hafner and V-Mart can make a comeback, Peralta can hit like he did last year, and some youngsters step up, the Injins could make some noise. However, after Lee and Carmona, who are far from proven still despite 1 great season each, this team does not have much starting pitching depth. A free agent would help but they seem content with what they have.
14. Texas Rangers – I like the Rangers. There, I said it. They are loaded on offense and could score more runs than any team in the majors. However, their pitching is what drags them down to #14, as they have exactly 0 quality starting pitchers. They need to open the pocketbooks a little bit if they want to compete with the Angels this year, but in the next couple years look for them to lead the AL West. It would be huge for them if they could land Sheets, and maybe take a chance on someone like Mark Mulder.
15. Milwaukee Brewers – CC Sabathia was the only reason they made the playoffs, now sans him and Sheets, I don’t think they stand a chance. They have no proven quality starters (unless you count Bush or Suppan, which I don’t), and their lineup is very shaky. I mean, when Jason Kendall is your best catching option, nothing against him, you need to make some changes. Getting Sheets back should be a priority, but one they seem unwilling to take.
16. Atlanta Braves – The Braves’ starting pitching isn’t bad, but they severely lack power in their lineup, specifically in the outfield. It would be huge for them if Andruw would accept a minor league contract, but he probably won’t. Also, Manny would be a good gap filler, but it’s starting to seem like he would fit in in a lot of places.
17. St. Louis Cardinals – I’ll never count LaRussa out, but their lineup took a hit with Glaus’ injury. Still, they are very deep in OF and should probably try to move someone to get a pitcher or a closer that they desperately need. Unless Lohse takes another step forward, this team will lack an ace. That is, assuming Carpenter doesn’t make a miraculous comeback. I think Peavy would look great in red, but doesn’t seem likely.
18. Chicago White Sox – Like the NL West, this division could go to a number of teams, and I certainly don’t count out Ozzie Guillen. However, Jose Contreras looks like he could apply for an AARP card, and Vazquez left for the Braves. This team needs, along with a lot of pitching, a middle infielder and a CF. However, there isn’t much help out there except maybe Orlando Hudson.
19. Minnesota Twins – Not much has changed with them other than having Liriano healthy to start the season. So, why so low in the rankings? Well, I think it’s impossible not to put them this low every year and just wait for them to surprise you yet again. The Twins have a bunch of average pitchers, and they really need a power hitting 3B, but they will again be competing for the division. Signing Joe Crede for cheap couldn’t hurt.
20. Houston Astros – How could a team with a decent payroll continue to ignore their horrible pitching staff?? They should change their name to the Houston Astrocities (kind of like Atrocities? No?) because they are just wasting a very good offense. Maybe it’s the air in Texas…Still, they could use a 3B to round out the lineup, and of course, pitching. Ben Sheets is from Texas…
21. Kansas City Royals – Other than having some of the best blogs of any major league tem, the Royals haven’t had much to brag about. However, they are starting to load up on talent and could be the next Tampa Bay Rays. With Aviles, Gordon, Greinke, and Bannister, this is much to build on here. It’s a long shot, but with some help, like a star pitcher or 2B, they could be looking down on a few teams in the AL Central.
22. San Francisco Giants – See Texas Rangers, except exactly the opposite - loaded on pitching, but an offense that would get outscored by the LA Galaxy. They desperately need a 2B, 3B and an upgrade over Fred Lewis. If they had the money, Hudson, Crede, and Ramirez would be nice fits.
23. Toronto Blue Jays – These guys are a mess and are only ranked this high because of Halladay and Litsch. Man…how amazing would Halladay look in black and gold…I digress. The Blue Birds need a SS, 1B, loads of pitching, and a replacement for Scott Rolen. Orlando Cabrera and Adam Dunn come to mind, but they seem complacent with sucking this year. Tell me again, why are there baseball teams in Canada?
24. Oakland A’s – I love Billy Beane, but how can he keep letting all his pitchers go and ever expect to win? Blanton and Greg Smith are the most recent departees, following Hudson, Zito, Harden, and Haren, who besides Zito, all are great major league pitchers still. Holliday and Giambi won’t make up for the lack of pitching. For some reason Pedro Martinez just seems right for this team to me…
25. Florida Marlins – Like the Twins, the Marlins continually start low and end high. I’m sure they will finish better than this (I could actually see them around #16 if they played to their potential), but with unproven pitching, and lackluster offense, they have a long way to go. They could use a veteran guy in the rotation, a 3B, and an OF, unless Maybin can mature quickly. Braden Looper and Joe Crede come to mind.
26. Seattle Mariners – The Mariners need a lot of things to go right, such as Felix the Great figuring out how to utilize his amazing stuff and Bedard not to tear something, but they aren’t THAT bad. They definitely need some power, and I think bringing Griffey back for a farewell year, as well as signing Adam Dunn, could definitely help. But they seem content with what they have, so time will tell. I do like Brandon Morrow as a sleeper SP though.
27. Pittsburgh Pirates – Our lovable Buccos! It’s never fun to have to scroll down this far to get to your team…but at least we have the Steelers? I’m pretty used to waiting until the end to read funny quips on how the Pirates suck on ESPN and Yahoo!’s rankings, so whatever. We all know what they need, but to reiterate, the most pressing needs are a veteran RHP, a right handed power hitting OF, and possibly a completely new team. It will take a lot of heart for these lovable losers to make it to 81 wins, but I will be rooting for them every step of the way! (until loss #82 in late July…)
28. Washington Nationals – You have to try really hard to be worse than the Pirates, so I give credit to the next 3 teams. The Nationals sorely need a 1B and 2B, and tons of pitching. John Lannan and Shaun Hill are good, but still young and Hill is injury prone. Adam Dunn, Orlando Hudson, and Peavy/Sheets will pull this team out of the gutter, but DC is just not a baseball town and revenues are struggling.
29. Baltimore Orioles – There is a shimmer of hope with these guys, but that’s all it is. Adam Jones could be a future star, and Markakis, Roberts, and Mora are already bonafide major leaguers, but they have no pitching past Guthrie, who is far from an ace, and not enough offense to make up for it. They will be competing with the Blue Jays over last place in the AL East.
30. San Diego Padres – When I wake up in the morning and think about the Pirates I’ll never be completely distraught, because I can always say to myself “at least they’re not the Padres.” They could use an upgrade everywhere, and the only real major leaguers starting for them are Adrian Gonzelez and Chris Young. All I can say is, I hope Brian Gile’s support group, who saved him from domestic abuse and steroids, can save him from the nightmare he’s about to endure.
One observation, what’s wrong with the west? According to my rankings, the AL and NL West are the two worst divisions in baseball, and the AFC and NFC West were by far the worst divisions in football. What’s wrong out in Cali?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Bringing Debate to the forefront and out of the Super Bowl...
Ok, you are way over analyzing this. First off, I know the pirates will not win this season. Our payroll is minimum and our starters are far too young. I'm not looking for the pirates to do a quick fix either. What bringing in a possible future hall of fame caliber player, even if he isn't productive for the whole season, will spike attendance numbers for the first month or two of the season. The pirates will ultimately get back to their losing ways and attendance will fall into it's usual pattern. Those first two months of increased attendance because of one named player makes all the difference in the world! To say it doesn't is non-sense.
Bringing in a player like sosa, bonds or griffey would be like bringing the circus to town. Everyone will get excited for the first few shows and carnies will be rolling in dough and bathing in cotton candy. But then they get to look closely and see the lion tamer is smoking on the job with a lion missing its teeth. I just want the players for a few months, give NyMo or McCutch their extra month of at bats at AAA then bring them up in June and get right back where we would've been in the first place. Having either one of those 2 guys start the season in AAA will not hinder their development, and paying a fading star $3-5 Mil won't kill our payroll and in my opinion could do wonders for short term revenue. We would have the same projected starting outfield that we have right now, except with a few extra dollars in the organizations pocket to use in the future. Bonds, Sosa, Griffey or whoever would fade into Pirates obscurity as their AARP cards are mailed to them, but only after they tack on a little more to their career stats.
If you've read up lately with the pirates front office. You would have seen that we are not in any financial crisis right now. In fact, we may be one of the few clubs this recession is not going to badly hurt. We are not looking to cut payroll, and we are not openly discussing cutting ties with higher paid players such as Jack Wilson, Adam LaRoche or Freddy Sanchez. We have a solid foundation, and we are developing in the latin areas of the world incredibly well as of late. We have the available funds to throw 3-5 million dollars at an aging star. Why do you think we were so exploratory with pedro martinez? Because we can afford to. How about instead of flirting with a future HOF'er with a crippled arm who we would see only 20 times on the field throughout the course of the season, we sign another future HOF'er with a crippled knee but will be on the field for 80-100 games instead and for the same price? I don't know, it just seems like common sense to me.
Again, I don't want any older veteran star to be a fix for the winning or losing atmosphere of the club right now; this season. I'm thinking about the future of the club and the money these players would be able to get out of the stands for one year. Attendance at Pirate games has been decreasing steadily since the ball park opened. If the pirates could get the attendance back up to the numbers of its innaugural season, just by signing one player for 3-5 million?! I think it'd be worth it. It doesn't hurt us in the long-term, and if they're not very productive, just imagine the kind of tutors they could be to the Pirates young ball club? Better yet, imagine if they were productive...I could see that as money very well spent.
We obviously disagree on this point, so lets agree to disagree. We can both spout out different reasonings and statistics to back us up. We're both equally educated on the facets of the game of baseball and its organizational spending tendencies. So I say we all buy that game offord was talking about for 360(which is what I'll be buying it for) and see who comes out on top.
Bringing in a player like sosa, bonds or griffey would be like bringing the circus to town. Everyone will get excited for the first few shows and carnies will be rolling in dough and bathing in cotton candy. But then they get to look closely and see the lion tamer is smoking on the job with a lion missing its teeth. I just want the players for a few months, give NyMo or McCutch their extra month of at bats at AAA then bring them up in June and get right back where we would've been in the first place. Having either one of those 2 guys start the season in AAA will not hinder their development, and paying a fading star $3-5 Mil won't kill our payroll and in my opinion could do wonders for short term revenue. We would have the same projected starting outfield that we have right now, except with a few extra dollars in the organizations pocket to use in the future. Bonds, Sosa, Griffey or whoever would fade into Pirates obscurity as their AARP cards are mailed to them, but only after they tack on a little more to their career stats.
If you've read up lately with the pirates front office. You would have seen that we are not in any financial crisis right now. In fact, we may be one of the few clubs this recession is not going to badly hurt. We are not looking to cut payroll, and we are not openly discussing cutting ties with higher paid players such as Jack Wilson, Adam LaRoche or Freddy Sanchez. We have a solid foundation, and we are developing in the latin areas of the world incredibly well as of late. We have the available funds to throw 3-5 million dollars at an aging star. Why do you think we were so exploratory with pedro martinez? Because we can afford to. How about instead of flirting with a future HOF'er with a crippled arm who we would see only 20 times on the field throughout the course of the season, we sign another future HOF'er with a crippled knee but will be on the field for 80-100 games instead and for the same price? I don't know, it just seems like common sense to me.
Again, I don't want any older veteran star to be a fix for the winning or losing atmosphere of the club right now; this season. I'm thinking about the future of the club and the money these players would be able to get out of the stands for one year. Attendance at Pirate games has been decreasing steadily since the ball park opened. If the pirates could get the attendance back up to the numbers of its innaugural season, just by signing one player for 3-5 million?! I think it'd be worth it. It doesn't hurt us in the long-term, and if they're not very productive, just imagine the kind of tutors they could be to the Pirates young ball club? Better yet, imagine if they were productive...I could see that as money very well spent.
We obviously disagree on this point, so lets agree to disagree. We can both spout out different reasonings and statistics to back us up. We're both equally educated on the facets of the game of baseball and its organizational spending tendencies. So I say we all buy that game offord was talking about for 360(which is what I'll be buying it for) and see who comes out on top.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Last NFL Post of the Season (and some baseball news)
SUPERBOWL XLIII
So we have whittled the field down to 2 teams, and the ones standing could not have possibly been predicted at the beginning of the season, let alone the last week of the season! I must express my disappointment that we have to face off against the Pittsburgh West Cardinals and not the Sh*tville Eagles - I would have much rather beaten the McNabb and co. scumbags than have to take on our own affiliate, but alas, it is done. It is difficult for me to bad mouth the lovable birds, so I'll just say: they had no run game all season and they are facing the best run defense in the league; forced to pass, Polamula will be able to double Fitzgerald and probably make a big play or 2; Kurt Warner has fumble issues when pressured; Arizona's defense gave up 56 points to the JETS, and in total their defense averaged a terrible 25.3 PPG against non-playoff teams...even while playing St. Louis, Seattle, and San Francisco 6 times!!!; Arizona's pass rush is not so great and Ben has shown what he can do with time in the pocket; FWP is looking good and could tear up a decent but suspect Arizona DLine;
That said, I do not like underdog stories when your team is the favorite. Cardinals 34-27
(OK, I know...but if I pick the Steelers they will probably lose)
Other things:
1) Check out this game baseball lovers
2) First MLB Power Rankings will be posted tomorrow. I will do one each month up until the season starts, then every 2 weeks roughly.
3) Projections still show Nyjer Morgan starting over Monroe. Did Morgan ever show that he could play in the majors? I don't understand why he is so highly touted by management...
4) Charlotte, NC needs a baseball team! Well, until I found out they are securely Braves fans. WTF? Will I hear Francisco Cabrera, Sid Bream, and Barry Bonds jokes the rest of my life? I don't need to relive that atrocity daily...
UPDATE: Just found this little doozy of a website...looks like the Steelers have better odds than I thought...
So we have whittled the field down to 2 teams, and the ones standing could not have possibly been predicted at the beginning of the season, let alone the last week of the season! I must express my disappointment that we have to face off against the Pittsburgh West Cardinals and not the Sh*tville Eagles - I would have much rather beaten the McNabb and co. scumbags than have to take on our own affiliate, but alas, it is done. It is difficult for me to bad mouth the lovable birds, so I'll just say: they had no run game all season and they are facing the best run defense in the league; forced to pass, Polamula will be able to double Fitzgerald and probably make a big play or 2; Kurt Warner has fumble issues when pressured; Arizona's defense gave up 56 points to the JETS, and in total their defense averaged a terrible 25.3 PPG against non-playoff teams...even while playing St. Louis, Seattle, and San Francisco 6 times!!!; Arizona's pass rush is not so great and Ben has shown what he can do with time in the pocket; FWP is looking good and could tear up a decent but suspect Arizona DLine;
That said, I do not like underdog stories when your team is the favorite. Cardinals 34-27
(OK, I know...but if I pick the Steelers they will probably lose)
Other things:
1) Check out this game baseball lovers
2) First MLB Power Rankings will be posted tomorrow. I will do one each month up until the season starts, then every 2 weeks roughly.
3) Projections still show Nyjer Morgan starting over Monroe. Did Morgan ever show that he could play in the majors? I don't understand why he is so highly touted by management...
4) Charlotte, NC needs a baseball team! Well, until I found out they are securely Braves fans. WTF? Will I hear Francisco Cabrera, Sid Bream, and Barry Bonds jokes the rest of my life? I don't need to relive that atrocity daily...
UPDATE: Just found this little doozy of a website...looks like the Steelers have better odds than I thought...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Movie Review: Gran Torino
If you jump down to Offord's Oscar debate, you will see that he feels that Gran Torino and Clint Eastwood received a raw deal. I unfortunately disagree. Not for reasons most of you would think. Allow me to explain.
The movie was excellent, and I do not understand why it was not nominated for a Best Picture or something. I would guess that maybe the Oscar folks felt that it did not really push the race issue enough. Ah, what? Well go to filmdrunk and read his review. Either the Oscar folks missed the point the of the movie, or they felt that for it to be really provocative and inspiring it needed to go that extra mile. Who knows.
Why do I feel that Clint does not deserve a Best Actor though? Well, he won an Oscar for this character already. William Munny in Unforgiven. Ever see it? Munny is a hard man, who killed "women and children." Now he is retired from the hard life and just trying to raise his kids after his wife dies. We see all the same angry emotion from Munny that we saw Clint portray in Walt. Sorry, I just do not think this was a great acting performance.
I thought the movie was great, I cracked up for a good bit of it. It does not however rank above Unforgiven as my favorite Clint movie.
The movie was excellent, and I do not understand why it was not nominated for a Best Picture or something. I would guess that maybe the Oscar folks felt that it did not really push the race issue enough. Ah, what? Well go to filmdrunk and read his review. Either the Oscar folks missed the point the of the movie, or they felt that for it to be really provocative and inspiring it needed to go that extra mile. Who knows.
Why do I feel that Clint does not deserve a Best Actor though? Well, he won an Oscar for this character already. William Munny in Unforgiven. Ever see it? Munny is a hard man, who killed "women and children." Now he is retired from the hard life and just trying to raise his kids after his wife dies. We see all the same angry emotion from Munny that we saw Clint portray in Walt. Sorry, I just do not think this was a great acting performance.
I thought the movie was great, I cracked up for a good bit of it. It does not however rank above Unforgiven as my favorite Clint movie.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
And in 'Oh My God Are You F-ING Kidding Me' News....
"The Pirates are pursuing free-agent outfielder Luis Gonzalez, with their most recent discussion having occurred late last week."
"Kovacevic says the Bucs are eyeing other free agent outfielders as well. One player not on their radar is Kris Benson." THANK GOD FOR SMALL FAVORS.
"Kovacevic says the Bucs are eyeing other free agent outfielders as well. One player not on their radar is Kris Benson." THANK GOD FOR SMALL FAVORS.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Oscar Update
So the nominations were released last week and I'm sure everyone who cares about this stuff knows who they are, but for the major categories I figured we could discuss:
BEST LEADING ACTRESS
I don't really care all that much about this one other than the fact that Kate Winslet was in no way a leading character in 'The Reader.' Maybe it's just me, but I think of "leading" as meaning the story follows around you, that you are in every scene, etc. She is not, and should not have been nominated for best actress in a leading role, at least for 'The Reader.'
BEST LEADING ACTOR
The Favorite: Sean Penn
The Sentimental Favorite: Mickey Rourke
Why Is He Nominated When Eastwood Wasn't: Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins
The Other One: Frank Langella
I saw 'The Wrestler' this weekend and must say it is a good, if not thoroughly depressing, film. I think it is Darren Aronofsky's life goal to cause everyone to either commit suicide or spend millions on anti-depressants (see Requiem for a Dream and Pi). However, downbeat as it was, it was gritty, realistic, and left a decent impression on me the next day. I don't know if the movie was Top 100 good, but if I had a list of best actors, Rourke's performance would definitely land himself on it.
But, the writers, actors, Academy, and everyone else in Hollywood, loves Sean Penn like he is their God. Rourke is a former outcast, and as harrowing as his comeback has been, I think they feel just nominating him is reward enough. Sadly, solidified by his SAG win last night, I think Penn takes it home.
Now I didn't see Button or whatever movie Jenkins was in, but there is no way those leading men outperformed Eastwood, in what was his LAST MOVIE AS AN ACTOR! He deserved credit for this role, and I don't know how/why they could have overlooked it.
BEST PICTURE
The favorite: Slumdog Millionaire
The Darkhorse: Milk
The Least Deserving: The Reader
The Other Two: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon
Of these, the only one I've seen is 'The Reader.' It is a terrible movie in so many ways, but one I can see the dumb Academy loving. The story is centered on a '15' year old boy, who looks stunningly similar to King Peter in Narnia. So much so, that I in fact thought it was him the entire movie until I got home, which is strange because they showed FULL FRONTAL! Also, Winslet was naked for 90% of her scenes in the first half of the movie, and it was all unnecessary. Never have I been less turned on by a beautiful naked woman on screen (or maybe it was me sandwiched between 2 middle aged guys in a sold out theater). Anyway, the '15' year old (he's actually 18 and in no way looked 15 in the movie, but the full frontal scene explained that one) and Winslet are having a torrid love affair that is just awkward and uncomfortable. Then she leaves him all of the sudden, and later we find out she was a Nazi guard at Auschwitz. I had no prior knowledge of the film so I was quite surprised at the turn the movie took, but either way, the ending did not save this movie from it's beginning.
I give the movie a B-
How this movie beat out the other contenders such as The Dark Knight, Gran Torino, Wall-E, and others, I could not tell you. Only that the Academy loves graphic nudity? (FYI, Marissa Tomei was naked A LOT in The Wrester, but looked so whorish it completely wasted the whole experience). I wanted to see Milk instead but it was sold out, so oh well. I plan on trying to see the other four before the Oscars, and will give brief reviews on each once I do.
BEST LEADING ACTRESS
I don't really care all that much about this one other than the fact that Kate Winslet was in no way a leading character in 'The Reader.' Maybe it's just me, but I think of "leading" as meaning the story follows around you, that you are in every scene, etc. She is not, and should not have been nominated for best actress in a leading role, at least for 'The Reader.'
BEST LEADING ACTOR
The Favorite: Sean Penn
The Sentimental Favorite: Mickey Rourke
Why Is He Nominated When Eastwood Wasn't: Brad Pitt, Richard Jenkins
The Other One: Frank Langella
I saw 'The Wrestler' this weekend and must say it is a good, if not thoroughly depressing, film. I think it is Darren Aronofsky's life goal to cause everyone to either commit suicide or spend millions on anti-depressants (see Requiem for a Dream and Pi). However, downbeat as it was, it was gritty, realistic, and left a decent impression on me the next day. I don't know if the movie was Top 100 good, but if I had a list of best actors, Rourke's performance would definitely land himself on it.
But, the writers, actors, Academy, and everyone else in Hollywood, loves Sean Penn like he is their God. Rourke is a former outcast, and as harrowing as his comeback has been, I think they feel just nominating him is reward enough. Sadly, solidified by his SAG win last night, I think Penn takes it home.
Now I didn't see Button or whatever movie Jenkins was in, but there is no way those leading men outperformed Eastwood, in what was his LAST MOVIE AS AN ACTOR! He deserved credit for this role, and I don't know how/why they could have overlooked it.
BEST PICTURE
The favorite: Slumdog Millionaire
The Darkhorse: Milk
The Least Deserving: The Reader
The Other Two: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon
Of these, the only one I've seen is 'The Reader.' It is a terrible movie in so many ways, but one I can see the dumb Academy loving. The story is centered on a '15' year old boy, who looks stunningly similar to King Peter in Narnia. So much so, that I in fact thought it was him the entire movie until I got home, which is strange because they showed FULL FRONTAL! Also, Winslet was naked for 90% of her scenes in the first half of the movie, and it was all unnecessary. Never have I been less turned on by a beautiful naked woman on screen (or maybe it was me sandwiched between 2 middle aged guys in a sold out theater). Anyway, the '15' year old (he's actually 18 and in no way looked 15 in the movie, but the full frontal scene explained that one) and Winslet are having a torrid love affair that is just awkward and uncomfortable. Then she leaves him all of the sudden, and later we find out she was a Nazi guard at Auschwitz. I had no prior knowledge of the film so I was quite surprised at the turn the movie took, but either way, the ending did not save this movie from it's beginning.
I give the movie a B-
How this movie beat out the other contenders such as The Dark Knight, Gran Torino, Wall-E, and others, I could not tell you. Only that the Academy loves graphic nudity? (FYI, Marissa Tomei was naked A LOT in The Wrester, but looked so whorish it completely wasted the whole experience). I wanted to see Milk instead but it was sold out, so oh well. I plan on trying to see the other four before the Oscars, and will give brief reviews on each once I do.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Inheritence: Eragon Question...?
This is mainly for Josh, since he's basically the only other one who has read this book I believe...
Recently, I started reading the Inheritence Trilogy again. Besides the fact that it's a terrific story for any young reader or someone who has an insatiable taste for immature science fiction such as myself, I noticed something that has really bothered me since I read over it again, and had passed over before.
When Brom explains to eragon how the riders were chosen by the dragons, he says that there was a line of humans/elves, what have you, that lined up and touched the eggs and then the eggs would hatch for whomever was deemed worthy and they would immediately go into their training. Eragon, however had his egg for well over a week until Saphira hatched for him. So, was Brom's description an over-exaggeration, and really there were only a few chosen people who got to "baby sit" the egg until it may or may not have hatched for them, or did Saphira just crack open the egg because she was tired of being cramped?
Curious...
Recently, I started reading the Inheritence Trilogy again. Besides the fact that it's a terrific story for any young reader or someone who has an insatiable taste for immature science fiction such as myself, I noticed something that has really bothered me since I read over it again, and had passed over before.
When Brom explains to eragon how the riders were chosen by the dragons, he says that there was a line of humans/elves, what have you, that lined up and touched the eggs and then the eggs would hatch for whomever was deemed worthy and they would immediately go into their training. Eragon, however had his egg for well over a week until Saphira hatched for him. So, was Brom's description an over-exaggeration, and really there were only a few chosen people who got to "baby sit" the egg until it may or may not have hatched for them, or did Saphira just crack open the egg because she was tired of being cramped?
Curious...
Friday, January 23, 2009
Questions, Comments, and a Chart
Question 1) What has happened to the Pancake? No comments all week?
Comment 1) Maybe we need more universal topics? Suggestions?
Question 2) What happened to Ian Snell and Zach Duke last year?
Comment 2) Other than they are not that good, which I am hoping to disprove, one thing I looked at was control factor. Regrettably I already forget most of the complex statistical models I learned during my 7 years of schooling, so I just made a few calculations and a chart. Taking the top 50 pitchers in ERA last season, I calculated their walk per 9 innings rate and compared it against ERA. Here are the results:
Chart 1)
Note the linear correlation of BB/9 to ERA. It is obvious that, in general, the more walks a pitcher throws the worse his ERA will be. In normative terms, the top 3 pitchers in BB/9 were Cliff Lee, Mike Mussina, and Roy Halliday - All 20 game winners. Therefore, while there are numerous exceptions, I can generally say that a pitcher is a result of his control. Taking this into account, all things equal, I would claim that a pitcher who has both good control, and a bad ERA, simply is not a good pitcher. Case in point:
Ian Snell's BB/9 is 4.88, possibly second worst out of qualified MLB starters (see Dice K). This tells me that perhaps his 2007 numbers were not an anomaly, and that 2008 can partly be blamed for control issues, that a little tinkering and hard work can fix. Look for Snell to rebound.
Zach Duke's BB/9 is 2.29, well below the top 50 ERA pitchers' average of 2.64. So, Mr. Duke cannot blame his wasted season on control issues, just on his "stuff". Look for Duke to fail miserably, once again.
Question 3) Does anyone care?
Comment 3) Probably not, the Pirates will be terrible either way.
Comment 1) Maybe we need more universal topics? Suggestions?
Question 2) What happened to Ian Snell and Zach Duke last year?
Comment 2) Other than they are not that good, which I am hoping to disprove, one thing I looked at was control factor. Regrettably I already forget most of the complex statistical models I learned during my 7 years of schooling, so I just made a few calculations and a chart. Taking the top 50 pitchers in ERA last season, I calculated their walk per 9 innings rate and compared it against ERA. Here are the results:
Chart 1)
Note the linear correlation of BB/9 to ERA. It is obvious that, in general, the more walks a pitcher throws the worse his ERA will be. In normative terms, the top 3 pitchers in BB/9 were Cliff Lee, Mike Mussina, and Roy Halliday - All 20 game winners. Therefore, while there are numerous exceptions, I can generally say that a pitcher is a result of his control. Taking this into account, all things equal, I would claim that a pitcher who has both good control, and a bad ERA, simply is not a good pitcher. Case in point:
Ian Snell's BB/9 is 4.88, possibly second worst out of qualified MLB starters (see Dice K). This tells me that perhaps his 2007 numbers were not an anomaly, and that 2008 can partly be blamed for control issues, that a little tinkering and hard work can fix. Look for Snell to rebound.
Zach Duke's BB/9 is 2.29, well below the top 50 ERA pitchers' average of 2.64. So, Mr. Duke cannot blame his wasted season on control issues, just on his "stuff". Look for Duke to fail miserably, once again.
Question 3) Does anyone care?
Comment 3) Probably not, the Pirates will be terrible either way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)