Taking a look around the infield, we're here to introduce the George Brett and Mike Schmidt Awards.
George Brett Award Finalists:
1. Adrian Beltre .296/.331/.561/.379
2. Evan Longoria .244/.355/.495/.365
3. Alex Rodriguez .276/.362/.461/.361
Honorable Mention:
Adrian Beltre- But he only has good seasons when he is about to be a free agent. That's the narrative, right? All inall, Beltre had a good season. He definitely had an all-star caliber season. According to fWAR he put up 5.7. He had a much better season in 2010 but still, it was a good season. His OBP wasn't great, only .331 but still managed to put a respectable wOBA up. He had the highest wOBA for third basemen (well minus Brett Lawrie, but he only had 171 plate appearances. He finished first for third basemen in slugging percentage. His defense was still spectacular.
Evan Longoria- A sub-par season by his standards, but still finished 3rd in wOBA (4th if you count Michael Young). He finished 2nd in slugging percentage. He finished 4th among third basemen with more than 400 plate appearances in On-base percentage. His defense was great, yet again. He missed quite a few games because of an injury but still played more than Beltre (133 to 124).
Alex Rodriguez- Only played 99 games but put up respectable numbers during that time. His slugging numbers were slightly down compared to other third basemen, as well as his own career. None of the top third third basemen played the full season, so you can't discount Rodriguez on that reason alone.
Voting: 1. Evan Longoria 2. Adrian Beltre 3. Alex Rodriguez
Mike Schmidt Awards Finalists:
1. Pablo Sandoval .315/.357/.552/.379
2. Aramis Ramirez .306/.361/.510/.373
3. Ryan Roberts .249/.341/.427/.338
Honorable Mention: Chase Headley .289/.374/.399/.344
Pablo Sandoval- led NL thirdbasemen in batting average, sluggin percentage, and wOBA. He finished 3rd in On-base percentage. He only played 117 games, though. His defense was pretty good.
Aramis Ramirez- Third basemen in both leagues this year had down years. Ramirez finished 2nd in batting average, on-base percentage, and wOBA. He finished 3rd in slugging percentage. His defense was getting a little bit worse, probably due to age.
Ryan Roberts- He was a beneficiary because of his defense and baserunning that fangraphs give him credit for in their WAR calculations. He also played more games so he got some extra points in his WAR calculations, as well.
Chase Headley- He led NL 3b in OBP which is my favorite offensive stat.
1. Pablo Sandoval 2. Aramis Ramirez 3. Ryan Roberts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Pumping out Movie Reviews: Slackers
Slackers (2002) focuses on a group of three friends Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel), and Jeff (Michael Maronna) who are caught cheating on a physics test by Ethan (Jason Schwartzman). He then blackmails them into helping getting the girl that he so desperately stalks Angela (Jamie King). While the movie is similar to other teen movies in the same genre such as American Pie; it's actually pretty funny.
Story/writing: The story wasn't too bad. But it wasn't entirely complicated or complex, either. I'm kind of torn on how much of it, I should credit the story as opposed to the acting and the characters. The blackmail angle was sort of contrived, I thought, but what do I know? Grade: 6/10.
Characters: Now here comes the fun part. Every teen movie has the lovable slacker who doesn't try but is incredibly intelligent but is not focused on the normal success (Dave, in this movie).
You have the girl who will undoubtedly make him question his whole life and maybe make him change, Angela in this movie.
The main girl's best friend, played by Laura Prepon, in this movie.
You have the strange kid who's intelligent but crazy, Jeff.
You have the main character's true best friend who helps with the antics and shenanigans, Sam.
Then there's the bad guy. Typically, this is a jock frat boy nerd. Usually it's one of those three things, sometimes all three. This time, it's the nerd, Ethan.
Grade: 3/10. It hurts to be stereotypical.
Directing: The strange flashbacks or daydreams are great. While they don't contribute much to the storyline other than to re-enforce the idea that Ethan is a true creeper. I don't know how the director could have improved but the pacing wasn't terrible. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: For four years of college, I have never experienced anything close to what the teen movies about colleges have tried to show me would happen. Also, I never really bought into the whole blackmail cheating premise. But that's just me. Grade: 2/10.
Acting: This is the strength of the movie. Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Ethan. I don't know of another actor who could've pulled that off, outside of maybe Zack Braff. Jason Segel is always phenomenal. Devon Sawa pulls off the cockiness of the character, perfectly. Michael Maronna was good, as well. All of the main charactes were great. Angela was merely good. Grade: 9.5/10.
Dialogue: I didn't get the seed of doubt angle that Dave kept saying. Ethan's lines were delivered and written perfectly. Most of the characters' lines were funny and delivered well. Grade: 8/10.
Genre specific: If we compare it to teen comedies, I thought it was funnier than most. I also thought the acting was better than most. It wasn't funny enough to dominate the comedy genre but if we place it in with the other teen comedies, then the score is higher. Grade: 8/10.
Timing: The movie kind of dragged at parts, especially the I saw the sign part. The comedic timing was there for the most part and it wasn't a long movie. Grade: 8/10.
Pseudo-philosophical questions/theme: I'm not 100% sure of what the theme was. What I took from the movie was, it's better to be skillful at things that don't matter because ultimately those things that don't matter will be what gets you out of trouble.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what the theme was.
Grade: 0/10.
Re-watchability: I've seen the movie twice, now. I saw it once on Comedy Central and began searching for a way to watch it again, much later. I finally found it on Crackle, years later. It was still funny.
Grade: 5/10.
Score: 57.5/100
See, I don't give great grades all the time.
Story/writing: The story wasn't too bad. But it wasn't entirely complicated or complex, either. I'm kind of torn on how much of it, I should credit the story as opposed to the acting and the characters. The blackmail angle was sort of contrived, I thought, but what do I know? Grade: 6/10.
Characters: Now here comes the fun part. Every teen movie has the lovable slacker who doesn't try but is incredibly intelligent but is not focused on the normal success (Dave, in this movie).
You have the girl who will undoubtedly make him question his whole life and maybe make him change, Angela in this movie.
The main girl's best friend, played by Laura Prepon, in this movie.
You have the strange kid who's intelligent but crazy, Jeff.
You have the main character's true best friend who helps with the antics and shenanigans, Sam.
Then there's the bad guy. Typically, this is a jock frat boy nerd. Usually it's one of those three things, sometimes all three. This time, it's the nerd, Ethan.
Grade: 3/10. It hurts to be stereotypical.
Directing: The strange flashbacks or daydreams are great. While they don't contribute much to the storyline other than to re-enforce the idea that Ethan is a true creeper. I don't know how the director could have improved but the pacing wasn't terrible. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: For four years of college, I have never experienced anything close to what the teen movies about colleges have tried to show me would happen. Also, I never really bought into the whole blackmail cheating premise. But that's just me. Grade: 2/10.
Acting: This is the strength of the movie. Jason Schwartzman is perfect as Ethan. I don't know of another actor who could've pulled that off, outside of maybe Zack Braff. Jason Segel is always phenomenal. Devon Sawa pulls off the cockiness of the character, perfectly. Michael Maronna was good, as well. All of the main charactes were great. Angela was merely good. Grade: 9.5/10.
Dialogue: I didn't get the seed of doubt angle that Dave kept saying. Ethan's lines were delivered and written perfectly. Most of the characters' lines were funny and delivered well. Grade: 8/10.
Genre specific: If we compare it to teen comedies, I thought it was funnier than most. I also thought the acting was better than most. It wasn't funny enough to dominate the comedy genre but if we place it in with the other teen comedies, then the score is higher. Grade: 8/10.
Timing: The movie kind of dragged at parts, especially the I saw the sign part. The comedic timing was there for the most part and it wasn't a long movie. Grade: 8/10.
Pseudo-philosophical questions/theme: I'm not 100% sure of what the theme was. What I took from the movie was, it's better to be skillful at things that don't matter because ultimately those things that don't matter will be what gets you out of trouble.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure what the theme was.
Grade: 0/10.
Re-watchability: I've seen the movie twice, now. I saw it once on Comedy Central and began searching for a way to watch it again, much later. I finally found it on Crackle, years later. It was still funny.
Grade: 5/10.
Score: 57.5/100
See, I don't give great grades all the time.
Movie Review #2: Idiocracy
In Mike Judge's movie Idiocracy, the future is a lot dumber than it is currently. People in fact, are quite dumb. The premise is that those people who are dumber than average are reproducing much quicker than the smarter people. Private Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson) accidentally goes into the future to see that humanity is being destroyed by stupidity. He is forced to help out when they discover that he is the smartest person in the world. Hilarity ensues.
Story/Writing: When I'm drinking I like to argue that the world is heading towards an Idiocracy future or a Gattaca future. While this isn't necessarily part of my best drunken argument repertoire, such as my propensity to argue that the best show on television ever was Seinfeld. Which is blatantly obvious, in my opinion. Nevertheless, Idiocracy isn't a perfect story but it simply paints the picture that the future may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Or to quote Southland Tales, "the future is going to be more futuristic, then originally thought." In most movies and books, the future is always painted to be this perfect utopia or just at least smarter than the present. Grade: 8/10.
Characters: The various characters in the movie were pretty hilarious. They were over the top stupid. Which understandably has rubbed people the wrong way, but the main characters Joe and Rita (Maya Rudolph) were not perfect or even close to it. Joe Bauers was going to be a tough character to pull off, regardless, but I think it could have been done better. It's hard to fault the writers too much for Bauers. Grade: 8/10.
Directing: Not an expert but the jokes were spot on. Further, all of the little things that happened in the movie just added to the hilarity. I particularly enjoyed the cars just driving straight off the bridge, the name changes, the product placements, etc. Mike Judge is hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: Once you get past the part that you're unsure of how Private Bauers and Rita had enough food and water to survive in their comatose state for hundreds of years. You also have to get past the part of whether the world would really get this stupid or not. If you can't get past that, you're not going to enjoy the movie. It took awhile to get past the first part. The second part wasn't as hard to get past. Grade: 8/10.
Acting: Let's get this out of the way right here. I'm not a fan of Luke Wilson. I didn't think Luke Wilson was particularly good in this movie, in Old School, in the cell phone commercials where he's fat, etc. I didn't think he was very good in this movie, either. In part, I guess, it's because I didn't like the characters. Maya Rudolph was ok, nothing spectacular. Dax Shepard was hilarious. Terry Crews was good. Justin Long provided me with lots and lots of laughs. His scene was my favorite. It doesn't matter if all the minor characters are fantastic if the major ones were nothing to talk about. Grade: 5/10.
Dialogue: If you buy the premise, then the dialogue is spot on. I bought into the premise and thought the dialogue was fantastic. Grade: 10/10.
Genre specific: I've been a fan of all of Mike Judge's movies, so it's hard for me to be objective. I thought it was hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Timing: My girlfriend does not enjoy the last twenty minutes of the movie, saying that it moves too slow. I tend to agree with her on this point, the last couple parts of the movie kind of drag. That being said, the comedic timing of the rest of the movie is great and the first 45-50 minutes of the movie fly by. How much do I dock for the last twenty minutes? Grade: 7/10.
Pseudo-philosophical/theme: The theme of the movie I guess is to avoid stupidity try reading a damn book once in a while. Also to smart people- have unprotected sex more often.
The real theme I would say is that we are getting dumber. We need to correct this. Otherwise this is going to happen.
It's just a hilarious public service announcement.
Grade: 6/10 (I agree with the theme just I wish there was something more to it. I couldn't find it).
Re-watchability: Of course, I would watch this again. I watch it a lot. Just ask my friends.
Score: 10/10
Final Score: 82/100
Story/Writing: When I'm drinking I like to argue that the world is heading towards an Idiocracy future or a Gattaca future. While this isn't necessarily part of my best drunken argument repertoire, such as my propensity to argue that the best show on television ever was Seinfeld. Which is blatantly obvious, in my opinion. Nevertheless, Idiocracy isn't a perfect story but it simply paints the picture that the future may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Or to quote Southland Tales, "the future is going to be more futuristic, then originally thought." In most movies and books, the future is always painted to be this perfect utopia or just at least smarter than the present. Grade: 8/10.
Characters: The various characters in the movie were pretty hilarious. They were over the top stupid. Which understandably has rubbed people the wrong way, but the main characters Joe and Rita (Maya Rudolph) were not perfect or even close to it. Joe Bauers was going to be a tough character to pull off, regardless, but I think it could have been done better. It's hard to fault the writers too much for Bauers. Grade: 8/10.
Directing: Not an expert but the jokes were spot on. Further, all of the little things that happened in the movie just added to the hilarity. I particularly enjoyed the cars just driving straight off the bridge, the name changes, the product placements, etc. Mike Judge is hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Suspension of disbelief: Once you get past the part that you're unsure of how Private Bauers and Rita had enough food and water to survive in their comatose state for hundreds of years. You also have to get past the part of whether the world would really get this stupid or not. If you can't get past that, you're not going to enjoy the movie. It took awhile to get past the first part. The second part wasn't as hard to get past. Grade: 8/10.
Acting: Let's get this out of the way right here. I'm not a fan of Luke Wilson. I didn't think Luke Wilson was particularly good in this movie, in Old School, in the cell phone commercials where he's fat, etc. I didn't think he was very good in this movie, either. In part, I guess, it's because I didn't like the characters. Maya Rudolph was ok, nothing spectacular. Dax Shepard was hilarious. Terry Crews was good. Justin Long provided me with lots and lots of laughs. His scene was my favorite. It doesn't matter if all the minor characters are fantastic if the major ones were nothing to talk about. Grade: 5/10.
Dialogue: If you buy the premise, then the dialogue is spot on. I bought into the premise and thought the dialogue was fantastic. Grade: 10/10.
Genre specific: I've been a fan of all of Mike Judge's movies, so it's hard for me to be objective. I thought it was hilarious. Grade: 10/10.
Timing: My girlfriend does not enjoy the last twenty minutes of the movie, saying that it moves too slow. I tend to agree with her on this point, the last couple parts of the movie kind of drag. That being said, the comedic timing of the rest of the movie is great and the first 45-50 minutes of the movie fly by. How much do I dock for the last twenty minutes? Grade: 7/10.
Pseudo-philosophical/theme: The theme of the movie I guess is to avoid stupidity try reading a damn book once in a while. Also to smart people- have unprotected sex more often.
The real theme I would say is that we are getting dumber. We need to correct this. Otherwise this is going to happen.
It's just a hilarious public service announcement.
Grade: 6/10 (I agree with the theme just I wish there was something more to it. I couldn't find it).
Re-watchability: Of course, I would watch this again. I watch it a lot. Just ask my friends.
Score: 10/10
Final Score: 82/100
Monday, November 14, 2011
A stab at a movie review: Go
Reader's discretion advised: This post will contain some bad language. Just a heads up.
The movie Go came out in 1999 and it attempts to tell what happens after a drug deal from three different characters' points of view. It follows Ronna Martin (played by Sarah Polley) who is a down on her luck cashier at a grocery store, who needs money to avoid eviction. She attempts to buy and re-sell drugs from the drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant). It also follows Simon (Desmond Askew) andhis escapades with his friends in Las Vegas. Finally, the story focuses on Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr) two gay actors who are atttempting to avoid getting in trouble with the law by helping to participate in a drug sting with Burke (William Fichtner).
"Wow, I didn't know we'd become such good friends, because if we had, you'd know that I give head before I give favors and I don't even give my best friends head so your chances of getting a favor are pretty fucking slim. " -Todd Gaines
I have 10 categories for how I rank movies and the total score is equal to the final score I give the movie. Feel free to disagree with me, if you want. I'm not exactly an expert on films but I certainly know what I like.
Story: It's at the very least a creative way to tell the story of the aftermath of a drug deal. It was interesting that it followed three different stories to figure out what was actually happening in the movie. Each of the three stories were entertaining and infromative to the rest of the movie. The best one, at least in my opinion, was the story focusing on Simon and his friends. Grade: 9/10.
Characters: Most of the characters were fully developed, I would hope so with the three different stories focusing on the main characters. The characters that I didn't particularly enjoy were Simon's friend Singh (who wasn't integral to the rest of the story), Victor Jr., Victor Sr., and Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes). The reason for my distaste for Claire was simply because she morphs from one type of person at the near beginning of the movie (afraid and distrustful of Todd) to the exact opposite at the end. It seems likely that if you are going to be distrustful of a drug dealer at one point, you will remain distrustful until the drug dealer does something to gain your trust, which to be honest, we don't see. Grade: 7.5/10
Directing: Like I said at the beginning of this, I'm not an expert at film or filmmaking. So, I might not be the best person at judging for this particular category. However, I think that you should be able to tell a difference between good directing and bad directing. It's the in-between that'll probably cause me the most grief. However, the director in this movie does a great job in telling the three different stories. There's not that much discontinuity between the different stories so it actually feels like they are telling the same basic story. My favorite part for choice of directing was the music in the chase scene between Simon and his friends and the two Victors. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: I should be able to suspend my disbelief for the entire movie without running into a situation where I say, "there's no damn way this could happen in real life." There's not that many times where I think that throughout the movie, except at the very end. Once you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. Although the commitment to have Jay Mohr throw the tape recorder so girlish was just fantastic. Grade: 9.5/10
Acting: Sarah Polley was pretty good as Ronna (some people think she's better than that). William Fichtner was fantastic as the police officer who is obsessed with an Amway-esque products. Timothy Olyphant was great as a drug dealer. Katie Holmes was good despite the character's complete change. Nathan Bexton was great as strung out on drugs Mannie. Jay Mohr was the same as he is in every movie. Grade: 8/10. Only because I thought Polley could have been better, as well as Jay Mohr. When two of your could be played by better actors, then there is a slight problem.
Dialogue: The dialogue was occasionally funny and witty. Some of the dialogue was integral to the rest of the story and some of it was just there to be there. My favorite scene for dialogue was with Mannie and the cat. There wasn't anything that was glaringly awful. The scene about Confederated Products is fantastic, as well. Grade: 9/10.
Genre specific attributes: The movie was supposed to be a comedic crime movie in the same vein of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. Both of which succeed at a level Go cannot approach. Grade: 7/10.
Timing: A movie should have a certain pace to it so that you never feel like the movie is dragging. That is one of Go's best features. There's not a point in the movie where you really think that the movie is draggging except near the very end. Just when you get tired of one character, they move to a different one. Grade: 9/10.
Pseudo-philosophical question and answer: What exactly is the theme of Go? If pressed, I would say that the theme of Go is what Claire states at the beginning of the movie about the best part of Christmas is the fact that there is a giant surprise even if you are pretty sure what's going to happen or know what's inside, when you finally open it, it's always a surprise. An even bigger answer to the theme question is what Jay Mohr states near the end. It's an attempt to find out what the right thing is to do, even if it's just an approximation or if it is the half-assed thrown together kind of way. It also addresses the justification people might have to try and convince themselves that the wrong things that people do aren't really that bad. Interesting theme, I guess. The movie also attempts to answer the question of what exactly is justice? Grade: 8/10.
Re-watchability: This is where I decide if I can watch the movie again. Since, I have watched this movie a couple of times, now, I would say that yes I would be able to watch it again. There's not that many glaring holes in the movie that bother me, no (overly)annoying characters, and bad dialogue. There is enough funny lines, a certain sense of unpredictiability, as well an overall sense that you might need to watch it again to get everything out of the movie. But it's not a movie I would immediately want to watch again or that I would feel like I would definitely need to. Grade: 8/10.
The movie ends with a pretty high score of 83/100. This is pretty in-line with what IMDB has it ranked as (7.3). Mine's higher probably because I like this specific genre of movies.
The movie Go came out in 1999 and it attempts to tell what happens after a drug deal from three different characters' points of view. It follows Ronna Martin (played by Sarah Polley) who is a down on her luck cashier at a grocery store, who needs money to avoid eviction. She attempts to buy and re-sell drugs from the drug dealer Todd Gaines (Timothy Olyphant). It also follows Simon (Desmond Askew) andhis escapades with his friends in Las Vegas. Finally, the story focuses on Adam (Scott Wolf) and Zack (Jay Mohr) two gay actors who are atttempting to avoid getting in trouble with the law by helping to participate in a drug sting with Burke (William Fichtner).
"Wow, I didn't know we'd become such good friends, because if we had, you'd know that I give head before I give favors and I don't even give my best friends head so your chances of getting a favor are pretty fucking slim. " -Todd Gaines
I have 10 categories for how I rank movies and the total score is equal to the final score I give the movie. Feel free to disagree with me, if you want. I'm not exactly an expert on films but I certainly know what I like.
Story: It's at the very least a creative way to tell the story of the aftermath of a drug deal. It was interesting that it followed three different stories to figure out what was actually happening in the movie. Each of the three stories were entertaining and infromative to the rest of the movie. The best one, at least in my opinion, was the story focusing on Simon and his friends. Grade: 9/10.
Characters: Most of the characters were fully developed, I would hope so with the three different stories focusing on the main characters. The characters that I didn't particularly enjoy were Simon's friend Singh (who wasn't integral to the rest of the story), Victor Jr., Victor Sr., and Claire Montgomery (played by Katie Holmes). The reason for my distaste for Claire was simply because she morphs from one type of person at the near beginning of the movie (afraid and distrustful of Todd) to the exact opposite at the end. It seems likely that if you are going to be distrustful of a drug dealer at one point, you will remain distrustful until the drug dealer does something to gain your trust, which to be honest, we don't see. Grade: 7.5/10
Directing: Like I said at the beginning of this, I'm not an expert at film or filmmaking. So, I might not be the best person at judging for this particular category. However, I think that you should be able to tell a difference between good directing and bad directing. It's the in-between that'll probably cause me the most grief. However, the director in this movie does a great job in telling the three different stories. There's not that much discontinuity between the different stories so it actually feels like they are telling the same basic story. My favorite part for choice of directing was the music in the chase scene between Simon and his friends and the two Victors. Grade: 8/10.
Suspension of disbelief: I should be able to suspend my disbelief for the entire movie without running into a situation where I say, "there's no damn way this could happen in real life." There's not that many times where I think that throughout the movie, except at the very end. Once you see the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. Although the commitment to have Jay Mohr throw the tape recorder so girlish was just fantastic. Grade: 9.5/10
Acting: Sarah Polley was pretty good as Ronna (some people think she's better than that). William Fichtner was fantastic as the police officer who is obsessed with an Amway-esque products. Timothy Olyphant was great as a drug dealer. Katie Holmes was good despite the character's complete change. Nathan Bexton was great as strung out on drugs Mannie. Jay Mohr was the same as he is in every movie. Grade: 8/10. Only because I thought Polley could have been better, as well as Jay Mohr. When two of your could be played by better actors, then there is a slight problem.
Dialogue: The dialogue was occasionally funny and witty. Some of the dialogue was integral to the rest of the story and some of it was just there to be there. My favorite scene for dialogue was with Mannie and the cat. There wasn't anything that was glaringly awful. The scene about Confederated Products is fantastic, as well. Grade: 9/10.
Genre specific attributes: The movie was supposed to be a comedic crime movie in the same vein of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch. Both of which succeed at a level Go cannot approach. Grade: 7/10.
Timing: A movie should have a certain pace to it so that you never feel like the movie is dragging. That is one of Go's best features. There's not a point in the movie where you really think that the movie is draggging except near the very end. Just when you get tired of one character, they move to a different one. Grade: 9/10.
Pseudo-philosophical question and answer: What exactly is the theme of Go? If pressed, I would say that the theme of Go is what Claire states at the beginning of the movie about the best part of Christmas is the fact that there is a giant surprise even if you are pretty sure what's going to happen or know what's inside, when you finally open it, it's always a surprise. An even bigger answer to the theme question is what Jay Mohr states near the end. It's an attempt to find out what the right thing is to do, even if it's just an approximation or if it is the half-assed thrown together kind of way. It also addresses the justification people might have to try and convince themselves that the wrong things that people do aren't really that bad. Interesting theme, I guess. The movie also attempts to answer the question of what exactly is justice? Grade: 8/10.
Re-watchability: This is where I decide if I can watch the movie again. Since, I have watched this movie a couple of times, now, I would say that yes I would be able to watch it again. There's not that many glaring holes in the movie that bother me, no (overly)annoying characters, and bad dialogue. There is enough funny lines, a certain sense of unpredictiability, as well an overall sense that you might need to watch it again to get everything out of the movie. But it's not a movie I would immediately want to watch again or that I would feel like I would definitely need to. Grade: 8/10.
The movie ends with a pretty high score of 83/100. This is pretty in-line with what IMDB has it ranked as (7.3). Mine's higher probably because I like this specific genre of movies.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Basketball
Basketball is finally back. Well, at least, college basketball is back. I'm so glad that there is something that is happening in the week so I don't have to follow football 24/7 each week.
Without further ado, we'll do a quick preview for college basketball.
National Championship pick: North Carolina. I'm afraid it's going to be a wire to wire season for North Carolina. I'm not the only one who thinks that they're going to win the national championship. I've looked at what both ESPN and Sports Illustrated has been saying and the consensus is that North Carolina is the best bet to win the championship. Every North Carolina fan that I talk to is very happy that Larry Drew doesn't play at UNC anymore and will turn it over full-time to Kendall Marshall. I'll be very surprised if North Carolina doesn't at least make it to the Final Four. I think it's entirely possible that they might lose before then but overall they're the best team, in my opinion.
Best thing to happen to college basketball this season: The NBA lockout. Not only do you have a series of underclassmen who came back to their schools but now everyone who needs a basketball fix is forced to watch college basketball, instead. I would imagine that basketball's ratings are going to be higher than they have been for awhile. Last year, it looked we were going to be getting closer to a 16 seed finally beating a 1 seed. This year, I would be surprised if we have very many upsets, at all. It seems probable that we'll have a final four with only the #1 seeds.
Pre-season player of the year: Jared Sullinger. I think with a down year in the Big Ten that Sullinger will have an even better season than he did last year. While I don't think Ohio State is in the same class as North Carolina, I think Ohio State will only have a few losses at the end of the season.
Thing that worries me: Vanderbilt's high ranking and there are a couple of writers who think that Vanderbilt is going to make the Final Four.
Without further ado, we'll do a quick preview for college basketball.
National Championship pick: North Carolina. I'm afraid it's going to be a wire to wire season for North Carolina. I'm not the only one who thinks that they're going to win the national championship. I've looked at what both ESPN and Sports Illustrated has been saying and the consensus is that North Carolina is the best bet to win the championship. Every North Carolina fan that I talk to is very happy that Larry Drew doesn't play at UNC anymore and will turn it over full-time to Kendall Marshall. I'll be very surprised if North Carolina doesn't at least make it to the Final Four. I think it's entirely possible that they might lose before then but overall they're the best team, in my opinion.
Best thing to happen to college basketball this season: The NBA lockout. Not only do you have a series of underclassmen who came back to their schools but now everyone who needs a basketball fix is forced to watch college basketball, instead. I would imagine that basketball's ratings are going to be higher than they have been for awhile. Last year, it looked we were going to be getting closer to a 16 seed finally beating a 1 seed. This year, I would be surprised if we have very many upsets, at all. It seems probable that we'll have a final four with only the #1 seeds.
Pre-season player of the year: Jared Sullinger. I think with a down year in the Big Ten that Sullinger will have an even better season than he did last year. While I don't think Ohio State is in the same class as North Carolina, I think Ohio State will only have a few losses at the end of the season.
Thing that worries me: Vanderbilt's high ranking and there are a couple of writers who think that Vanderbilt is going to make the Final Four.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Veterans Committee Quick Look
As explained in our previous post, we assume that anyone with a score of 30 or up on our Hall of Fame score should at least be debated. We think a 38 or higher is a surefire Hall of Famer, so we'll look at those who are on the Veterans Committe ballot.
Jim Kaat: 28.72
Luis Tiant: 39.54
Allie Reynolds: 20.59
Ron Santo: 57.81
Ken Boyer: 43.64
Gil Hodges: 32.28
Minnie Minoso: 40.47
Tony Oliva: 35.25
Jim Kaat: 28.72
Luis Tiant: 39.54
Allie Reynolds: 20.59
Ron Santo: 57.81
Ken Boyer: 43.64
Gil Hodges: 32.28
Minnie Minoso: 40.47
Tony Oliva: 35.25
Quick Look on the Potential 2012 Hall of Fame Ballot
We have developed a WAR based rankings when it is added together, a typical Hall of Famer will score around a 38. Anything above 30 is something we should really look at as a Hall of Famer.
The rankings are the average WAR per season + 0.2*Career WAR+ 0.2 * Highest Five Consecutive Seasons WAR+ 3 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + 10 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + bonus points for seasons of 5.0 WAR and higher. If a player had 10 seasons, all with 5 WAR each season their score would be 38. Hence, we got the 38 score.
So we'll do a quick look at the 2012 potential Hall of Fame Ballot and look at who might deserve votes.
Pitchers:
Mike Remlinger: 7.06
Felix Rodriguez: 5.12
Rick Helling: 13.2
Brad Radke: 30.4
Terry Mulholland: 13.96
Jose Lima: 7.49
Tim Worrell: 5.88
Jeff Fassero: 20.03
Scott Erickson: 19.3
Danny Graves: 5.13
Jeff Nelson: 7.56
Lee Smith: 16.91
Jack Morris: 27.73
Catchers:
Mike Matheny: 4.12
Javy Lopez: 21.99
First Basemen:
Rafael Palmeiro: 41.74
Fred McGriff: 36.46
Don Mattingly: 33.45
Mark McGwire: 46.41
Jeff Bagwell: 56.43
Second Basemen:
Eric Young: 13.86
Tony Womack: 3.5
Edgardo Alfonzo: 26.72
Third Basemen:
Bill Mueller: 17.84
Joe Randa: 14.84
Vinny Castilla: 14.41
Edgar Martinez: 46.6
Shortstops:
Alan Trammell: 43.56
Barry Larkin: 42.81
Outfield:
Carl Everett: 15.9
Brian Jordan: 25.32
Phil Nevin: 15.56
Tim Salmon: 26.08
Jeromy Burnitz: 16.79
Reuben Sierra: 15.89
Bernie Williams: 33.2
Juan Gonzalez: 23.48
Dale Murphy: 35.55
Larry Walker: 44.58
Tim Raines: 42.39
The rankings are the average WAR per season + 0.2*Career WAR+ 0.2 * Highest Five Consecutive Seasons WAR+ 3 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + 10 Highest Seasons WAR * 0.2 + bonus points for seasons of 5.0 WAR and higher. If a player had 10 seasons, all with 5 WAR each season their score would be 38. Hence, we got the 38 score.
So we'll do a quick look at the 2012 potential Hall of Fame Ballot and look at who might deserve votes.
Pitchers:
Mike Remlinger: 7.06
Felix Rodriguez: 5.12
Rick Helling: 13.2
Brad Radke: 30.4
Terry Mulholland: 13.96
Jose Lima: 7.49
Tim Worrell: 5.88
Jeff Fassero: 20.03
Scott Erickson: 19.3
Danny Graves: 5.13
Jeff Nelson: 7.56
Lee Smith: 16.91
Jack Morris: 27.73
Catchers:
Mike Matheny: 4.12
Javy Lopez: 21.99
First Basemen:
Rafael Palmeiro: 41.74
Fred McGriff: 36.46
Don Mattingly: 33.45
Mark McGwire: 46.41
Jeff Bagwell: 56.43
Second Basemen:
Eric Young: 13.86
Tony Womack: 3.5
Edgardo Alfonzo: 26.72
Third Basemen:
Bill Mueller: 17.84
Joe Randa: 14.84
Vinny Castilla: 14.41
Edgar Martinez: 46.6
Shortstops:
Alan Trammell: 43.56
Barry Larkin: 42.81
Outfield:
Carl Everett: 15.9
Brian Jordan: 25.32
Phil Nevin: 15.56
Tim Salmon: 26.08
Jeromy Burnitz: 16.79
Reuben Sierra: 15.89
Bernie Williams: 33.2
Juan Gonzalez: 23.48
Dale Murphy: 35.55
Larry Walker: 44.58
Tim Raines: 42.39
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)