B-Log: Changes and The Critic
Posted: July 10th, 2008 | Filed under: Banny Log | 62 Comments »
Start No. 19: Vs. Chicago White Sox
Innings: 6 2/3
Hits: 5
Earned runs allowed: 7.
Strikeouts: 6
Walks: 2
Homers: 2 (same guy)
Extra base hits: 4.
Decision: ND (7-8)
Number of pitches: 106
Number of strikes: 62
BABIP: .277 (5 for 18)
Season BABIP: .293
* * *
There are two things that drive me absolutely nuts. Well, OK, that’s not true, there are about 1.3 billion things that drive me absolutely nuts — people who take up two parking spaces in a crowded parking lot; drivers who chug along below the speed limit in the left lane; American restaurants that charge for Diet Coke refills (you expect that sort of thing in Europe but I was raised to believe this is the land of plenty and the home of caffeine); email spam that is imaginative enough trick me into opening it; the bad and outdated magazines at doctors and dentists offices (come on, magazine subscriptions these days are, like, 12 cents an issue — get me some decent and up to date mags before my root canal); the way 25 cent air hoses at gas stations will go dead BEFORE you have all your tires filled up (hey, it’s bad enough that you’re charging for AIR, how about at least giving me an unlimited supply for my quarter?); readers who moan that there are too many mentions of my upcoming 1975 Cincinnati Reds book (to be published by William Morrow, a subsidiary of Harper Collins, in March 2009) on their FREE FREAKING BLOG; parents who just let their kids run around aimlessly in restaurants and stores; airline passengers sitting in front of me who, at first opportunity, recline their seats ALL THE WAY BACK, right into my sternum, like they’re in therapy or something; biographies that begin by telling you how the subject’s grandparents met; the way some newspaper headlines have intriguing questions (“Will Gas Prices Go Down”) but the stories flat do not answer them (“Maybe. Maybe not.”); being 41, which is a crummy age because no matter what concert I go to, I will always be too old or too young; the music they inevitably play at gyms; people who sit behind me at ballgames and will lecture some poor sap next to them about the intricacies of the infield fly rule and they ALWAYS get it wrong, ALWAYS (this just happened to me again in Tampa); also the Tampa Bay mascot Raymond*; the movie choices that Robert DeNiro keeps making and … oh, wait, I kind of got off on a tangent there.
*I don’t want to bury Raymond the Tampa Bay Mascot based on one day’s observations; I think as a scout you should see a mascot two or three times before you make any official recommendations. But the day I saw Raymond in Tampa, there was a less than overwhelming crowd of 16,000 or so, and he lacked energy, and from what I could tell Raymond didn’t like kids. I see this is a problem. And it was noticeable — I wasn’t the only one saying this. Raymond would walk through the crowd, and all these kids kept waving at him, and he kept looking the other way, finding hot young women to hug and old balding men so he could do that hysterical “rub the bald head like a genie lamp” gag that never gets tired. Fortunately, I was not one of these balding men, but my point is really this: If you’re a sports mascot dressed up like an aardvark,** you probably should focus on the kids. They might be your core audience. I appreciate that kids will grab you, and shriek in fear around you, and sometimes kick you or grab your tail or generally drive you mad. But you know, I don’t think the mascot pay scale would be quite as high if your only demographics included balding men and hot young women.
**A reader update: Brilliant reader Andrew points out that officially Raymond is not an aardvark, though that is what a couple of very intelligent sounding Rays fans assured us. Apparently, he’s a seadog who, according to his Wikipedia site, “mildly resembles a very furry manatee.” I know the whole “Come up with your own band name” thing has gotten stale but how about Furry Manatee as a name for a band?
OK, seriously now, what the heck was my point here? Um … oh yeah. There are two things that drive me absolutely nuts. The first thing that drives me nuts is when people complain incessantly about umpiring and officiating. I get it. These guys makes mistakes. Their strike zones vary. They blow pass interference calls all the time and call phantom holdings against your team twice every game. They screw up the block-charge call seven out of ten times, and in hockey they often seem to be making it up as they go along. I get it. And the fact that we now get so many more television angles doesn’t leave much mystery — these guys blow calls all the time.
So, OK. The umpire blows a call against your club, and you beef for a few minutes. Fine. That’s part of being a fan. That’s part of the story of the game. And I’m not suggesting that umpires should somehow be above criticism — I think it’s ridiculous that leagues FINE managers or players for saying that an umpire blew a call. What kind of totalitarian attitude is that? Umpires DO blow calls, and managers, coaches, players SHOULD get ticked off when it happens. In my mind they should be allowed that night to say whatever the heck they want about a bad call.
But only that night. Look, after a while … hey, enough already. When you constantly complain about umpires, you begin to sound petty and delusional. What happens is you first complain about a bad call, but then you start to see ghosts and shadows and Jorge Orta’s around every corner, and you start whining about VERY close calls, ones that could go either way, ones the umpire might have gotten right, and then you cross over and complain about correct calls. And that’s when you start to sound like a big ol’ loser. That’s why it drives me nuts. I say this for a reason: I’ve noticed lately that my very good buddy Ryan Lefebvre, who I believe is an excellent announcer and a wonderful guy, has been moaning way too much about umpiring lately; he’s definitely creeping into that dangerous territory where you start ripping umpires for making good calls. Wednesday’s game ended when Mike Aviles was called out on a check swing, and Ryan who had been ripping the umpires for four or five innings gave a big old, frustrated “Well, why not?” The replay showed that Aviles had DEFINITELY swung, it wasn’t close, and it was correctly called out, but it was too late to say, “OK, hey, I apologize, I went overboard, the umpire was right.” Anyway, the next time I see him I will advise him as a friend to just stop the whole umpire thing. It sounds amateurish to me.
The second thing that drives me nuts is sports self-delusion. Well, self-delusion of all kinds is irritating, but in sports it really stands out … you know, it’s when a hitter talks about how he “saw the ball really good” after he struck out four times, when a quarterback talks about how the offense really moved the ball well despite scoring three points, when a coach talks about the difference in a 24-point loss being one or two plays, when a general manager talks about how hard his crummy team is playing … this stuff is really annoying.
I bring this up because I have been thinking quite a bit about whether or not Brian Bannister is being delusional when he says that he’s been doing some really good and encouraging things as a pitcher lately. The numbers are cold and stark — Wednesday was the third straight game he gave up five runs or more. His ERA since April 30 is 6.34, and the league is hitting .306 against him and slugging .502 over those 10 weeks. It has been a real struggle.
Banny understands this … he has become convinced that he needs to change the way he’s pitching, add what he calls “a few new pitches,” go after hitters in different ways, reshape his style. I think that in some ways Banny has come to accept that his luck kind of ran out — you have to remember, the guy studies the numbers, and he knows the harsh realities and startling odds against pitching the way he pitched last year (fly balls, low strikeout numbers, low home run total, good ERA). I also think that he’s experiencing failure for the first time in the big leagues, and he has only thrown 318 innings so far, a bit staggered at the moment.
But the question: Is Banny, despite the recent numbers, on the right track? Obviously, everyone has their own opinion and nobody knows for sure. But I do remember something about Tom Watson, the great golfer. In 1975, he won the British Open as a 25 year old. It was quite a surprise — Watson did not have an overpowering amateur career, he was not a superstar college golfer, few really expected greatness from him. Then he won the Western Open in ‘74, the Byron Nelson in ‘75 and most impressively the British Open in ‘75. He was WAY better than others thought.
And then Tom Watson did what I think is one of the nerviest things a premier athlete has ever done — he tore it all up. He had been outperforming every expectation that people had for him, but Tom looked at his swing and decided it could not hold up under the most intense pressure and if he was going to become the best golfer in the world (and this, despite what people thought of his limitations, was what he expected) he had to start over. So he scrapped his swing, completely rebuilt it. He did not win a single tournament in 1976 while he tinkered and adjusted. When he came back in ‘77, he twice beat Jack Nicklaus in majors — including the incredible Duel in the Sun at Turnberry — and he was the PGA Tour player of the year six times the next eight years.
There are only a few similarities to Banny here but there are some: He had more success last year than most people expected, and I think at first he just wanted to keep it going. But now, I think, he feels like he needs to rebuild his swing. He has started the process. He’s throwing his fastball with a little something more, he’s pitching upstairs, he’s adding a few wrinkles, he’s working on his curveball. Banny said that he saw some encouraging signs in his previous start, and frankly I thought that was a bit of, well, let’s just call it excessive optimism.
I’ll tell you what: And I don’t just say this as an unabashed Banny apologist … there was some really, really good signs on Wednesday. Yes, he gave up the five runs. Yes, he gave up four extra base hits — including two almost identical home runs to Carlos Quentin. Yes, his ERA went up again — it’s now an unseemly 5.24.
But you know what? I thought he pitched really well this time. Sure, I could be jumping into the delusion pool myself. But I saw him attack hitters inside. He pitched went after them up in the strike zone. His fastball had a little more of a cutting edge to it. He definitely had a different look … he really threw like more of a power pitcher, which was interesting. He struck out six. He also made three or four mistake pitches, and let’s face it, that’s all that people really care about now. But I thought that this time around, there really should be some optimism. I asked Tom Watson once what was the hardest part of the swing change he made in ‘76. He said it was seeing himself in a new way. I think that makes a lot of sense.
* * *
I realize now that this post might sound a bit cranky … all that stuff that drives me nuts. But I’m not feeling cranky — I really hardly ever feel cranky, and I think people sometimes mistake my faux crankiness for real. I really don’t mind people ripping me for mentioning the book or for my perhaps irrational Gardy love. That’s half the fun. Anyway, to even things out, here is one of my absolute favorite things ever: The Critic, by Mel Brooks.
Loading ...
Joe, I think you are right about Banny. I’m a White Sox fan and so was excited to watch lat night’s game- the first real chance I’ve had to see him in action. I was telling my dad all about Banny’s love of stats. He didn’t seem that excited, but it didn’t stop me. Anyway, I thought he looked very good. He had us flommoxed the first three or four innings. We weren’t just missing by a little. He made Alexi Rameriez, who has been insane lately, look silly. Quinten got a hold of a few and it was a different ballgame, but I was really impressed by Bannister. And, thanks to your blog, kind of found myself quietly rooting for him.
Um, your children sometimes run wild in stores and restaurants….
Although the word ‘aardvark,’ like ‘kumquat,’ is inherently funny, it appears (sadly) that Raymond the Tampa Bay Aardvark is not actually an aardvark. From the Wikipedia entry on mascots:
—
Raymond is the official mascot of the Tampa Bay Rays. Raymond is a furry blue creature wearing a large pair of sneakers and a backwards baseball cap, completed with a Rays jersey. He is described officially as a “seadog”, though his appearance mildly resembles a very furry manatee. Raymond was awarded an honorable mention in the GameOps.com Best Mascot contest for 2006.
—
I want to add that the phrase “his appearance mildly resembles a very furry manatee” is about to go into heavy rotation in my personal lexicon.
Joe, I don’t think you mention that book you are writing often enough. I think it has something to do with this team that played a sport in Ohio in the ’70s, but that’s about all I got.
Sarcasm aside, I do enjoy when you mention the book, especially when you tell a story about something you’ve learned through your research, that may or may not make it in the book. Keep it up.
Did I mention I’m not writing a book about the 1975 Cincinnati Reds.
I’m guessing you just feel like Bannister is what you need to hold on to, for balance’s sake. Banny Log always makes me think of Bannacek, which makes me think of George Peppard, which makes me think of Breakfast At Tiffany’s, which of course, makes me think of Audrey Hepburn, which makes me realize she’s the only skinny woman I ever had a crush on.
I love that rant. I agree with all of your points (you can get all of these things right here in Tulsa, btw! Most of them simultaneously! Move here! We have a AA ballclub?)
One thing I didn’t agree with, though. “American restaurants that charge for Diet Coke refills”
I’m firmly convinced that the free refill is one of the MAJOR contributors to American obesity. Yes, it’s annoying that you’re charged for every drink in Europe, especially if it’s still the crappy fountain soda that you’re getting. (most decent restaurants will actually give you a bottle of coke if you order a coke, so it makes sense that they charge you for an extra one, right?)
And it’s insane that in most places in Europe, you will get CHARGED for a glass of water. Hey, the money to pay all those socialist taxes have to come from somewhere, you know?
But if you’re thirsty enough for two cokes during a meal, you will order two cokes. If you’re sitting there with a half sip of coke left in your glass, nobody puts a new one down if you don’t ask for it.
You know the rather popular saying that “if it’s not in the house, I can’t eat it?” that people use to help themselves NOT buy candy and chips and such?
If a waitress puts a full glass of coke down for you, you’ll drink part of it. Maybe it’s because subconsciously we think “hell, we can’t let that go to waste!”.
And you’ll take four sips, and then they put another one down, because that’s friendly, and customer service, and whatnot. So you take four more sips. Then your starter arrives and the lovely girl tells you she’ll bring you another coke in a second.
By the time you’ve finished your meal, you’ve probably downed 2 to 3 of those big half a liter cups of coke. Each of which, incidentally, comes with (I believe) 81 grams of sugar. (I might be off a bit, there’s 54 grams of sugar in a 33ml can, so 54/33 * 50 – half a liter cup – comes to 81 grams of sugar.) Maybe there’s a bit of a difference between the soda fountain and a can, but if anything, there’s going to be MORE sugar in the fountain coke than in the can, because it just tastes much sweeter anyways.
If you happen to have gotten Pepsi, you can add another 10-20% to that sugar amount.
So with those 3 cups, you just devoured half a POUND of sugar.
And then, because it’s free, some people get a “to go” cup.
If we didn’t have free refills, people would drink one cup, and if they finished it, they MIGHT order another one, but probably not. I can’t imagine that there’s anyone that’s really thirsty for more than half a liter of pop in an hour.
Refills = bad bad bad.
I have three guys in my office alone who “mildly resemble a very furry manatee.â€
I’m going to start calling all three of them Raymond from now on, see if anybody catches on. If so, I’ll know they read your blog!
Two comments:
(1) I think John Madden once said, “Only losers complain about officiating.” Seems about right to me, no matter how bad a job they do.
(2) The fact is, no matter how bad the officiating is, it’s REALLY hard for them to ACTUALLY determine the outcome. (That Lakers-Kings game that everyone complains about is a rare exception.) (I also thought the refs in the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl were atrocious.) (But I digress.)
Even when there’s incontrovertible proof that a particular call is terribly wrong, there’s usually a sequence of events that could have turned the game the other way. I mean, I know there’s a lot of Missourians here (who will take this WAY more personally than I do), but there were a few hitters AFTER Denkinger got the call wrong. Orta was the leadoff batter and he hit a single. A single. A SINGLE.
If I can add something to your list of things worth hating: people who complain about getting parking tickets when they TOTALLY deserved them. “I was only there for a minute!”
Usually I just ping but this is a comment. I agree about the announcers’ complaints on umpiring calls. One of the things I like about ESPN’s coverage is the display of the strike zone. It may not be definitive but it’s about as close as we can get. Then if the ump is having a bad game then by all means rip him.
I wonder how John McEnroe would have been perceived if they’d had that replay capability 30 years ago. Of course we would have missed out on some priceless rants.
Maybe Raymond the Ray is bitter about the success of the team on the field taking away from his attention.
I don’t think Furry Manatee itself works as a band name — I think you have to leave it as Very Furry Manatee, get the rhythm going.
Of course, this could be my bias as father to a toddler, since I think people would expect Very Furry Manatee to play music toddlers would like. Then again, my toddler seems to love Tori Amos, Charlotte Martin, Squonk Opera, Low, and J.S. Bach every bit as much as he does cheery/silly stuff (They Might Be Giants, Robyn Hitchcock), so perhaps that’s not really a restriction.
Joe,
Also a Sox fan who found himself quietly rooting for Banny last night. And I agree with the above – for the first few innings, our lineup looked clueless. Also agree with the announcing. I typically watch all the Sox games on MLB tv (as usual down here in Miami) and can honestly say that I rarely “notice” announcers when we’re on the road. Last night was a huge exception – I actually found myself actively despising the Royals announcers for their constant complaining. Granted, Hawk has been known to do this when the Sox aren’t playing well, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard it that bad, and that’s saying something.
A Banny-Nolan Ryan comparison and now a Banny-Tom Watson comparison! Who’s next, Muhammad Ali?
Here’s the thing, though. As a golfer, if you believe in what you’re doing, you only have yourself to answer to. If you find you need to take a year, two years to rebuild your swing, you can do that. Play well enough to keep your PGA card, and you’re fine. Heck, you can even lose your card if you play well enough later to regain it.
In baseball, it’s a bit different. First of all, what you’re doing affects your team. Tinker now and play worse now to play better later? Those games count and affect other people. (Whereas in golf it’s not a huge deal to place low at a tournament or to even miss a cut.) Granted, it’s the Royals and it’s not like they’re making a run at the playoffs this season, so in essence you could say — as always — that it’s a rebuilding season.
But more importantly — and I mean so much more importantly that the above factor is more of an aside — in baseball you can get sent down. It’s true that if Banny comes back in a few months or a year, if he pitches well enough he should rise to the level he deserves. But baseball isn’t *as* merit-driven as golf. How you are perceived by others (or more specifically, by coaches and general managers) can affect the opportunities you get in the future. If Banny can reconstruct his game and come back better than ever, I’m totally behind him. In fact, it may be what he needs to do whether he wants to or not. (And I fully agree that it takes a strong individual to make that decision.) But it’s possible for him to play himself out of baseball, too. Or at least out of the Major Leagues.
Just pointing out that one large difference between professional baseball and golf.
On one final note, do we also agree that overbrimming confidence (a.k.a. self-delusion) is a trait commonly held by the greatest performers in any discipline (especially sports)? You may say that Michael Jordan was justified in believing that he could do all the things he did, but would he have gotten to where he did if he did not believe he could do those things *regardless* of whether he could or not? (Answer: no.) And let’s also not forget his foray into baseball. Where he fully intended to succeed, I would have to think.
Now, I think it’s possible to have that crazy level of self-belief *and* to have a proper grip on what you are and aren’t capable of. (See Tiger Woods, who also reworked his swing, maybe not at the height of his success, but 999 out of 1000 people would not dare to mess with that swing which had led to so much success already.) But it’s a fine line.
So while I personally have a strong distaste for self-delusion (which is one of many reasons why I will never be the “greatest” at any discipline), I accept it a bit more in others who are at or near the top of their game. On an individual basis, I think it makes much more sense to be a realist. But taken as a group, the whole flourishes better when some individuals push the envelope — when sometimes it’s justified and sometimes it’s not. We have the self-deluded to thank for many things. Most fail and we roll our eyes, but some few succeed — and would not if they didn’t believe something they had no right to believe in.
You realize that after your book hits the bestseller charts, you’ll have to write the obvious sequel: a history of the 1976 Cincinnati Reds.
Joe you remind me withe every post why you are the greatest. I couldn’t agree more with your complaints about Ryan and the umpires. Almost every game there’s the whining about the home plate umpire. Over and over and over again. I understand it must be incredibly frustrating to be a Royals broadcaster (it’s frustrating to watch) but my God let it go. (and stop telling me Tony Pena Jr. is going to become Omar Visquel or Ozzie Smith)
It may not be relevant, but while it is possible that Raymond seeks out hot young women, the person inside the furry manatee is female.
As someone who attends Rays’ games regularly, I have never noticed that Raymond focuses much attention on the hot young women. And I should know since I do focus there.
Editor’s note: Wait, there’s someone INSIDE the costume? What?
I have been annoyed with Lefebvre’s complaining lately too. I don’t like him as an announcer and can only assume Denny Mathews was sick of him on the radio so they moved him to TV. I like Split because he actually talks about the game.
With the exception of the two homeruns, Banny looked good…really good through the 4th. He was mowing down hitters and being aggressive. I think he is making adjustments and figuring it out.
I disagree whole-heartedly. I’ve never seen a team get as little respect from umpires as the Royals have gotten the past few years. Now granted, losers get shafted by the officials and winners get the calls. It’s just how it goes. But I think Ryan’s comments the past few years are just an outward expression of the frustration that the Royals management, players and fans are experiencing.
Now, I’ll grant that much of the problem with the Royals when it comes to umpiring is something that they bring on themselves. They’re a bad baseball team, and a couple calls here or there, will not make them a good baseball team.
But you’d think that if the adage holds true — “the game evens itself out” — that the Royals might have caught a couple of breaks from the umpires last night after they were very obviously shafted on the interference call on Tuesday. But the didn’t, and it’s obvious that Lefebvre was frustrated, as was Splittorff, who rarely if ever criticizes the umpiring (maybe he was just caught up in Ryan’s whining, or maybe he was legitimately upset … but Splitt rarely takes Ryan’s bait, so I think he was legitimately upset).
Thanks to Bob R, Raymond just became my favorite mascot ever.
White Sox fans can’t EVER complain (never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever) about another teams announcer crying. Hawk does it sometimes? Sometimes? SOMETIMES?
I’ll grant that Aviles went around last night, but the blown runner’s interference call in the 11th the night before did cost us the game.
Listening to Bannister actually made me chuckle. Remember when Brian Anderson had his really REALLY horrible start in 2004 (I think…so many losses ago…) and every time he would get interviewed after the game, he would go off on how bad he stunk it up and that the team deserved better than him, and that he was just horse*bleep*, etc. I used to look forward to listening to the post game interviews when he pitched. Same way I actually listen after Banny pitches – but for much better reasons.
You can almost hear Bannister inviting the reporters to go toe-to-toe with him on analyzing pitches.
REPORTER: Brian, what happened out there tonight?
BANNISTER: Well, I just made three bad pitches, but otherwise it was good. I think I pitched real well through the first 6.
awkward pause
REPORTER: So ….um…they scored 6 runs. What did you think of the way Aviles played tonight?
How about the current poll? Kevin Costner a better actor than Tom Cruise? Really?
In how many movies has each of them been at least very good?
Cruise: Risky Business, Color of Money, Rain Man, Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia, Lions For Lambs (yeah, I know, bad movie but he was good)
Costner: The Untouchables, Dances With Wolves, Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, JFK, Tin Cup
That’s 10 to 6 for Cruise and I think I’m being generous with Costner’s count.
Cruise could have done Costner’s best roles stoned. You really think Costner could have pulled off Cruise’s roles in Magnolia or Rain Man? No chance.
By the way, there’s a funny headline in today’s KC Star:
“Royals Never Entered Sabathia Sweepstakes”
Which is only funny if you remember this hilarious post from this blog last winter:
“Royals Now Lead Race For Santana”
In which Dayton Moore called Joe ridiculous for asking why the Royals didn’t just go out and acquire Santana.
Pretty fine line between reportage and satire.
We were just talking about the game today at the office and I’m convinced that the 1st and 3rd base umpires never really know whether a batter goes around on a check swing, they just guess when its appealed by the catcher. Granted it did look like after the slo mo instant replay that Aviles did go slightly around. But umpires don’t get to watch the game in slo mo, so to make a call like that from 90 feet away is a little ridiculous. I think Ryan’s immediate response probably had to do with the fact that Dejesus had a called 3rd strike, that was in fact a bad call. And I’m sure the runner interference call from Tuesday was still fresh in his mind as well. I think everyone, including Ryan understands that usually everything will be even itself out as far as officiating goes, but there are definitely times when your team is on the losing end of a lot of close calls and never seems to catch the break. Those times are always frusturating.
Personally, I think Lefevbre is a great announcer. Cut the guy some slack, he announces THE ROYALS. There isnt always that much to talk about, but he keeps it fun and entertaining and knows a heck of a lot about the team.
Yup, them Royals was really shafted by those there umps in 1985, wasn’t they?
BTW, where on earth are you finding air for only $.25? It’s twice that here.
Joe,
RE Banny:
You are reaching.
Regarding the poll, Cruise and Costner are pretty much the same every time, but I can stand the dullness of Costner a lot easier than the abrasiveness of Cruise. I think Cruise as Crash Davis would have been worse than William Bendix as the Babe.
“That’s 10 to 6 for Cruise and I think I’m being generous with Costner’s count.”
Even if I don’t agree with the count, can we add Legend to the list for Cruise? Any movie with Tim Curry as the devil is cinematic gold for me.
Not just announcers complaining about calls, but announcers comparing players to other players. It’s especially bad this year TPJ. That Frank White graphic? Really, that’s what they want us to think about TPJ when we watch him? They should have shipped him with Berroa.
Mel Brooks actually makes me cranky. No one has ever made me laugh quite so hard, from his writing on TV in the 50’s/60’s to his work on Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles. But… Mr. Brooks is a member of the stage actors’ union and after scoring a hit with union actors with Broadway’s The Producers and the horrible film version (based on the musical which was based on his original film), he decided, as producer, to send the road tours out with non-union actors. I realize that this comment has little place on this blog, but it’s something that makes me cranky. How much money (as the Bishop said to A-Rod) does one man need? (After all, Eric Idle seems to keeps his fellow members of Actors’ Equity working on the various union tours of Spamalot…)
It’s time for the umpires making all of these bad calls to be held accountable. Supposedly, the umps are watched and graded (by who I don’t know). When was the last time an umpire was fired or sent to the minors? Never. They can be incompetent, confrontational, and lazy, and nothing ever happens to them. They don’t even have to face the media after the game. A few are good—the vast majority don’t give a damn, because they know they face no consequences. I urge all fans sitting close to the field to jeer and heckle the bad ones, letting them know they are pieces of crap.
Johnny,
What’s a ping (as opposed to a comment)? I have no idea what a ping is…..
The Mel Brooks paid $2 for a movie and was upset about the quality immediately dated the piece for me (still funny just old). If I paid $2 for a movie you could show those weird dots and that’d be fine by me.
$2 for a movie!
AZHAWK97: Legend was a great flick (although perhaps cinematic pixifood), but it was all in spite of Cruise. He was AWFUL in that movie.
And Joe? When you sit down with your friend Ryan, take a page from your friends at royalsreview and perform a TPJ intervention. As Wade points out above, when your manlove for the worst hitter in the major leagues leads to you basically claiming he’s going to be Frank White, you’ve got some problems you need to address.
I’m hoping Joe does an in-depth look at how the Royals are reacting to the fact that Alex Gordon and Billy Butler not only aren’t coming around, they’re both arguably getting worse. At least Gordon’s a good fielder, though… Butler is basically useless ot the team at this point. How high is the level of concern? Is there any kind of plan to help? New hitting coach? Something? Anything?
I also agree about the umpire stuff. The calls were pretty spotty in the first two games of the CWS/KC series, but the overreaction has been so strong that there’s even a groundswell of people thinking Hillman needs to go because he didn’t grab a folding chair, storm out of the dugout, and crack the home plate ump in the skull like they were in a WWE match.
I like the changes too, I just hope he sticks with it. Ron Shandler invented a statistical he calls XERA (or expected ERA) which weighs a variety of factors that go in to predicting what a pitcher’s ERA would look like absent the noise that can be created from things like abnormally low strand rates, high hit rates, or lack of true dominance and control by striking out batters and walking few… anyway, I thought it was interesting to point out that Banny’s XERA in June was 5.61 (compared to actual ERA of 4.71) and so far in July through 11.2 innings his XERA is 4.24 (compared to actual ERA of 8.49). What that means to me is that if he can keep tinkering and pitching the way he has been, eventually the abnormalities will even out and he’ll be better off for it… I know I’ll be cheering for it to happen
B-Log: Changes and The Critic…
Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!…
I went to the 2004 World Series games in St. Louis and wore my Royals cap. I must have heard 50 or 60 comments about Don Denkinger. And this was after 19 years!
Is there such a thing as a Pixishow? Something you liked as a kid but can’t believe you — or anyone else — ever found it funny?
For me, that show is … Welcome Back, Kotter
Is Lefebrve any relation to the former player and manager Jim Lefebrve? I know he’s Milton Bradley’s favorite announcer by far.
While I don’t agree with the Cruise/Costner count — there are some things on his list that don’t do much for me, as well as a few roles off the list (Minority Report, No Way Out) that I think were pretty good — the general premise is right on. To me, Rain Man is the end of the conversation. Cruise was fantastic and it was a tough role, Oscar worthy. Costner is eminently likable, especially in his sorts related roles, but he’s never been great. Also, Costner’s inability to do a British accent leading to the American accented Robin Hood is just a colossal failure as an actor….
Two Things:
1) When you talk to Ryan, please tell him to stop comparing TPJ to Frank White. It’s a complete falsehood and it insults the intelligence of Royals fans. The more he defends TPJ the more fans he loses.
2) QT has free air.
Tom Cruise is a hell of an actor. i just wish he’d shut up off screen (and you forgot Collateral on the list)
Pixishows? That list could be a mile long. I’m 26 years old, so for me #1 would be Saved by the Bell. How about movies? Since we’re discussing Tom Cruise here, remember Days of Thunder. I loved that movie 10 years ago and now I can barely stand to watch it. That’s a true Pixishow.
This Cruise/Costner choice may be the hardest poll to cast a vote in. This one has caused more consternation than Clemente/Kaline.
I think I voted for Costner ultimately becuase of those stupid radio spots he did for the Chiefs where he never quite indicated that he was a fan.
Come on, accent aside, Robin Hood was a great movie, which is what pretty much sealed the deal for me in the poll above. Well, that and the fact that I’m still bitter at Tom Cruise for turning Katie Holmes into a lunatic.
Oddibe, Ryan is Jim’s son.
I knew nobody would agree with all the movies on the Cruise list but you get my meaning.
Bottom line: the comparison ain’t even close.
Diff’rent Strokes is the ultimate pixishow in my book.
Joe, I really appreciate the fact that you will talk to Ryan about what has become a real distraction to what could otherwise be a good game. He really has gone down hill in the way he calls games since going to FSN. He seems to care more about his opinions than what is going on during the game. Once again thanks, and if you also could mention to him that no one cares how many times someone yells “balk” in the crowd it would also be great.
I’m baffled by the Mel Brooks film. I actually dozed off right at my desk. I guess this was subversive in 1852 when it came out?
Yeah, but Saved By The Bell was AIMED at kids. Of course you hate it now that you’re older. (I love to hate it. GREAT kitsch value, even without the Jesse on amphetamines episode which is not even the most ridiculous episode they ever did.)
I’m saying: shows that America thought were funny.
I’d like to add Night Court to my list. Blech.
I liked when they found oil under the football field.
Saved by the bell is still one of the greatest shows ever. That Jesse-on-amphetamines episode was SO SO SO good. Also, Macgyver. Still so amazing.
Costner is a good actor with terrible taste in movies (Waterworld, The Postman, etc.), limited range and a poor understanding of how limited that range is (Can you imagine Pacino or DeNiro playing Robinhood?) Costner’s problem isn’t his acting, it’s his agent.
But with Costner, all of those bad movies (with maybe the exception of Robinhood, though I have my doubts,) would have sucked without him (and probably, without his name attached, would have went straight to video.)
He’s saved a few and improved some others: Bull Durham, Rumour Has It, The Upside of Anger, Dances With Wolves, No Way Out and Fandango. These would not have been as good without him.
Cruise on the other hand, is a terrible actor, who has gotten lucky that every now and then a movie comes along with a part where he gets to play himself (Risky Business, Magnolia, Jerry Maguire, Rain Man for example).
Cruise has actively ruined a whole bunch of movies that might have been good without him: Legend, A Few Good Men, Interview with a Vampire, Eyes Wide Shut, The Last Samurai and War of the Worlds. Blech…
I wouldn’t run out to see a Costner movie in the theater, but I won’t even watch a Cruise movie on network.
Normally, I agree about ripping umps…
But that White Sox series? They drove me nuts.
Particularly the Fu Manchu Umpire.
Kevin Costner is one of those actors who was sort of ruined by becoming an above-the-title star. He would’ve had a great career as a supporting player who stars in his own film once in a while, ala Bill Paxton or maybe even as a poor man’s Jeff Bridges. Cruise, meanwhile, is one of those actors who could be nothing but ‘the star,’ but just isn’t up to it. The poster who mentioned all the films that Cruise has ruined is right on the money.
Oh, someone mentioned earlier about imagining Costner in Cruise’s role in Magnolia….actually, I think that KC would’ve done a great job there.
1) Nick Hornby once wrote that he always carries something to read, to fill any dead moments of waiting. It’s good advice…it means you don’t notice what’s in the waiting room.
2) Don’t ever use the word “freaking”. It makes you sound like Rick Reilly. The next stop is Carrot Top.
3) “when a coach talks about the difference in a 24-point loss being one or two plays”…technically this is OK. Usually you can find two touchdown passes they threw, and if we had intercepted them and returned them for touchdowns, we would have won by 4… like I say, it’s technically true. Or if it’s a basketball coach saying these words, then OK, he’s delusional.
4) Looking forward to the next book, hope it’s as good as the last one.