Now I'm really switching gears, onto the subject of movies. I saw Batman Begins. It's the best Batman movie of all. In fact, I'll go as far as saying it's the best Superhero movie of all time. In fact, I may go as far as saying it's the best movie ever, period. Okay, maybe not that last one...
What I really liked about it though, especially more than the last three Batman movies, was that while the previous ones seemed to be plot-driven, this one was character-driven, and that added a great depth and dimension to it. You really sensed Bruce Wayne's journey to becoming Batman and how he was motivated in doing everthing he did. It also had some great themes: Justice vs. Revenge, Compassion vs. Brutality, Inner being vs. Outer actions. And of course, it had great action and cool Bat-gizmos!
Written and directed by Christopher Nolan (who wrote and directed Memento), you can certainly see his style in it, with the use of flashbacks and "twists". I was really looking forward to this movie (in addition to always being a big Dark Knight fan) when I heard that Nolan was directing it, because he did such a good job with Memento (as well as with his previous film, "Following" - if you haven't seen that, then do!) It did not disappoint. Let's hope this is just the Beginning of a whole new series of Batman films.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Interleague play in baseball has now wrapped up for the 2005 season (and the Red Sox took advantage sweeping the Phillies to now take a 2.5 game lead in the division). But I'm going to switch gears now and talk a bit about golf. Some random (well, maybe not so random in my head) observations:
After last week's somewhat stunning U.S. Open win by Michael Campbell, there was another stunner in today's U.S. Women's Open. The appropriately named Birdie Kim chipped in from the bunker for a birdie to snatch what was looking like a good bet to go to a playoff. But that was one of two improbable finishes in golf today, as Padraig Harrington made a bomb of a putt for eagle, to do the same thing. And speaking of majors, Harrington is my pick to win the British Open. He was my preseason prediction and with two wins on the PGA Tour already this year, I don't see any reason to change. (BTW, my other preseason picks for the four majors were: Tiger Woods for the Masters, Mike Weir for the U.S., and Phil Mickelson for the PGA - so I'm 1 for 2 so far.)
And on the subject of the British Open, Jean Van de Velde seems to make triple bogeys at the worst times. He of course did so on the 72nd hole in the 1999 Open, when a double bogey would have given him the trophy. In today's French Open, he blew a one-shot lead on the 72nd hole and lost on the first playoff hole by making triple bogey as Jean-François Remesy made double bogey. Does that make him a choker? I'm not sure. A lot of people thought that he choked at the British Open, but I don't think he did, otherwise he would not have made the tough putt that he did to get into the playoff. You need to blow it on a number of consecutive holes (like Greg Norman did at the 1996 Masters) for it to be a true "choke". One tough hole (which included some really bad breaks) doesn't qualify. But that's just me.
After last week's somewhat stunning U.S. Open win by Michael Campbell, there was another stunner in today's U.S. Women's Open. The appropriately named Birdie Kim chipped in from the bunker for a birdie to snatch what was looking like a good bet to go to a playoff. But that was one of two improbable finishes in golf today, as Padraig Harrington made a bomb of a putt for eagle, to do the same thing. And speaking of majors, Harrington is my pick to win the British Open. He was my preseason prediction and with two wins on the PGA Tour already this year, I don't see any reason to change. (BTW, my other preseason picks for the four majors were: Tiger Woods for the Masters, Mike Weir for the U.S., and Phil Mickelson for the PGA - so I'm 1 for 2 so far.)
And on the subject of the British Open, Jean Van de Velde seems to make triple bogeys at the worst times. He of course did so on the 72nd hole in the 1999 Open, when a double bogey would have given him the trophy. In today's French Open, he blew a one-shot lead on the 72nd hole and lost on the first playoff hole by making triple bogey as Jean-François Remesy made double bogey. Does that make him a choker? I'm not sure. A lot of people thought that he choked at the British Open, but I don't think he did, otherwise he would not have made the tough putt that he did to get into the playoff. You need to blow it on a number of consecutive holes (like Greg Norman did at the 1996 Masters) for it to be a true "choke". One tough hole (which included some really bad breaks) doesn't qualify. But that's just me.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
I love Joe Buck. He's the best announcer there is. Especially for football. But especially for baseball. Here's a quote from today's Red Sox-Phillies game (by the way, the now 1st-place Red Sox... thought I'd throw that in. )
Buck was talking about David Ortiz and his RBI's from last night and from the first inning in today's game. Then there was a shot of John Olerud in the dugout and Buck said this:
"There's John Olerud, who if the Red Sox have a lead later in the game will take over at first for defensive reasons... (pause) Those reasons being he's better... (pause) at playing first."
Only he could get away with stating the obvious without it sounding silly.
Anyway, back to the interleague rivalries subject. Setting up the "natural" rivalries is only half the story, because they only play those series twice a year. The rest of the interleague games are rotated, and because of the NL-AL disparity (16 teams vs. 14 teams), there's always one totally NL game going while the rest of the teams are playing interleague. Not only does this come off as awkward, but not every team plays the same number of interleague games.
I have a solution which would also be a solution to another problem (and would make Bud Selig happy - although I'm loathe to do that because I think that no commisioner has made as many blunders as he has, but that's a topic for another day). Contraction. This is definitely a sensitive topic, but in some cases it seems necessary - and it would help to bring balance to the leagues.
The first team to go is obvious (in fact, it should have been an obvious mistake to add the team in the first place). Who ever thought that it would be a good idea to have not one, but two major league teams in the state of Florida. One has to go, and no it's not the Marlins like Selig first suggested a couple of years ago, because you just can't contract a team that has had such success making the playoffs (and they've won two of the last eight World Series!) Clearly, the Devil Rays should be contracted due to poor attendance numbers, even worse team success and relatively ridiculous payroll.
The most logical other team to contract is the Colorado Rockies, whose attendance numbers have been declining steadily the past few years, and who haven’t made the playoffs (or even come close) in many years. The other possibility is the Milwaukee Brewers, who have not had much success at the gates or in the standings, or the Minnesota Twins, except they make the playoffs year after year. There are other teams showing equally bad numbers – such as the Pittsburgh Pirates – but whose history is too great to even consider contracting them.
If indeed you do contract Tampa Bay and Colorado, then all you'd have to do is move the Brewers to the AL East, and you'd have 14 teams per league. To make it even more paralleled, move the Astros to the NL West (to be across from the Rangers in the AL West) and move the Twins to the AL West (to be across from the D'Backs). The natural interleague rivalries would then look like this, split up by division:
NL – AL East
New York – New York
Atlanta – Boston
Washington – Baltimore
Philadelphia – Toronto
Florida – Milwaukee
NL – AL Central
Chicago – Chicago
St. Louis – Kansas City
Cincinnati – Cleveland
Pittsburgh – Detroit
NL – AL West
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
San Francisco – Oakland
San Diego – Seattle
Arizona – Minnesota
Houston – Texas
The NL Central would get to have only four in their division after so many years of having six. And no more disparity. Interleague, that is...
Buck was talking about David Ortiz and his RBI's from last night and from the first inning in today's game. Then there was a shot of John Olerud in the dugout and Buck said this:
"There's John Olerud, who if the Red Sox have a lead later in the game will take over at first for defensive reasons... (pause) Those reasons being he's better... (pause) at playing first."
Only he could get away with stating the obvious without it sounding silly.
Anyway, back to the interleague rivalries subject. Setting up the "natural" rivalries is only half the story, because they only play those series twice a year. The rest of the interleague games are rotated, and because of the NL-AL disparity (16 teams vs. 14 teams), there's always one totally NL game going while the rest of the teams are playing interleague. Not only does this come off as awkward, but not every team plays the same number of interleague games.
I have a solution which would also be a solution to another problem (and would make Bud Selig happy - although I'm loathe to do that because I think that no commisioner has made as many blunders as he has, but that's a topic for another day). Contraction. This is definitely a sensitive topic, but in some cases it seems necessary - and it would help to bring balance to the leagues.
The first team to go is obvious (in fact, it should have been an obvious mistake to add the team in the first place). Who ever thought that it would be a good idea to have not one, but two major league teams in the state of Florida. One has to go, and no it's not the Marlins like Selig first suggested a couple of years ago, because you just can't contract a team that has had such success making the playoffs (and they've won two of the last eight World Series!) Clearly, the Devil Rays should be contracted due to poor attendance numbers, even worse team success and relatively ridiculous payroll.
The most logical other team to contract is the Colorado Rockies, whose attendance numbers have been declining steadily the past few years, and who haven’t made the playoffs (or even come close) in many years. The other possibility is the Milwaukee Brewers, who have not had much success at the gates or in the standings, or the Minnesota Twins, except they make the playoffs year after year. There are other teams showing equally bad numbers – such as the Pittsburgh Pirates – but whose history is too great to even consider contracting them.
If indeed you do contract Tampa Bay and Colorado, then all you'd have to do is move the Brewers to the AL East, and you'd have 14 teams per league. To make it even more paralleled, move the Astros to the NL West (to be across from the Rangers in the AL West) and move the Twins to the AL West (to be across from the D'Backs). The natural interleague rivalries would then look like this, split up by division:
NL – AL East
New York – New York
Atlanta – Boston
Washington – Baltimore
Philadelphia – Toronto
Florida – Milwaukee
NL – AL Central
Chicago – Chicago
St. Louis – Kansas City
Cincinnati – Cleveland
Pittsburgh – Detroit
NL – AL West
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
San Francisco – Oakland
San Diego – Seattle
Arizona – Minnesota
Houston – Texas
The NL Central would get to have only four in their division after so many years of having six. And no more disparity. Interleague, that is...
Friday, June 24, 2005
As interleague play in baseball starts up again this weekend ("The Rivalries: Part II"), we get to see clearly the disparity in the rivalries we are presented with. Sure, everybody loves the Subway Series and the North vs. South side of Chicago. But Kansas City vs. Colorado? C'mon.
Yes, a lot has been written and said about this. Some have suggested scrapping interleague play entirely, especially the "purists". (We know that's never going to happen, because it's a success both in the ratings and at the box office.) There's also the problem of having some teams having less interleague games because of having 16 teams in the NL and 14 in the AL. So, how to have a consistent system across the board where every team has a rivalry that they can count on and sink their teeth into? I think I've got a simple solution - on paper at least.
Okay, let's start off by listing the give-ins. There are nine natural regional rivalries:
New York – New York
Chicago – Chicago
Cincinnati – Cleveland
St. Louis – Kansas City
Houston – Texas
San Francisco – Oakland
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
Washington – Baltimore
Florida – Tampa Bay
Most of these have been maintained (although not all due to some of the issues above). Now that leaves 12 teams, and let's see if we can't naturally align them.
From a strict geographic point-of-view the following would make the most sense:
Pittsburgh – Toronto (Cross Lake Erie)
Philadelphia – Boston (Just take I-95)
Atlanta – Detroit (Just take I-75)
Milwaukee – Minnesota (Just take I-94)
San Diego – Seattle (Just take I-5)
Arizona – Colorado (They're diagonally adjacent states)
But the first six are neither close enough nor far enough to and from each other that you can easily pair any two if you can find more compelling reasons for a "rivalry". Same thing for the latter six. So are there more natural and compelling "rivalries"? Indeed...
Atlanta – Boston seems to be the most obvious, because of the "Braves" angle. Some have argued that the "Braves" used to be in Milwaukee too, so why not Atlanta – Milwaukee. Well, for one, the franchise started in Boston, not Milwaukee. And they were still in Boston when they first became the "Braves" in 1912 and were also in Boston when they became the "Braves" for good in 1941. The connection there is much stronger. So, no more Philadelphia vs. Boston or Atlanta vs. Baltimore. Let's stick with the natural "Braves" rivalry!
Speaking of Philadelphia, the most obvious rivalry for them (at least to me) would be against Toronto. Toronto you say? Well, now that Montreal is gone, it leaves them without their most natural regional rivalry. But Philadelphia – Toronto are fairly close, and there's more to it than that. Toronto's most recent World Series was against the Phillies, and there have also been some good playoff meetings recently between the two cities in the NBA and the NHL. A little bit weak? Okay, how about this somewhat obscure fact? The Phillies were actually called the "Blue Jays" for 2 seasons before 1945 when they became the "Phillies" for good. So clearly we've got a natural "Blue Jays" rivalry!
That leaves Pittsburgh – Detroit on the Eastern side of the country, two of the teams with the longest histories in the league. In fact, fans of the teams can debate on which of the two teams-who-have-been-in-the-same-city-and-had-the-same-team-name-for-the-longest is the best! The Pirates have been in Pittsburgh since 1891 and the Tigers in Detroit since 1901.
Now to the Western side, San Diego – Seattle has been the rivalry of choice by the league for these two cities, and I can't really argue with that. San Diego is the "odd city out" in California, and Seattle's the lonely city in the Northwest. But they do have some things in common. They're both on the Pacific coast, both very close to international borders; Mexico and Canada, respectively, and they both start with the letter S...
Next, Arizona – Minnesota has a nice ring to it, not to mention the similarities in team colors. 'Zona vs. 'Sota. 'Nuff said.
Lastly, and this may be the most natural rivalry of all, Milwaukee – Colorado. Why's that you ask? Beer! You've got Miller vs. Coors. Whose city is the better beer producer. And if there's one thing that associates well with baseball fans at ballgames, it's the brew! (Remember what Homer said when he attended a game during his month without beer and was the only one not drinking: "I never realized how boring this game is." Of course, we don't really believe that... do we?)
But here's the key. Although both of those teams are in the NL, we can make it a pseudo interleague rivalry, by making the Brewers the designated AL team. They came from the AL at the last expansion anyway, so they shouldn't have a problem with that. Or, they can alternate between being the designated AL team. With the air up there in Colorado and the scores that are usually put up at the ballpark, you'd think they were in the AL anyway.
So there you have it. Natural rivalries across the board. Who can argue with that? (Feel free to argue with it.)
Yes, a lot has been written and said about this. Some have suggested scrapping interleague play entirely, especially the "purists". (We know that's never going to happen, because it's a success both in the ratings and at the box office.) There's also the problem of having some teams having less interleague games because of having 16 teams in the NL and 14 in the AL. So, how to have a consistent system across the board where every team has a rivalry that they can count on and sink their teeth into? I think I've got a simple solution - on paper at least.
Okay, let's start off by listing the give-ins. There are nine natural regional rivalries:
New York – New York
Chicago – Chicago
Cincinnati – Cleveland
St. Louis – Kansas City
Houston – Texas
San Francisco – Oakland
Los Angeles – Los Angeles/Anaheim
Washington – Baltimore
Florida – Tampa Bay
Most of these have been maintained (although not all due to some of the issues above). Now that leaves 12 teams, and let's see if we can't naturally align them.
From a strict geographic point-of-view the following would make the most sense:
Pittsburgh – Toronto (Cross Lake Erie)
Philadelphia – Boston (Just take I-95)
Atlanta – Detroit (Just take I-75)
Milwaukee – Minnesota (Just take I-94)
San Diego – Seattle (Just take I-5)
Arizona – Colorado (They're diagonally adjacent states)
But the first six are neither close enough nor far enough to and from each other that you can easily pair any two if you can find more compelling reasons for a "rivalry". Same thing for the latter six. So are there more natural and compelling "rivalries"? Indeed...
Atlanta – Boston seems to be the most obvious, because of the "Braves" angle. Some have argued that the "Braves" used to be in Milwaukee too, so why not Atlanta – Milwaukee. Well, for one, the franchise started in Boston, not Milwaukee. And they were still in Boston when they first became the "Braves" in 1912 and were also in Boston when they became the "Braves" for good in 1941. The connection there is much stronger. So, no more Philadelphia vs. Boston or Atlanta vs. Baltimore. Let's stick with the natural "Braves" rivalry!
Speaking of Philadelphia, the most obvious rivalry for them (at least to me) would be against Toronto. Toronto you say? Well, now that Montreal is gone, it leaves them without their most natural regional rivalry. But Philadelphia – Toronto are fairly close, and there's more to it than that. Toronto's most recent World Series was against the Phillies, and there have also been some good playoff meetings recently between the two cities in the NBA and the NHL. A little bit weak? Okay, how about this somewhat obscure fact? The Phillies were actually called the "Blue Jays" for 2 seasons before 1945 when they became the "Phillies" for good. So clearly we've got a natural "Blue Jays" rivalry!
That leaves Pittsburgh – Detroit on the Eastern side of the country, two of the teams with the longest histories in the league. In fact, fans of the teams can debate on which of the two teams-who-have-been-in-the-same-city-and-had-the-same-team-name-for-the-longest is the best! The Pirates have been in Pittsburgh since 1891 and the Tigers in Detroit since 1901.
Now to the Western side, San Diego – Seattle has been the rivalry of choice by the league for these two cities, and I can't really argue with that. San Diego is the "odd city out" in California, and Seattle's the lonely city in the Northwest. But they do have some things in common. They're both on the Pacific coast, both very close to international borders; Mexico and Canada, respectively, and they both start with the letter S...
Next, Arizona – Minnesota has a nice ring to it, not to mention the similarities in team colors. 'Zona vs. 'Sota. 'Nuff said.
Lastly, and this may be the most natural rivalry of all, Milwaukee – Colorado. Why's that you ask? Beer! You've got Miller vs. Coors. Whose city is the better beer producer. And if there's one thing that associates well with baseball fans at ballgames, it's the brew! (Remember what Homer said when he attended a game during his month without beer and was the only one not drinking: "I never realized how boring this game is." Of course, we don't really believe that... do we?)
But here's the key. Although both of those teams are in the NL, we can make it a pseudo interleague rivalry, by making the Brewers the designated AL team. They came from the AL at the last expansion anyway, so they shouldn't have a problem with that. Or, they can alternate between being the designated AL team. With the air up there in Colorado and the scores that are usually put up at the ballpark, you'd think they were in the AL anyway.
So there you have it. Natural rivalries across the board. Who can argue with that? (Feel free to argue with it.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)