All this delightful little porker needs to do is start beating the shit out of a few women and he'll be well on his way to being the next Chris Brown.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Awesome Music Week: The Bravery
I first heard them: On iTunes, after having it recommended to me by a smart computer
Would Side Bar like them?: maybe to no.
Would Open Bard like them?: no
Would LJT like them?: surprisingly, he's probably the most likely fan. But I'll still say probably not
The Bravery are another synthesizer based rock and roll slash new wave revival band. Lots of energy, good use of the synthesizer, very 80s throwback from the music to the wardrobe and everything. I really like them, but my guess is that none of my blogmates will really like them.
Interestingly for their second album they made two versions. First they put out a non new wave version called which was "The Sun" and then a few months later they remixed all the songs into sythesized versions and released bascially the same album and called in "The Moon". And so together their second album is "The Sun and The Moon".
This is really the only video I could find of them that I could embed into the page, although this song is kinda wack. I would suggest you check out An Honest Mistake off their first album. I like their second album much better, but there isn't even a good video to link to off their second album. It's sortof too bad because even though this is a band that you all may not like, I don't feel like these videos available accurately represent them.
Would Side Bar like them?: maybe to no.
Would Open Bard like them?: no
Would LJT like them?: surprisingly, he's probably the most likely fan. But I'll still say probably not
The Bravery are another synthesizer based rock and roll slash new wave revival band. Lots of energy, good use of the synthesizer, very 80s throwback from the music to the wardrobe and everything. I really like them, but my guess is that none of my blogmates will really like them.
Interestingly for their second album they made two versions. First they put out a non new wave version called which was "The Sun" and then a few months later they remixed all the songs into sythesized versions and released bascially the same album and called in "The Moon". And so together their second album is "The Sun and The Moon".
This is really the only video I could find of them that I could embed into the page, although this song is kinda wack. I would suggest you check out An Honest Mistake off their first album. I like their second album much better, but there isn't even a good video to link to off their second album. It's sortof too bad because even though this is a band that you all may not like, I don't feel like these videos available accurately represent them.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Awesome Music Week: Phoenix
I first heard them: Last week on Saturday Night Live
Would Side Bar like them?: possibly
Would Open Bar like them?: probably not, it's a little new wave-ish
Would LJT like them?: Since the default is no, we'll go with that.
Bonus Guess, Would WinIt like them?: Indubitably. If there were a party at his place, this would be on the playlist before the party would be canceled.
(Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a debate raging among grammerians as to whether canceled is spelled with one or two L's? It seems like it should be two, but for some reason, one L seems to be the technically proper use. Both are acceptable in Microsoft Word. It's kinda strange.)
There's a thin line between real good band and a bunch of douchebags, and Phoenix toes that line really well. There's a real possibility that I'd be the only of the four of us who'd like this band. These gies have what some might deem strikes against even before any songs play. First of all they're from France. Secondly they have a real distinct 80s laid back pop sound. You can almost imagine them with huge hair and androgenous clothes jumping around on the stage. Despite that fact, however, I'm really digging on them in the last week or so. I've basically spent the last week listening to a lot of these gies along with our last two entrants, Glasvegas and the Ting Tings.
This particular band just seems to hit me in a sweet spot. Really mellow vibe, catchy tunes, the singer has a cool voice. And they use their synthesizer really well. It's not overused, as is probably the temptation, but it really adds to every song. Phoenix seems to me like the type of band that would really appeal to people under the influence of mind altering substances. I can't really say this for sure, but for some reason they just throw off that kindof vibe to me. This band has actually been around for a long time. They released their first album in 2000, I believe, and actually have 4 albums all together. Their first couple records are not as great as their more recent efforts, in my opinion. They really seem to have grown into their sound. This song posted below, 1901, represents everything that is good about them. Kick back, put your feet up, and break out your phat nug if you're still into that sort of thing, because you'll need it.
Would Side Bar like them?: possibly
Would Open Bar like them?: probably not, it's a little new wave-ish
Would LJT like them?: Since the default is no, we'll go with that.
Bonus Guess, Would WinIt like them?: Indubitably. If there were a party at his place, this would be on the playlist before the party would be canceled.
(Has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a debate raging among grammerians as to whether canceled is spelled with one or two L's? It seems like it should be two, but for some reason, one L seems to be the technically proper use. Both are acceptable in Microsoft Word. It's kinda strange.)
There's a thin line between real good band and a bunch of douchebags, and Phoenix toes that line really well. There's a real possibility that I'd be the only of the four of us who'd like this band. These gies have what some might deem strikes against even before any songs play. First of all they're from France. Secondly they have a real distinct 80s laid back pop sound. You can almost imagine them with huge hair and androgenous clothes jumping around on the stage. Despite that fact, however, I'm really digging on them in the last week or so. I've basically spent the last week listening to a lot of these gies along with our last two entrants, Glasvegas and the Ting Tings.
This particular band just seems to hit me in a sweet spot. Really mellow vibe, catchy tunes, the singer has a cool voice. And they use their synthesizer really well. It's not overused, as is probably the temptation, but it really adds to every song. Phoenix seems to me like the type of band that would really appeal to people under the influence of mind altering substances. I can't really say this for sure, but for some reason they just throw off that kindof vibe to me. This band has actually been around for a long time. They released their first album in 2000, I believe, and actually have 4 albums all together. Their first couple records are not as great as their more recent efforts, in my opinion. They really seem to have grown into their sound. This song posted below, 1901, represents everything that is good about them. Kick back, put your feet up, and break out your phat nug if you're still into that sort of thing, because you'll need it.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Awesome Music Week: Glasvegas
I first heard them: Last week on the Jimmy Fallon show. Maybe it was the week before.
Would Side Bar like them?: Yes.
Would Open Bar like them?: Yes.
Would LJT like them?: Actually, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes.
Glasvegas is just a fucking rock and roll band from Glsgow, Scotland. The "fucking" was definitely necessary in that last sentence, lest you were wondering. The absolute best part about this band is that the guy sings with a phatty Scottish brogue on every song and it's great. In addition to that, though, the songs are really good.
What I love about this band is that you kindof get glimpses of their influences, but you really can't say that it sounds particularly like anyone else. Part of it is the accent that the gie sings with, but just when you think it's about to get derivative, it goes and switches it up a little bit. The sound of the band is not groundbreaking or drastically different or anything like that, but in an era when other gies are trying to reinvent the wheel, Glasvegas is just coming out and kicking ass.
I genuinely believe this is the one band that all of you gies would like.
Would Side Bar like them?: Yes.
Would Open Bar like them?: Yes.
Would LJT like them?: Actually, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes.
Glasvegas is just a fucking rock and roll band from Glsgow, Scotland. The "fucking" was definitely necessary in that last sentence, lest you were wondering. The absolute best part about this band is that the guy sings with a phatty Scottish brogue on every song and it's great. In addition to that, though, the songs are really good.
What I love about this band is that you kindof get glimpses of their influences, but you really can't say that it sounds particularly like anyone else. Part of it is the accent that the gie sings with, but just when you think it's about to get derivative, it goes and switches it up a little bit. The sound of the band is not groundbreaking or drastically different or anything like that, but in an era when other gies are trying to reinvent the wheel, Glasvegas is just coming out and kicking ass.
I genuinely believe this is the one band that all of you gies would like.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Awesome Music Week: The Ting Tings
I first heard them: Like two weeks ago on the Jimmy Fallon Show
Would Side Bar like them?: ahhh, perhaps not
Would Open Bar like them?: almost certainly
Would LJT like them?: Obviously since it's not ultra-legendary classic rock or nascent rap, then he would not
Ok, the Ting Tings fucking rock. I know I've said that at least two out of three of our other authors probably wouldn't like them, but that's just because they're malcontents who don't have open minds. This album, We Started Nothing, by the Ting Tings is just super retro punk pop. The album is just super duper fun, has slamming bass beats, and can't help but remind you of Blondie. It weaves between punk and pop, harkens back to some disco, and skips over that new wave thing that apparently Open Bar doesn't love like I do.
Listening to this album is like being lifted up for about 45 minutes and floating around for a while and then being put gently back down. I've had the album for about a week now and I've listened to it a ton despite the fact that I've also bought a lot of other music in that time. Who are the Ting Tings? You may recognize them from such songs as "That's Not My Name" which is currently getting some play or from that iPod commercial a little while back with "Shut Up and Let Me Go". Anyway, I love this record. I love the one wave of energy that starts with the first track and never lets up.
...and the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums.
Would Side Bar like them?: ahhh, perhaps not
Would Open Bar like them?: almost certainly
Would LJT like them?: Obviously since it's not ultra-legendary classic rock or nascent rap, then he would not
Ok, the Ting Tings fucking rock. I know I've said that at least two out of three of our other authors probably wouldn't like them, but that's just because they're malcontents who don't have open minds. This album, We Started Nothing, by the Ting Tings is just super retro punk pop. The album is just super duper fun, has slamming bass beats, and can't help but remind you of Blondie. It weaves between punk and pop, harkens back to some disco, and skips over that new wave thing that apparently Open Bar doesn't love like I do.
Listening to this album is like being lifted up for about 45 minutes and floating around for a while and then being put gently back down. I've had the album for about a week now and I've listened to it a ton despite the fact that I've also bought a lot of other music in that time. Who are the Ting Tings? You may recognize them from such songs as "That's Not My Name" which is currently getting some play or from that iPod commercial a little while back with "Shut Up and Let Me Go". Anyway, I love this record. I love the one wave of energy that starts with the first track and never lets up.
...and the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums, the drums.
Playing Baseball With the Monte Carlo Method
This article in the New York Times about using computer simulations to model scenarios in baseball games is really interesting. In essence, rather than try to come up with an ubercomplicated statistical model to predict outcomes, some gies just write a computer simulation program and then model like 100 or 1,000 or even 10,000 entire seasons in order to smooth out the stats and so forth. Now obviously all this depends on how good your simulator is, but since they've been around since the 1950s, I'm guessing they've made some headway in the field.
The most interesting part about this is that the guy who created one of the more well respected simulators is now employed by the Red Sox. I've got to say I'm really impressed by the Red Sox approach to the game. They also employ the guy who invented sabermetrics, which tries to accomplish the same thing as these simulators, but looks at the problem from a different perspective. I'm confident that all of this research affects the types of players that are currently on their roster, but I wonder how much of this actually gets onto the field in terms of strategy and lineups and such. Anyway, whoever decided to hire Theo and these other gies at the Red Sox was a foreward thinking dude.
I like math
The most interesting part about this is that the guy who created one of the more well respected simulators is now employed by the Red Sox. I've got to say I'm really impressed by the Red Sox approach to the game. They also employ the guy who invented sabermetrics, which tries to accomplish the same thing as these simulators, but looks at the problem from a different perspective. I'm confident that all of this research affects the types of players that are currently on their roster, but I wonder how much of this actually gets onto the field in terms of strategy and lineups and such. Anyway, whoever decided to hire Theo and these other gies at the Red Sox was a foreward thinking dude.
I like math
Monday, April 6, 2009
Awesome Music Week: Vampire Weekend
I've been tearing up iTunes recently downloading tons of music. I've discovered a bunch of music that isn't necessarily new to the world, but is new to me. At the same time, I've had a couple of discussions, with Side Bar in particular, about where I hear about new music or find new bands. Well, I've been making a real effort recently to find new music and such so I'm going to make a series of posts regarding this music and some notes and so forth.
It was over a year ago that I made a post about Arcade Fire being my new favorite band, and it was about two weeks ago that Side Bar says to me, "Chuck, I have to talk to you. I downloaded the Arcade Fire album and it's really good." My response was a civilized, "Fuck you." In that vein, I'm going to try to match some of these picks to our other authors in the hopes that maybe they'll take my advice.
Ok, here we go. Awesome music week.
Vampire Weekend
I first saw them: On Saturday Night Live in March of last year.
Would Side Bar like them?: He would love it over time.
Would Open Bar like them?: Yeah, I think so.
Would LJT like them?: LJT only likes the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and rap music produced between 1989-1995. So, no, he won't like any of this.
Ironically, I first encountered these guys within a couple of days of my posting about Arcade Fire. I say ironically becuase these guys are another of my favorites. They have only one album to date, but man is it great. Describing their music is moderately difficult in that it's really a fusion of pop music with some really interesting international influence. They've got interesting drum cadences, flute like instruments, strings all over the place, and all sorts of strange and exciting energy. Their music makes you think of Paul Simon's Graceland given the obvious international influence except with a bit more vigor.
Another thing that makes these guys awesome is that they formed when they were all students at Columbia. So that's cool. I only bring that up because the lyrics of a lot of their songs are really New York-centric. They also really play up an image of a bunch of preppy WASP kids, but it seems clear that it's more of a parody. Many of their songs, however, are also about summering in Cape Cod and things of that nature.
Here's a sample for you. I think this song, "M79" really exemplifies their style. This isn't a music video, which is good, since their videos are actually kinda wack, especially in relation to the goodness of their songs. I've seen them perform on TV several times and they play with a lot of energy and get the crown hyped up and their videos really don't relay what I think is great about them.
It was over a year ago that I made a post about Arcade Fire being my new favorite band, and it was about two weeks ago that Side Bar says to me, "Chuck, I have to talk to you. I downloaded the Arcade Fire album and it's really good." My response was a civilized, "Fuck you." In that vein, I'm going to try to match some of these picks to our other authors in the hopes that maybe they'll take my advice.
Ok, here we go. Awesome music week.
Vampire Weekend
I first saw them: On Saturday Night Live in March of last year.
Would Side Bar like them?: He would love it over time.
Would Open Bar like them?: Yeah, I think so.
Would LJT like them?: LJT only likes the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and rap music produced between 1989-1995. So, no, he won't like any of this.
Ironically, I first encountered these guys within a couple of days of my posting about Arcade Fire. I say ironically becuase these guys are another of my favorites. They have only one album to date, but man is it great. Describing their music is moderately difficult in that it's really a fusion of pop music with some really interesting international influence. They've got interesting drum cadences, flute like instruments, strings all over the place, and all sorts of strange and exciting energy. Their music makes you think of Paul Simon's Graceland given the obvious international influence except with a bit more vigor.
Another thing that makes these guys awesome is that they formed when they were all students at Columbia. So that's cool. I only bring that up because the lyrics of a lot of their songs are really New York-centric. They also really play up an image of a bunch of preppy WASP kids, but it seems clear that it's more of a parody. Many of their songs, however, are also about summering in Cape Cod and things of that nature.
Here's a sample for you. I think this song, "M79" really exemplifies their style. This isn't a music video, which is good, since their videos are actually kinda wack, especially in relation to the goodness of their songs. I've seen them perform on TV several times and they play with a lot of energy and get the crown hyped up and their videos really don't relay what I think is great about them.
More dumb predictions!
Last night was Opening Day for the 2009 baseball season, with the hated Braves topping the even-more-hated Phillies, 4-1. And on the heels of my incredibly prescient NCAA Tournament picks, I figured I'd throw out some more evidence here that humans cannot and should not predict the future.
NL East:
1. Mets
2. Phillies
3. Marlins
4. Braves
5. Nats
I'm fairly confident in my Nats placement; the others, not so much. This division should be a tight race all year, with the eventual winner maybe reaching only 88 wins or so. The top four teams are all good, but all have serious question marks. The improved Mets bullpen gives them the edge over the Phils, who have too many important players likely to downslide this year (Brad Lidge, Ryan "Mr. Overrated" Howard, Raul Ibanez, definitely Cole Hamels, who threw waaaaaay too many innings last year). The Braves season will depend on Larry Wayne Jones not getting hurt, which is like relying on Lucy not to move the football at the last second just this one time! The Marlins have a lot of young talent, but no one really knows how good most of them will play at this level. This team could possibly chase the wild card or battle the Nats for the cellar, depending on whether these kids can play or not.
NL Central:
1. Cubs
2. Cardinals
3. Brewers
4. Reds
5. Astros
6. Pirates
The Cubs' and Pirates' picks seem fairly secure, as Chicago is probably the NL's best team and the Pirates its worst. I think the Cards are due for a bump up this year, with Albert Pujols (somehow) still getting better and a returning Chris Carpenter. Granted, Carpenter's a huge mystery, but if he can approach his 2004-06 level (which is a lot to ask), he could make a huge difference. The Brewers lost C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets, which is too much quality starting pitching for even Prince Fielder, J.J. Hardy and (my dark horse MVP candidate) Ryan Braun to make up for. Braun may turn into the best hitter in the league if continues to improve at this rate (and someone offs Pujols). The Reds could surprise everyone and possibly even snatch the Wild Card if absolutely everything falls into place. They have an awesome young corps (Volquez, Votto, Bruce) who could break out, and if Harang and Arroyo can rediscover their past form, look out. Then again, they also have the worst hitter in baseball (Willy Taveras). And I don't know much about the Astros except that Lance Berkman's a really good hitter, Roy Oswalt should demand a trade, and Carlos Lee should ease up on the cheeseburgers.
NL West
1. Dodgers
2. Diamondbacks
3. Rockies
4. Giants
5. Padres
Again, the top pick was easy, so was the bottom, and the middle three are fairly interchangeable. I give the D-Backs the edge largely due to their dual aces, Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. But how will they score? They didn't re-sign Adam Dunn, and their top hitter, Mark Reynolds -- while knocking 28 dingers -- struck out 204 fucking times. Holy balls, that's a lot. The Rockies have an old guy who used to be awesome (Todd Helton), a few young guys who should become household names (Chris Iannetta, Troy Tulowitski), and one guy who looks like a steady, above-average player (Brad Hawpe); as for their pitching, it doesn't look good, with the only bright spot being Ubaldo Jimenez -- and he walked 103 guys last year. Yuck. The Giants added Randy Johnson so who cares I'm done writing about them. And poor Jake Peavy, stuck in San Diego with a team that wouldn't be able to score more than 1 or 2 runs against the 1990 TBO Just Video squad, which we all played on except Chuck who we wouldn't have wanted anyway.
AL East
1. Red Sox
2. Rays
3. yankees
4. Blue Jays
5. Orioles
The Red Sox pitching depth is astounding, and their lineup top to bottom is tough to beat. The best team in baseball, on paper at least. It's hard to see the Rays improving too much on last year's 97 wins, not in this division anyway. But they're probably the most fun team to watch, and if their younger players continue to improve, who knows how many they'll win. Picking the yanks third isn't out of bitterness; I really wonder whether Sabathia overthrew last year and whether his arm is shot for this year. A.J. Burnett has a recent injury history worthy of Larry Wayne Jones. Rivera (though still the man), Posada, Matsui, and Pettitte are all already old as fuck -- and that's "old" as in "for the earth," not for clubbing -- while Jeter and Damon are starting to downslide significantly. Teixeira is awesome, he could even win the MVP this year, but I don't think he'll be enough. The poor BJ's and Orioles don't have a chance, and who knows if they ever will. Then again, that's what everyone used to say about the Rays.
AL Central:
1. Indians
2. Twins
3. Royals
4. Tigers
5. White Sox
This division blows. A team here could tally only 85 wins and still take it. Which makes it kind of interesting I guess. Hey, the friggin' Royals might steal this thing, and they haven't won shit since Side Bar and I were on Cedar Lane Texaco. I don't feel like getting into this division too much, except to say that Cleveland's Grady Sizemore is one of the best players in baseball, but people don't know too much about him because:
1. A's
2. Mariners
3. Angels
4. Rangers
You know what I said about the AL Central sucking? Ditto here. I feel like 87-88 wins will DEFINITELY claim this division, and it could be any of those top three. The A's starting rotation's average age is under 24, which sounds like they'll deal with some high-ups and low-downs this year. Matt Holliday was a great pickup, and I'd say the same about adding Nomar and Giambi if this were like eight years ago. The Mariners, with Endy Chavez, Franklin Gutierrez, and Ichiro, now have by far the best outfield in baseball -- which makes you wonder if Griffey will get any non-DH time. (He shouldn't.) The Angels have some bigger names and somehow they seem to get really lucky every year, but their top 3 starters are hurt right now and I hate the friggin' Angels especially Mike Scoscia so fuck him. The Rangers? Wow do they suck.
Odd notes:
One thing I'm interested to see this year is how the two leagues stack up during interleague play. The past few seasons, the AL has demolished the NL, but this year may be different. Sure, the three best teams in baseball (Red Sox, Rays, yankees) are all in the AL, but after that, there's a serious dropoff in quality. I'm not saying the NL will catch up entirely this year, but it seems as though the pendulum has at least started to swing back.
Quickly, on the Mets: It's quite strange following last year's horror to say that the part of this year's team I'm most confident in is the bullpen, but there you have it. That's also the biggest problem: What I'm most worried about is the guys who actually play 90 percent of the game -- the hitters and the starting pitchers. Sure, Johan, D-Dub, Reyes and Beltran are as close to locks as anyone, but after that is nothing but question marks (Maine, Pelfrey, Delgado, Church, Murphy), outright worries (Perez), and guys who fucking suck (Livan, Castillo, Schneider). Maybe it'll come together, who knows, but especially after the last two years, it's on those assholes to prove that they're worth the irrational amount of attention and emotion I squander every goddamn year. FUCKING WIN, JERKOFFS!
Also, this year bodes well for some wild and crazy trading, even before the July 31 deadline. With the recession, many small-market teams are gonna end up dumping salary, and fast if they're not doing well early. The Mets certainly need more bats and, especially, arms, but I just worry that they emptied the farm system last year to get Johan (which certainly wasn't a mistake, mind). Basically, if you're making a bunch of money playing for a team that isn't contending and/or located in New York, Boston, Chicago, or L.A., you will likely be on the trading block. I'll bet that most team rosters look far more different at the end of this year than they would had the recession not destroyed most teams' economic prospects.
With that last point in mind, it's particularly dumb to make these sorts of predictions this year, as we have no idea what players are going to play for which teams in six months. But I did it anyway, and if you're still reading all the way down here, dude, go outside. Live a little.
Award predictions:
It's always really stupid to do this, but what the hell.
NL MVP: Manny Ramirez (maybe: Ryan Braun)
NL Cy Young: Johan Santana (dark horse: Derek Lowe, dude looked sick last night)
NL Rookie: Jordan Schafer (homered in his first at-bat last night)
Best Pennant Race: East
AL MVP: Grady Sizemore (maybe: Mark Teixeira)
AL Cy Young: Scott Kazmir, because God hates the Mets (dark horse: one of the kids on the A's)
AL Rookie: Matt Wieters (this kid, the new catcher for the Orioles, is the next big star in MLB)
Best Pennant Race: East
Not to be an east-coast-bias guy, but the quality teams in both leagues seem saturated in the East divisions (Cubs and Dodgers excepted), which isn't to say that the other four divisions won't be close. It's just that -- at this point -- the teams aren't as good overall, so I'll be less interested in watching.
Post-season:
NL:
Division Series: Mets over Dodgers, Cubs over Phillies
NLCS: Mets over Cubs
AL:
Division Series: Red Sox over A's, Rays over Indians
ALCS: Red Sox over Rays
World Series:
Red Sox over Mets, with me slitting my wrists at how the Mets manage to blow a 3-1 series lead. ARGH!
NL East:
1. Mets
2. Phillies
3. Marlins
4. Braves
5. Nats
I'm fairly confident in my Nats placement; the others, not so much. This division should be a tight race all year, with the eventual winner maybe reaching only 88 wins or so. The top four teams are all good, but all have serious question marks. The improved Mets bullpen gives them the edge over the Phils, who have too many important players likely to downslide this year (Brad Lidge, Ryan "Mr. Overrated" Howard, Raul Ibanez, definitely Cole Hamels, who threw waaaaaay too many innings last year). The Braves season will depend on Larry Wayne Jones not getting hurt, which is like relying on Lucy not to move the football at the last second just this one time! The Marlins have a lot of young talent, but no one really knows how good most of them will play at this level. This team could possibly chase the wild card or battle the Nats for the cellar, depending on whether these kids can play or not.
NL Central:
1. Cubs
2. Cardinals
3. Brewers
4. Reds
5. Astros
6. Pirates
The Cubs' and Pirates' picks seem fairly secure, as Chicago is probably the NL's best team and the Pirates its worst. I think the Cards are due for a bump up this year, with Albert Pujols (somehow) still getting better and a returning Chris Carpenter. Granted, Carpenter's a huge mystery, but if he can approach his 2004-06 level (which is a lot to ask), he could make a huge difference. The Brewers lost C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets, which is too much quality starting pitching for even Prince Fielder, J.J. Hardy and (my dark horse MVP candidate) Ryan Braun to make up for. Braun may turn into the best hitter in the league if continues to improve at this rate (and someone offs Pujols). The Reds could surprise everyone and possibly even snatch the Wild Card if absolutely everything falls into place. They have an awesome young corps (Volquez, Votto, Bruce) who could break out, and if Harang and Arroyo can rediscover their past form, look out. Then again, they also have the worst hitter in baseball (Willy Taveras). And I don't know much about the Astros except that Lance Berkman's a really good hitter, Roy Oswalt should demand a trade, and Carlos Lee should ease up on the cheeseburgers.
NL West
1. Dodgers
2. Diamondbacks
3. Rockies
4. Giants
5. Padres
Again, the top pick was easy, so was the bottom, and the middle three are fairly interchangeable. I give the D-Backs the edge largely due to their dual aces, Brandon Webb and Dan Haren. But how will they score? They didn't re-sign Adam Dunn, and their top hitter, Mark Reynolds -- while knocking 28 dingers -- struck out 204 fucking times. Holy balls, that's a lot. The Rockies have an old guy who used to be awesome (Todd Helton), a few young guys who should become household names (Chris Iannetta, Troy Tulowitski), and one guy who looks like a steady, above-average player (Brad Hawpe); as for their pitching, it doesn't look good, with the only bright spot being Ubaldo Jimenez -- and he walked 103 guys last year. Yuck. The Giants added Randy Johnson so who cares I'm done writing about them. And poor Jake Peavy, stuck in San Diego with a team that wouldn't be able to score more than 1 or 2 runs against the 1990 TBO Just Video squad, which we all played on except Chuck who we wouldn't have wanted anyway.
AL East
1. Red Sox
2. Rays
3. yankees
4. Blue Jays
5. Orioles
The Red Sox pitching depth is astounding, and their lineup top to bottom is tough to beat. The best team in baseball, on paper at least. It's hard to see the Rays improving too much on last year's 97 wins, not in this division anyway. But they're probably the most fun team to watch, and if their younger players continue to improve, who knows how many they'll win. Picking the yanks third isn't out of bitterness; I really wonder whether Sabathia overthrew last year and whether his arm is shot for this year. A.J. Burnett has a recent injury history worthy of Larry Wayne Jones. Rivera (though still the man), Posada, Matsui, and Pettitte are all already old as fuck -- and that's "old" as in "for the earth," not for clubbing -- while Jeter and Damon are starting to downslide significantly. Teixeira is awesome, he could even win the MVP this year, but I don't think he'll be enough. The poor BJ's and Orioles don't have a chance, and who knows if they ever will. Then again, that's what everyone used to say about the Rays.
AL Central:
1. Indians
2. Twins
3. Royals
4. Tigers
5. White Sox
This division blows. A team here could tally only 85 wins and still take it. Which makes it kind of interesting I guess. Hey, the friggin' Royals might steal this thing, and they haven't won shit since Side Bar and I were on Cedar Lane Texaco. I don't feel like getting into this division too much, except to say that Cleveland's Grady Sizemore is one of the best players in baseball, but people don't know too much about him because:
- He plays in a small market.
- He hasn't hit .300 yet, and sports journalists still think that's more important than OPS-ing .876 while being one of the best center-fielders in the world.
- His dumbass manager still bats him leadoff, even though he clocked 33 dingers last year. This keeps his RBI total (another way-overrated stat) below 100, and thus beyond the notice of Joe Sportswriter.
1. A's
2. Mariners
3. Angels
4. Rangers
You know what I said about the AL Central sucking? Ditto here. I feel like 87-88 wins will DEFINITELY claim this division, and it could be any of those top three. The A's starting rotation's average age is under 24, which sounds like they'll deal with some high-ups and low-downs this year. Matt Holliday was a great pickup, and I'd say the same about adding Nomar and Giambi if this were like eight years ago. The Mariners, with Endy Chavez, Franklin Gutierrez, and Ichiro, now have by far the best outfield in baseball -- which makes you wonder if Griffey will get any non-DH time. (He shouldn't.) The Angels have some bigger names and somehow they seem to get really lucky every year, but their top 3 starters are hurt right now and I hate the friggin' Angels especially Mike Scoscia so fuck him. The Rangers? Wow do they suck.
Odd notes:
One thing I'm interested to see this year is how the two leagues stack up during interleague play. The past few seasons, the AL has demolished the NL, but this year may be different. Sure, the three best teams in baseball (Red Sox, Rays, yankees) are all in the AL, but after that, there's a serious dropoff in quality. I'm not saying the NL will catch up entirely this year, but it seems as though the pendulum has at least started to swing back.
Quickly, on the Mets: It's quite strange following last year's horror to say that the part of this year's team I'm most confident in is the bullpen, but there you have it. That's also the biggest problem: What I'm most worried about is the guys who actually play 90 percent of the game -- the hitters and the starting pitchers. Sure, Johan, D-Dub, Reyes and Beltran are as close to locks as anyone, but after that is nothing but question marks (Maine, Pelfrey, Delgado, Church, Murphy), outright worries (Perez), and guys who fucking suck (Livan, Castillo, Schneider). Maybe it'll come together, who knows, but especially after the last two years, it's on those assholes to prove that they're worth the irrational amount of attention and emotion I squander every goddamn year. FUCKING WIN, JERKOFFS!
Also, this year bodes well for some wild and crazy trading, even before the July 31 deadline. With the recession, many small-market teams are gonna end up dumping salary, and fast if they're not doing well early. The Mets certainly need more bats and, especially, arms, but I just worry that they emptied the farm system last year to get Johan (which certainly wasn't a mistake, mind). Basically, if you're making a bunch of money playing for a team that isn't contending and/or located in New York, Boston, Chicago, or L.A., you will likely be on the trading block. I'll bet that most team rosters look far more different at the end of this year than they would had the recession not destroyed most teams' economic prospects.
With that last point in mind, it's particularly dumb to make these sorts of predictions this year, as we have no idea what players are going to play for which teams in six months. But I did it anyway, and if you're still reading all the way down here, dude, go outside. Live a little.
Award predictions:
It's always really stupid to do this, but what the hell.
NL MVP: Manny Ramirez (maybe: Ryan Braun)
NL Cy Young: Johan Santana (dark horse: Derek Lowe, dude looked sick last night)
NL Rookie: Jordan Schafer (homered in his first at-bat last night)
Best Pennant Race: East
AL MVP: Grady Sizemore (maybe: Mark Teixeira)
AL Cy Young: Scott Kazmir, because God hates the Mets (dark horse: one of the kids on the A's)
AL Rookie: Matt Wieters (this kid, the new catcher for the Orioles, is the next big star in MLB)
Best Pennant Race: East
Not to be an east-coast-bias guy, but the quality teams in both leagues seem saturated in the East divisions (Cubs and Dodgers excepted), which isn't to say that the other four divisions won't be close. It's just that -- at this point -- the teams aren't as good overall, so I'll be less interested in watching.
Post-season:
NL:
Division Series: Mets over Dodgers, Cubs over Phillies
NLCS: Mets over Cubs
AL:
Division Series: Red Sox over A's, Rays over Indians
ALCS: Red Sox over Rays
World Series:
Red Sox over Mets, with me slitting my wrists at how the Mets manage to blow a 3-1 series lead. ARGH!
Friday, April 3, 2009
The end of an ERa
How's that for clever titling? Get it? Because the post is about the last episode of ER? With the capital E and the R....for ER.....get it?Anyway, last night was the last episode of ER and I felt some small need to post about it. I mean, I don't think there wasn't a time for any of us when ER wasn't required viewing. Of course, that time may have been 1996, but still, I'm kinda sad to see it go. Incidentally, which show do you think won the "Chicago hospital drama war" between ER and Chicago Hope?
Circa 2005, I wrote a post about how I had started watching ER again. I've been watching it since then, and I have to say the show was still really engaging into its 15th season. After having taken a few years off from ER and then picking it up again, I feel like this is one of the better shows in television history.
I mean, I could go on and on about how good this show is and, now that it's off the air, I'm sure people would agree with me, but there are really a couple of things I want to highlight. First is that the one thing I can say with certainty about ER is that it was really consistent. ER is the Derek Jeter of TV shows. Second is that they essentially turned that cast over every 5 years or so and still managed to keep the show interesting and entertaining and engaged in the new characters.
I don't want to bore anyone with recaps of the plot or anything like that, except to say that I was pretty happy with the whole last season, which essentially acted like a really long last episode. And the last episode was a little bit of a departure in that it was basically an homage to the first episode, but that also was satisfying. Again, I know everyone else probably stopped watching ER in 1999, but I just felt it was worth mentioning.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What is the "Best Movie Ever"?
Not!The world will never agree on what the Best Movie Ever is, even though it's quite clear to me that the answer is "Back to the Future."
See? You're already saying, "What the fuck kind of choice is that?" You might choose "The Godfather," and you'd have a hell of a case. You might say "Casablanca," and only an idiot would immediately disqualify it. You might run into some guy who thinks "Turtle Diary" was good. Of course, if that last case were to happen, you'd be within your Constitutional rights to throat-punch him, then go to his house, burn it down, and kick his dog, but let's be reasonable.
The point is, questions like "What's the Best Movie Ever?" are inherently subjective, and therefore cannot be positively determined. What makes a movie "the best" or even "good" differs from person to person. If the question is "What's the most influential movie ever?" then you at least have some kind of parameter. But even then, "Birth of a Nation" (in which the KKK are the heroes) would be near the top, and you'd probably have to include something like "The Jazz Singer," which is godawful bad, but it was the first "talkie," thus making it influential as all hell.
But the idea of a "Best Movie Ever" is nonsense. You could take a vote or something, but since when is art democratic? And who would vote? Everyone who's ever seen a movie?
I think the best answer to "What's the Best Movie Ever?" is whatever your favorite movie is. If it's your favorite -- and I don't care if it's "Citizen Kane" or "Billy Madison" -- that's the Best Movie Ever as far as you're concerned. Which again proves my scientific theory that "Back to the Future" is, in fact, the Best Movie Ever.
Why "Back to the Future"? Because I love it more than the others, that's why. And if I had to qualify it somehow, I would say that it does just about everything well, in terms of what movies can do: Great characters (George McFly, Biff, Doc Fucking Brown, et al), a super-creative story (boy travels back in time only to have his future mother fall in love with him), great music (Huey Lewis and doo wop?!), ground-breaking special effects, memorable dialogue ("I am your density...I mean, your destiny."), tremendous action sequences (the skateboard chase ending in manure-on-Biff), emotionally touching moments (George and Laraine finally kiss, and Marty can play the guitar again!), an excellent ending ("Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."). What more could you want out of two hours?
But that's just me. If we were, for example, to vote on what this blog's Best Movie Ever is, my money would be on "The Princess Bride." After all, it has certain qualities even "Back to the Future" (BTTF) can't claim. Some of these are fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, and miracles – all good things for a movie. And yes, BTTF has fighting, chases, escapes, true love, and – if you're a strict laws-of-time-and-space guy – miracles. But while these qualities have the same name, those things occur very differently in each film. If I had organized this post better, I would have used that whole bit as evidence that voting on the Best Movie Ever doesn't make it so for, say, anyone else reading this.
I guess the point is that calling a piece of art – in this case, a movie – the Best Ever is a waste of time if you're actually serious about it. LJT and I have argued for years about the Best Rock Band Ever, with LJT claiming The Beatles and my saying Led Zeppelin, but I think we both enjoy the argument more than the “answer.” He isn't “right” and I'm not “right” (even though I'm right). I agree with him that the Beatles are more “influential,” and he agrees that Jimmy Page was the Best Guitarist of either group. We both agree that John was the Best Beatle, and we've both recently discovered a greater appreciation for how awesome Ringo was, but neither of us would say he was a better drummer than John Bonham.
I guess the joy is in the discussion, not the resolution. Someone else could enter the room and say that Keith Moon was better than John Bonham, or that "Goodfellas" is better than "The Godfather," or that Pepsi is better than Coke, or that Walter is funnier than The Jesus, or blah blah blah ...
It all boils down to the fact that there's no way to measure these things. “There's no accounting for taste” and all that. It differs from an argument over, say, who the Best Baseball Player Ever was. With baseball, you can examine what each player actually did. Records are kept, and they offer clear-cut evidence of performance. If you analyze that, you cannot say with intellectual honesty that the Best Baseball Player Ever was anyone but Babe Ruth. If you choose someone else – and you are free to do so – I can show you piles of evidence that you're wrong. Baseball players leave an observable and objective record of performance, which we can measure, unlike bands or movies or even pieces of candy (Snickers being the best).
Anyway, I know a lot of this is fairly obvious, but it's something I've thought a lot about and this is a blog and as a blogger I feel obligated to let it out here, in the hopes of generating discussion, of course. Hell, if Side Bar can list a bunch of restaurants in Teaneck and elicit all those thoughtful comments, I figure “What's the Best Movie Ever?” might work.
"Back to the Future" is the Best Movie Ever. Am I wrong to say that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)