John Smoltz looked good in his Cardinals debut, and Brad Penny is getting lit up like a Christmas tree, and will be skipped in the rotation, at least once. I questioned whether this was the right decision at the time because I didn't like the alternatives.
Now Smoltz is on the Cardinals, and he pitched very well, striking out 9 batters, including 7 in-a-row in his St. Louis debut. Is his remarkable 'resurgence' a factor of pitching against a weak Padres team (11th in the NL in scoring on the road), or was he really a better pitcher this season than his stats showed?
Smoltz departure didn't exactly generate tears in Beantown. To the contrary, I think most fans wanted him gone. He had not done what John Smoltz is supposed to do: dominate the opposition, or at minimum, keep the Sox in the game.
But as I wrote previously, his periphiral numbers (Ks, BBs, HRs) were in line with his fine 2007 season, except for greater tendency to give up the long ball, but that had stopped in his last few starts with Boston. Erik Manning at Fangraphs thinks Smoltz is far from done.
The Red Sox should have kept Smoltz, and not just because of this gem against San Diego. They should have kept him because, even if he's old, he had pitched well last season and his results were very likely to change for the better. And without great alternatives (one-pitch Penny, a 23-year-old with only indepent league Japanese experience, and a host of other young arms), there was no reason to terminate the relationship so quickly. If the Sox miss the playoffs by a game or two, this is a decision that could haunt Theo & Co.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
How long was Groundhog Day?
The Wolf Gnards blog digs into just how long Bill Murray's character relived the same day in the awesome movie Groundhog Day. (Beware: this is only for us geeks). Great analysis on a question I've pondered many time.
My take? Twenty-seven years, like the original script called for. I don't think it could have been much less.
My take? Twenty-seven years, like the original script called for. I don't think it could have been much less.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Calipari: The ultimate dodger
In 1996, Jim Calipari led UMass to the Final Four, the best tournament run in school history. But according the NCAA, that run does not exist because of scandal.
In 2008, Calipari led Memphis to the championship game before falling to Kansas. And again, the Tigers run no longer exists according to the NCAA, due to several infractions, including a bogus SAT score for star Derrik Rose.
And yet Calipari got off scott free in both cases. After UMass, he jumped to the NBA for three seasons with the New Jersey Nets, including a playoff run in 1998. And he's now the coach at Kentucky.
Calipari may or may not have done anything wrong in his two college coaching stops before UK. He certainly has never been legitimately implicated in anything. But this smells rotten to me. It appears as if Calipari fostered (or at least tolerated) a culture of corruption at both institutions. In the case of Memphis, they knew what they were getting. As did UK, which apparently was aware of the NCAA investigation when it hired Calipari a few months ago.
What does this mean for college basketball? Likely little. The sport has weathered much larger scandals than this. But it is further confirmation that winning is king in college sports, not integrity and academics.
In 2008, Calipari led Memphis to the championship game before falling to Kansas. And again, the Tigers run no longer exists according to the NCAA, due to several infractions, including a bogus SAT score for star Derrik Rose.
And yet Calipari got off scott free in both cases. After UMass, he jumped to the NBA for three seasons with the New Jersey Nets, including a playoff run in 1998. And he's now the coach at Kentucky.
Calipari may or may not have done anything wrong in his two college coaching stops before UK. He certainly has never been legitimately implicated in anything. But this smells rotten to me. It appears as if Calipari fostered (or at least tolerated) a culture of corruption at both institutions. In the case of Memphis, they knew what they were getting. As did UK, which apparently was aware of the NCAA investigation when it hired Calipari a few months ago.
What does this mean for college basketball? Likely little. The sport has weathered much larger scandals than this. But it is further confirmation that winning is king in college sports, not integrity and academics.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Nats do the right thing
My brother Marc is one of only 12 known Washington Nationals fans in the world -- and two of his sons help comprise the other 11. In June, I recommended that the Nats not draft all-world pitching prospect Stephen Strasburg out of San Diego State. I was wrong. They made the correct choice and it seems to have legitimized the Nationals franchise -- at least that's the hope.
Besides his piece above on what the Strasburg signing means to the Nationals, Boswell also had a great piece on Sunday counting down the negotiations.
I'm convinced that Boswell and Marc were right, and that I was wrong. Signing Strasburg for less than $16 million isn't exactly a bargain, but it was much lower than what many commentators were predicting.
I misread Strasburg and Boras. I thought the super-agent was going to use this as his own personal Judgement Day. He was going to force the Nationals to pay a price similar to what Strasburg might get if there was no draft, and if Washington didn't play, they would walk over to independent league baseball. But apparently Strasburg wanted to make this work, and Boras was content to let him. I have often lambasted Boras about being more about himself than his clients. In this case he abandoned his wage war against MLB and did what, I believe, was in the best interest of Strasburg's career.
So hats off to the Nats for making this work. And it gives all 12 of those Nats fans something to look forward to in 2010.
Besides his piece above on what the Strasburg signing means to the Nationals, Boswell also had a great piece on Sunday counting down the negotiations.
I'm convinced that Boswell and Marc were right, and that I was wrong. Signing Strasburg for less than $16 million isn't exactly a bargain, but it was much lower than what many commentators were predicting.
I misread Strasburg and Boras. I thought the super-agent was going to use this as his own personal Judgement Day. He was going to force the Nationals to pay a price similar to what Strasburg might get if there was no draft, and if Washington didn't play, they would walk over to independent league baseball. But apparently Strasburg wanted to make this work, and Boras was content to let him. I have often lambasted Boras about being more about himself than his clients. In this case he abandoned his wage war against MLB and did what, I believe, was in the best interest of Strasburg's career.
So hats off to the Nats for making this work. And it gives all 12 of those Nats fans something to look forward to in 2010.
Monday, August 17, 2009
On DVD: Push surprises
Push movie review (on DVD)
Score: 8/10
Where has this movie been hiding? Its scores on Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes are not good -- either by fans or critics. But I found it to be a slick, stylistic combination of NBC's Heroes (a better version) and the Bourne movies. I enjoyed it more than almost any movie I've seen this summer (in theaters or on DVD), and it did a better job of capturing my vision of what superhero entertainment can do than Heroes or the most recent X-Men and Spider-Man movies.
What worked: First off, some great action sequences. Toward the end there's a fight scene between two Movers, wacking each other with telekinetic punches. And because it's in Hong Kong, most of the backgrounds were stunning and eary. The acting was also above average (hats off to Chris Evans), and the story was tight, though somewhat confusing at times. And I can't say enough about the style -- just a great combination of camera work and editing.
What didn't work: The story was a little confusing -- but I think it was meant to be. Following all the different 'super-folk' was a little difficult at the beginning, and could have been very hard if you aren't well-versed on the genre. The ending also left it wide open for a sequel (that's not likely to happen) so some of the biggest plot elements were left untied.
I did want to address the criticism I've heard that this is a rip-off of Heroes and X-Men. First, nothing can be a rip-off of Heroes. I enjoy the show, but there's nothing particularly original in its storyline; it's borrowing heavily from decades of comic book lore. Second, I didn't find it much like the X-Men films and only marginally like the comic books. Yes, it too borrowed from comic book themes and powers, but I don't really rate that as a crime. It's a genre flick, and I'm fine with that as long as the story and characters are interesting, which they were.
Who would want to see it. This is a tough one. It got panned by a lot of comic book fans, but I thought it was good in that context. It's also a very good action flick, with more drama and character development than most. It is pretty violent, and it contains underage drinking, so those are some of the warning signs.
Closing credits. As you can tell, I wish I would have seen this sooner. I might buy this on DVD -- it was highly entertaining, and I suspect has good re-watchability. In my mind, Push has taken its place in the top 8 superhero movies of all-time.
Score: 8/10
Where has this movie been hiding? Its scores on Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes are not good -- either by fans or critics. But I found it to be a slick, stylistic combination of NBC's Heroes (a better version) and the Bourne movies. I enjoyed it more than almost any movie I've seen this summer (in theaters or on DVD), and it did a better job of capturing my vision of what superhero entertainment can do than Heroes or the most recent X-Men and Spider-Man movies.
What worked: First off, some great action sequences. Toward the end there's a fight scene between two Movers, wacking each other with telekinetic punches. And because it's in Hong Kong, most of the backgrounds were stunning and eary. The acting was also above average (hats off to Chris Evans), and the story was tight, though somewhat confusing at times. And I can't say enough about the style -- just a great combination of camera work and editing.
What didn't work: The story was a little confusing -- but I think it was meant to be. Following all the different 'super-folk' was a little difficult at the beginning, and could have been very hard if you aren't well-versed on the genre. The ending also left it wide open for a sequel (that's not likely to happen) so some of the biggest plot elements were left untied.
I did want to address the criticism I've heard that this is a rip-off of Heroes and X-Men. First, nothing can be a rip-off of Heroes. I enjoy the show, but there's nothing particularly original in its storyline; it's borrowing heavily from decades of comic book lore. Second, I didn't find it much like the X-Men films and only marginally like the comic books. Yes, it too borrowed from comic book themes and powers, but I don't really rate that as a crime. It's a genre flick, and I'm fine with that as long as the story and characters are interesting, which they were.
Who would want to see it. This is a tough one. It got panned by a lot of comic book fans, but I thought it was good in that context. It's also a very good action flick, with more drama and character development than most. It is pretty violent, and it contains underage drinking, so those are some of the warning signs.
Closing credits. As you can tell, I wish I would have seen this sooner. I might buy this on DVD -- it was highly entertaining, and I suspect has good re-watchability. In my mind, Push has taken its place in the top 8 superhero movies of all-time.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
On DVD: Hancock delivers
Hancock movie review (on DVD)
Score: 7/10
As I've mentioned before, I am a sucker for a good superhero movie. I had wanted to see Hancock in the theater, but never got to it. I rented it from RedBox the other night, and then watched it last night.
I was pleasantly surprised. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.) I was ready to be disappointed, but I wasn't. It was a flawed film, but it had enough good for me to recommend it.
What worked. As usual, I like Will Smith. Even playing an anti-hero like Hancock, his charisma carries the day. Jason Batemen and Charlize Theron were not as good, but both did a good job. The story was tight, though it did deteriorate into major cheese toward the end. The action scenes were above average. There is a lot of great comedy in here too.
What didn't work. Compared to much of the other superhero fare, the special effects were sub-par. And as mentioned early, the story went from highly interesting to a little cheesy, but both of those things are forgivable. My major issue was how crude Smith's character is at the beginning. That diminished my enjoyment of the film.
Who would want to see it. Superhero junkies. Action film fans. As mentioned above, if crude language offends, you would likely pass, and this is not a movie for kids.
Closing credits. As mentioned earlier, I recommend the movie with a few caveats. Wish I had seen it in the theaters.
Score: 7/10
As I've mentioned before, I am a sucker for a good superhero movie. I had wanted to see Hancock in the theater, but never got to it. I rented it from RedBox the other night, and then watched it last night.
I was pleasantly surprised. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.) I was ready to be disappointed, but I wasn't. It was a flawed film, but it had enough good for me to recommend it.
What worked. As usual, I like Will Smith. Even playing an anti-hero like Hancock, his charisma carries the day. Jason Batemen and Charlize Theron were not as good, but both did a good job. The story was tight, though it did deteriorate into major cheese toward the end. The action scenes were above average. There is a lot of great comedy in here too.
What didn't work. Compared to much of the other superhero fare, the special effects were sub-par. And as mentioned early, the story went from highly interesting to a little cheesy, but both of those things are forgivable. My major issue was how crude Smith's character is at the beginning. That diminished my enjoyment of the film.
Who would want to see it. Superhero junkies. Action film fans. As mentioned above, if crude language offends, you would likely pass, and this is not a movie for kids.
Closing credits. As mentioned earlier, I recommend the movie with a few caveats. Wish I had seen it in the theaters.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Buy low: JJ Hardy
If I were a team in need of an everyday short (memo to Theo Epstein) I would be trying to make a waiver deal for JJ Hardy, who was demoted to AAA by the Brewers in favor of uber-prospect Alcides Escobar, who has a .762 OPS in in AAA as a 22 year-old.
Hardy is having a bad year, hitting 229/300/367, all below his career norms. Just last year he was one of the best hitting shortstops in baseball, and he provides good defense. He's also 26. The suitors will probably line up, but demoting him probably hurt his trade value. He was in a prolonged slump, with his OPS at its lowest level since May 6.
There's only a few teams with shortstops who are better than how Hardy performed in 2007-08. Some smart team is going to gobble in up, and though the Brewers may be better long-term with Escobar, they likely damaged the return they could have received for Hardy.
Honestly, this purge smells like a with hunt to me. I don't think this makes the Brewers better in 2009, and not sure about 2010. Odd move from Doug Melvin.
Hardy is having a bad year, hitting 229/300/367, all below his career norms. Just last year he was one of the best hitting shortstops in baseball, and he provides good defense. He's also 26. The suitors will probably line up, but demoting him probably hurt his trade value. He was in a prolonged slump, with his OPS at its lowest level since May 6.
There's only a few teams with shortstops who are better than how Hardy performed in 2007-08. Some smart team is going to gobble in up, and though the Brewers may be better long-term with Escobar, they likely damaged the return they could have received for Hardy.
Honestly, this purge smells like a with hunt to me. I don't think this makes the Brewers better in 2009, and not sure about 2010. Odd move from Doug Melvin.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Panic Nation
You would have thought it was 2003 or something. Red Sox Nation seems to be in full panic mode, especially if you watched the Tigers game last night. The Fenway Park crowd was almost silent in the 8th and 9th innings, a marked departure from close games earlier in the season. The 6-game losing skid left the fans shell-shocked.
But is there cause for such despair? Maybe if this was 2003, and the 'curse of Dan Shaughnessy' was still in full bloom. But this current regime (Francona and Epstein) have won two world series and only missed the playoffs once. This has been, by many measures, the most successful franchise of the decade. The 'wo-is-me' attitude is beginning to annoy me. We don't have to act like insufferable Yankee fans, but can't we at least have a little swagger and not go into panic mode with each losing streak.
But to be fare, things have changed in the last week. The losing streak changed Boston's chances at the postseason, no matter how you slice it. If you look at the playoff odds report at Baseball Prospectus, you'll see the Sox playoff chances have dropped 22 points since last week. They still have about a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs. But the Yankees now look like a lock to make the playoffs, and the Rangers and Rays are looking to take Boston's wildcard spot.
A week ago everyone was worried about the starting rotation. Now everyone's worried about an anemic lineup. But I'm not worried so much about the offense. With the addition of Victor Martinez, and better performance from Bay and JD (which I expect), scoring runs won't be the issue. My big question is who will provide solid innings after Beckett and Lester. The enigmatic Penny? The baffling Dice-K? The old knuckleballer? Paul Byrd? This is not painting a pretty picture.
Potentially more disastrous is the defense. Again referencing Baseball Prospectus, the Sox are second-to-last in baseball in defense. Last year the Sox were 5th. From my observation, the team is suffering defensively at SS, LF, RF (when Drew isn't in the lineup), 3B (when the limited Lowell is in the lineup) and catcher (when it comes to the running game). To me, this is the biggest problem. Kotchman was a nice pickup for this reason; Youk can play third and Kotchman (a very good gloveman) can play 1B when defense is needed.
The Rios Contract
I'm a little stunned the White Sox took on Alex Rios' contract. You can get the takes of Rob Neyer and Keith Law through these links. Yes, by adding Rios and Peavy they get two potential All-Stars without giving up a ton, and they're likely better options than anything that will hit the 2010 free agent market. But there's still almost $70 million on Rios' contract, and Peavy may not be the same pitcher outside of Petco and after his injury. Ken Williams never rests (which is good), but Rios' bat has declined every year since 2006, and though he's a plus defender (and will be moved back to CF by all accounts), I'm not sure the White Sox won't be regretting this decision in 2011.
But is there cause for such despair? Maybe if this was 2003, and the 'curse of Dan Shaughnessy' was still in full bloom. But this current regime (Francona and Epstein) have won two world series and only missed the playoffs once. This has been, by many measures, the most successful franchise of the decade. The 'wo-is-me' attitude is beginning to annoy me. We don't have to act like insufferable Yankee fans, but can't we at least have a little swagger and not go into panic mode with each losing streak.
But to be fare, things have changed in the last week. The losing streak changed Boston's chances at the postseason, no matter how you slice it. If you look at the playoff odds report at Baseball Prospectus, you'll see the Sox playoff chances have dropped 22 points since last week. They still have about a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs. But the Yankees now look like a lock to make the playoffs, and the Rangers and Rays are looking to take Boston's wildcard spot.
A week ago everyone was worried about the starting rotation. Now everyone's worried about an anemic lineup. But I'm not worried so much about the offense. With the addition of Victor Martinez, and better performance from Bay and JD (which I expect), scoring runs won't be the issue. My big question is who will provide solid innings after Beckett and Lester. The enigmatic Penny? The baffling Dice-K? The old knuckleballer? Paul Byrd? This is not painting a pretty picture.
Potentially more disastrous is the defense. Again referencing Baseball Prospectus, the Sox are second-to-last in baseball in defense. Last year the Sox were 5th. From my observation, the team is suffering defensively at SS, LF, RF (when Drew isn't in the lineup), 3B (when the limited Lowell is in the lineup) and catcher (when it comes to the running game). To me, this is the biggest problem. Kotchman was a nice pickup for this reason; Youk can play third and Kotchman (a very good gloveman) can play 1B when defense is needed.
The Rios Contract
I'm a little stunned the White Sox took on Alex Rios' contract. You can get the takes of Rob Neyer and Keith Law through these links. Yes, by adding Rios and Peavy they get two potential All-Stars without giving up a ton, and they're likely better options than anything that will hit the 2010 free agent market. But there's still almost $70 million on Rios' contract, and Peavy may not be the same pitcher outside of Petco and after his injury. Ken Williams never rests (which is good), but Rios' bat has declined every year since 2006, and though he's a plus defender (and will be moved back to CF by all accounts), I'm not sure the White Sox won't be regretting this decision in 2011.
Monday, August 10, 2009
On DVD: Finding a Vantage Point
Vantage Point movie review (on DVD)
Score: 7/10
I was looking for a good action/drama release this weekend, and we settled on getting Vantage Point from the RedBox. Good call. It was action-packed, had an interesting premise, and was executed well on almost all fronts. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.)
What worked: Really cool premise. Viewing an event from several different perspectives makes for interesting story telling. The last time through it got a little repetitive, but overall it worked. Dennis Quaid was really good, as was Forest Whitaker, who was almost too good for this movie. Most of the other actors did a very good job. The action sequences were very well done, and the story held together (until the end)
What didn't work: The story went into unreal land at the end. Usually I'm cool with that, but the storytellers set up a very 'real' world over the first 60 minutes, and entered a more traditional action world at the end, which hurt the movie. Also, William Hurt (who plays President Ashton) and his advisers have the worst scene in the movie discussing the geopolitics of terrorism. Not their fault -- the scene just wasn't written well, and it's a key scene.
Who would want to see this: Moviegoers who like a movie that's mostly action but has plenty of drama mixed with a few twists and turns.
Closing credits: If you haven't seen this, go rent it. It's worth the price, and it's the kind of movie that sticks with you for a couple of days. A great film? No, but better than most and very entertaining.
Score: 7/10
I was looking for a good action/drama release this weekend, and we settled on getting Vantage Point from the RedBox. Good call. It was action-packed, had an interesting premise, and was executed well on almost all fronts. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.)
What worked: Really cool premise. Viewing an event from several different perspectives makes for interesting story telling. The last time through it got a little repetitive, but overall it worked. Dennis Quaid was really good, as was Forest Whitaker, who was almost too good for this movie. Most of the other actors did a very good job. The action sequences were very well done, and the story held together (until the end)
What didn't work: The story went into unreal land at the end. Usually I'm cool with that, but the storytellers set up a very 'real' world over the first 60 minutes, and entered a more traditional action world at the end, which hurt the movie. Also, William Hurt (who plays President Ashton) and his advisers have the worst scene in the movie discussing the geopolitics of terrorism. Not their fault -- the scene just wasn't written well, and it's a key scene.
Who would want to see this: Moviegoers who like a movie that's mostly action but has plenty of drama mixed with a few twists and turns.
Closing credits: If you haven't seen this, go rent it. It's worth the price, and it's the kind of movie that sticks with you for a couple of days. A great film? No, but better than most and very entertaining.
The Fall of John Smoltz
I hated to see John Smoltz leave the Red Sox. I was very hopeful that Smoltz would prove to be the third starter in a power big three (joining Beckett and Lester). He turned out to be a bust. How bad was he? An ERA over 8, and his fastball was getting destroyed, marking only the second time in his career when his fastball wasn't a plus pitch (according to Fangraphs), and the only other time was last year.
If I just use my eyes, I thought he was done several starts ago. He wasn't fooling batters his second and third time through a lineup, and as Dave Roberts said on NESN during Smoltz's last start, he was doing a great job of throwing strikes, but was missing his spots within the zone.
The numbers tell a slightly different story. Of the three things pitchers have the most control over, he was well within career norms on two. He was striking out batters, and he was being very stingy with the base on balls. But he was giving up a lot of home runs, 1.8 per 9, more than double his career rate. His rate of flyballs turned into home runs was a 50% increase of his career.
Why the problem with the longball? Well, he hadn't given up a HR since July 30 at Texas, and had gone four starts (only one of which was a good start) without giving up a homer. During that same stretch, he walked 4 batters in 20 innings. So were the home runs pitching in hitters parks (Fenway, Baltimore, Texas, Yankee Launching Pad), or did he suddely lose his ability to keep it in the yard.
A lot of his struggles, again according to the numbers I have, were bad luck. His Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) was a huge .390, up 100 points on his career numbers. Most research has shown that pitchers don't have a lot of control on that number. Could it be the poor defense behind him? Maybe, but other Sox starters have kept their BABIP at career levels (including Beckett).
So was it the right decision to designate Smoltz for assignment? I would say yes, if the Sox had a lot of options. But when signing Paul Byrd to a minor league contract is one of the solutions, color me skeptical.
Did Sox management make the right decision? Maybe. But I think I would rather have a struggling Smoltz where the light might have come on, versus the other options.
If I just use my eyes, I thought he was done several starts ago. He wasn't fooling batters his second and third time through a lineup, and as Dave Roberts said on NESN during Smoltz's last start, he was doing a great job of throwing strikes, but was missing his spots within the zone.
The numbers tell a slightly different story. Of the three things pitchers have the most control over, he was well within career norms on two. He was striking out batters, and he was being very stingy with the base on balls. But he was giving up a lot of home runs, 1.8 per 9, more than double his career rate. His rate of flyballs turned into home runs was a 50% increase of his career.
Why the problem with the longball? Well, he hadn't given up a HR since July 30 at Texas, and had gone four starts (only one of which was a good start) without giving up a homer. During that same stretch, he walked 4 batters in 20 innings. So were the home runs pitching in hitters parks (Fenway, Baltimore, Texas, Yankee Launching Pad), or did he suddely lose his ability to keep it in the yard.
A lot of his struggles, again according to the numbers I have, were bad luck. His Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) was a huge .390, up 100 points on his career numbers. Most research has shown that pitchers don't have a lot of control on that number. Could it be the poor defense behind him? Maybe, but other Sox starters have kept their BABIP at career levels (including Beckett).
So was it the right decision to designate Smoltz for assignment? I would say yes, if the Sox had a lot of options. But when signing Paul Byrd to a minor league contract is one of the solutions, color me skeptical.
Did Sox management make the right decision? Maybe. But I think I would rather have a struggling Smoltz where the light might have come on, versus the other options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)