Word of advice to husbands of pregnant women: Do not call an audible while your wife is in the bathroom to a 3-D movie without asking.
Now that we've got that out of the way, I really enjoyed Tim Burton's latest weird flick 'Alice in Wonderland', and yes I saw it in all of its 3-D glory. Was it as good as 'Avatar'? No, but it's the early leader for my favorite movie of 2010 (which, of course, is likely to be taken by 'Tron: Legacy' based on the trailer I saw in 3-D last night).
What Worked
The effects and the imagery. Much like 'Avatar', 'Alice' is a work of art. Burton and his team went to painstaking efforts to create a spectacular Wonderland. The acting performances (besides Anne Hathaway as the White Queen) were great, and the voices were awesome. Helena Bohnam Carter, Johnny Depp, and relative newcomer Mia Wasikowska (Alice) lead a great cast. The story was also very engaging and kept moving swiftly.
What Didn't Work
I'm not an Anne Hathaway hater or anything, but she wasn't very good in this. Maybe it was just bad casting, but every time she came on screen, I wanted the movie to move on. The ending was also a little abrupt (after Alice returns to the 'read world').
Who Would Like This
Fans of Burton; fans of the story; anyone who loves visually impressive movies; fans of classic fantasy literature.
Who Wouldn't Like This
It is dark and weird, and if you absolutely hate Burton, this probably isn't you movie. This also is not a kid's movie at all (though there were quite a few little kids in the theater last night).
Closing Credits
Really fun movie, came out of it wanting to see it again. Great story, great acting, great effects. I highly recommend it.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
March Madness Thoughts
I don't watch a lot of college basketball anymore. Beginning 2005, I started watching more NBA. I was intrigued by the new generation of players: LeBron, Carmelo, Wade. NBA basketball was fun again, and the playoffs were intriguing. This waxing of the NBA led to a waning of NCAA basketball.
Don't get me wrong. I still devoured March Madness, the best tournament in sports (closely followed by the NHL playoffs). But I watched a lot fewer games. And my two teams (BYU and Purdue) weren't nationally relevant at the time.
This all crested with the Celtics winning the 2008 NBA title. My favorite team was relevant again (if only for two seasons), and the playoffs were awesome. My NBA time investment was paying off.
This year has been different. I can hardly watch the Celtics; Rasheed Wallace is a disgrace, and watching KG is almost painful now. And the team is irrelevant again, an aging former champ who no longer has the power to play with the big boys, an old team that's falling quickly.
And my college teams were good. Purdue has become a nationally relevant team, and BYU is a fun mid-conference team. So I followed both teams this season, but I didn't watch a lot besides that. So my thoughts on the tournament are going to be confined to my two teams.
Purdue
Before Hummel went down with his gruesome knee injury, I gave the Boilermakers a decent shot at making the Final Four. They were a complete team, with three players that could fill up the basket in different ways. And their defense was solid.
Now they're mediocre, and will likely not make the Sweet 16. That is a big shame. Maybe their terrible showing in the Big Ten tournament against Minnesota will galvanize the team and make them stronger. I think it just showed that they are not the same team without Hummel. Tournament prediction: Loss to Texas A&M in round of 32.
BYU
Early in the season, I had higher hopes for the Cougars. A good showing outside of conference, and a solid rotation with an electric scorer. Though two loses to New Mexico made them conference second class going into the tournament. Still, going into the tourney, they had a shot at a 4-seed, especially if they beat New Mexico in the championship.
But a loss to UNLV on the a 'nuetral' Las Vegas court ended that. A 7-seed means a second-round match-up against Kansas State, instead of squaring off against a Butler, Purdue, Texas A&M -- a team they could have a good shot at beating and making a Sweat 16 run. So despite one of the best BYU teams of the past 20 years, it looks like another tournament disappointment. Tournament prediction: Loss to Kansas State in round of 32.
Don't get me wrong. I still devoured March Madness, the best tournament in sports (closely followed by the NHL playoffs). But I watched a lot fewer games. And my two teams (BYU and Purdue) weren't nationally relevant at the time.
This all crested with the Celtics winning the 2008 NBA title. My favorite team was relevant again (if only for two seasons), and the playoffs were awesome. My NBA time investment was paying off.
This year has been different. I can hardly watch the Celtics; Rasheed Wallace is a disgrace, and watching KG is almost painful now. And the team is irrelevant again, an aging former champ who no longer has the power to play with the big boys, an old team that's falling quickly.
And my college teams were good. Purdue has become a nationally relevant team, and BYU is a fun mid-conference team. So I followed both teams this season, but I didn't watch a lot besides that. So my thoughts on the tournament are going to be confined to my two teams.
Purdue
Before Hummel went down with his gruesome knee injury, I gave the Boilermakers a decent shot at making the Final Four. They were a complete team, with three players that could fill up the basket in different ways. And their defense was solid.
Now they're mediocre, and will likely not make the Sweet 16. That is a big shame. Maybe their terrible showing in the Big Ten tournament against Minnesota will galvanize the team and make them stronger. I think it just showed that they are not the same team without Hummel. Tournament prediction: Loss to Texas A&M in round of 32.
BYU
Early in the season, I had higher hopes for the Cougars. A good showing outside of conference, and a solid rotation with an electric scorer. Though two loses to New Mexico made them conference second class going into the tournament. Still, going into the tourney, they had a shot at a 4-seed, especially if they beat New Mexico in the championship.
But a loss to UNLV on the a 'nuetral' Las Vegas court ended that. A 7-seed means a second-round match-up against Kansas State, instead of squaring off against a Butler, Purdue, Texas A&M -- a team they could have a good shot at beating and making a Sweat 16 run. So despite one of the best BYU teams of the past 20 years, it looks like another tournament disappointment. Tournament prediction: Loss to Kansas State in round of 32.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Big Papi or Lowell
In a recent post, Tony Massarotti at the Boston Globe intimated that Mike Lowell might be a better solution at DH than David Ortiz. Here's the money quote:
"...but remember that Lowell finishing 2009 with a better batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage than David Ortiz. And even if Lowell has range at third base, he still has Hall of Fame hands that make him a better and more versatile defensive option than Ortiz."
So is Mazz correct? Is Lowell a better roster option than Big Papi? Well, his last point about defensive flexibility is a good one. If Lowell is healthy, he'd be a good back-up at third, and I would guess he'd be a good defensively at first (again assuming he's healthy). Ortiz is a defensive liability at first each time he takes the field (usually only in some interleague games).
But as a hitter? According to fangraphs.com (and in addition the comments made by Mazz), in 2009, Lowell was a superior bat to Ortiz (using Park Adjusted Runs Above Replacement as the metric): 5.3 to 3.5. Not a huge difference. Overall on Wins Above Replacement, Lowell was a little better: 1.2 to 0.8
But in 2008, the gap was even wider (WAR: 3.2 to 2.0 for Lowell). Lowell had a terrific year with the glove, but Ortiz was more valuable with the bat, though not by a huge margin. Of course, if you go back to 06-07, Ortiz was clearly more valuable, and substantially with the bat.
But this isn't 2007, and though Big Papi turned it on after those first few miserable months, he is not the basher of old. Depending on how the roster positions fall out, it might be better for the Sox to carry Lowell as the DH and let Ortiz go.
I hate to say it, but Mazz might be right.
"...but remember that Lowell finishing 2009 with a better batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage than David Ortiz. And even if Lowell has range at third base, he still has Hall of Fame hands that make him a better and more versatile defensive option than Ortiz."
So is Mazz correct? Is Lowell a better roster option than Big Papi? Well, his last point about defensive flexibility is a good one. If Lowell is healthy, he'd be a good back-up at third, and I would guess he'd be a good defensively at first (again assuming he's healthy). Ortiz is a defensive liability at first each time he takes the field (usually only in some interleague games).
But as a hitter? According to fangraphs.com (and in addition the comments made by Mazz), in 2009, Lowell was a superior bat to Ortiz (using Park Adjusted Runs Above Replacement as the metric): 5.3 to 3.5. Not a huge difference. Overall on Wins Above Replacement, Lowell was a little better: 1.2 to 0.8
But in 2008, the gap was even wider (WAR: 3.2 to 2.0 for Lowell). Lowell had a terrific year with the glove, but Ortiz was more valuable with the bat, though not by a huge margin. Of course, if you go back to 06-07, Ortiz was clearly more valuable, and substantially with the bat.
But this isn't 2007, and though Big Papi turned it on after those first few miserable months, he is not the basher of old. Depending on how the roster positions fall out, it might be better for the Sox to carry Lowell as the DH and let Ortiz go.
I hate to say it, but Mazz might be right.
Friday, March 12, 2010
My favorite movies of the 90s, Part 2
Please check out part 1 of the my favorite movies of the 90s for a full breakdown of my year-by-year favorites.
I inadvertantly left off one of my all-time favorites, The Shawshank Redemption (1994). I orginally created my list using boxofficemojo.com's top grossing movies by year lists. I forgot what a commercial failure Shawshank was. So I appologize for the egregious error. Now, on with the show.
20. The Saint (1997) – Not sure why this movie doesn’t get more love. Val Kilmer is awesome, and Elisabeth Shue is at her hottest. Hypothermia scene anyone?19. Mission: Impossible (1996) – This was the second movie I saw after my Mormon mission. It and The Saint are the best spy movies of the 90s.
18. Life is Beautiful (1998) – Can a holocaust movie be uplifting? Roberto Benigni manages to do it.
17. Toy Story 2 (1999) – Not as good as the original, but still a great story, great animation and great voices.
16. Braveheart (1995) – Maybe Mel Gibson’s most inspired performance. Fantastic epic.
15. Forrest Gump (1994) – Tom Hanks’ ultimate performance, but I realize this iconic movie isn’t as high as most people would have it. I guess it’s not as rewatcheable as some of the movies above it on this list. Can’t explain it.
14. Apollo 13 (1995) – Just thinking about this movie gets me excited. Ed Harris is the MVP of this one, and starting with an inspiring true story doesn’t hurt.
13. The Sixth Sense (1999) – Best ending ever. This is by far M. Night Shyamalan’s best film, and the career performance of Bruce Willis. It was haunting, depressing, uplifting and terrifying. Quite a range of emotions.
12. Groundhog Day (1993) – My favorite comedy. I could watch it over and over. (I’ll be here all week.) And though it is a comedy, it’s really more than that, and Bill Murray is so awesome that, if I was ranking 1990s acting performances, his could be the top.
11. Toy Story (1995) – Revolutionary film that ushered in the modern era of animation. Great story, great voices, and intriguing characters. Next to The Incredibles, it’s Pixar’s greatest work.
10. Patriot Games (1992) – I know, I have a big man-crush on Harrison Ford, but he is the action hero of my adolescence. Adapted from a tremendous Tom Clancy novel of the same name, this movie delivers the goods for an action drama: Action, suspense, characters you cheer on, and hateable villains (thank you, Sean Bean).
9. Good Will Hunting (1997) – Maybe because I grew up in Boston, this is a nostalgic movie for me. I think it is very well done (though Robin Williams’ Boston accent is brutal). It’s just a really good drama, one that I like to re-watch with memorable performances (Damon, Afleck, Williams, Driver).
8. A Few Good Men (1992) – I always stop when this movie is playing on cable, especially if it’s in the last 45 minutes. This has one of the most suspenseful endings of all time. For a non-action flick, after you watch it, you feel like you’ve been watching an action flick, it winds you up so much. Tom Cruise was never better.
7. In the Line of Fire (1993) – What makes this movie so great is the tension-filled dance between the main characters, played by Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich. They wind you up to a dramatic crescendo, and then deliver with great ending.
6. Beauty and the Beast (1991) – There is something incredibly beautiful about this film. The animation is great, the music is the best Disney ever did, and the story is compelling. It is incredibly re-watchable, and delivers so much more than 99% of kids movies.
5. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) – Yes, I am a Star Wars fanatic. Yes, you could put the name Star Wars on a toilet, and I might say it’s the best toilet I’ve ever seen. But go back and watch this film. It’s very, very good. Liam Neeson is awesome, there are very good supporting performances, and the action and effects are awesome.
4. The Matrix (1999) – When this movie came out, it completely blew me away. Could Keanu Reeves really be in one of the greatest movies of all time? Yes, despite him, it’s one awesome film. The effects were revolutionary, the characters were interesting, and the story was extremely compelling. I could watch this movie 6-10 times a year and not get bored. Just wishing they had done a better job on the sequels.
3. Aladdin (1992) – My favorite Disney movie of all time. There’s something about this story that touched my 16-year-old romantic heart. I’ll stop there so I don’t lose my man card. Robin Williams delivers the best animation voice-acting of all time.
2. The Shawshank Redpemtion (1994) – Maybe the most powerful fiction story of all time, penned by none other than Stephen King. Though dark, the story is one of hope. And Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman turn in one of the best partnership performances of all time.
1. Saving Private Ryan (1998) – Because of its violent and haunting nature, this is not a film I re-watch frequently (though I own it). It’s so deep, so dark, so emotionally draining, that I can’t visit this world too frequently. But what a terrific film. Every single note in the movie is expertly done by Stephen Spielberg, and Tom Hanks anchors a great cast. It may not be the most re-watchable film of the 90s, but it is its best.
The rest:
21. Independence Day (1996)
22. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
23. Jerry Maguire (1996)
24. Jurassic Park (1993)
25. A League of Their Own (1992)
26. The Fifth Element (1997)
27. The Fugitive (1993)
28. What About Bob? (1991)
29. Stargate (1994)
30. Clear and Present Danger (1994)
31. Father of the Bride (1991)
32. Meet Joe Black (1998)
33. Mulan (1998)
34. Hercules (1997)
35. Dances With Wolves (1990)
36. Enemy of the State (1998)
37. Happy Gilmore (1996)
38. The Lion King (1994)
39. The Cutting Edge (1992)
40. The Wedding Singer (1998)
41. Home Alone (1990)
Thursday, March 11, 2010
I will miss Nomar
Nomar Garciaparra is my favorite baseball player of all time.
Here are my favorite players (an incomplete list, to be sure): Nomar, Josh Gibson (I’ve read a lot about him), Kirby Puckett, Will Clark, Roger Clemens (until he went psycho), Barry Bonds, Orel Hershieser, Mo Vaughn, Dwight Evans, and David Ortiz. You could probably add Joe Mauer and Kevin Youkilis to the list.
Nomar stormed onto the scene in 1997 as a ROY, and didn’t slow down for four seasons. In 98, 99 and 2000, he was one of the best offensive players in the game. The argument seems a little silly now, but Nomar was the best AL shortstop at the time. No really. Check this out:
Name OPS+ MVP Finish
1998
Nomar 140 2nd
ARod 136 9th
Jeter 127 3rd
1999
Nomar 153 7th
ARod 134 15th
Jeter 153 6th
2000
Nomar 155 9th
ARod 162 3rd
Jeter 128 10th
I highlighted who I believe was the best shortstop each season, with Nomar winning twice. None of the three were elite defenders, but during the time period Nomar edged ARod, with Jeter being one of the most overrated fielders of my lifetime.
But after the 2000 season, Nomar dropped off dramatically due to injuries. His OPS+ for his next two full seasons (02 and 03): 127, 121. He was still a great SS, and an All-Star both of those seasons. But he was no longer an elite player like her had been for his 3-season peak.
And then came 2004. Dan Shaughnessy shamelessly trashes Nomar in the Boston Globe, remembering Nomar’s divorce from the Sox with great aplomb. Shaughnessy always disliked Nomar, because Nomar didn’t like the press. Luckily Bob Ryan redeems the Globe’s coverage with a much more realistic piece.
Regardless, 2004 tainted Nomar’s legacy in Boston. Was he really hurt? Only he can be sure. Would Boston have won the World Series without trading him? Impossible to know. But as a huge Nomar fan, it was bittersweet to win the title in 2004 without Nomar, who had performed well in three postseasons (98-00).
I don’t believe Nomar will ever sniff the Hall of Fame; his rate numbers are some of the best ever put out there in the modern era by a shortstop, but his counting stats are low. I could make an argument that he still belongs, but I’m too much of a homer for any of you to take me seriously.
Regardless, he will always be one of my favorite players. The way he intensely played the field. The way he swung at bad pitches, and racked out doubles. His timely ability to get a steal when the team needed it.
So in honor of Nomar, I will be wearing my Nomar shirt on Opening Day, proud to have witnessed out of the great runs of any player to put on a Red Sox (or any other) uniform.
Here are my favorite players (an incomplete list, to be sure): Nomar, Josh Gibson (I’ve read a lot about him), Kirby Puckett, Will Clark, Roger Clemens (until he went psycho), Barry Bonds, Orel Hershieser, Mo Vaughn, Dwight Evans, and David Ortiz. You could probably add Joe Mauer and Kevin Youkilis to the list.
Nomar stormed onto the scene in 1997 as a ROY, and didn’t slow down for four seasons. In 98, 99 and 2000, he was one of the best offensive players in the game. The argument seems a little silly now, but Nomar was the best AL shortstop at the time. No really. Check this out:
Name OPS+ MVP Finish
1998
Nomar 140 2nd
ARod 136 9th
Jeter 127 3rd
1999
Nomar 153 7th
ARod 134 15th
Jeter 153 6th
2000
Nomar 155 9th
ARod 162 3rd
Jeter 128 10th
I highlighted who I believe was the best shortstop each season, with Nomar winning twice. None of the three were elite defenders, but during the time period Nomar edged ARod, with Jeter being one of the most overrated fielders of my lifetime.
But after the 2000 season, Nomar dropped off dramatically due to injuries. His OPS+ for his next two full seasons (02 and 03): 127, 121. He was still a great SS, and an All-Star both of those seasons. But he was no longer an elite player like her had been for his 3-season peak.
And then came 2004. Dan Shaughnessy shamelessly trashes Nomar in the Boston Globe, remembering Nomar’s divorce from the Sox with great aplomb. Shaughnessy always disliked Nomar, because Nomar didn’t like the press. Luckily Bob Ryan redeems the Globe’s coverage with a much more realistic piece.
Regardless, 2004 tainted Nomar’s legacy in Boston. Was he really hurt? Only he can be sure. Would Boston have won the World Series without trading him? Impossible to know. But as a huge Nomar fan, it was bittersweet to win the title in 2004 without Nomar, who had performed well in three postseasons (98-00).
I don’t believe Nomar will ever sniff the Hall of Fame; his rate numbers are some of the best ever put out there in the modern era by a shortstop, but his counting stats are low. I could make an argument that he still belongs, but I’m too much of a homer for any of you to take me seriously.
Regardless, he will always be one of my favorite players. The way he intensely played the field. The way he swung at bad pitches, and racked out doubles. His timely ability to get a steal when the team needed it.
So in honor of Nomar, I will be wearing my Nomar shirt on Opening Day, proud to have witnessed out of the great runs of any player to put on a Red Sox (or any other) uniform.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
My Favorite Movies of the 90s, Part 1
This is part 1 of 2 of my favorite movies of the 90s. This is a follow-up to my part 1 and part 2 of my favorite movies of the 2000s. A couple of things to think about before you read this:
- I graduated from high school in 1994. This means I was an idiot until 1994 (and possible beyond).
- I was on a Mormon mission from 1995 t0 1997. So I may have missed some good movies.
- Even if some of these are no longer watchable for me, I kept them in because they made an impact for me at the time.
1990
Home Along - A little dated now, but a classic at the time
Dances with Wolves - Great cinematography and good story
Honorable mentions: The Hunt for Red October, Darkman
1991
Terminator 2: Judgement Day - Awesome action, revolutionary effects
Beauty and the Beast - Awesome film, best of the year (sorry, Silence of the Lambs)
Father of the Bride - Love it, and now that I have two daughters, I think I may relive it
What About Bob? - I can watch this one over and over; supreme comedic performances
Honorable mentions: None
1992
Alladin - My favorite Disney move of all-time, pre-Pixar
A Few Good Men - The ultimate Tom Cruise performance
A League of Their Own - 'There's no crying in baseball!'
Patriot Games - Harrison Ford was the man
The Cutting Edge - I realize I'll catch grief for this one, but I love it. There, I said it
Honorable mentions: Batman Returns, Unforgiven, Sneakers, The Muppet Christmas Carol
1993
Jurassic Park - Revolutionary effects. Dinosaurs. On. Screen. Awesome.
The Fugitive - Did I mention that Harrison Ford is the man?
In the Line of Fire - Best movie of 1993, hands down
Groundhog Day - Greatest comedy of my lifetime
Honorable mentions: The Firm, Tombstone, The Sandlot
1994
Forrest Gump - 'Run, Forrest, run!'
The Lion King - Not the best Disney, but a great film
Clear and Present Danger - Harrison Ford is the man! He could take on Jack Bauer, Chuck Norris, Jason Bourne and your mom, all at the same time!
Stargate - Totally underrated sci-fi film.
Honorable mentions: The Mask, Maverick, Legends of the Fall, The Crow
1995
Toy Story - Revolutionary computer graphics, great voices, great story
Apollo 13 - 'Not on my watch!'
Braveheart - 'But they can't take away our freedom!'
Honorable mentions: Goldeneye, Clueless
1996
Independence Day - Will Smith at his best, blasting aliens
Mission: Impossible - Great popcorn flick
Jerry Macguire - I know, it's really a chick flick, but it's awesome
Happy Gilmore - 'The price is wrong, &%$^!'
Honorable mentions: The Rock, Dragonheart, The Preacher's Wife, One Fine Day
1997
Good Will Hunting - 'How you like them apples!'
Hercules - Totally underrated Disney film
The Fifth Element - Awesome sci-fi movie with Bruce Willis
The Saint - A great spy flick in an era of bad spy flicks
Honorable mentions: Men in Black, Air Force One, As Good as it Gets, Anastasia, The Rainmaker, Amistad
1998
Saving Private Ryan - One of the greatest movie of all time
Mulan - One of my favorite Disney films
Enemy of the State - Will Smith at it again, being chased by the man
The Wedding Singer - The 80s in the 90s
Life is Beautiful - Touching and haunting
Meet Joe Black - I know most people think this movie is boring, but you're wrong
Honorable mentions: The Waterboy, Rush Hour, The Mask of Zorro, Blade
1999
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - Better movie than you think. Really.
The Sixth Sense - Best. Ending. Ever.
Toy Story 2 - Just a slightly lesser version of the first one.
The Matrix - I saw this six times in theater. Enough said.
Honorable mentions: The Mummy, Runaway Bride
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Changing the Game: MLB
I love sports. I watch a ton of MLB, NFL, NBA, college football, college basketball, tennis and some of the NHL, MLS, PGA and college baseball. And though I love these sports, there’s always things I think could make these games I love better. This is the first of (potentially) a series, starting with baseball because: 1) The season is about to start, so it’s timely; 2) Baseball is my favorite sport.
The No-Brainer: Make games shorter
MLB games are too long. Late season games between patient hitting teams like the Red Sox and Yankees seem to last 12 hours. So can we cut it down? Here are some solutions:
· Call the strike zone correctly. According the MLB rulebook, the strike zone is defined as: “The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.” Though this has improved, the ‘high strike’ should be called more often.
· Create a shot clock. Pitchers should only have so long to deliver the ball. If they don’t, the pitch should be called a ball. The only way to stop this: a catcher or coach visit to the mound.
· Keep the batter’s in the box. No more dancing outside of the box. Keeping in mind the suggestion above the shot clock; once the clock starts, the batter should be in the box. He could call one timeout per plate appearance. If he steps out, it’s a strike.
These should help shave 15-20 minutes off a each game (according to my brief calculations.
Not Likely to Happen: Shorten the regular season, and expand the playoffs
The impetus is to lengthen the wild card round of the playoffs. A 5-game series is kind of ridiculous. But if we added more playoff games, it would extend the season into December, so that doesn’t work.
The first potential solution to that is reducing the season to 154 games. But no team owner is going to agree to that without an extra round of playoffs, therefore increasing the big TV package revenue.
The other option is playing more double headers. I love this idea; double headers are great, and would mean more day games, which to me is a good thing. But I think the players union and the owners would balk at this one. So I don’t think this one is going to happen.
Revolutionary Thought: Solve the Revenue Gap
There are three classes in baseball in my mind, defined below. The 2009 team salary data is taken from CBSSports.com.
· The Yankees. It’s a very exclusive club, with a payroll north of $200 million. No one else comes close.
· The Big Boys ($113-135 million). Mets, Cubs, Boston, Detroit, Angels, Philadelphia. These teams may not be the Yankees, but they will spend big bucks.
· The Wanna-Bees ($88-102 million). Houston, Dodgers, Seattle, Atlanta, White Sox, St. Louis. Big markets, and will spend to win.
· The Mid-Tear ($67-82 million). San Francisco, Cleveland, Toronto, Milwaukee, Colorado, Arizona, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Texas, Baltimore, Minnesota. This group, due to market conditions, revenue streams, or ownership dynamics, spends a lot let less the above group. That being said, several of them put competitive teams on the field (Minnesota, Milwaukee, Colorado and Arizona).
· The Bottom of the Barrel ($36-65 million). Tampa Bay, Oakland, Washington, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Florida. Interesting mix of teams. Some pretty good markets (Washington, Oakland, Miami), but lots of financial restrictions for each team.
One way to solve this payroll disparity is to do it through a salary cap and revenue sharing. That has been successful in the NFL, not as much in the NBA. I think relocation of existing franchises could have a similar effect. So which markets could absorb more teams? Here’s a list:
· New York. I think this area could absorb two more teams, one in Brooklyn and one in New Jersey.
· Boston.
· Los Angeles. Seems crazy, but I think you could have three teams there.
So imagine the following:
· AL East. Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Brooklyn (Tampa Bay), Toronto
· AL Central. Same
· AL West. Same
· NL East. Mets, Philadelphia, Washington, New Jersey (Florida), Boston (Pittsburgh)
· NL Central. Atlanta, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cubs, Houston
· NL West. Dodgers, Seattle, San Francisco, Colorado, Arizona, LA 3 (San Diego).
That would eliminate some of the revenue disparity problems, splitting up big markets even further.
Let’s try this again. What if you re-did each league each year based on salaries, first the AL.
· AL Big Boys. Yankees, Boston, Detroit, Angels
· AL Mid-Tier. Seattle, White Sox, Cleveland, Toronto, Kansas City
· AL Budget. Texas, Baltimore, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Oakland
Some thoughts on the AL: Detroit and the Angels would get killed in the Big Boys division. Tampa Bay would have a much better shot. The Mid-Tear division would be a blast to watch. And Tampa would runaway with the Budget division.
Now, for the NL.
· NL Big Budgets. Mets, Cubs, Philadelphia, Dodgers, Houston.
· NL Mid-Tier. Atlanta, St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Colorado, Arizona,
· NL Budget. Cincinnati, Washington, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Florida
I like the Phillies in the Big Budget division. St. Louis would be the favorite in the Mid-Tier. And I like Florida in the Budget.
Now I realize that both of these proposals are far-fetched and difficult to implement, but if a salary cap isn’t going to happen, then something more revolutionary could be in order.
The No-Brainer: Make games shorter
MLB games are too long. Late season games between patient hitting teams like the Red Sox and Yankees seem to last 12 hours. So can we cut it down? Here are some solutions:
· Call the strike zone correctly. According the MLB rulebook, the strike zone is defined as: “The STRIKE ZONE is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter’s stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball.” Though this has improved, the ‘high strike’ should be called more often.
· Create a shot clock. Pitchers should only have so long to deliver the ball. If they don’t, the pitch should be called a ball. The only way to stop this: a catcher or coach visit to the mound.
· Keep the batter’s in the box. No more dancing outside of the box. Keeping in mind the suggestion above the shot clock; once the clock starts, the batter should be in the box. He could call one timeout per plate appearance. If he steps out, it’s a strike.
These should help shave 15-20 minutes off a each game (according to my brief calculations.
Not Likely to Happen: Shorten the regular season, and expand the playoffs
The impetus is to lengthen the wild card round of the playoffs. A 5-game series is kind of ridiculous. But if we added more playoff games, it would extend the season into December, so that doesn’t work.
The first potential solution to that is reducing the season to 154 games. But no team owner is going to agree to that without an extra round of playoffs, therefore increasing the big TV package revenue.
The other option is playing more double headers. I love this idea; double headers are great, and would mean more day games, which to me is a good thing. But I think the players union and the owners would balk at this one. So I don’t think this one is going to happen.
Revolutionary Thought: Solve the Revenue Gap
There are three classes in baseball in my mind, defined below. The 2009 team salary data is taken from CBSSports.com.
· The Yankees. It’s a very exclusive club, with a payroll north of $200 million. No one else comes close.
· The Big Boys ($113-135 million). Mets, Cubs, Boston, Detroit, Angels, Philadelphia. These teams may not be the Yankees, but they will spend big bucks.
· The Wanna-Bees ($88-102 million). Houston, Dodgers, Seattle, Atlanta, White Sox, St. Louis. Big markets, and will spend to win.
· The Mid-Tear ($67-82 million). San Francisco, Cleveland, Toronto, Milwaukee, Colorado, Arizona, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Texas, Baltimore, Minnesota. This group, due to market conditions, revenue streams, or ownership dynamics, spends a lot let less the above group. That being said, several of them put competitive teams on the field (Minnesota, Milwaukee, Colorado and Arizona).
· The Bottom of the Barrel ($36-65 million). Tampa Bay, Oakland, Washington, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Florida. Interesting mix of teams. Some pretty good markets (Washington, Oakland, Miami), but lots of financial restrictions for each team.
One way to solve this payroll disparity is to do it through a salary cap and revenue sharing. That has been successful in the NFL, not as much in the NBA. I think relocation of existing franchises could have a similar effect. So which markets could absorb more teams? Here’s a list:
· New York. I think this area could absorb two more teams, one in Brooklyn and one in New Jersey.
· Boston.
· Los Angeles. Seems crazy, but I think you could have three teams there.
So imagine the following:
· AL East. Yankees, Boston, Baltimore, Brooklyn (Tampa Bay), Toronto
· AL Central. Same
· AL West. Same
· NL East. Mets, Philadelphia, Washington, New Jersey (Florida), Boston (Pittsburgh)
· NL Central. Atlanta, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cubs, Houston
· NL West. Dodgers, Seattle, San Francisco, Colorado, Arizona, LA 3 (San Diego).
That would eliminate some of the revenue disparity problems, splitting up big markets even further.
Let’s try this again. What if you re-did each league each year based on salaries, first the AL.
· AL Big Boys. Yankees, Boston, Detroit, Angels
· AL Mid-Tier. Seattle, White Sox, Cleveland, Toronto, Kansas City
· AL Budget. Texas, Baltimore, Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Oakland
Some thoughts on the AL: Detroit and the Angels would get killed in the Big Boys division. Tampa Bay would have a much better shot. The Mid-Tear division would be a blast to watch. And Tampa would runaway with the Budget division.
Now, for the NL.
· NL Big Budgets. Mets, Cubs, Philadelphia, Dodgers, Houston.
· NL Mid-Tier. Atlanta, St. Louis, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Colorado, Arizona,
· NL Budget. Cincinnati, Washington, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Florida
I like the Phillies in the Big Budget division. St. Louis would be the favorite in the Mid-Tier. And I like Florida in the Budget.
Now I realize that both of these proposals are far-fetched and difficult to implement, but if a salary cap isn’t going to happen, then something more revolutionary could be in order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)