The House of Munch - A Smörgåsbord For Your Brain

Apropos of Nothing...

2012-01-28T17:46:00.001-05:00

But for the first time since the 1940s, the GOP nominee for President will have no prior military experience.

The last Republican nominee to not have served in the military was Thomas Dewey in 1948. Funny that...the parallels between the '48 election and 2012 keep on coming. Makes me even more confident in my prediction that Obama is getting re-elected.

The History of the RPG: Starflight (1986)

2012-01-26T11:31:00.000-05:00

Last Installment: Might and Magic Book One

By 1986, the computer RPG was thriving. With games like Might and Magic and Ultima, it was a genre that wasn't going anywhere. But there was something lacking in the RPG department; a different setting.

The RPGs were all fantasy-based. They were full of swords and orcs and wizards and magic. And that was all well and good. But this was also the time of Star Wars having a hold over an entire generation of young children. And of Star Trek making headway as well*. Where was the science-fiction RPG??

The answer to that came in 1986 in the form of Electronic Arts' Starflight**. And what an answer it was.

You are the captain of a starship from a planet called Arth. You start as a ore hauler, but can upgrade your ship to become a warship. You can hire crewmen from five different species to man six different posts. Based on their skill, they can give you upgrades at those posts. And based on who they are, it may be unwise to visit certain areas.

There are two levels to the game. On one you explore space, trading materials and finding suitable planets for colonization. On a larger level, you are trying to discover why stars in the galaxy are going supernova. It's a open-sandbox environment, although you do have to move onto the larger quest at some point. And the major storyline is a good one. You find out why stars are going supernova...and it may not be for the reasons you thought.

The graphics were on par for the time, and in color. The movement was pretty easy.

Travel through space is seeded with random encounters with other species. You can approach them peacefully or raise shields and go in guns blazing. That can sometimes be a major mistake, as you are not the largest ship in the galaxy by any means. And there were creative twists to combat, such as ablative armor and regenerating shields, that you see today.

When you find a planet, you can send a rover down to collect minerals for sale later. And if that sounds familiar to the first installment of a very popular sci-fi RPG trilogy ending this year...there is a reason for that.

More than any other game to this point, you can draw a straight line between Starflight and a modern RPG. In this case, Mass Effect. Casey Hudson***, the Executive Producer of the Mass Effect series has said as much, calling it a "key inspiration". And it was a good choice: Starflight was an extremely solid RPG that delivered an excellent sci-fi experience to a gaming public that was desperate for one.

Influence

Bringing the science-fiction setting to the RPG. Which is a bigger deal than it sounds. Continuing to reaffirm the "open-sandbox" concept in RPG development. Making the species of your crewmates matter.

Descendants

Mass Effect is the major one. But any sci-fi RPG, and even recent sci-fi MMORPGs like Star Trek Online and The Old Republic, owe their existence to Starflight proving the sci-fi RPG was a legitimate genre.

Next on the list: Dungeon Master

----------------

* In 1986, Star Trek was completing the best three-film run in the series (Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home). With most of it coming after the initial Star Wars trilogy ended in 1983, it was perfectly poised to capture my generation. Those three films are the reason Next Generation and the rest of the television series were able to be made. To say nothing of all the films that came after.

** Okay, now some of you may be saying "What about Elite?" First off, I loved me some Elite. I put in ridiculous hours on that game and I still hum the Blue Danube Waltz when docking in some game today. However, that was an open-ended space trading game more than anything else, definitely not an RPG. That said, it deserves some recognition for being awesome at what it did. And I wish someone would remake it. And no, EVE Online does not count.

*** There are a few people who seem extremely talented at creating/producing/developing computer games. Sid Meier is one. Todd Howard (Elder Scrolls series, Fallout 3) is another. But Casey Hudson has to be on that list. He has worked on not only the Mass Effect series, but Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn, Neverwinter Nights and Star Wars: Knights Of The Old Republic. Those three games are also known as three of the best RPGs ever made. I still contend that BG II can legitimately be called the best ever, despite it being over a decade old.

Painting the GOP Into A Corner

2012-01-25T11:41:00.001-05:00

The President's State of the Union address last night was an expressly political one. Which is not surprising considering this is an election year. But it was a masterful political speech, one that painted the GOP into a corner and left them with two choices:

Work with the President to provide middle-class tax relief, reform the tax code into a fairer system and create jobs, or
Stand for the status quo and degrade the President for his suggestions

Neither choice is all positive for the GOP, but one would at least give them some boost with the general public.

Guess which one they are choosing.

Here is a key moment from President Obama's speech:

"The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive," the president said. "No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules."
He continued by saying, "What's at stake aren't Democratic values or Republican values, but American values, and we have to reclaim them."

Republicans responded by saying he didn't address the debt. They left out that their policies from 2000-2008 were largely responsible for that debt.

Mitch Daniels, in his tepid GOP response, called for "a pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody." Which means he didn't hear President Obama mention how more than 500 outdated and outmoded regulations have already been eliminated in the past three years.

The GOP is now in the unenviable position of having to defend the wealthy and tax policies that are wildly unpopular. President Obama reinforced that last night, casting himself and Democrats as defenders of the middle-class and people who believe in the promise of tomorrow.

Nothing I saw last night has changed my mind about the 2012 election. It's Obama's to lose, and the GOP is making that a smaller possibility by the day.

Pats vs. Giants II - Electric Boogaloo

2012-01-24T12:40:00.000-05:00

That photo says it all, doesn't it?

Well, the rematch every Patriots fan wanted is booked for Indy. The Pats and Giants are going to rumble again, this time inside the cozy confines of Lucas Oil Stadium...

Seriously? Indianapolis? That's where you hold basketball tournaments, not Super Bowls. Super Bowls are meant to be held in San Diego or New Orleans or Miami.

They got away with it in Super Bowl XL at Detroit. But the time before that in Detroit (Super Bowl XVI) there was so much snow and ice it almost kept the 49ers from getting there on time.

But I digress. This is the match most neutral observers wanted. And it could really launch the Pats/Giants into a realm similar to where the Steelers/Cowboys resided in the 70s. Two successful teams with multiple titles clashing in the title game on a semi-regular basis. There is probably a 3-4 year window for this to happen. If they can get together one more time in a Super Bowl then that legacy will be locked in.

As for who will win...I obviously want the Pats. I think that one on one, Brady is the better QB. And that the defensive lines are equal.

On the other hand, the Pats' secondary is weak. Edelman got abused on that field by Flacco the other day. Manning will eat him for lunch.

Bottom line is that this is a very even matchup. It will likely be another tight game. Hopefully, there are no helmet catches in this one.

30 Second Movie Review: Your Highness (2011)

2012-01-19T10:40:00.002-05:00

There really hasn't been a good fantasy comedy since Monthy Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail.

There still isn't one.

It's annoying to say that because I really wanted to like Your Highness. I like Danny McBride's character. It's the same one he plays in every movie, but it's hilarious. I liked the special effects...heck, they were actually pretty good. There were some genuinely funny moments.

But it felt like one giant missed opportunity. Every scene where something funny started to develop slowly fell flat. And that is when anything was even allowed to develop; scenes were short and quick and disjointed.

And then there were plain bad decisions. I am sure in the writing room, the idea of McBride's character taking a Minotaur's penis as a trophy...and wearing it around his neck...sounded funny. In practice, it's just plain distracting and weird to stare at a dick around a man's neck for half an hour.

David Gordon Green has had an interesting career. The guy can direct humor; his Eastbound and Down episodes on HBO were hilarious. And Pineapple Express was good (though there are many people who feel otherwise). But I think his dramatic films (Undertow, Snow Angels, All the Real Girls) are better. And when you look at The Sitter, you can make a legit argument that Green is regressing in his comedic films.

Your Highness is good for a lark, a wasted Saturday afternoon or if you can find it for free. But I wouldn't pay for it, and I don't think it's worth owning.

This Is Why People Think You're A Dick

2012-01-17T15:43:00.001-05:00

Really...does Romney really stand a chance when he says stuff like this?

After speaking to a smaller-than-usual crowd on Tuesday morning in Florence, S.C., Mitt Romney took questions from the press and said that his effective tax rate was about 15 percent.
“It’s probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything,” Mr. Romney said. “Because my last 10 years, I’ve — my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income, or rather than earned annual income.”
Mr. Romney added: “And then I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.”

Of course, he made over $370,000 in speaker's fees last year. But it's "not very much". If only we all had to suffer with such meager funds.

So hundreds of thousands of dollars mean nothing to Romney and he pays a lower effective tax rate than someone making 60-70K a year. But I guess when you have money falling out of your shirt, that's just how you roll.

They have a word for guys like Romney. It rhymes with "ouchebag".

Damn Millenials...

2012-01-17T11:21:00.002-05:00

People may have called Gen X surly. Called us disaffected. Called us angry.

But at least we weren't coddled crybabies who refuse to do a lick of hard work.

Call Me A Gen-X Slacker If You Must...

2012-01-11T11:03:00.001-05:00

But this is still one of my favorite songs.The movie? Not so much. I found Singles annoying when it came out, let alone now.

Remember when Jeremy Piven had hair?

What Every Basketball Game Needs...More Wrestling

2012-01-07T14:56:00.005-05:00

I am not a high-school basketball coach - I coach grade-school kids in a local rec league. So maybe things are different to some extent. But this video tells me two things.

First, the refs need to be re-educated about flagrant fouls. Because these two idiots had no business being on that court.

Second, the coach should be fired. If one of my kids pulled this, he'd be on the bench so long his legs would fall asleep.

Poor Mittens...

2012-01-06T09:24:00.000-05:00

He barely got 48 hours to play with his "Obama is a job destroyer" toy before reality crushed it with it's boot:

The economy added 200,000 jobs in the month, the Labor Department reported Friday, doubling the number of jobs added in November.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 8.5%, the lowest level since February 2009.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had forecast 150,000 jobs added in the month, and expected the unemployment rate to tick up to 8.7%.

My suggestion to Mitt: say if you were President, you would have created eleventy-billion jobs. It'll be much harder to disprove that one. Remember...statements that can be disproven with facts are not your friend.

Poor Mittens...

The History of the RPG: Might and Magic Book One (1986)

2012-01-04T11:24:00.002-05:00

Last Installment: Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale

Up to this point, the two big computer RPG fantasy franchises were Wizardry and Ultima. As great as The Bard's Tale was, it never quite reached the heights of those two stalwarts.*

But in 1986, New World Computing released Might and Magic Book One. And there was another major player in the field. Largely the work of Jon Van Caneghem, Might and Magic became a fast fan favorite.

The trappings were old-school fantasy. You had six characters in your party and there were six classes. You assigned each character an alignment, gender and race. But here is where it got interesting. These choices actually mattered, in how you character fared or even where they could go.** This was a new step in the evolution of the RPG.

It was also non-linear. Not to the level that we have today in Skyrim. But you could go around and do other things without concentrating on the main plot, which was another step forward. Add that to the depth of the world and it is easy to see why it was so popular.

There was one other aspect to Might and Magic that set it apart: it had a sci-fi undercurrent. The bad guy in the game (Sheltem), is an escaped alien from a spaceship that crashed. It was an interesting twist to the genre.

The actual mechanics were similar to the RPGs of the mid-80s. First-person view, color 3D graphics and text-based/turn-based combat. So it wasn't inventive in that area. But considering the other things Might and Magic brought to the table, they can be forgiven for that.

Influence

Introducing a nascent "open-world sandbox" idea to the RPG. Making alignment, gender and race affect the progression of a game.

Descendants

Any RPG that allows you to do what you what and to take your time in completing the main plot.

Next on the list: Starflight

----------------

* That said, I always like it more than Might and Magic. I never really took to this franchise the way I did with The Bard's Tale. I have no explanation why.

** Hell, there was one city (Portsmith) where if you were a guy, you could be injured depending on where you walked in the city. Who thinks to do something like that? It was brilliant.

Mitt-tastrophy

2012-01-04T09:34:00.002-05:00

Steven Benen at Washington Monthly makes an interesting point about Mitt Romney's less-than-impressive "win" in the Iowa GOP Caucus.

After five years of near-constant campaigning, Romney managed to get fewer votes in Iowa last night than he did in his first campaign. He also picked up the dubious honor of the weakest win in the history of the caucuses — no victor has ever managed to finish first with less than 25% of the vote until last night.

And he's right. In 2008 Romney won 25.2% in a six-candidate race. In 2012, he won 24.5% in a six-candidate race, seven candidates if you count Jon Huntsman and his handful of votes.

Romney has been running for President since 2009. He dropped close to $5M in Iowa.* And he could barely beat out a walking joke like Rick Santorum.

Republicans must really, really not like Mitt Romney. Which makes sense because no one really does.

----------

* Yeah...THIS guy knows everything about finance and economics. He spent close to $150 per vote. Santorum spent under two bucks.

I Have No Reason To Post This Video

2012-01-02T15:14:00.004-05:00

I just love it. I was at a wedding in Portsmouth not too long ago. Walking down the streets at 2 AM with my fiancee and our friends, I just start saying these lines for some bizarre reason. It was still funny the next day.

The History of the RPG: Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale (1985)

2011-12-28T12:45:00.001-05:00

Last Installment: Telengard

Up to now, the computer RPGs I have listed I played, at first, on the computers of friends. For all too brief moments of time. But then I got my Commodore 64. And the very first RPG I bought for it was Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale.*

And it was awesome.**

It was a major step up from Ultima and Telengard. Animated character portraits. 3D color graphics. Party-based combat with multiple classes available.*** And then there was the Bard.

The Bard was unlike any other character in a computer RPG up to that time. Hell, it was even relatively rare in the table-based Dungeons and Dragons versions of that time.**** He was a singer, obviously. And he was critical to your ability to complete the game. As in "You cannot solve this puzzle without a Bard" critical. The Bard also gave your party various benefits with songs he sang, like increased armor. Something that was totally revolutionary to the computer RPG at the time.

The game also had a sense of humor, which has thankfully remained in computer RPGs going forward.

And it was a total time suck. I remember staying up really late, trying to grind out just one more level of the sewers beneath Skara Brae, praying I didn't hit a Darkness square or get trapped in a spinner. And woe to you if you find the room of the 99 Berserkers without a magic user with the right spell.*****

While the plot wasn't what one would call "complicated" (hey, an evil wizard to destroy!), The Bard's Tale represented a huge step forward in playability and style. And the Bard was a completely new idea that added a whole new dimension to computer RPG playing.

The Bard's Tale would go on to spawn two sequels and something of a reboot in 2004's The Bard's Tale. I have to say, I wouldn't mind seeing the original trilogy get a reboot in the style of Baldur's Gate II. It was really fun and I think it would be a big hit if done in a modern style.

Influence

The Bard's spells, which improved party stats, could be considered the first "buff". That concept is now fully expressed in games like World of Warcraft. The Bard class, although somewhat present in tabletop D&D games, was a unique class that broke the "wizard/fighter/thief" box.

Descendants

RPGs with a sense of humor. Which, thankfully, is a long list. But The Bard's Tale wasn't so much a progenitor as it was the next step in the development of the fantasy RPG.

Next on the list: Might and Magic, Book One

----------------

* That is the real name of the game. But they printed the "Tales of the Unknown" part way too small at the top of the box. Everyone took to calling it The Bard's Tale and the name stuck. Which goes to show that font size was, and still is, important.

** It really was. I still think of this as one of my Top 10 games of all time. That is likely a view tinged with a healthy dose of nostalgia. But I think The Bard's Tale still holds up quality-wise as a superior game.

*** Hunters are still my favorite class of all time.

**** Yeah, I am a total gaming nerd. What of it? And yes, I know that you could become a bard if you jumped through enough statistical hoops. But you didn't have to do that here. And who wants to waste their time dual-classing twice? Eff that with a chainsaw.

***** "You see 99 Berserkers, 99 Berserkers, 99 Berserkers, and 99 Berserkers. Will your stalwart band choose to (F)ight or (R)un?" Without the right spell, (R) was the only choice to make.

You Know You're Screwed When...

2011-12-21T12:53:00.001-05:00

If you are the GOP, and you lose the Wall Street Journal editorial page over the payroll tax, you are pretty well screwed.

For 30 years, the GOP's best weapon has been that they are the party that won't raise your taxes. And now they are about to do just that. It almost makes you think the GOP wants Obama to win in 2012

So Glad The Pats Derailed The Tebow Express

2011-12-19T11:37:00.001-05:00

And it's not only because I am a Pats fan. And it's not because I hate Tebow. By all accounts (thus far*), he is a good person that gives a lot to his community.

It's because I am sick and tired of Tebow's ostentatious, near "in your face" displays of Christianity.

I have no issue with faith; I am a life-long Episcopalian. I believe in God and the afterlife. What I do have an issue with are people who use their faith either as a cudgel (like most Republicans) or as a constant talking point (see one Mr. Tebow.).

In comparison, look at Aaron Rodgers. Rodgers is, by most accounts, quite religious. But he doesn't talk about it or make it a talking point. He just lives it. Like it says in the Bible (Matthew 6:5-6):

When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

In other words, enough with the knee prayers and Godtalk every other second when it comes to football. Frankly, God didn't help you win or help you lose. Keep it to yourself and simply do the good works you are already doing. That, more than all the kneeling and pointing and talking, will display and characterize your faith.

And there is one other thing...the hypocrisy of all the right-wing evangelicals and fundamentalists that think Tebow being so public with his faith is a good thing. Oh really? How happy would you be if he was giving thanks to Allah? Or to the Buddha? Or to Ahura Mazda? Would you still think it was a good thing? Or would you all be losing your collective minds?

I am so tired of faith being politicized and utilized in public forums.

So as a bonus, here's Vince Wilfork going after Tebow like a lion chasing a gazelle.

------------

* I only say "thus far" because all too often the public figures people hold up as paragons of virtue end up disappointing them.

Back In The Mix

2011-12-14T10:41:00.000-05:00

After Arsenal dismantled Chelsea 5-3 in what has been the most entertaining EPL match so far this year, I wrote the following:

Arsenal has an interesting stretch coming up. Between November 1 and December 10, they have five home matches and three away in all competitions. In the Champions League, they have Marseille and Borussia Dortmund at home, and Olympiakos away. In the Premier League they have WBA, Fulham and Everton at home, with Norwich and Wigan on the road. This is excepting the as-yet unscheduled Carling Cup quarterfinal with Man City.
I don't see why Arsenal cannot win all these matches. Especially the EPL games; Arsenal sits ahead of all those teams. The only possible trip-up is Norwich...they have been surprisingly resilient. But Arsenal should be able to enter their Dec. 18th match against Man City at Etihad Stadium having taken maximum points. Which would, at worst, keep them in seventh but would likely have them knocking on the door of fourth place.

In those five EPL matches, Arsenal took 13 of 15 points and outscored their opponents 11-2. In the Champions League, they drew with Marseille and beat Dorussia Dortmund, rendering the final game with Olympiakos moot. For a team that looked out of it in September, Arsenal is back in the thick of things.

Arsenal sits fifth in the EPL table, but only two points behind Chelsea and Tottenham for the third and fourth spots. They are nine back of first-place Man City, a not-insurmountable lead. Riding the solid goaltending of Szczęsny and the golden foot of Van Persie, Arsenal have quieted their critics.

If there has been any dark cloud this past month, it was the indefensible injury suffered by Andre Santos in the match against Olympiakos. Arsenal had secured the top spot in their group. The match was meaningless. And yet Wenger ran out some first-stringers. Thank God Vermaelen didn't get hurt. But losing Santos until March is a hard blow. Arsenal is already strapped at left-back, with Gibbs, Sagna and Jenkinson on the mend. As much as I like Wenger and admire his ability, he made a huge mistake exposing his starters to injury like that.

The silver lining to that cloud is the persistent rumor that Arsenal may be in for Ajax defender Jan Vertonghen. Only 24 years of age, he can play at center and left back as well as in the defensive midfield. He is also a member of the Belgian national team and friends with Vermaelen. There are reports that Tottenham is trying to beat Arsenal to the punch with a 10M pound bid. But Arsenal still has a substantial amount of money left from the summer transfer market and could easily top any bid Tottenham make. One would also hope that Vermaelen's presence on the Arsenal squad would help sway Vertonghen to the Gunners.

Vertonghen would not only fill the immediate need at left-back, but he would also be an able substitute for Song when needed and would keep Song fresh for Champions League matches. This is the kind of move Wenger has to make if he is serious about Arsenal staying in the mix at the top of the table. He also needs to find another striker/wing to fill in for Gervinho while he's at the African Nations Cup in January.

Arsenal have made great gains since those dark days after the Old Trafford Massacre and losing to Blackburn. But there are still a couple of moves to make to solidify those gains.

And the road doesn't get easier. Between now and the end of January, Arsenal have eight EPL matches. Five are away (Man City, Aston Villa, Fulham, Swansea and Bolton) and three are at home (Wolves, QPR and Man United). The two big ones are obviously the Manchester squads. But all those road games are tricky. And Wolves and QPR can be surprisingly resilient. This will be a major test of Arsenal's resolve.

The History of the RPG: Telengard (1982)

2011-12-13T16:04:00.000-05:00

Last Installment: Ultima

If Wizardry and Ultima were the two progenitors of the computer RPG, it was Telengard that solidified it as an enduring genre on the PC. For even though it didn't have first-person views, or a world map, or even an end, it was so much fun that you'd play it for hours.

Telengard was simplicity itself. A D&D style game, you randomly generate stats for your character, but that's it. No race, no class*. There are inns where you can store your booty, rest and game save, but are accessible only on level one. Each piece of gold you find and store translates into experience points when you rest. You venture in to the dungeon to slay monsters and collect rewards using your sword and your spells. Sounds simple, right?

Not so fast. First, there is the size of Telengard The dungeon is 2,000,000 rooms in size and fifty levels deep, a number that would be impressive even today. Daniel Lawrence (the creator) achieved this by having Telengard generate the rooms through an algorithm that maximized the 8KB of memory he had available. So the dungeon was, for all intent and purposes, endless. Second, the game was real-time. There was no pause feature**. The only way you could stop it was to reach an inn and save your game. Third, the randomness of Telengard was legendary. You could enter into lower levels before your character was ready by falling in a pit. You could drink from a fountain and lose a level of experience. You never knew what was coming around the corner.

And then there was the big one: there was no "winning" the game. At all. And that was done on purpose. Telengard wasn't about the end but the means. It was a pure gaming platform. It was about gaining experience and killing monsters. The only "winning" to be done was through goals you and your friends set for yourselves. Who could live the longest or go the deepest. Who could gain the most experience or have the highest "+" magic item. Telengard was addictive in a way that Wizardry and Ultima were not. Because in Telengard, there was no limit and no end.

Influence

Refined the "dungeon crawl" of Wizardry into it's purest form. Massive dungeons. The unfortunate concept of "real-time" gaming combined with no pausing.

Descendants: Diablo, obviously. It's a straight line. All the way to using teleport spells to return to the top.***

Next on the list: The Bard's Tale

----------------

* Well, you were a combo of wizard and warrior. But you didn't get to choose it. That is simply how it was.

** This is something that Diablo III is apparently planning to resurrect in a fashion. Stopping at the wrong point can lose you a lot of level progress. This is apparently due to an internet connection being required for even a single-player game.****

*** They may claim it was Moria that influenced them. But you can't look at that and not see Telengard in its genetics.

**** Which is fucking stupid. I mean, c'mon. What idiot at Blizzard thought that was a good idea? Yeah yeah yeah...they don't want people gaming and cheating PvP. I get that. So allow people to create single-player only characters. Problem solved.

An Early Christmas Present

2011-12-13T10:18:00.000-05:00

The surge of Newt Gingrich (aka The Doughy Ball of Hate) in the leadup to the GOP primaries has been something to behold. Not only because it proves yet again that GOP voters do not like Mitt Romney, but because it proves GOP voters have gone completely insane.

Gingrich is a massively flawed candidate who is electoral poison in a general election. So why are GOP voters seemingly intent on making him their candidate? They think he's a genius.

Many conservatives are positively obsessed with the idea that contrary to all appearances, Barack Obama is kind of a dolt. There's lots of talk about how Obama only got into Columbia and Harvard Law School because of affirmative action (you may remember noted highbrow intellectual Donald Trump making this claim), and endless jokes about Obama overusing teleprompters...
...So many conservatives have a fantasy that if they nominate their own smart guy, he'll show the world that they've been right all along, that Obama is really a numbskull whom people only believe is smart because the liberal media sing his praises...
...to many Republicans, Newt offers the opportunity to not just defeat Obama but to expose him as a fraud. In truth, he's probably capable of doing neither. But don't tell his new supporters that. In Newt they are beginning to see the possibility of Obama being humiliated. And that could be a fantasy too delicious to resist.

In short, GOP voters think that Obama is stupid and only got his job because he's black. So they'll nominate the Great White Intellectual to run against him and expose that Kenyan Socialist for the fraud he is! Huzzah!! Huzzah!!

The only problem? Gingrich isn't a genius. He isn't even all that bright. What he is, is staggeringly arrogant. He's the stuck up jackass in class who thinks every word that crosses his lips should be preserved in the Library of Congress.

It's one thing to be smart and be aware of it and to guard against believing your own hype, as Obama does. It's another to not be that bright AND believe your own hype, which is what Gingrich does.

Look at what Gingrich spouts off about! Making poor urban children clean school. Pushing a tax plan that would give millionaires a lower top rate than middle-class Americans AND add a trillion+ dollars to the deficit. Bombing Iran. The guy is a walking nightmare of idiocy. But GOP voters are convinced he will embarrass Obama in a debate and that makes him the best candidate.

As good a politician as President Obama is, he has always been lucky in his opponents. And the GOP seems ready to once again giftwrap him an election.

The History of the RPG: Ultima (1981)

2011-12-12T12:15:00.000-05:00

Last Installment: Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord

Around the same time Wizardry was teleporting gamers into walls and telling them to keep going left, another classic in the RPG genre was starving players to death and launching them into space. The game was Ultima, and much like it's counterpart, it would revolutionize the RPG and gaming in general*.

Ultima was bigger and deeper than Wizardry. This wasn't 10 levels of mayhem to defeat a wizard. This was wandering the countryside and entering cities...to defeat a wizard. But while the final goal was similar, how you got there was completely different.

Like I said, Ultima was the first RPG to give us a real "game world": the kingdom of Sosaria. The evil wizard Mondain causes mass chaos in Sosaria and cannot be defeated because of his gem of Immortality. As the hero, you have to travel to different cities and dungeons to gather gems that will enable you to power a time machine so you can go back in time and kill Mondain before he creates his gem.

Yes, I said "time machine". You also have to actually go into space. In order to finish the game you have to become a space ace and kill 20 enemy ships. Compared to permadeath, that's a tolerable added hurdle to cross.

Ultima also laid down the template for the future of RPGs in other ways. An open world map you could travel. Town and cities to visit with quests to accomplish. Dungeons in the wild. All these things we take for granted now (which find their ultimate expression in Skyrim) began with Ultima. The world map was top down, third person. You shifted to first person when in a dungeon. And those dungeons? Randomly generated, so the "pad and paper" mapping of Wizardry was pointless from game to game. And you didn't have to visit every dungeon, which was the first expression of the "open world" concept.

Character generation was similar to Wizardry, in that you had a limited number of race choices and class choices. Unlike Wizardry your initial stat points weren't a random total. You were given a set amounts and you could parcel them out however you wanted. One other thing...one of the races was a "Bobbit". Yes, it sounds like Hobbit for a reason**.

And as I said before, you could starve to death. Each move on the world map consumed a unit of food. If you ran out, you starved. This began a very annoying RPG trend that has only fully vanished in recent years***. And the Ultima series had some variation on this theme throughout most of its lifetime. I never liked this. Why not have a "balance your checkbook" requirement as well? I play RPGs for fun, not to monitor my nutritional requirements.

Once you got all the gems you needed and rescued the princess to get the time machine (and proved you could use it by becoming a space ace), you went back in time, killed Mondain and won. Sounds simple, but it wasn't.

Influence

World maps. Open world. Quests. Randomly-generated dungeons. Saving princesses. Time travel. All that began with Ultima. And all of them can still be found in RPGs today.

Descendants: Baldur's Gate. Dragon's Age. Skyrim. Any game that uses a world map and has quests. Which is pretty much every RPG worth talking about. Ultima may be second on my list, but it has had more influence in the RPG genre than any other game. Period.

Next on the list: Telengard

------------

* To be fair, Richard Garriott (the creator) had an earlier effort called Akalabeth, that he made as a teenager. It got the attention of California Pacific Computer Company, who bought the rights and paid him $5 for each copy sold. Garriott made $150K off of Akalabeth. Ultima uses a lot of code from Akalabeth, so it deserves at least a mention here.

** I can't believe Tolkein's estate never sued Garriott or Origin for copyright infringment. Bobbits (Hobbits), Akalabeth (Akallabêth) and others...I am guessing they were either flattered or unaware.

*** Even the original Fallout had a water requirement. It's taking the "reality" aspect of RPGs a step too far. Like making your computer generated character look "too human". It is more of a distraction than an enhancement.

The History of the RPG: Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord (1981)

2011-12-08T12:27:00.001-05:00

In writing about Skyrim the other day and how it compares to Mass Effect or Dragons Age, I got to thinking about RPGs in general. And how they have developed over the past 30+ years.

I have been there from the start, banging on Ultima on my friend's Apple II or staying up past midnight playing Bard's Tale on my Commodore. The line from those first efforts to the insanely deep RPGs we have today is a varied and long one. But you can see themes, ideas and influences from those early 1980s trailblazers in games today. And some of our favorites from today wouldn't even exist without some of the early efforts.

For me, my first exposure to the RPG was at the tender age of 9. One of my friends had an Apple II* and couldn't stop telling me about this new game his parents had bought for him. The name? Wizardry: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord**. If you consider Wizardry, Ultima and Temple of Apshai as the Holy Trinity that began RPGs, I would personally put Wizardry*** in the lead role.

It was, for it's time, revolutionary. The first D&D style computer RPG to use color graphics. The first RPG to use party-based combat. For all of us kids who were getting into D&D on paper, to see those ideas "come to life" on a computer was a world-redefining event. We could actually be a good Dwarven Fighter or an evil Elf Thief. Wizardry was also the first "dungeon crawl".

It was genius in its simplicity. You create a party of up to six characters, arm them and then try to make it through 10 levels. The screen was mostly text, like this:

The view was first-person when moving through the dungeon. You find more valuable and powerful weapons and armor. If you make it to level 10, you try to defeat the wizard Werdna and get the amulet. If you do, you win.

And there was the catch: Wizardry was a stone-cold bitch when it came to trying to win the game. First off, mapping functions didn't exist in 1981. So if you were a good D&D gamer, you broke out your graph paper and drew the map as you went along. Because sometimes you would hit a square with a teleport spell and be sent into a random part of the level. Or maybe a wall.**** And if your character teleports into a wall, they are gone. Forever. Die in combat? You are done. If you run out of spells on level 3? You have to go back to the top to repower. And if you use the most powerful spell in the game (Mahaman) - which is only available once you hit Level 13 - you lose a level! You think grinding for copper in WoW is tedious? Try wandering a level for hours on end to kill enough monsters to get that level back. Oh yeah, and your characters age. So too many trips back to the top to visit the Inn and your Lord or Ninja will drop dead from old age.

Demon Souls is hard? Please. Kid, you don't know the meaning of hard.

And the kicker? The cherry on top? If you wanted any chance of successfully playing the next two games in the series, you had to beat this game so you could import your party*****. So when I have to reload a few times to actually kill a Frost Dragon in Skyrim? That's nothing, friend. Losing a party on the fifth level of Wizardry? That's pain.

But still...I love this game. Love it.

And remember: CONTRA-DEXTRA AVENUE

Influence

Any game that uses party-based combat owes a debt of thanks to Wizardry. Any game that is a "dungeon crawl" or a "hack-and-slash" has its genesis in Wizardry. Sadistic games that barely let you save or kill you seemingly at will? Blame Wizardry, which still does it better than anyone else. Or worse, depending on your point of view. first-person color graphics? Right here.

Descendants: Diablo. In a lot of ways, you can draw a straight line between the two games. Dungeon crawl straight down, returning to the top on occasion, teleporting to transition between levels. The only major differences would be the single- vs party-combat styles and the first-person vs third-person combat styles.******

Next on the list: Ultima

-------------------

* The Apple II line was amazingly long-lived. The first one came out in 1977 and the final version - the IIe - stopped production in 1993. The IIe was a wonder unto itself: a 10+ year run and only minor changes were ever made to the design.

** I am just calling it Wizardry for the rest of the piece. But we all know I am talking about the first one, right? Good.

*** This is obviously a matter of subjective choice and which you actually played first. Timeline-wise, Temple of Apshai was first. But does anyone ever say "I was really inspired to make this because of all the hours I spent playing Temple of Apshai as a kid"? No.

**** You have no idea how annoying this was. Bill Simmons at Grantland will talk about the Madden football series from time to time and mentions the "No F***ing Way game", where the computer simply decides you are going to lose and has Tyler Palko complete a 90-yard bomb with no time on the clock. Teleporting into a wall was the equivalent back in 1981.

***** Initially it was worse that this. At first, you couldn't even play the next game in the series unless you imported a party from Wizardry. Luckily, some genius at Sir-Tech realized this might impact sales slightly and the correction was made. Now, you could generate a new party for Wizardry II but they would likely die in the high-level beginning dungeon. In the land of Wizardry this is known as progress.

****** Yeah yeah yeah. I know..."what about Rogue?? It's coming. Most people didn't get to try it until 1984.

A Further Rumination on Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

2011-12-07T14:09:00.000-05:00

They should have nicknamed this game "Widowmaker". As in, your significant other (should you have one) will see so little of you they will assume you are dead.

I am lucky to have a very understanding fiancee. But man...even I am amazed at the sheer number of hours I have logged on Skyrim thus far. A conservative estimate would be 60+ hours, and I have not even finished either of the two main storylines (ending the civil war and defeating Alduin). So what have I done?

I have become a master blacksmith. I have gained artifacts of immense power. I have gotten married*. I have wandered blindly into empty areas of the map and gotten sucked into quest lines of remarkable depth and length. And I still have empty areas of the map and more questlines to solve.

Oh, yeah. And I have killed a hell of a lot of dragons.

Let's face it, even without all the other stuff, the chance to kill dragons is a gamechanger. And Skyrim does it really well. The dragons fight smart, using flybys to scorch you on the ground and landing on roofs or outcroppings to gain a height advantage. Killing dragons isn't easy, and each one feels like an accomplishment. And if you are lucky (small spoiler), you can come upon Alduin bringing a dragon to life**. This happened to me on one of my wanderings. They talked to each other in their language. The dragon had a name (something like Viirathan, as opposed to a generic "frost dragon"). And then I killed the SOB by burying my sword in his head. Good times...

Skyrim has set the bar when it comes to sandbox RPGs***. Hell, RPGs in general. To the point that very good RPGs that give the illusion of freedom (like Mass Effect and Dragons Age****) are going to suffer in comparison. It will no longer be enough to allow a player to have freedom only within the areas you want them to go to.

For example, there are many nine major cities in Skyrim. There are three you spend major time in and a couple you barely touch for the main storyline. But the others? You don't have to go there. They have a lot of questlines and some neat stuff, but they aren't required. That is actually the bulk of the game: things you can do, but aren't required. Which is what makes Skyrim the hands-down best game of 2011.

Freedom. Choice. The ability for a gamer to do what they want, or don't want, to do on a grand scale. No developer or publisher can say it's too hard to do anymore because Bethesda has proven with Oblivion***** and now with Skyrim that you can do it and do it amazingly well. It's no surprise that Bethesda also publishes the Fallout series, another sandbox RPG that gives the player an insane amount of freedom******.

Now are there minor glitches? Of course; I think that is unavoidable with a game that is this complex. They are the usual "something stuck in midair" or "oops I walked through a mountain" hiccups. Though I did see a mammoth rise about 40 feet off the ground and then plummet to his death. It actually looked pretty neat. In a world with talking dragons and cat-people, who am I to say a mammoth can't engage in suicide-by-levitation?

The one thing that does bother me now and again is the companion AI. Sometimes they get stuck at one place in a dungeon. If you don't notice in time, you can get stuck in a big battle without backup. But that has only happened once or twice.

Bottom line is that if I could only buy one game in 2011, it would be Skyrim. As it is, I play it like it's the only game I own.

-----------------

* Just seemed like it was the right time. That and it's a major source of gold generation. Ah, true love.

** This happens once in the storyline quests. But this one happened at random in the middle of Skyrim. I don't know if Bethesda scripted that as possible, but it was pretty neat to see.

*** Don't worry, I will give Fallout the respect it deserves.

**** This isn't to insult either franchise. I love both of them. I think Bioware and EA set the bar in franchise continuity with both by having the final savegame from previous versions of the franchise dictate what happens in the new game. In fact, that may have been even more groundbreaking. Combine that with a Skyrim-style experience...wow. That would be the best game ever made.)

***** I think Oblivion and Skyrim is the best one-two punch in any franchise. With the possible exception of Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn. BG II is still, for my money, the best straightforward RPG ever made.

****** See, I told you I would get to Fallout

Well, I'm the Idiot

2011-12-07T10:46:00.000-05:00

I have been saying for a while that Jon Huntsman is "running" for President in 2012 just so he could establish himself as the only sane candidate on the Right. And that when the Tea Party-infused GOP collapses in the elections (and they will), Huntsman would have a clear shot at 2016. Hence his withering attacks against Romney, not acting like a mental patient, so forth and so on...

But no. Apparently, with The Doughy Ball of Hate rocketing to the top of the GOP List of Crazy, Huntsman has decided to get his wingnut on in regards to global climate change:

“[T]here is — there are questions about the validity of the science, evidenced by one university over in Scotland recently. I think the onus is on the scientific community to provide more in the way of information, to help clarify the situation.”

Never mind that East Anglia University is in England, not Scotland (that's a Perry-esque unforced error), but this is exactly the opposite of what Huntsman has been saying up to now. Here is a quote from a Time article back in May:

All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we’d listen to them. I respect science and the professionals behind the science so I tend to think it’s better left to the science community

But now? Now there are "questions" about validity. Bull. Shit. Someone got in Huntsman's ear and said if he went a little wingnut, he could position himself for the next time it comes out the Doughy Ball of Hate took millions of dollars from some government agency he supposedly hates.

Winning in politics means playing the long game more often than not. Once in a while someone rides the lighting to the top (like President Obama). But even he put in seven years in the Illinois State Senate before getting into the US Senate in 2005.

Huntsman worked for the Obama Administration and speaks Mandarin Chinese. He has zero chance of getting the GOP nod with the current voter base. His best chance is to be the adult, let the GOP implode next year and then be the man who steps in to save everything. Instead, he's going to start spouting wingnut tropes. Oh, and this is also a flip-flop. So now Huntsman and Romney are pretty much the same guy.

Shame on me for thinking there was one Republican left with a conscience.

30 Second Review of Pontypool (2008)

2011-12-06T12:30:00.002-05:00

It's hard to do something different with the zombie film genre. The biggest revision in the past 40+ years or so was to make them "fast" in 28 Days Later, which admittedly was a big change. But Pontypool, a small Canadian horror film directed by Bruce McDonald, takes it to a whole new place.

The entire film takes place in a radio studio. And the virus that infects people is passed through...well, it is a very unique vector.

You would think a zombie movie in which you rarely see the zombies would be a bust. But it's not. This movie is quite suspenseful and has a few genuinely creepy moments. The small cast is anchored by Stephen McHattie, who plays the radio host Grant Mazzy. He's an alcoholic, acerbic jerk but makes you laugh. Like if House, MD was about a radio DJ instead of a doctor. You may have seen McHattie in Immortals as Cassander or as Hollis Mason in Watchmen. The man can act.

This film got a small US release but had a ton of festival buzz. It is not your average horror film. What it is is an original take on a genre that is slowly stagnating. And it is one worth watching. You can catch it on Netflix streaming or get it on the cheap at Amazon.

30 Second Review Of The Muppets (2011)

2011-12-05T13:12:00.000-05:00

In a word? "Awesome". Want two? "Incredibly Awesome". Director James Bobin and writers Jason Siegel and Nicholas Stoller get the two big things right about the Muppets:

The rest of the world don't see the Muppets as "odd". It makes perfect sense to see a talking frog, a piano-playing dog and Gonzo running a plumbing business. This is the one "rule-breaker" any story gets. As long as you keep it consistent in the story, you can take something illogical or out-there and make it a fact. The Muppets does this perfectly.
It's a little kitschy, a little vaudeville and very funny. But still sweet. That is where the Muppets excel, and this movie firmly plants a foot in both areas.

As long as you remember those two rules, and put a good story behind them, any Muppet movie is going to be a blast. And "The Muppets" is just that. Ostensibly about two brothers - Gary (Siegel) and Walter (Muppet) trying to get the Muppets back together for a telethon to save the old studio, it's about a lot more. Friendship, growing up, believing in yourself...the movie hits those notes while keeping you in stitches. The story never drags. It may dip here and there, but it never leaves you wondering what is going on.

And kids adore it. My son is 9 and had just seen the original The Muppet Movie. After this, he wants all the Muppet films and the TV series on DVD. And that is the greatest testament to what Bobin, Siegel and Stoller have done here. It's obvious they love the Muppets as well. And they were able to have that permeate every scene. And when a movie is made like that, especially a movie for kids*, it will resonate and stick and endure.

The Muppets is a great, great film. Go see it if you haven't. You will not be disappointed.

---------

* It's also (obviously) made for adults who grew up as kids with the Muppets or even remember Kermit on Sesame Street (like me). And it works on that level as well. It is a film that completely satisfies two totally different age groups. And that is a rare feat.

Best NFL Tight End Update

2011-11-22T13:31:00.002-05:00

Remember when I told you Rob Gronkowski of the Patriots was the best tight end no one was talking about? Well, it seems everyone is talking about Gronk these days. And for better reasons than a porn star wearing his shirt.

Last night in New England's 34-3 dismantling of the Chiefs, Gronk caught four passes for 96 yards and two TDs. That gives him 56 receptions for 805 yards and 10 TDs. Baring a total collapse in his game or an injury, Gronkowski should garner at least 4 TD receptions over the last six games. That would give him the new single-season record for TD receptions by a tight end (currently 13, held by Antonio Gates). The four receptions put him behind the pace to break Tony Gonzalez's record of 104 receptions in a single season. But Gronk is also on track to eclipse Kellen Winslow's record of 1,290 receiving yards in a single season by just a hair.

People are recognizing that Gronk is the best TE in the game today. What they still seem to be missing is that he is having a potentially historic season for a tight end.

Groundhog Day In Hell

2011-11-22T11:06:00.000-05:00

If it's Tuesday, it must be another GOP debate.

The most interesting thing thus far hasn't been the skewed world view or the insane audiences booing soldiers and cheering for executions. It has been the GOP voters overwhelming reluctance to accept Mitt Romney as the GOP candidate for President.

First it was Bachmann and her crazy ideas. Then it was Herman Cain, 9-9-9 and sexual harassment suits. Now, we have Newt Gingrich, the Little Doughy Corrupt Ball of Hate. And, like Bachmann and Cain, he is bound to crash and burn as well.

But this reluctance on the part of GOP voters to embrace Mitt "Flipper" Romney forces him to continually tack to the hard right. And then repudiate what he said days later. The result is that when he is nominated (and I still think he will be), the Democrats will have an ungodly amount of footage showing Romney taking positions that are poison with the majority of American voters. And also taking the exact opposite position. President Obama could go without saying a single negative thing about Romney, simply letting videos of Flipper do all the talking.

But that is for later. Tonight, we will be treated to insane political viewpoints, ridiculous economic theories, and Gingrich twisting himself into a pretzel so he can attack Freddie Mac while pretending he never lobbied for Freddie Mac. Even though he did.

President Obama is the luckiest politician on the face of the Earth to be handed a bunch of clowns like this for his opponents.

Winning the Hard Ones

2011-11-21T16:23:00.000-05:00

Arsenal's visit to Carrow Road had the potential to be a banana-skin for the surging Gunners. Coming off international matches, on the road, against a Norwich City team that has given upper-tier teams a challenging time (including drawing with Liverpool at Anfield).

And it looked like that was exactly what was going to happen. Despite dominating the early minutes, Arsenal went down 1-0 around the 16th minute when Mertesacker misplayed a ball and allowed Morison to slice the ball past Szczesny. Mertesacker hasn't been bad in the back four. But he has had some remarkable lapses and misplays. I don't think that is indicative of him as a player, but rather he is adjusting to a different style of football. You can see that Mertesacker has the fundamentals down. That is the important thing. He will adjust and become a very solid defender for Arsenal. But while that is happening, he will occasionally have a bad moment like the one with Morison.

Going down 1-0 was the nightmare scenario for Arsenal. Could they come back and win on the road with tired players? The answer was "yes", thanks in large part to three men: Alex Song, Theo Walcott and Robin van Persie.

Before we get to the good stuff, it should be noted that Arsenal should have won this match 5-1 or so. They had a number of chances over the rest of the game and couldn't convert. The most blatant being a second-half miss where Gervinho was staring at the Norwich net with only keeper John Ruddy in his way and someone blew the goal. Arsenal had 20 shots, 11 on target and could only convert two.

Anyway...Walcott has really stepped up his game over the last few matches and seems to be playing to his talent on a more regular basis. His runs are more insightful and his passing is much better. The first Arsenal goal was evidence of that, a nice run down the right that ended with Walcott cutting the ball across the box to Gervinho, who missed a flick. But the ball went on to a waiting van Persie who slotted it home to tie the game at one.

Then, in the 60th minute, Alex Song played the advantage and brought the ball up the middle through the Norwich defense into the box. He had Gervinho more open on the left, but elected to pass it through a little traffic to van Persie on the right. RVP repaid that faith with a beautiful little shot that lifted over Ruddy's left shoulder into the net and gave Arsenal the 2-1 lead.

Two things from that exchange. First, Alex Song is just as vital a cog to the Arsenal side as Van Persie. Song's defense is already good and still improving. And he isn't afraid to run with the ball and make a timely pass. There isn't a more complete holding midfielder in the EPL today.

Second, van Persie is on another level this year. He has 13 goals (best in the EPL) and three assists in 12 EPL matches this year. He has made beautiful goal after beautiful goal. If there was ever a player for Arsenal to finally pay over 100,000 a week, it would be RVP. Their top scorer after RVP is three players with two goals a piece.

Even so, the inability of Arsenal to find a vital third goal kept things closer than they had to be. And Norwich had a couple of chances go close in the last 20 minutes, including a cross across the goalmouth that Andy Pilkington somehow failed to put home.

But Norwich never found that goal. And so despite not scoring more goals and a defense that was shaky at times, Arsenal took home the three points. And that, in its own way, is even more impressive that their 5-3 win against Chelsea.

Let's be frank; these are the games that Arsenal couldn't win early in the year. Hell, these are the games they have had trouble winning the past couple of years. Winning what appear to be "easy" away games has been a challenge for this team. But they came through on Saturday. They walked out of Carrow Road with three points. And that, in the end, is what really matters.

First Impressions of Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

2011-11-15T11:24:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to talk briefly about my initial impressions of Bethesda's latest addition to the Elder Scrolls saga: Skyrim. I don't think you can do a proper review when you haven't come close to even getting through the beginning of the game, let alone the ending. That said, I can make a few observations.

The graphics are better. I am playing on a 360 and the difference between Oblivion and Skyrim is remarkable. Crisper, cleaner and very dynamic. For example, when transitioning from a sunny area to a snowing area the weather changes gradually, not all at once.
The fighting is better. In many ways the fighting is the same as in Oblivion. But it is different in one major facet. Sometimes, when you kill an enemy, you get a little bonus scene at the end for the kill. It may be you blocking a strike and running your blade through their chest. Or you may execute a spinning strike and slash their throat. I don't know what triggers it (perhaps a critical damage hit that kills?), but it is a nice flourish.
Leveling up is completely revamped. You are not (as far as I can tell) locked into a particular profession or skill path in Skyrim. When you level up you first take an increase in either Magicka, Stamina or Health. Then you get to select a perk in any of the skills, from Lockpicking to One-Handed Weapons to Destruction Magic. Each perk confers a bonus of some type and some may be taken multiple times. Each skill is represented by a constellation in the sky, and each perk is one of the stars. It's a very nice visual system, but more importantly it allows for even more customization of your character. Level up enough and you can have a thieving, fireball-wielding, swordmaster character. Or you can max out an entire skill tree.
The magic system is better...and worse. One of the things you can do is equip a spell on one hand and a weapon in the other. Also, you can equip a spell in both hands, which increases the effect of the spell. I like this idea a lot. But remember in Oblivion how (on the 360) you could map numerous spells to your radial d-pad and then access them on the fly? That isn't possible in Skyrim. Instead, you have "favorites" that you denote with (for the 360) the Y button. Then you press up or down on the d-pad, the game freezes and the whole list comes up. So while you can have more than 8 favorites, it interrupts the flow of the game. I'd rather see my spell hand go from the glow of a healing spell to the red of a fireball, instead of having to access a list. For a game that keeps you in the moment, this is a jarring break.
The dragons are awesome. If you haven't played yet, I will not spoil when you first encounter a dragon. Suffice it to say, they are massive. They are also well-designed and incredible to look at. Bethesda has also made dragon encounters dynamic in the game. So you never know when you may actually see one.
The storyline is strong. The land of Skyrim is embroiled in civil war, with the King having been slain by one of his Jarls in a duel. The rebels want to return to the old ways of Skyrim, the Imperial soldiers and the military governor fight to retain Skyrim within the Empire. This conflict permeates everything in Skyrim. Your side quests and relations with NPCs will be affected by the side you choose to take. It adds to the immersiveness of the game.

It goes without saying that all the accolades Skyrim has received were justified. It is fun to play, wonderful to watch and easy to jump into if you have never played these types of games. The one downside? I have to wait until Christmas to get Assassin's Creed: Revelations. But being able to wander Skyrim for the next month and a half makes it easy to wait.

The Best Tight End Most People Aren't Talking About

2011-11-14T12:05:00.000-05:00

When you think about tight ends in the NFL, the names that pop into your head are likely Tony Gonzalez and Antonio Gates. They are two of the best tight ends in the past decade and rank amongst the best at that position in NFL history.

When you think about elite offensive players on the Patriots the name that immediately comes to mind is Tom Brady, a man who already has a space reserved in Canton.

But there is someone else on the Patriots who just may be developing into an elite player. And who may one day be mentioned with Gonzalez and Gates. That man is, of course, Rob Gronkowski.

Gronkowski is a remarkable blend of size, speed and strength, with the added bonus of some of the softest hands in the game. He has become Brady's safety outlet, in much the same way that Ben Coates was for Drew Blesoe. The result is that Gronkowski is on track to put up some of the best single-season numbers ever by a tight end.

Right now, Gronkowski has 52 receptions for 709 yards and 8 TDs over nine games. If he just makes the per-game average of those numbers over the last seven games, Gronkowski would end the regular season with 104 receptions for 1261 yards and 14 TDs. That would set new NFL single-season records for receptions by a tight end (currently 102 - held by Gonzalez) and TD receptions (currently 13 - held by Gates). And his 1261 receiving yards would fall just 29 short of tying Kellen Winslow's record of 1290 yards, set in 1980. Even if Gronkowski falls short of making those numbers, it will still be one of the all-time best seasons by a tight end.

And yet we are not really hearing a lot about it. We read stories about Gronkowski being a favorite target, or being a physical juggernaut. We get stories about him letting a porn star wear his jersey and having a picture taken. But we aren't getting stories about Gronkowski slowly compiling an amazing statistical season at tight end.

That may be because Jimmy Graham is having just as amazing a season at TE with the Saints (62 receptions for 873 yards and six TDs). It is also due, in part, to having guys like Brady and Wes Welker on the offensive side of the ball. But Gronkowski deserves a lot more recognition than he is currently receiving.

At a minimum, Gronkowski is a lock for Pro Bowl at TE for the AFC unless the voting goes completely off the rails. And it will be between Gronkowski and Graham to see who gets the All-Pro first team TE slot, with the loser getting the second-team nod.

But Gronkowski deserves a little more recognition for what he is accomplishing on the field this year. It is nothing short of stellar.

Herman's Big Adventure

2011-11-07T14:45:00.000-05:00

Just when Herman Cain thought the accusations of sexual harassment against him from when he worked for the National Restaurant Association couldn't get any worse...they did.

Bialek says Cain offered to help her find a job with one of the state restaurant associations.
"He suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg...under my skirt and reached for my genitals," she said. Bialek says Cain tried to pull her head toward his crotch.

It's worth pointing out that Sharon Bialek is NOT one of the women who were paid off by the NRA. So this makes four cases against Cain.

You know who I feel bad for? It's not the guy who can't keep his hands off women. It's Bialek. She is going to get hammered by the Right Wing Noise Machine, have every single mistake blown up, distorted and thrown in her face. And she has to know that.

But she still came forward. Which should tell you something.

The only thing funny about this whole thing was the press release from Cain's campaign:

All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone. Fortunately the American people will not allow Mr. Cain's bold "9-9-9 Plan", clear foreign policy vision and plans for energy independence to be overshadowed by these bogus attacks.

That, my friends, is some pretty delusional stuff.

Arsenal Turning The Corner

2011-11-01T12:32:00.000-04:00

In their last 10 days, Arsenal has shown signs of returning to form. Four matches in three competitions, and all wins.

For entertainment value, the best win was Arsenal's 5-3 win over Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. While it was defensively deficient in the first half (and that is being kind), Arsenal showed a lot of guts. Going in down 2-1 at halftime, they easily could have given up. Instead, they came out blazing. Andre Santos showed the offensive talent that made him a favorite at Fenerbahce with his goal to tie the game at 2. And then Theo Walcott showed a glimpse of that remarkable talent he possesses to put the Gunners ahead.

I have never seen a goal like that, where someone trips in the middle of four defenders, gets up and kicks the ball through, gets to it and then hits a laser beam of a shot into the net. It's moments like these that make it impossible to give up on Walcott. You keep hoping and hoping he gets it through his head he can play like this every single game. A consistent Walcott would make Arsenal even more dangerous.

But it was the captain who was the difference. After Juan Mata tied it at three with a remarkable goal (a stinging reminder Arsenal could have signed him), Robin van Persie was gifted a wonderful moment. A poor backpass to John Terry in Chelsea's third was made worse (or better from your perspective) by Terry tripping on his face. RvP poached it, dribbled around Cech and gave Arsenal a 4-3 lead six minutes from time. He then finished his hat trick with a beautiful goal in injury time, a left-footed strike that wickedly bent past Cech's hand into the net.

There were other great performances as well. Gervinho showed that he is getting comfortable and will be a huge part of Arsenal's future success. He assisted on RvP's first goal and consistently sliced opened Chelsea's defense with some beautiful runs. He also showed hustle getting back to help on defense. I like his game and this was a fantastic signing by Wenger. Arteta continues to be solid in the midfield, bringing a combination of creativity and grit to the position. And Alex Song, after RvP, is the most important player in Arsenal's squad. He is the spine of Arsenal's defense. Once Vermaelen can return to regular duty, I think you will see Arsenal's defense get much tighter and even more organized. Thank goodness Cameroon didn't make the finals for the Africa Cup of Nations*.

One player I didn't mention...Aaron Ramsey. And that is because he was the key part of a win I think was just as important as this victory, the 1-0 win on the road at Marseille in the Champions League. Subbing in for an ineffective Arshavin (redundant, I know), Ramsey notched the injury-time winner and gave Arsenal a commanding lead in their group. That form has continued for him since the match. Ramsey is playing with a confidence I think he was lacking earlier in the year. And that is going to give Wenger a hard choice when Wilshere returns in early 2012. Which midfielder takes to the bench?

More importantly, the wins at Marseille and Chelsea show that Arsenal can win on the road, something they hadn't done since beating Udinese 2-1 on August 24. This should give the Gunners confidence going forward.

Arsenal has an interesting stretch coming up. Between November 1 and December 10, they have five home matches and three away in all competitions. In the Champions League, they have Marseille and Borussia Dortmund at home, and Olympiakos away. In the Premier League they have WBA, Fulham and Everton at home, with Norwich and Wigan on the road. This is excepting the as-yet unscheduled Carling Cup quarterfinal with Man City.

I don't see why Arsenal cannot win all these matches. Especially the EPL games; Arsenal sits ahead of all those teams. The only possible trip-up is Norwich...they have been surprisingly resilient. But Arsenal should be able to enter their Dec. 18th match against Man City at Etihad Stadium having taken maximum points. Which would, at worst, keep them in seventh but would likely have them knocking on the door of fourth place. Had you told someone Arsenal would be in this position today after the Old Trafford Massacre, they'd have laughed in your face.

But through sheer determination and a bit of luck, people aren't predicting the Fall of the House of Wenger anymore. And teams are starting to be leery once more when they see Arsenal as their next opponent.

--------------

* The downside is the Ivory Coast did make it, so Arsenal loses Gervinho for a month. The timing of which absolutely sucks, as he and RvP are beginning to form a nice partnership.

Movie Corner: Trolljegeren (The Troll Hunter) (2010)

2011-10-20T12:53:00.000-04:00

You know what I love most about Trolljegeren? It's not that it made the increasingly-stale "found footage" genre interesting again. It's not that it cleverly and impressively used CGI to make some remarkable moments. It's not that I have a soft spot for clever, well-made foreign films.

It's that this movie will be hard to remake in Hollywood.

Even with the news that Chris Columbus bought the remake rights, I can't see how this movie can be successfully remade in the US without it becoming a completely different film. Trolls are a bedrock of Norse mythology. The reason there is a troll in "Jack and the Beanstalk" is because of the Norse influence in the development of English and British culture.

We don't have trolls here. We don't really have any homegrown monsters in the US besides Bigfoot and King Kong. Americans won't be able to relate to trolls because they are not part of our cultural identity.

And we don't have the vast beautiful emptiness of Norway where one could pretend trolls live. Yeah, you could substitute Alaska for that but it isn't really the same, is it?

But there is more to like from Trolljegeren than just it's difficulty in being remade and butchered in the US. It's clever - three students follow a man they believe is hunting trolls. They eventually confront him and get him to admit he works for an unknown Norwegian government agency: the Troll Security Service. The TSS has the job of observing trolls and hunting them down if they go off their living grounds and interact with people. They also have to cover up any and all interactions, even those that end in death. The hunter, Hans, allows the students to follow and film him as he tries to deduce why the trolls are becoming more aggressive.

What we get is a incredibly fun film to watch. In many ways, the visuals and the plot framework overshadow the acting. Only Otto Jespersen, as Hans, stands out among the cast. But as he is the focus that isn't too surprising. He plays Hans well; a man who has hunted trolls for decades, seen and done things he isn't proud of, and now just wants to be done with it. He understands the trolls more than the TSS.

We see him, as the title suggests, hunt trolls. And what a variety of trolls, from the smaller Ringlefinch (about 15 ft high) to the towering Jotnar (over 500 ft high). The Jotnar is a CGI masterpiece, just amazingly done and it blends seamlessly into the cold, foreboding Norwegian scenery. Considering the budget of Trolljegeren was $3.5M USD, the quality of the special effects is doubly impressive.

We get to see how trolls are killed and why they are susceptible to that method. We get to see how the TSS goes about covering up troll activity, and just how far they will go to keep trolls in the area of myth and not fact. And all this is married to some great scenery. Norway's natural beauty is on full display here.

Trolljegeren is just really clever and fun. And that allows it to overcome some down moments in pacing and a cast that is largely generic in their roles and personality. But that isn't surprising when you have to share screen time with a 500 foot troll. It's like a Godzilla movie; you don't leave complaining that those Japanese actresses playing the little Mothra women didn't have great line delivery skills. You leave talking about how Godzilla beat down another monster and crushed Tokyo.

I called Trolljegeren a "found footage" film at the start, but that isn't exactly right. Trolljegeren belongs in the monster movie genre; it just uses the "found footage" style as a method of telling the story (a la Cloverfield). This is the first Norwegian giant monster movie (as far as I know), and director André Øvredal should be damn proud of it.

Here's hoping it's the only version of the film you'll be able to see. It's on Netflix Instant Streaming right now.

Horror Show

2011-10-19T16:09:00.000-04:00

So what was the low point in the GOP Presidential Debate? The word "illegals" being thrown around like a beachball in Fenway's centerfield bleachers? Everyone getting on board the "Let's Tax the Poor More!" Express? Maybe it was Michelle Bachmann not understanding that Libya is a part of Africa. Perhaps Newt "I Only Divorce My Wives When They're Ill" Gingrich giving another lecture on values marked the nadir.

No, it was none of those. It was the utter silence when Ron Paul mentioned an uncomfortable truth. Take it away, Charlie Pierce...

They were asked about whether or not they would negotiate with terrorists. This brought a swift response from Bachmann, whose Reagan fixation has done nothing but repeatedly get her into trouble. (Earlier, she said she'd go back to the Reagan policies that "brought us a miracle in the 1980's" — when, of course, all the tax rates were higher than they are now. This is the second time in a week that she's stepped on that particular rake.) "I would have a policy that said we absolutely do not negotiate with terrorists," La Bachmann thundered.
And then Ron Paul won my heart forever.
"So," he said, "you would oppose that policy in the Reagan years when they were selling missiles to Iran?"
An Iran-Contra gotcha in the middle of a Republican debate in 2011? I intend to take Ron Paul to prom this spring. No kidding: We didn't even have many of those when Michael Dukakis was running against George H.W. Bush, one of the unindicted architects of the scheme, in 1988 — nor many in 1992, either. Bill Clinton was content to beat up Daddy Bush on the economy, while Daddy Bush was planning to pardon everyone except Shoeless Joe Jackson on his way out the door.

Rick Santorum and Divorce-Bot 5000 went on to give failed defenses of Reagan*, but everyone else just stared at their shoes and pretended no one said anything.

And THAT was the low point. That these people, who use Reagan to excuse every rotten impulse they have, either couldn't face up and address the issue at hand or they didn't actually know about this.

And you might say "How could they not know about Iran-Contra?" But these are the same people who think cutting taxes on the wealthy even more will make America "Super Good Economy #1!!" and think building an electrified fence across the entire US border is somehow feasible. They're idiots.

The fact that one of our two choices in 2012 to be President of the United States - the GOP nominee - will be a moron...that is a highly depressing thing.

------------

* They were, in order "Iran is a country and not terrorists" and "Reagan was senile and didn't know". Yeah, not exactly a cogent defense strategy...

If I Ran The Red Sox...

2011-10-13T13:16:00.000-04:00

Oh, the dream I have had since I was a child. To take over the team I have lived and died with since the 1970s. After the debacle of 2011, of a horrendous end to the season somehow followed up by a more horrendous post-season, I think all your typical Boston fan can do is indulge in the daydream fantasy of righting the ship. Because I think the reality is going to be bad, and it's going to last a little while.

Anyway, if somehow I was given the Sox for free (John Henry, drop me a line), here are a couple of things I would do:

1. Fire the asshole who implied Tito was addicted to painkillers: The best manager Boston ever had got character-assassinated on the way out. Whomever did this should not only be fired, but get chucked off the Tobin Bridge afterward. Fuck you, pal.

2. Get rid of John Lackey: As in "eat every last dollar of that bloated contract". There is no way, no way Lackey should ever put a Boston uniform on again. He helped fracture the clubhouse and fatten the pitching staff. He took no responsibility for his horrendous performance. Oh, and he decided to divorce his wife...who is battling cancer.

Fuck you, Lackey. Get out of Boston and stay out.

3. Trade Kevin Youkilis: Look, I like Youk. A lot. He is a hard-nosed competitor and talented. But he is also 32 and hasn't played more than 140 games in a season since 2008. And his tendency to treat every strike called against him as if the ump killed his dog...it gets old.

The one negative here is that there is no clear-cut player in the organization or in free agency to take his place at third. But if you were ever going to get anything for Youkilis, and you want to make a statement about what you expect in Boston, then you make this move.

4. Re-sign Papelbon: Paps may have blown the save in the final game, but he was great for Boston this year. His WHIP was 0.933, his lowest since 2007. He had 31 saves. But more importantly, he gave a damn. He competed hard and cared about what was going on. That, to me, is paramount to Boston getting back on track. Besides, Bard doesn't look ready for the closer role quite yet.

5. Ink Ellsbury to a long-term deal: This would be assisted by moving Youk, who "called out" Ellsbury on his fractured ribs last year in one of the dumber moves I have ever seen. All Ellsbury did was respond with an MVP-caliber year. And while he won't win it (should be Verlander), he will be in the top 5. But with one arbitration year left, the Sox risk losing him.

For once, Boston needs to spend all-star dollars on one of their own players, instead of throwing it at free-agents who shrivel and wilt in Boston. Ellsbury is proven and has talent. Pay the man already.

6. Consider trading Josh Beckett: Yeah, this would leave the Boston rotation perilously thin. But it has to be considered. Beckett is coming off a good year overall, but will be 32 come May. He bought into Lackey's destruction of the clubhouse, calling him "his hero" at one point. Beckett let himself physically go to the point that he was useless in September. And he is locked in at $15.75M for the next three years, a not-completely ridiculous number for an All-Star pitcher.

However...without Lackey, Beckett may straighten out. And when he is on, Beckett is devastating. Also, the odds of you getting back what Beckett is worth in a trade is unlikely. I think at the end of the day, if someone offers you a lights-out deal, you have to consider taking it. Otherwise, you hope Beckett gets his head on straight and becomes a leader in the clubhouse. Or at least learns to act like an adult.

7. Commit to Saltalamacchia as your catcher: Yeah, he wasn't great. His WAR was a paltry 0.7. But he showed that he has a full-time future behind the plate. And at age 26, he is only entering his prime years right now. He also threw out 37 base-stealers, good for fourth in the AL and a 31% putout rate. He is still a work in progress, but one worth committing to.

8. Say "bye" to Tek: Look, if he is the captain and a leader then why didn't he stop the Lackey Brigade from doing what they did. Why didn't he stop all the primadonna attitudes? Why didn't he stand up and take questions when the season ended? That is what a captain does. Varitek deserves so much respect and thanks for everything he has done in Boston. But he coasted on that last year. It's time to bring up someone from Pawtucket or Portland as the backup catcher to Salty and to show Tek the door.

9. Commit to a new core of players: If I were in charge, here is who I would put on magazine covers and use in ads: Paps, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Aceves and Scutaro. Those guys played hard and played right. That is what I want in Boston. And by making those guys the face of my franchise, that message will get across to the rest of the team. And yes, there are no starting pitchers in there for a reason. Lester has to earn his way back into that group.

Movie Corner: Moneyball (2011)

2011-10-11T11:22:00.000-04:00

When Billy Beane, general manager of the small-market Oakland A's, brought the idea of deep statistical analysis as a method of choosing players into baseball in 2002, the old guard said it couldn't be done. That it wouldn't work. And, in the years since then, Beane has been proven (pretty much) to be right. Michael Lewis covered that year in the book Moneyball and it revolutionized baseball.

When Sony wanted to bring Moneyball to the big screen, the old guard said it couldn't be done. That no one would want to watch a film about statistics in baseball. And since it's release, the old guard has been proven (pretty much) to be wrong. Working from a script by Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian, and with Brad Pitt portraying Billy Beane, the film pretty much knocks it out of the park.

Some quick background: The A's were a competitive talented team at the end of 2001, but lost most of their star players to richer teams who could offer bigger contracts. The A's couldn't compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis with these teams, so they started to look for "undervalued" players using advanced statistics

As a film, this shouldn't work. It shouldn't be interesting. But it is. And the reason is that as much as the film portrays the new way of thinking as being "right", it still shows that tradition has a role in the game. And the tension between those builds a base that allows Brad Pitt to really deliver a winning performance.

For example, Billy Beane brings in Jeremy Giambi, who has a good OBP (on-base percentage). He is told by his old-school scouting staff that Giambi parties too much and is a loose cannon. Sure enough, after a brutal loss Giambi is dour, but dancing on a table. Mere days later, he is traded away. So who was right? Conversely, Beane brings in former Red Sox catcher Scott Hatteberg to be the new first baseman. He has nerve damage in his throwing arm and has never played first. The scouts say it's pointless. But Beane is ultimately proven correct.

Likewise, for all his belief in the stats, Beane won't watch any of the Oakland games because he is afraid to "jinx" the team*. He either works out in the team gym or goes to scout minor league teams. That's hardly cutting-edge.

Pitt is great as Beane. Easy-going but with an edge, you cannot help but like him. When be battles against his scouts and the team's manager (Art Howe, played by the ubiquitous Phillip Seymour Hoffman), you root for him. The tension between Beane and Howe is great, and that is in no small part due to have two great actors in the roles. Jonah Hill is good as Peter Brand, the "stat geek" Beane hires away from the Indians to start his great experiment in player evaluation.

But therein lies one of the few problems with the film. It rightly revolves around Beane, but that leaves too little time for the other secondary characters. Like Hatteberg, who has a pretty powerful character arc but gets pushed to the side for most of the film. Or his daughter (Kerris Dorsey), who ultimately plays a large role in whether Beane decides to stay or leave after the 2002 season. In fact, some of the best scenes in the film are between Pitt and Dorsey. I just felt that at times that there was more of a story to be told on screen, even though I already knew the story.

What is wonderful, however, is the end of the movie. Without saying too much, Beane's new experiment is shown to be a failure, a success and a failure. And that is not contradictory in the least. And it's all how it actually happened. I am glad they didn't try to change anything. Very often, the way things really happen in a reality are better than the way a film will "re-interpret" (i.e. completely change) them.

Moneyball is a well-made, entertaining, interesting film. It's the old "underdog makes good" motif, which everyone enjoys. Even if you don't like baseball all that much, you'll enjoy the film on that basic level. Pitt really nails it as Billy Beane and should get an Oscar nomination for it. The supporting cast is solid, if criminally ignored at times. But this is easily one of the best films of 2011. A film based on a book about baseball and statistics. Who'd have thought it possible?

----------

* I am familiar with this particular quirk. I didn't watch a bit of the Red Sox run to the 2004 title after I turned away from the beginning of Game Four of the ALCS against the Yankees. The Sox, of course, famously came back from an 0-3 deficit to get to the World Series. Since then, it is near impossible to get me to watch Boston in the post-season. Which, sadly, hasn't been a problem the past two years.

Five Best Designated Hitters In Red Sox History

2011-10-06T15:24:00.003-04:00

5. Reggie Jefferson (1997-99): Reggie wasn't a great DH, but he was solid. He hit over .300 in 1997-98 and averaged a .827 OPS over the three-year span. He also hit 26 homers and drove in 115 runs during that time.

4. Cecil Cooper (1974-76): It still chafes me that we traded away Cooper right before he became a perennial All-Star for the Brewers. You don't think his bat would've come in handy in 1978? In his three years as DH, he improved each year in home runs and RBIs. His three-year OPS is lower than Jefferson's (.794) but Cooper played a lot more games. All told, Cooper had 37 homers and 165 RBIs over that period. Then he was traded to the Brewers.

3. Mike Easler (1984-85) and Don Baylor (1986-87): I honestly couldn't pick one over the other. Their numbers are very similar. Easler had a combined 43 homers and 165 RBIs in his two-year stint; Baylor had 47 homers and 151 RBIs. Don Baylor averaged a .771 OPS over his two-year period; Easler's was .814. But Baylor's numbers were steady across the two years while Easler had a great year in 1984 but dropped off severely in 1985. If you absolutely had to pick one for the spot, you may have to go with Easler. But they're close enough I thought both deserved a mention.

2. Carl Yastrzemski (1979-83): If you go position by position, Yaz could be named in Top 5 at three of them; first base, left field and DH. The DH was where Yaz finished his career and it's the one I associate most with him (I saw my first Sox game in '78 at the age of six). Even though he continued to play first and left to some extent during the first couple of years, he finished it as a pure DH.

During those five years Yaz went to the All-Star game three times. He totaled a combined 69 home runs and 318 RBIs. That means he averaged almost 14 homers and 64 RBIs a year, all between the ages of 39 and 43. Without any drugs, mind you. His average OPS over that span was .766, not the greatest...but he was in his forties! There are kids in their 20s playing now that couldn't do what Yaz did at 41. And there's the whole Hall of Fame recognition that adds to the luster.

1. David Ortiz (2003-Whenever He Wants): But Big Papi is still the best DH this team has ever had. In a "off-year" he totaled 23 homers and 89 RBIs. During his nine-year (and counting) stint, Papi has amassed (to date) 320 homers and 1028 RBIs in Boston. He has averaged 36 HRs and 114 RBI per year. His OPS is over .950. His OPS+ is 145. He's won four Silver Slugger awards in a row (2004-07) and has been voted into seven All-Star games, including five straight (2004-08). He was in the top 5 for MVP voting five straight years (2003-07). He has averaged a 3.5 WAR per season. Just a dominant force at the plate when he bats. A home-run threat no matter the situation. Without a doubt one of the most "clutch" hitters the Sox have ever had.

Why Haven't I Written About Arsenal Lately?

2011-10-04T12:07:00.000-04:00

Would YOU want to write about a team whose fans mocked a former striker by making fun of people dying?

Arsenal fans were offensive towards their former striker Emmanuel Adebayor who now plays for Spurs, mocking the gun attack on his Togo team bus during last year's African Nations Cup tournament in Angola which left three members of the Togo party dead.
The Arsenal fans chanted: "It should have been you, it should have been you, killed in Angola, it should have been you."

I don't like Tottenham either, but that is so far over the fucking line that you can't possibly defend it.

Add that to the fact that Arsenal flat out quit after Tottenham's second goal, and it's a wonder anyone felt like writing anything at all. The international break has come at just the right time. I'd much rather be rooting for Ireland to beat Andorra this Friday and for Russia to lose to Slovakia right about now.

Seriously...who the fuck chants for someone's death?

My Five Favorite Films From...1984

2011-10-04T10:50:00.002-04:00

Honorable Mention – Beverly Hills Cop: The film that cemented Eddie Murphy as a star. It’s impossible to imagine Stallone in the role of Alex Foley. But that was the original plan before Sly pulled out. His vision? You saw it in Cobra.

5. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: The darkest of the four films, it’s still a lot of fun. The mine-cars chase was an instant classic. Still, I like Raiders and Last Crusade more.

4. Ghostbusters: An instant classic, this is still watchable over a quarter-century later. Funny with some memorable one-liners. And Rick Moranis as Tully makes the film.

3. The Natural: I still think this is the ultimate baseball film, Field of Dreams and Bull Durham included. But wow, is it ever different from the novel.

2. This Is Spinal Tap: Smell the Glove. Stonehenge. Dwarfs. And exploding drummers. This movie still makes me laugh hard enough to hurt myself. The all-time best mockumentary.

1. The Terminator: The movie that launched the career of Arnie. And gave us the best killer robot ever. I pretty much slobbered all over it in my earlier review.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: 1984, Gremlins, Amadeus, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Karate Kid, Dune, Red Dawn, Police Academy, Once Upon A Time In America, Repo Man, Star Trek III, Blood Simple, Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, The Pope of Greenwich Village, Romancing The Stone, Revenge of the Nerds

Guilty Pleasure – The Last Starfighter: I don’t know why this average-at-best sci-fi flick has a hold on me, but it does. Likely, it’s the idea that there is more going on in the universe than we realize. And if there is, then I want in.

Insane Film That Must Be Mentioned – Cannibal Holocaust: “But wait!” you say. “Hasn’t this repulsive film already been mentioned on your 1980 list?” Yes, it has. But it wasn’t released in the US until 1984. Suffice it to say, this movie is so over-the-top, so bat-shit insane/horrific/repugnant, that it deserves to be mentioned in two separate years. I’ll say it again; this is a film you see once, on a dare or as part of a group of high-school/college kids who “heard” about it. If you are re-watching this movie, you need some psychiatric examination pronto.

Movie Review: Hobo with a Shotgun (2011)

2011-10-04T10:45:00.001-04:00

Ahh...Hobo with a Shotgun. The film born from a trailer competition at SWSX. If you are not a fan of gruesome killings, buckets of blood, kids being torched on a bus and Rutger Hauer, then this is definitely not a film for you. I suggest watching The Notebook.

If, however, you do like all that stuff wrapped up in an homage to 80s splatter films, then you have found a film you will like.

Hauer is the Hobo mentioned in the title. Much like in the competition trailer, he comes to a city to try a buy a lawnmower because...well, that isn't really important. The city, once called Hope Town, is a pit of death and despair run by a psychopath called The Drake and his two sons.

And I do mean psychopath. With the police under his thumb, the Drake and his boys take people off the street and beat them to death. They tear people's heads off as warnings to the populace. They allow drug dealers and pimps to work freely. As a dystopian backdrop, director Jason Eisener has created probably the worst one (which is good) in recent memory. It makes Jasper, Missouri look like a beacon of law and order*.

So, the hobo sees all this decay and crime. He stops a prostitute from being killed by one of the Drake's boys and pays a heavy price. He finally raises the money for the lawnmower he sees in a pawn shop and just as he is about to buy it, thugs come in and try to rob the place. By threatening to kill a baby. Instead of the lawnmower, the Hobo takes down a shotgun. Mayhem, of course, ensues. Bloody, vicious mayhem.

I won't go into what happens further on. It's all pretty boilerplate as far as these films go. But there is one creative twist, and that is The Plague.

The Plague are an other-worldly duo - demonic bounty-hunters - who will capture anyone for the right price. They are pretty great as an idea and are executed well on the screen. It adds a little something to the film that separates it from others of its kind.

What I also like about the film is how very...80s the film is. From it's general look to the character types to the clothes and even the film quality, it screams mid-80s.

And it goes without saying that Hauer is awesome. He really does look like a hobo. To think he has a career that has spanned over 40 years, from films like Soldier of Orange and Blade Runner to Blind Fury and Hobo...talk about range.

Hobo with a Shotgun isn't "good" in the sense that it is a film you'll revisit over and over again. But as a homage to the "blood and guts" films of the 80s, it's right on target. Had it been released in 1983, it would have made the "video nasty" list in the UK without any problems. And I mean that as praise.

------------

* Something that has always bothered me about these cities, be it Hope Town or Jasper in Roadhouse...where are the state authorities? Or the feds? If one town or city was having a guy splattering bums' heads with a bumper car or running over cars with a monster truck, don't you think the state police or someone else would eventually notice? I'm pretty sure burning a bus full of kids to death breaks at least one federal law.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 18

2011-10-03T16:03:00.003-04:00

Thirty-seven players have worn Boston's number 18, from Danny MacFayden to Daisuke. It's not a number that has been worn by legends. But it does have a rich and long history.

Honorable Mention. Gene Conley (1961-63) - Conley was a mid-tier pitcher who spent most of his 11-year career in the NL with Milwaukee* and Philadelphia. But in 1961 he came to Boston in a trade for pitcher Frank Sullivan** (who'll you'll hear more about). Conley was a combined 29-32 in his three years with Boston with a 4.57 ERA and a WHIP of 1.394. But he did go 15-14 in 1962 while throwing an impressive 241.2 innings. He's likely better known for being Bill Russell's backup with the Celtics from 1958-61. He was Bo Jackson before Bo was Bo. And he won more titles. After his career he stayed in the Boston area, starting up the Foxboro Paper Company. He now lives in Waterville Valley, NH.

5. Glenn Hoffman (1980-87) - Hoffman was Boston's second-round pick in 1976 and was supposed to be their long-term shortstop. But Hoffman couldn't stay healthy, a problem that seems to haunt Boston's young talent no matter what decade it is. He played in 150 games or more just once (1982) which, ironically, was one of his worst years at the plate (.209 BA, .573 OPS). Finally, the Sox traded him to LA in 1987. Hoffman stayed with the Dodgers after he retired and became a coach in their system. He's now the third-base coach for the San Diego Padres.

4. Jack Wilson (1936-41) - "Blackjack" Wilson*** spent the bulk of his nine-season career with the Sox. He was traded to Boston by Portland of the Pacific Coast League in exchange for Bill Cissell, who had been in Boston for about a year. While wearing the '18' Wilson went 64-63 with a 4.46 ERA, which was actually slightly better than the norm (an EPA+ of 107). His best year was 1937, when he went 16-10 with a 3.70 ERA over 221.1 innings. He struck out 137 batters and had an 1.482 WHIP. All those numbers were career season highs for Wilson. He was traded to the Senators after the 1941 season.

3. Daisuke Matsuzaka (2007- Current) - Will we see Daisuke take the mound in Fenway ever again in a Sox uniform? Who knows...next year is the final year of his deal. He had Tommy John surgery and that should keep him out for all of 2012. None of this should detract from what were two solid years in Fenway...that were followed by three forgettable ones. But those two years...33-15 with a 3.72 ERA (ERA+ 126) over 372.1 innings. He struck out 355 and walked just 174. His WHIP was 1.324. And his post-season record was 3-1 in seven starts with a 4.79 ERA. That includes a win against the Rockies in the 2007 World Series. He also finished fourth in the Cy Young voting in 2008 after an 18-3 season with a 2.90 ERA. But that will forever be weighed against his final three years in Boston and the $51M Theo ponied up just to negotiate with him.

2. Johnny Damon (2002-05) - He didn't endear himself to Boston fans by jumping ship to the Bronx after saying he'd never play for the Yankees, but since joining Tampa Bay that seems to be water under the bridge for most fans. As it should be; let it never be forgotten that Damon was a key to the Red Sox winning it all in 2004. Between 2002-05 he hit .295 with an .803 OPS. He went to the All-Star game twice (02, 04) and finished top 20 in MVP voting twice (16th in 04, 13th in 05).He had his best year in the championship 04 season, hitting .304 with an .857 OPS while smacking 20 homers and driving in 94 runs. His WAR over that period was 12.1, for a 3.0 yearly average. His fielding and arm strength were admittedly sub-par****, but his attitude and hitting ability helped change decades of futility in Boston.

1. Frank Sullivan (1953-1960) - I told you you'd hear from Sullivan again.

Being a good pitcher in Boston during the 1950s was rough. So pity Frank Sullivan. From 1953-60 Sullivan went 90-80 with a 3.47 ERA (ERA+ 120). He averaged almost 190 innings a season (188) and had a good 1.282 WHIP. His WAR was 23.1 (2.9 average). If you throw out his first season in 1953 (only 25.2 innings pitched), those numbers change to 23.2 and 3.3. In 1955 he led the AL in wins (18) and innings pitched (260). That same year he went to the All-Star game and finished 24th in the MVP voting. The next year he went to the All-Star game again. But he had his best overall year in 1957. Despite a 14-11 record, he posted a 2.73 ERA (ERA+ 146), threw 240 innings, walked just 1.8 batters per nine innings and had a WHIP of 1.055. The Sox finished 82-72, in third place in the AL. It's the highest position the Sox ever made during Sullivan's Boston career.

-----------

* Conley actually was with the Braves during their last year in Boston (1952), which was the same year he was drafted by the Celtics.

** This was a true trade of Titans. Conley stood 6' 8" and Sullivan was 6' 6". I don't know if two taller pitchers have ever been traded for one another.

*** One of the best sports nicknames ever. It just sounds so awesome.

**** I'm being kind here. While his average yearly WAR in Boston was 3.0, his average yearly defensive WAR was -1.1. That isn't good at all. By comparison, Manny's average yearly defensive WAR over the same period was -1.0. And no one mistook Manny for a Gold Glove outfielder.

My Five Favorite Films From...1983

2011-10-03T11:27:00.000-04:00

Honorable Mention – Le Dernier Combat: With hardly any dialogue and a sparse score, Luc Besson’s first film is one to remember. This post-apocalyptic tale is unlike anything else you have ever seen.

5. The Outsiders: The Greasers and the Socs. A great adaptation of a great book. And I will admit it still gets dusty in the room when Johnny dies.

4. (Tie) Trading Places and National Lampoon’s Vacation: I couldn’t choose between the two. Both films are hilarious. If you held a gun to my head, I’d probably pick Vacation, but you cannot go wrong either way.

3. A Christmas Story: This is A Wonderful Life for my generation; always on at Christmas, but 100x more watchable and completely hilarious. Sometimes when I’m frustrated I’ll bust out the “Sons of bitches…Bumpuses!!”

2. Scarface: First time I ever saw anyone murdered (by implication) with a chainsaw. And if you want to see F. Murray Abraham hanged from a helicopter, this is the film for you. It’s hyper-violent and deserves some of the criticism it receives, but I enjoy it because at the end, justice is served with Tony’s death.

1. Wargames: This is a hyper-popular movie for my generation. And it’s up there for me as well. I don’t know if it’s because I was (and still am) a computer nerd*, but I love the whole story of this one kid almost torching the planet and then saving it.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Blue Thunder, The Right Stuff, Risky Business, Never Say Never Again, Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, Lone Wolf McQuade, The Keep, Mr. Mom, The Fourth Man, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Sleepaway Camp, The Dead Zone, Return of the Jedi, The King of Comedy

Guilty Pleasure – Yellowbeard: This isn’t a good movie. But Graham Chapman makes me laugh. And even though I know this isn’t a “quality” film, I like it.

Insane Film That Must Be Mentioned – Videodrome: “Long live the New Flesh.” Tumor-inducing video signals that cause hallucinations and homicidal tendencies. And that doesn’t even touch the crazy visuals. I’ll admit to liking this movie, not only because it’s unlike anything else but also because the Pride of Warwick, RI is the star. I like almost anything with James Woods (Vampire$ and John Q being the exceptions).

----------

* It also may have had something to do with Ally Sheedy in workout clothes.

My Five Favorite Films From...1982

2011-10-03T11:23:00.000-04:00

Honorable Mention – First Blood: Before he was playing goat soccer with the Afghanistan rebels, Rambo first appeared in this movie. A well-written, well-shot tale that not only had action, but explored the problems some Vietnam Vets were having reintegrating with American society,

5. 48 Hours: Remember when Eddie Murphy was funny? This, his first role, was one of his best movies. Playing off of Nick Nolte’s racist cop, it made for an instant action/comedy classic.

4. Blade Runner: It’s become stylish to hate on this movie as of late. But Ridley Scott’s vision of a dystopian future became a permanent part of science-fiction lore, and its imagery still influences the genre. The examination of what exactly makes someone human, tied into those visuals, makes for a great film.

3. Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Even now, more than 25 years later, this movie holds up. Hilarious and touching at the same time. And who can’t relate to being a teenager with a shit job? Though I never had to wear a pirate outfit…

2. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Still the best Star Trek film ever made. Not only because of the action and the humor, but what other film in the series could compete with the emotional ending?

1. The Thing: John Carpenter’s tour de force about a parasitic alien life-form hunting and killing men in the Antarctic. He ratchets up the tension relentlessly. And with a touch of Lovecraft, it pushes the film over the top into one of the all-time great horror/sci-fi films.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Airplane 2, Class of 1984, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, E.T., Gandhi, Poltergeist, An Officer and A Gentleman, The Year of Living Dangerously, Tootsie, Fanny and Alexander, Rocky III, The Verdict, The Dark Crystal, Tron, Porky’s, Missing, The World According to Garp, Conan the Barbarian, Firefox

Guilty Pleasure – The Beastmaster: I can’t defend a movie starring Marc Singer on quality grounds. It’s a complete rip of Conan the Barbarian. But for some reason I like Don Coscarelli films. Beastmaster is a grade-B popcorn movie that I have to watch when it’s on. Maybe it’s the ferrets…

Insane Film That Must Be Mentioned – Tenebrae: It’s probably Dario Argento’s best film. But you cannot deny that’s it’s also a crazy film, with enough blood to fill the banks at a Red Cross center. All the killings, and the gruesome way in which they were performed, saw Tenebrae banned in many countries. It wasn’t until 1999 that it could be legally purchased in the UK.

Reoccurring Note: As always, my list is not what I consider "the best" films of a particular year. If that was the case, The Verdict or Gandhi would be at the top of the list. These are the films I enjoyed the most. Your mileage may vary.

Thanks, Tito

2011-09-30T09:02:00.000-04:00

Tito Francona is the best Boston Red Sox coach in the history of the franchise. Period. Full Stop. This is not debatable, not arguable.

Under Tito's leadership between 2004 and 2011, the Sox have gone 744-552. That's a winning percentage of .574, the highest in franchise history for any manager with more than five years at the helm. The team is 192 games over .500 during that time, the best record of any Boston manager. He brought two titles to Boston, tying him with Bill Carrigan. Tito is the best manager the Red Sox has ever had.

And now he is likely gone.

Red Sox manager Terry Francona might be looking for a new job as early as today according to a report by Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports.
Rosenthal writes that according to major league sources Francona will meet with Sox management this morning, and "the expected resolution is" that Francona will no longer be employed as the manager of the Boston Red Sox.

Now, if this is because it is what Tito wants, then I can understand it. I'd be sad to see him go, but you wouldn't want him staying here if he wants to start over somewhere else.

But if it is the team's decision...yeah, I have a problem with that. Because it isn't Tito who brought in John Lackey and Carl Crawford. It's isn't Tito who babied Clay Buchholz's injury to the point of insanity (18 pitches in Fort Myers!). It isn't Tito who was jogging up first base on ground balls, or missing cutoffs, or botching fly balls.

Yeah, Tito does need to take his share of blame. But Theo's share is a hell of a lot larger. He brought in these players. He made the decisions on rehab. He is the one who has overpaid for free agents that have done little or nothing in Boston.

But all that's for later. Right now, Boston seems to be losing it's best manager ever. And if that is the case, I just want to say "Thank you, Tito."

Arsenal 3 - 0 Bolton: Expected

2011-09-26T11:37:00.000-04:00

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. After what has been a difficult start to the season, Arsenal seems to be slowly righting the ship. At home against Bolton, they were expected to win the match. Doing the expected has been hard for the Gunners so far this year. But with a torrid second-half display from Robin van Persie, Arsenal may be finally getting where they need to be.

But that almost didn't happen. Just a handful of minutes into the game, Wojciech Szczesny produced yet another brilliant save. With Arsenal once again blowing coverage on a free kick (their single biggest problem), Szczesny had to make a point-blank save to keep the scoreboard blank. Szczesny has been, along with RvP, the best player on this squad.

The defensive back four made it hard for Bolton to find any kind of offensive rhythm. Bolton mustered only three shots on goal the entire game, two on-target. Mertesacker did a good job of organizing the line. The one thing I don't like is Wenger insisting on playing a high line with Mertesacker. His positioning is wonderful and that makes up for his lack of pace. But keeping him that high is tempting fate on a regular basis. Let him play behind the line.

Song and Arteta also contributed to Bolton's offensive woes. They were marauders in the midfield, breaking up plays and passes almost at will. With Arteta and Song there is some serious steel in the middle third of the pitch. We will miss Song in January.

On offense Arsenal had, as usual, a bushel of opportunities (28 shots, 11 on target). If they can ever be just slightly more accurate, the Gunners will be a scoring machine. But it is hard to complain with RvP getting his 99th and 100th Arsenal goals. The second was a wonder, a cheeky flick off the back of his left foot from a Walcott cross. He is the rock Arsenal's offense is built upon. Speaking of Walcott, he had a good match. But perhaps it is time Wenger stops playing him on the wing. Walcott is a striker. What's odd about this is that Wenger has been in this position before. He bought Thierry Henry from Juventus where he had been played out of position as a winger. At Arsenal, Wenger plugged Henry into the striker role and he became amazing. I think it is increasingly obvious that the same needs to be done with Walcott.

And that third goal from Song was a great cap to the match. Song has really come along over the past couple of years. And at only 24, his best years are still ahead of him.

All in all, a solid match from Arsenal and a big step forward. They were able to do what they were supposed to do. Hopefully that will continue in their Champions League match against Olympiakos this week. Then comes their biggest match so far, away at Tottenham.

"Job Creators" My Ass

2011-09-22T10:21:00.000-04:00

This, this, a thousand times this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Moneybrawl - The Extinction of Subway, Bill O'Reilly & The Super Rich

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Oh, NOW You Want To Talk...

2011-09-20T10:47:00.001-04:00

I should say this up front so there is no misunderstanding what I say later. I support the existence of the State of Israel. They deserve to be there, as a secure member of the international community. If Hamas or Hezbollah attack them, Israel has the right - obligation even - to respond with deadly force. They are the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East and they deserve the US's continual support.

That said, however...

The recent behaviors by Prime Minister Netanyahu have been so tone-deaf, so idiotic, that it is no surprise that the Palestinian Authority has decided to submit an application for a state of Palestine to the United Nations Security Council this Friday. If passed with 2/3 "yes" votes and no vetoes, Palestine would become an official member state of the UN and Israel would be occupying the sovereignterritory of a member State.

All this could have been avoided had Netanyahu decided to negotiate in good faith with Abbas and the PA. But the preconditions, the non-removal of illegal settlers in the West Bank (and they ARE illegal as per the Oslo Accords) and the general attitude of Netanyahu has instead created this mess. And now, with the request ready to be taken up by the Security Council, with Israel looking intransigent and alienating regional allies like Turkey, they belatedly try to stop this from happening.

United Nations (CNN) -- The Israeli prime minister on Monday appealed for direct peace negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to be started in New York and continued in Jerusalem and Ramallah.
"Unilateral measures are not the way to advance peace between us," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, referring to an Abbas plan to submit a member application for a state of Palestine to the United Nations Security Council on Friday.
It was not clear whether the Palestinian leader responded to Netanyahu's call for talks, or whether a fresh round of negotiations could elicit a compromise that the last round could not. Peace talks between the two sides broke down a year ago.

In a perfect world, Netanyahu would be right. But in the real world, where Netanyahu's negotiating stance has been "Do everything I want and maybe we'll let you have a pseudo-state", why should Abbas even pay attention to this? Has Netanyahu done anything in recent memory to portray himself as a reliable partner at the negotiation table?

What is ultimately frustrating about all this is that Israel could easily solve this by giving up one thing: the West Bank. Keep Jerusalem (a tough pill for Abbas but doable) with negotiated free access to the holy sites. No right of return but compensation for land lost from a fund set up by the UN Member States, which would also provide an economic jolt for the new State of Palestine. And a land corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank, which should be little more than a four-lane highway that is walled on either side and guarded to preserve Israeli security. And both sides recognize the other's territorial borders and right to exist.

I guess I am naive but this looks reasonable to me. The alternative is Israel increasingly isolating itself and looking more and more like an occupying state. Which, in the long term, is unsustainable.

Borussia Dortmund (BVB) 1 - 1 Arsenal (Champions League): Lucky

2011-09-14T10:44:00.003-04:00

Arsenal was lucky to walk out of the Signal Iduna Park with a point. In constant danger of being overrun, for broad stretches of the match Arsenal looked unable to cope with BVB's free-flowing, attacking brand of football. That said, they did hold for the point. And if Arsenal can win their home matches and draw the away ones, they will make it to the knockout rounds.

But first let's highlight the star of the squad. Wojciech Szczesny was phenomenal. His positioning throughout the game was stellar and he made key saves down the stretch. The one goal he let by - a blistering volley from Ivan Perisic - was unstoppable. But without Szczesny in net, Arsenal loses this match. If Almunia was in net, Arsenal would have lost 4-1.

Mikel Arteta had a very solid match as well. He was great in defending and played some nice through balls in the middle. And the combination of Mertesacker and Koscielny played well. Mertesacker especially on defending BVB set pieces; he has added great strength to what was a major Arsenal weakness.

Gervinho was a constant terror on the wing. He was winning free kicks, drawing fouls, opening up the BVB defense...he looks like a solid signing.

And RVP was RVP. When he got some service, he was a threat in front of the net. And his goal was very nice, set up by a tackle he made in BVB's end.

But now the negatives...

Arsenal's tactics were horrible. They seemed completely unable to cope with BVB's aggressive defending. BVB would send three men into Arsenal's third of the pitch, challenging the defensemen on the pass. This would, obviously, create space in the mid-field, either between BVB's forward men and the middle, or the middle and BVB's defensive line. But rather than play the ball over the BVB players, they kept trying to play it through, usually with lousy results. Or they'd just pass it back to Szczesny. I must have seen Gibbs play the ball back to Szczesny at least 15 times in the first half.

And it isn't like they couldn't play it through. The times they did go over the advanced BVB players they found space and allowed Gervinho, Arteta or Benayoun to make some good passes and nice runs. But it just didn't seem like that clicked.

Also, it looked like Arsenal was playing a high line again, which allowed BVB to make some solid runs on goal throughout the game. Wenger is going to have to realize this personnel isn't suited for that. They have a solid back four and with Song (great to see him again) as a holding midfielder, that is a tough line to crack. Unless they're playing 30-40 yards forward and the other team has someone like Kagawa lobbing passes over their heads.

Then there is Theo Walcott, who may be the most maddeningly inconsistent player on the planet. He disappeared for long stretches of the match. He provided no defensive help at all for Sagna on the right, leaving Sagna exposed multiple times. He took what may be one of the worst free kicks in recent memory.

But then there was his beautiful through pass that van Persie converted into a goal. It was a brilliant pass and evidence of Walcott's talent. But can Arsenal afford to have him on the wing almost the whole match? Does that moments of genius outweigh the numerous errors and mistakes the rest of the match? That's a big question. Will we see Park or even Miyaichi at some point? Or will Wenger give in and change the formation, putting Walcott as a second striker?

I think yesterday also showed the importance of having Ramsey (or Wilshere come November) in the lineup and Benayoun as a sub. Benayoun didn't have a bad game and made some great passes, but at times he looked lost on the pitch. Maybe he just needs to get used to playing games again.

Maybe I am being too harsh. Arsenal walked into a cauldron and left with a point - that is nothing to laugh at. But it just looked liked Arsenal had a lot of problems coping with BVB's aggressive play. It will be interesting to see how Arsenal copes on the road October 19 against OM. The Stade Vélodrome isn't a fun place to play either.

Clown Car

2011-09-13T10:44:00.000-04:00

After watching the GOP Debate co-sponsored by CNN and (ugh) the Tea Party, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw is that the Republican candidates are nuts. Or at the least, are forced to act like nuts to appeal to their Tea Party constituents, who really ARE nuts.

Be it calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" (Gov. Perry, you need to actually understand how both Social Security and a Ponzi scheme work) or decrying a vaccine that helps reduce cervical cancer in women, or saying that the Affordable Care Act makes buying health insurance a requirement for citizenship (Thanks for that, Representative Bachmann!), nothing the candidates said made any sense. With one exception; Ron Paul correctly pointed out that our military expenditures are what is draining our economy. Of course, he also thinks people with no health insurance should be allowed to die, a point that brought cheers from the crowd.

And that is the biggest problem Republicans have. To win the nomination, they have to win votes from a base that cheers for executions and allowing people who are sick with no insurance to die. So they say some crazy shit. And then whomever actually wins this thing has to appeal to, you know, the rest of the country. Which does not like the Tea Party and their love of crazy shit much at all.

But it is also a problem that Republicans, at every level, are infected with this idiocy. Which is why we have a House that thinks a solution to our economic downturn is giving the rich more and telling the working class to grab their ankles. A House that would rather see the economy crash and burn than give the President even one achievement in office. Poverty in the US just climbed to over 15%, the highest level since 1993. Whose fault is that? The President who wants to pass a jobs bill, or the House that wants the working class to pay more taxes and doesn't want to invest a dime in America?

We're fucked, and it's the GOP Clown Car that is driving us over the cliff.

Arsenal 1-0 Swansea: Righting the Ship

2011-09-12T09:59:00.000-04:00

It is an old saying but it bears worth repeating: "I'd rather be lucky than good." You can be good at what you do, perform perfectly, and still lose because the other guy (or team) gets that lucky bounce. Or, in Arsenal's case, perform well and still win because of a lucky bounce.

Arsenal dominated possession (57% - 43%) and shot attempts (19 - 12) in this game. They looked the better team. But their inability to convert a final touch into a goal left their fate up to the unlikeliest of goals.

I am not a big fan of Arshavin these days. I still don't feel he is creative enough to give Arsenal the spark they need coming out of the midfield. But he was aware and spry when it mattered. A howler of a mistake by Swansea keeper Michel Vorm (he rolled a clearance into the heel of his defender inside the 18-yard box) allowed Arshavin to fire the ball on an odd angle into the net for his first goal of the season.

Arsenal's passing looked better and they looked more confident overall. But the truth is that they should have had three or four goals. Definitely two: Walcott left-footed a shot past Vorm that didn't have enough juice on it. Vorm nicked it and it slowed down enough for Steven Caulker to run it down and hack it off the line. A harder shot would have gone in. Again, Arsenal's finishing at the net is proving to be very unreliable. Hopefully the goals will start coming soon.

The defense looked good, with new signing Per Mertesacker manning the middle with Koscielny. They operated nicely together and I thought Koscielny played very well. Mertesacker had a great first match and will only get better. It was also good to see Sagna back on the right side, where he did a nice job. And you have to love the energy of Frimpong, even if he is still a bit rash at times with some of his challenges.

And Wojciech Szczesny was his usual great self, producing some amazing saves to keep Arsenal in the driver's seat.

Also, Mikel Arteta looked great. He played the whole match and showed a nice passing touch.

However...

Arsenal should have won this by more. And I think that has to do, in part, with the formation. Wenger is still running the old 4-2-3-1 and I don't think that works with this personnel. I saw someone suggest using Man U's 4-2-2-2. But I think a hybrid 4-4-2 / 4-1-2-1-2, with a defensive midfielder falling back (Song/Frimpong) and an offensive midfielder moving up (Arteta/Benayoun) works better. And then allow RVP to play a free-roaming striker with a partner up front. This is a formation that their current personnel is built to play. Can they win with a 4-2-3-1? Maybe against a Swansea, but I don't see that formation beating a Tottenham, let alone a Chelsea or Man City. It will be interesting to see what formation Wenger uses midweek in their Champions League match against Borussia Dortmund.

But for now, Arsenal grabbed their first win of the EPL season. Hopefully they can also win midweek and build on that to their away match at Blackburn on Saturday. That is always a tricky tie for Arsenal and will be a good indicator of where they really are, especially with Song and Gervinho back from suspension.

My Five Favorite Films From...1981

2011-09-07T16:28:00.002-04:00

Honorable Mention – Time Bandits: A dark comedy of the highest order. Terry Gilliam is a fantastic director and this is, in many ways, my favorite of his films.

5. Gallipoli: It’s a war film in which very little of war is shown. But what you see is so powerful. The final scene is heartbreaking.

4. Excalibur: An epic re-telling of the Arthurian legend. The imagery and archetypes are wonderful and the battle scenes are both brutal and mesmerizing. The only downside is the now-constant abuse of Carl Orff’s "O Fortuna,” which was first used to effect in a film in Excalibur.

3. Stripes: Who knew the Army was so hilarious? Ridiculously fun and irreverent, I think it gets overlooked a lot in the discussion of great comedies. It’s highly quotable as well; I still use “Lighten up, Francis” when someone gets a little too strident for their own good.

2. Escape from New York: One the best adventure flicks ever made. Still a fun watch today, if slightly-dated. Great action and an iconic character in Snake Plissken.

1. Raiders of the Lost Ark: A throwback to the old serials of the 30s and 40s, it exceeded every expectation and is (rightly) one of the most beloved films today. It never drags, is always exciting and fires on all cylinders. If you want to learn about making movies, this is a film to watch.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Absence of Malice, Clash of the Titans, Arthur, Bustin’ Loose, Das Boot, Chariots of Fire, Fort Apache the Bronx, History of the World, Part 1, Road Warrior, Outland, Prince of the City, Taps, The Great Muppets Caper, For Your Eyes Only, The Evil Dead

Guilty Pleasure – The Hand: I love Michael Caine as an actor, but this film is so stupid. Yet, I like it. A crazy animated severed hand that kills for its former owner, who happens to be batshit nuts by film’s end? How can you not like that?

Insane Film That Must Be Mentioned – Heavy Metal: I’ve seen this film more than once…and it’s still a mess. Using the idea of concentrated evil (the Loc-Nar) to thinly join together numerous stories of average quality but insane concepts…it just doesn’t work. And then you have the breast-centric art (wonderfully satirized by South Park in a classic episode) to bring the crazy all together.

My Five Favorite Films From...1980

2011-09-07T16:27:00.002-04:00

Before I get into the movie, I want to quickly touch on something. I occasionally have an entry at the bottom about an insane/twisted/crazy film. That doesn’t mean I liked the movie. Only that it should be mentioned because it’s so over the top. I say this because after the last entry someone asked me if I actually liked Caligula. The answer is an emphatic “no!” But, that film is so bat-shit nuts you have to at least mention it.

Honorable Mention – Kagemusha: Kurosawa’s excellent story of an impersonator who fills in for Japanese warlord Takeda Shingen after his untimely death.

5. The Big Red One: If you see this, make sure to watch the newest release: The Big Red One - The Reconstruction. This is the film as Sam Fuller wanted it to be. Just a great war film that talks about the insanity of war and why, sometimes, you still have to fight.

4. Airplane!: You know 1980 was a great year for comedies if this is #4. Perpetually quotable, this is still the best ZAZ film ever made (with The Naked Gun a close second).

3. Caddyshack: You could run Caddyshack in a theater today and it would do great business against most current comedies. Ted Knight owns this film as the haughty/pathetic Judge Smails. How about a Fresca?

2. The Empire Strikes Back: In any other year, this would be my favorite. A better overall film that the first, its dark tone and tight script let you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that George Lucas had nothing to do with it.

1. Cruising: Just kidding…

1. The Blues Brothers: One of the funniest movies ever made and one of the greatest musicals ever made. That makes it the greatest musical comedy ever. Peroid. Another film you can quote forever. It’s also my favorite soundtrack (still in heavy rotation on my i-Pod).

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: 9 to 5, The Fog, Brubaker, Flash Gordon, Friday the 13th, The Shining, Raging Bull, Ordinary People, Stir Crazy, Superman II, Breaker Morant

Guilty Pleasure – Any Which Way You Can: I know it’s dumb. Clint Eastwood as a brawler with an orangutan for a friend. But the fight with Jack Wilson is awesome. The Black Widows still make me laugh. And I cannot deny that I enjoy this movie.

Insane, Twisted Film That Must Be Mentioned – Cannibal Holocaust: There are a handful of films that make a mockery of the exploitation genre, that are so excessively brutal and/or sexualized they almost demand their own category. This is one of those films. It’s the kind of film you see once as a teenager because of things you’ve heard about it, and maybe once more when you’re older to see if it was really that bad. But if you watch it repeatedly…you may have a problem or two.

Reoccurring Note: As always, my list is not what I consider "the best" films of a particular year. If that was the case, Raging Bull would be at the top of the list. These are the films I enjoyed the most. Your mileage may vary.

My Five Favorite Films From...1979

2011-09-07T16:26:00.002-04:00

Honorable Mention – Rocky II: Sure, it is basically the first film all over again, only with Rocky winning this time. But it is still a good movie, with some of the best boxing scenes ever filmed.

5. The Jerk: Another film I grew to love through repeated viewings on HBO as a kid. Everyone has their favorite scene; mine is where Navin hurts his foot kicking Iron Balls McGinty in the crotch. That and the cat juggling.

4. Apocalypse Now: Epic in scope, the story of the film’s creation is almost better than the actual film itself. But this look at the insanity of war and the darkness of the human soul is a remarkable work of art.

3. Escape From Alcatraz: Best prison escape film ever. And it’s a true tale to boot. Frank Morris led the only successful escape ever from Alcatraz. And that escape scene down the wall and into the water. No stunt doubles; that’s Eastwood, Fred Ward and Jack Thibeau.

2. Mad Max: Awesome apocalyptic film. If you ever wondered what the world will look like when the oil runs out…

1. Alien: The most successful melding ever of science-fiction and horror. This movie still gets me to twitch and startle, even though I know every beat by heart. I can’t say enough good things about it, and it kills me that this franchise has been shit upon by the retarded AvPmovies.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: The China Syndrome, Zulu Dawn, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, …And Justice For All, The Black Stallion, Kramer vs. Kramer, Moonraker, Manhattan, The Muppet Movie, The Warriors, The Tin Drum, Being There, Monty Python's Life of Brian, Meatballs, The Great Santini

Guilty Pleasure – 1941: Not a great film by any stretch of the word, it still makes me crack up. The massive brawl at the USO, the AA gun destroying the house, the ferris wheel…I like it and I am not apologizing, damn it!

Insane, Twisted Film That Must Be Mentioned – Caligula: Is it even possible to sum this film up a couple of sentences? The principal writer and the director took out ads decrying the final product. The film had people getting their heads cut off in the Coliseum by a bizarre thresher. Hardcore sex footage was inserted into the film, causing one of the female leads to sue. It was (and is) an absolute mess of a film, full of just about every sexual depravity you can think of.

My Five Favorite Films From...1978

2011-09-07T16:25:00.002-04:00

Honorable Mention – Heaven Can Wait: Half the time I mention this movie to someone that hasn’t seen it, they go “Isn’t that the biggest bomb ever made?” No, that’s Heaven’s Gate. This film is a pretty good comedy, and Buck Henry as an angel always makes me laugh

5. Halloween: Outside of The Thing, this is John Carpenter’s best film. Helped to restart and redefine the horror genre. Created the concept of the unstoppable killer (I think. If I’m wrong, please let me know.)

4. Superman: The Movie: People have been calling The Dark Knight “revolutionary.” I think that should be reserved for this movie. It’s a successful superhero movie with remarkable depth made at a time when SFX were positively rudimentary compared to what we have now.

3. The Deer Hunter: Ah, the film that made Russian Roulette mainstream. An outstanding film about war and the psychological damage it leaves behind.

2. Dawn of the Dead: A great film in its own right, I wonder how much better it would’ve been had they kept the original ending where everyone committed suicide when faced with the end of civilization. As it stands, still one of the best zombie films ever.

1. Animal House: Thirty years later and this is still, to me, one of the greatest comedies ever made. It made toga parties a college staple along with “Shout” by The Isley Brothers. Even the ROTC/Vietnam angle doesn’t feel dated although it obviously is. Definitely the greatest ensemble film ever.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Blue Collar, The Lord of the Rings, Coming Home, Revenge of the Pink Panther, Autumn Sonata, Midnight Express, The Boys From Brazil, China 9 / Liberty 37, Force 10 From Navarone, Every Which Way But Loose, Foul Play, The Fury

Guilty Pleasure – Capricorn One: This film is pure cheese. But the story of a faked Mars landing by NASA and then trying to assassinate the astronauts is one I still love. And the slo-mo ending of James Brolin running up to his own funeral to smash the conspiracy…that’s Teh Awesome!

Same Old Song And Dance

2011-09-07T10:57:00.003-04:00

Mitt "Mittens" Romney has a new economic plan for the US of A. It's bold! It's big! It's guaranteed...to remind you of every economic plan proposed by a Republican since the 1980s!

He promised to bring the corporate tax rate down from the current level of 35% to 25%, in line with much of the rest of the world, saying, "I will do that on day one." He also pledged to immediately halt any regulations and policies implemented by President Barack Obama that stall job growth, and to cut government spending -- except for the military and entitlement programs -- by 5%.
...
The Romney plan includes additional steps he pledged to take on his first day of office, including an executive order to waive the health care reform law implemented by Obama and Democrats last year "so we can stop that in its tracks," as well as efforts to boost domestic energy production and sanction China for unfair trade practices.
He also described legislation he would propose right away to cut the corporate tax rate, bring free trade agreements to open markets for U.S. products and consolidate federal retraining programs into one package that gets handed to states to run.

Lowering taxes...cutting regulations...slashing government (except for the two most expensive sectors of the US Budget)...what exactly is new here? Didn't we try this for eight years under George Bush? Did that work? And yet Romney wants to double-down on the idiocy.

This is the culmination of 30+ years of the Republican Party ruthlessly purging anyone who dared to question conservative orthodoxy, who dared to think outside the box. This very plan, for the most part, was tried just eight years ago. It failed horribly. And yet we have Romney - and the rest of the Republican clown car, for that matter - proposing the exact same thing as a solution to the problems created by these very ideas.

That's lunacy writ large, but it is all Republicans have. There is no original thought, no new economic theories, coming out of the GOP anymore. It's "cut taxes, shrink government" over and over and over again.

As a comparison, does anyone remember Jack Kemp? Republican stalwart, Congressman from New York, VP with Bob Dole in 1996. A good man who died too soon from cancer in 2009. He was a laissez-faire Republican, but one who also supported minorities and labor unions. Go read about his plans to help reduce inner-city poverty and increase minority ownership of their own homes. They were plans that were worthy of discussion and debate, that went outside the box of generic Republican thought.

They were also suggestions that would get a Republican crucified in the modern GOP.

There is no room for vision in the modern Republican Party. There is no room for independent thought. There is only fealty to the Myth of Ronaldus Magnus and the mantra of "cut taxes". Which is why this country is staggering today. And why the GOP's nominees are a joke - nothing more than a line of marionettes mouthing the same tired lines over and over again.

Shorthanded

2011-09-06T11:02:00.000-04:00

Even with the last-minute purchasing flurry by Arsenal, they will find themselves somewhat thin in their next few matches. With some players finishing suspensions, they are somewhat fortunate to find themselves facing Swansea at home on September 10. But, as seems to be the case, there is some bad news:

Arsenal's injury woes in defence have continued, with Belgium international Thomas Vermaelen set to spend around six weeks watching on from the sidelines after undergoing surgery.
Vermaelen picked up an injury to his left ankle in the Gunners' Champions League qualifier against Udinese, and did not play any part in the club's 8-2 capitulation at Old Trafford against Manchester United as a result.

I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn't his Achilles and that it is only six weeks. But injuries and Arsenal seem to go together like jelly and bread. Except it tastes a lot worse.

But this only magnifies the importance of the new signings. With Mertesacker in the middle and Santos on the left, that allows Sagna to man the right side. Having three of four starters in their proper positions on the defensive line helps to mitigate Vermaelen's absence somewhat. Mertesacker will be able to keep that line organized. And if Koscielny is the other centerback then the defense will be solid. Koscielny is a good CB, but not as the organizer. Leaving that to Mertesacker will allow him to perform to his ability.

And having Arteta and Benayoun in the midfield will further remove some pressure on the back four. Accurate distribution and good passing will increase Arsenal's time of possession and that will also help the defense. Man U held the ball 56% of the time in the Old Trafford Massacre. With experience in the midfield, Arsenal shouldn't face a deficit like that again.

The one negative with Vermaelen's injury (aside from losing Veramelen himself) is that is still leaves the bench thin. Once Jenkinson comes back, it will be a little better. But right now the only other CBs are Djourou and Ignasi Miquel*. Now, I like Miquel. I think he has a real future. But I don't think it is quite here yet. This is where one more purchase, like Scott Dann, would have come in handy.

Regardless, even with Vermaelen's injury this is a much better squad than it was 10 days ago. But the new manpower and realities of the bench will require one major change.

Wenger has to abandon the 4-2-3-1 and the offside trap, at least for now. I don't see how that works with the current personnel. Without Frimpong or Song as one of your midfielders, that leaves the defense too exposed. And a Mertesacker/Koscielny CB pairing isn't suited to play a high line. A better move would be to play a straight 4-4-2 that would be more like a 4-1-2-1-2. Arteta has played some DM in his day. Having him roam between DMC and CM and having Benayoun roam between CM and AMC would allow for continuity through the middle and extra support. Then you play Ramsey up one wing and (sigh...) Rosicky up the other**. Then you have both Walcott and RVP at the front.

That is a balanced team that can apply pressure at one end and absorb it at the other. But leaving the middle open and playing a high line risks having another Man U debacle at some point; a talented team will rip into the open midfield and play through balls past the high line.

But hey, if Wenger could learn from the Old Trafford Massacre to buy players at the deadline, maybe he learned something about what scheme will best suit his personnel. The match against Swansea should be Arsenal's first win. But then comes a CL match away at Dortmund and then Arsenal is at Ewood Park to face Blackburn. Those are two tough matches that Arsenal pretty much has to win.

----------------------------

* I'd rather see Miquel than Squillaci any day of the week. There is a reason the last match Squillaci played for Arsenal was on May 22.

** This is the most likely choice. If I had my way I would throw Miyaichi in on wing. He played in the Eredivise last year so he has some experience. And he certainly cannot be any worse that Rosicky or Arshavin were against Man U.

Firming Up The Middle

2011-09-01T12:31:00.001-04:00

No, Arsenal didn't sign Eden Hazard, or Mario Gotze. They didn't sign Juan Manuel Vargas (a personal favorite) or Marvin Martin. But Arsene Wenger did find the experience and talent he needed to firm up Arsenal's midfield. And in some ways, they are a better signing for Arsenal right now.

Bringing in Everton's Mikel Arteta on a four-year deal and getting Chelsea's Yossi Benayoun on a season-long loaner may not be the sexiest signings ever made. But they bring two things to Arsenal's midfield that is sorely lacking at the moment:

Experience
Creativity

If there is one thing that these two signings do not have in common with most of Wenger's previous signings, it is their age. Arteta is 29, Benayoun is 31. Compare that to the rest of the midfield*:

Aaron Ramsey: 20
Theo Walcott: 22
Alex Song: 23
Emmanuel Frimpong: 19
Francis Coquelin: 20
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain: 18
Ryo Miyaichi: 18
Jack Wilshere: 19

That is a midfield that is loaded with potential and talent, but sorely lacking in experience and wisdom. Arteta and Benayoun have both of those things. Not only can they impart their knowledge to the younger kids, but they can keep that midfield organized. More than anything else this year, that is what Arsenal needs. Arsenal needs experienced hands to keep the team collected and organized. The average age of Arsenal's squad as of last Sunday was 24.8, the youngest in the EPL and the only one under 25. That is both good (works well for Home Grown Player rules and keeping talent for a while) and bad (lack of experience). Arteta and Benayoun help to mitigate the bad and do so without really aging the squad average much.

And that is where I think these two signings are better for Arsenal right now that a more sexier pick. Hazard is 20, Gotze is 19 and Martin is 23. They are all quite talented but young. Would they have an overall positive impact on the midfield?

Keep in mind also that Arteta and Benayoun bring creativity as well along with their experience. Rosicky and Arshavin may both be 30, but they can't create a damn thing and their experience is useless in that regard. Both Artea and Benayoun can distribute the ball and make that one-touch pass.

Another thing they bring now is depth. Adding Arteta and Benayoun means that either Ramsey or Walcott can be a super-sub. It means that Chamberlain and Miyaichi don't get thrown in the fire. It means we don't have to rush back Wilshere. They will have as big an impact on the midfield as Santos and Mertesacker will have on the defense. They also provide cover for when Song goes to the African Cup of Nations in January.

They also have the "important" EPL experience. Both Arteta and Benayoun have been in the EPL for six years. So they know how to play here and that will help...I guess. I really don't know how important that is (hence the earlier quotes). It sure as hell doesn't seem to be slowing down Edin Džeko any.

And while both have been tagged as injury-prone...I don't see that with Benayoun. Despite that Achilles tear last year, before that he played in 30 or more EPL for Liverpool in each of his three years there, as well 9+ European competition matches. All told, he played 134 games in Liverpool in his three years. That's 44+ games a season...not the record of an "injury prone" athlete. Arteta admittedly has had more issues. He has only played 30+ EPL matches in a season once: 06-07 (35). But last year he played in 29 EPL matches, the most he had since the 07-08 season (28). So maybe he is on his way back. Wenger will have to keep an eye on him.

So now with the window closed, here is the improved Arsenal squad. I suppose we should show a 4-3-3...although I think the squad fits a 4-4-2 better. Screw it, here's a 4-4-2.

GK: Szczęsny
RB: Sagna
CB: Vermaelen
CB: Mertesacker
LB: Santos
RM: Benayoun
CM: Wilshere
CM: Song
LM: Arteta
ST: Van Persie
ST: Gervinho
Bench and Reserves: Fabianski, Mannone, Gibbs, Koscielny, Jenkinson, Frimpong, Ramsey, Chamberlain, Miyaichi, Park, Walcott, Chamakh, Rosicky, Arshavin
Ideal Bench: Fabianski, Koscielny, Jenkinson, Frimpong, Ramsey, Walcott, Park

If you want a 4-3-3, you'd likely see Benayoun or Arteta sit, with Walcott or Park as the third front man. But that leaves the front too thin and too many midfielders sitting.

This is a 4-4-2 squad now. Also, keep in mind that the registered squad will be larger that what I listed since U-21 players do not count against the limit, something too many people overlooked with some of Wenger's earlier signings.

If you look at that lineup, you see how Wenger's deadline signings made this team not only better on the pitch, but much deeper. Having Koscielny come in late, or the pace of Walcott, can impact a match in a positive fashion. It will also allow younger players to develop on a more natural progression than just getting chucked into the deep end.

All in all, this Arsenal team is now a competitive squad. It can definitely compete to win the Carling Cup or FA Cup. Winning the league may be out of reach, as Man U and Man City have ridiculously deep and talented squads**. That said, I think Arsenal can now stay in the top four. As for the Champions League...who knows? Some years a team that no one expects to win somehow does it (think Porto in 2004). If this squad makes it to the knock-out stages, that will be seen as a victory in many quarters.

But things are definitely brighter now than they were five days ago.

----------------

* Yeah, I didn't include Arshavin or Rosicky. Since they disappeared on the pitch, I figured they shouldn't show up here either.

** Seriously, how can Man City get under the new Financial Fair Play rules? They spent money like a drunk sailor on shore leave in Bangkok.

From The Ashes...

2011-08-30T11:45:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, a massive defeat can be a turning point. A tragedy a life lesson. A setback the very thing that propels you forward.

In that vein, Arsenal's destruction at the hands of Manchester United over the weekend may have been the very thing to finally convince Arsene Wenger and the Arsenal board that changes were needed for the team to stay competitive.

First, we saw Armand Traore shipped off to QPR. The rumored loan apparently has turned into a permanent deal. This, undoubtedly, had plenty to do with his horrendous performance on Sunday and his utter lack of contrition over it.

Next, Arsenal went out and signed Fenerbahce left-back and Brazil international Andre Santos for a little over 6M pounds. This is a solid signing. Santos is the quintessential Brazilian fullback - strong in offense. He will fit perfectly into Arsenal's system, which has the left back flying up the sideline into the offensive zone. Remember the runs of Ashley Cole? We'll see that again with Santos.

Of course, Santos is also a little weak when it comes to defense. And that is where Arsenal's second signing comes in. Werder Bremen centerback Per Mertesacker is coming to Arsenal for 9M pounds. At 26 years of age, he has 75 caps for Germany and is tall...6'6" to be exact. He also has excellent positional sense, can organize the back and is clean...he only has six bookings in his entire Bundesliga career. He is a bit slow and that may be a concern if Arsenal tries to keep playing a high line. But something tells me that won't be the case with Mertesacker. I think he may play a little behind the rest of the line and use his positional skill to make up the difference when attackers come into the final third.

These two signings completely change the face of Arsenal's defense. Now Sagna can move back to the right, his natural position. And Jenkinson, who has gotten way too much stick for the Man U game and is a good player, can be the substitute that he is right now. It also moves Koscielny to the bench. Koscielny is a good centerback, but he can't organize the back four. He needs someone else to do it. And with Mertesacker and Vermaelen, if he subs for one the other will still be there to handle those duties.

So the back four is now Santos, Vermaelen, Mertesacker and Sagna. That's a good group.

In midfield, Song will be a great DM. He just needs to work on positioning a little and control his temper. The question is who will take over the Cesc role? It isn't Arshavin or Rosicky. It's not Ramsey, who is a solid midfielder but lacks that creative spark. Jack Wilshere (when he makes it back) could become that player, but he is just 19. Ryo Miyaichi, who is extrememly talented, could also take that role but is just 18. Arsenal needs an experienced distributor in the middle to make this all work right now.

Up front, Arsenal has RVP and Gervinho. But another newcomer, 26-year-old Park Chu-Young, could be very interesting indeed. The captain of the South Korean team, he is tall and has an eye for the net. With this addition, we could see Walcott back to the bench as a super-sub, Gervinho move to the wing and a duo of Park and RVP up front. That would give Arsenal, ideally, this look:

GK: Szczęsny
RB: Sagna
CB: Vermaelen
CB: Mertesacker
LB: Sagna
LM/LAM: Gervinho
CM: Song
CM: Wilshere/Miyaichi/New signing
RM/RAM: Ramsey
ST: Park
ST: Van Persie
Bench: Fabianski, Jenkinson, Koscielny, Wilshere/Miyaichi, Diaby, Walcott, Campbell(?)

I realize there are some issues with this. First, what happens to Rosicky and Arshavin?* What about AOC and Djourou? Way I see it, injuries and suspensions and flat-out exhaustion from an EPL schedule that includes two Cup tournaments and the Champions League will allow playing time for all.

And Arsenal still needs that creative spark in the middle. Although I would LOVE to be proved wrong and see Wilshere or Miyaichi take that role.

Also...the transfer window isn't closed yet. Another signing could shake all this up all over again.

But this squad is a far different one than we saw just a couple of days ago. And a stronger one as well. Sometimes, the darkest hour contains the seed of a brighter down. And the Massacre at Old Trafford may well be what propels Arsenal forward.

-------------

* Frankly, I don't give a good damn what happens to them.

Manchester United 8-2 Arsenal: Humiliation

2011-08-28T14:51:00.001-04:00

Humiliation. That is the only word that fits the debacle that was ManU's 8-2 dismantling of Arsenal at Old Trafford. It exposed the weakness of Arsenal's bench and a screaming gap between the current titleholders and the Gunners.

First, the positives...I saw one. Arsenal's attack, although it only accounted for two goals, was decent. They created many chances and with a couple of bounces or more clinical finishing, Arsenal could have had five or six goals of their own.

Now the problems. First is depth. It is obvious that Arsenal has limited coverage for injuries and a threadbare bench. The absence of Sagna and Vermaelen made that abundantly apparent. Without one, Arsenal's back four would struggle a little. Without both, they were totally lost.

Which leads to the second problem. Arsenal's defense was non-existent and sloppy. They played too far forward and allowed the Reds to slice through them again and again, resulting in goals directly or from set pieces. And no one seemed to recognize the problem and correct it. Even deep into the second-half, Arsenal's defensive four were leaving 30 or more yards of open space between them and the goal. And when Manchester exploited it, Arsenal's defense looked ham-footed and amateur.

Jenkinson has promise and a solid future, despite his red card today. Koscielny is a good centerback, but he cannot be the organizer. Djorou and Traore were a flat-out mess, in my opinion. The difference between the Udinese CL match and today was apparent. With Sagna, Vermaelen and Song in the lineup, Arsenal had a solid starting defense. Without these players, they have no defense at all. The need for more reliable defensemen in depth is apparent. Mock the Sol Campbell rumors if you will, but at least Sol would have kept the defense back and organized.

It is also apparent that Arsenal needs more depth for clinical finishing in the front. RVP did what he could but he was starved for service. Gervinho began to fill that need in the Udinese match. Getting Ryo Miayachi into the mix or Park (from Monaco) will help as well. But as I said, the offense wasn't the issue today.

Wenger has three days, and he'll have to pay a premium because of what happened today. But he needs players of quality AND experience to come into the team before the Wednesday deadline. Skilled youth is fine, even necessary. But against the best of the EPL, youth will fall before experience more often than not.

If the Liverpool match wasn't Wenger's wake-up call, today was. And if he still doesn't hear it after today, he never will. And that may become the bigger problem as the year goes on.

They're Just Words

2011-08-23T11:17:00.000-04:00

Rick Perry tiptoes away from Social Security slams

In his book "Fed Up!" Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has some harsh words for the "crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal" known as Social Security.
In the book, released in November 2010, Perry criticizes the program as emblematic of the "entitlement state" created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt which meant "violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles of federalism and limited government."
...
As the Wall Street Journal reported, Perry communications director Ray Sullivan said he hadn't heard Perry suggest Social Security is unconstitutional and cast "Fed Up" as "a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto." The book, Sullivan told The Journal, is "a look back, not a path forward."

Rick Perry made the biggest mistake any candidate for President can possibly make; he committed his viewpoints to print. In a book. That came out last year. And as an added bonus, his viewpoints are bugshit nuts.

Perry calls everything from Social Security to income taxes to child labor laws unconstitutional. He thinks bank regulations are unconstitutional. He thinks pretty much everything is unconstitutional. And for a bonus, there is no global warming according to Rick Perry. In fact, we are in a "cooling" period.

Now these ideas, these bold ideas put forth with such force and verve, are exceedingly inconvenient. Because when you decide to run for President, it is surprising how many people like social Security, or regulating the banks, or keeping kids from working 14-hour days. And so Perry's people are saying we should just ignore it.

The problem is that this is not a college term paper or a book from 20 years ago. If it were, you could make the argument that viewpoints change with time. Heaven knows my political viewpoints today are quite different than they were 20 years ago.

But Perry wrote this book a year ago. And to try and claim that it is now irrelevant because of the inconvenient fact that his viewpoints are electoral poison...sorry, but that simply isn't going to work. Perry may exciting the Tea Bagger base, but the general electorate is going to run from him. And there is very little he or his campaign can do about it.

Arsenal 0-2 Liverpool

2011-08-21T15:23:00.000-04:00

At it's apex, soccer is the most beautiful game in the world. A combination of physicality and grace, of calculating skill and random chance, it is visual poetry. Be it an arcing free kick that curves to embrace the back of the net, a mazy end-to-end run that slices open a defense or a goaltender's fingertip save that denies a certain goal, soccer is a game that can redefine, or even transcend, beauty.

And then you get games like Arsenal's 2-0 loss to Liverpool. Calling it "a debacle" would be kind. It was horrendous, a mess, maybe the worst game I have ever seen Arsenal play. From the start, with a petulant Nasri refusing to applaud the fans on his entrance to Koscielny's injury just 16 minutes in, you could see this game was doomed from the start. Even when things went right (like a good overall performance from Frimpong) they went wrong (Frimpong getting sent off for a stupid studs-up tackle).

An already weakened side due to injury and suspension fell apart. The absence of Alex Song was apparent along with the utter lack of creativity in the midfield. Arshavin looked hopeless out there. Once Frimpong went off, so did any lingering spark of hope for Arsenal grabbing a point, let alone three.

And while it is nice to see a good performance from youth like Frimpong and Jenkinson...the simple truth is that they don't belong out there from the start. Having either of these youngsters come off the bench is a benefit.

But defense really isn't Arsenal's problem, not really. Truth is, Koscielny has been good thus far and Vermaelen is, as always, outstanding. Sagna is solid and so is Gibbs. If the team could stay healthy (and that's a separate subject to itself), the defense would be fine with just one addition at the center. And even with the loss, Wojciech Szczesny is proving himself to be a fine #1 keeper. Throw in Alex Song at DM and the back half of Arsenal's team is fine.

But then comes the midfield.

Arshavin and Rosicky are done. If the first game against Newcastle didn't make that obvious, Arshavin's horror show yesterday should have driven it home. There was no creativity, no service, no anything from the midfield. RvP was starving for a pass in front of the net and got barely anything. And while Aaron Ramsey has a solid future, he is not a creative playmaker. And this is where Wenger must make a purchase. It's well and good that we have Ryo Miyaichi now, and I think he is a genuine talent. But Arsenal needs a veteran playmaker in the middle. And if Chelsea signs Mata after Wenger could have grabbed him for 18M I will spit nails. If Arsenal doesn't get a midfielder and a backup defensman ASAP, I don't think they get past Udinese to make the Group Stage of the Champions League. Let alone be competitive against Man U next weekend.

At the front I think Arsenal will be fine with RvP and Gervinho. Wolcott's inability to find the back of the net is a little disconcerting, however.

But yesterday's loss exposed Arsenal's lack of depth and lack of creativity. If Wenger doesn't address both these issues, it will be a very, very long season for Arsenal.

You Can't Say I Didn't Promise You The World

2011-08-18T09:23:00.000-04:00

Bachmann: I'll bring back $2 gas

"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann told a crowd Tuesday in South Carolina. "That will happen."

Where to begin on this kind of fail? First off, the last time gas was under $2 was during a massive economic recession in 2008-09. During a recession, demand slows and that brings prices down. So is she promising to crash the economy again? That I would actually believe.

Second, her solution to make this happen is the old "drill baby drill" mantra. Which won't work. First because any extra oil we produce here will be offset by an OPEC cut. Second because any oil we did find wouldn't hit the markets until 2030. And third because the total oil we could find (est. 500,000 barrels per day) would account for just one-half of one percent of global consumption. As the CNN article states:

After OPEC got done adjusting its production to reflect the increased American output, gas prices might drop a whopping three cents a gallon...

Three cents. And yet Bachmann, who mind you is a serious Republican candidate, is pushing the unserious and completely idiotic notion that more drilling will cut gas prices in half.

Explain to me again why we, or the media, take anything Republicans say seriously anymore. Because it all seems to be a bunch of crap.

Soft In The Middle

2011-08-17T13:27:00.000-04:00

Before the season began, Arsenal fans were worried about the back four. In particular the two center-backs. Vermaelen was seen as rock solid (and indeed he is) but people were panicked about the other CB. But in the opening match against Newcastle and yesterday's CL match with Udinese, Laurent Koscielny has proven that even if he isn't up to Vermaelen's level, he is good enough to start. I'd be more worried about the bench, with Djourou picking up an injury that leaves Jenkinson as the only other choice at CB. Yes I know Squillaci is still with the team. I also know he's been a healthy scratch for both games. Do the math.

Other fans were worried about goal. But Wojciech Szczesny is proving that Wenger's faith in him was well-placed. He didn't have much to do against Newcastle but was excellent against Udinese. In both matches he controlled the box and wasn't afraid to come out and knock the ball away if need be.

But the middle...ah, the middle. That is where Arsenal is glaringly coming up short. With the loss of both Cesc and Nasri (all but gone to Sheik City), the lack of creativity in Arsenal's midfield is apparent. With Song playing well as a DM, it's on the other three midfielders to provide that creative spark. Aaron Ramsey is getting there but he is young. Theo Wolcott is better as the recipient of a midfield pass than a generator. Which leaves Rosicky...and that ain't much. He has just three goals and five assists in the last two years. Put him out there with Arshavin and the whole middle grinds to a halt.

I like Ryo Miyaichi but at just 18 it is asking a lot of him to replace Cesc and/or Nasri right now. Which is why the renewed rumors of Eden Hazard coming to Arsenal are welcome. The Lille midfielder is an amazing talent and would rejuvenate Arsenal's midfield in an instant. If Hazard falls through, Shakhtar Donetsk midfielder Jadson would be another creative player that could make an impact.

It was frustrating watching the Newcastle match and seeing either Gibbs flying down the left side only to be ignored by Rosicky, or RVP looking like a castaway, all but abandoned at the front. Arsenal does need another defensive player. But a strong creative midfield presence, that can distribute the ball and help keep the action on the other side of the pitch, will be just as important to Arsenal's defense.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 17

2011-08-17T11:34:00.000-04:00

The heyday for Boston's "17" was in the past. Recently the bearers of the number have been coaches or forgettable players (Willie Banks, anyone?). Manny Delcarmen wore it for a while, but with Coach Tim Bogar wearing it now, it will be a while before a potential great wears this number again.

5. Bret Saberhagen (1997-99, 2001) - I was always a fan of Sabes, even when he was in KC. So I was thrilled when the Sox signed him in the winter of 1996*. And then he, of course, promptly missed most of 1997 with an injury. But he came back in 1998, winning the AL Comeback Player of Year Award by going 15-8 with a 3.96 ERA. He even had a decent 1999 with a 10-6 record and 2.95 ERA while dealing with injuries again. But he fell apart in the playoffs and then he missed all of 2000 before a brief comeback in 2001 that ended with his retirement after pitching in just three games. But for 1998-99 he gave the Sox rotation some solid outings.

4. Cecil Cooper (1971-76) - The proverbial "one that got away." Cooper was a 6th-round pick in the 1968 draft and the Sox never really commited to him 100%. The most games he played in one season was 123 games in 1976. But he had a solid glove and a good bat and all he needed was a real chance to prove himself. But whether it was his poor batting in the '75 World Series or a bizarre desire on the part of Sox management to turn back the clock after the '76 season, he was traded away to the Brewers for Bernie Carbo and George Scott. At which point he went on to have a borderline Hall of Fame career. And he absolutely killed Boston over his career. There was one series in 1982 when he hit four homers and the Brewers overtook Boston for first. You think the Sox would have liked to have him at first then? That "logjam" argument for trading Coop always struck me as so much bullshit. When you have talent, you find a place for it.

Think about it. What would Coop have meant to the Sox in 1978? 1982? Coming off the bench in 1986? As much as I liked the Boomer as a kid, that trade in 1976 was 100 kinds of stupid.

3. Marty Barrett (1982-1990) - For a generation of Sox fans, this was your second baseman while you grew up. And while he was never a great player, Barrett was always a good player. He understood the game and how it worked. He was also one of the most disciplined batters that Boston ever had. In a 10-year career where Barrett had 3378 at-bats, he struck out only 209 times. That is one strikeout every 16.16 at-bats, and that was matched by 304 walks. Walking more than you strikeout over your career is not an easy trick to pull off. And Barrett was a monster in the 1986 playoffs. He won the ALCS MVP Award and if the Sox hadn't choked away the Series to the Mets, he was in line to win the MVP for that as well.

Barrett likely would have played longer for the Sox but he wrecked his knee in a bizarre base-running accident in 1989 when he tripped over first-base. Then he claimed Arthur Pappas screwed his knee up post-injury and ended his career early**. It was a crap ending for a player who deserved better. Barrett was one of those guys who played the game the right way.

2. Dick Radatz (1962-65) - If you aren't familiar with "The Monster", just think of him as a Papelbon for your dad's Red Sox. From 1962-64, there wasn't a better reliever in the American League. Radatz was a two-time All-Star and was 3rd in the Rookie of the Year voting in 1962. He also was in the Top 10 for AL MVP in 1963 and 1964. And he got better each year he pitched:

1962: 9-6, 62 games, 24 saves, 124.7 innings, 144 strikeouts, 2.24 ERA
1963: 15-6, 66 games, 25 saves, 132.3 innings, 162 strikeouts, 1.97 ERA
1964: 16-9, 79 games, 29 saves, 157.0 innings, 181 strikeouts, 2.29 ERA

He wasn't called "Monster" for nothing. He terrified opposing batters with a hellacious fastball. Add to that the fact that Radatz was 6'6" and not afraid to throw that fastball inside, and you can see why he was so successful. And he wasn't a reliever like we have them today. Radatz rarely threw one inning. There were games he'd be out there for four or more innings. He was an impressive pitcher.

And then Ted Williams came along.

Radatz only had one pitch; his fastball. But, as the legendary sportswriter Jim Murray said, "Dick Radatz brings one weapon - a fastball. It's like saying all a country brings to a war is an atom bomb." However, the Boston brass were worried about their star reliever only having one pitch. So they had Williams approach Radatz about adding another pitch to his arsenal. The result was predictably disastrous***. In 1965 Radatz had a mediocre season that ended in shoulder surgery. He never regained his form and was traded in the middle of the 1966 season to the Indians for Don McMahon and Lee Stange. The whole episode stands as a shining reminder that, sometimes, the front office is full of idiots****. Sadly, Radatz died in 2005 when he fell down the stairs at his home in Easton, MA.

1. Mel Parnell (1947-56) - "Dusty" Parnell was a mainstay in the Sox rotation for most of his 10-year career. Between 1948-53 he never won fewer than 12 games and won 20+ two times (25-7 in 1949 and 21-8 in 1953). He was a two-time All-Star (1949, 51).

Parnell is one of the best lefties to ever pitch for the Sox. He is fourth all-time for Boston in wins, with 123 victories. He started 232 games for Boston, fifth all-time. Of those 232 games, he completed 113 of them. His 20 shutouts are 6th all-time for the Sox.

After his strong 1953 season, Parnell was hit by a pitch in 1954 that broke his arm and pretty much ended his career slowly over the next three years. But he had one last moment of glory. In 1956, he threw a no-hitter against the White Sox.

Parnell is probably one of the more under-appreciated Sox pitchers. He won over 60% of his games (62.1%, to be precise). And he was a lefty, a breed which has not historically found a lot of success in Fenway over the years*****. In his prime, he was one of Boston's best.

-----------------

* Actually, my favorite memory of Sabes isn't even from the ballpark. His wife played in a band (the name is lost in the fog of time) and they were playing at The Harp one night in the spring of 1998. So after Sabes pitched the Sox to a win (which I saw), me and some friends rolled over to The Harp and watched the band. Then Sabes and Wakefield came out and jammed with them for a few songs, which was pretty cool. It was a really laid-back, fun night.

** Barrett was right about Pappas having a conflict of interest. How can your doctor also be a part-owner? It's obvious he'll care more about the team than the player.

*** I will never understand why teams mess with their pitchers' deliveries and/or pitches when they work. Look at the number the Sox did on Buchholz in 2008. It was obvious the problem was in his head. Instead they started screwing with his delivery and the bottom fell out of his season. Pitchers are like fine-tuned engines. You can't just start whacking on them with a wrench.

**** For example, look at New York and their insistence on trying to Joba a starter. The result was taking a potential closer of the future and turning him into a Tommy John candidate. As a Boston fan, I'd like to say to Cashman and the Gang "Well done, sirs. Well done."

***** Go back over Boston's history. The only lefties that appear in the record books besides Parnell are old-timers like Dutch Leonard and Babe Ruth. I suppose you could throw Lefty Grove in there as well, and you could make a weak case for Bruce Hurst. But how many pitchers is that in the sum total of hurlers to ever toe the rubber for the Sox in Fenway? That makes what Jon Lester is doing right now even more impressive. If he can keep his level of success where it, or improve on it, he could be the best lefty the Sox ever had pitch in Fenway.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 16

2011-08-17T11:26:00.000-04:00

Some numbers are destined for greatness with the Boston Red Sox. Others just seem to bounce around, occasionally being worn by a player of note. The "16" is such a number in the Boston organization, with only three players earning the right to be mentioned on this list.

5. Frank Viola (1992-94) - Some of you younger readers may only recognize Viola as a pitcher who barely appeared for the Blue Jays in 1996 before he retired. But he was a solid pitcher over his career, winning the Cy Young with the Twins in 1988 and making three All-Star teams. Of course, he did none of that with Boston after he was signed as a free agent in 1992. But he did give Boston two solid years in 1992 and 1993, posting a combined record of 24-20 and throwing a total of 421.7 innings over that time. Unfortunately he was injured shortly after the 1994 season began and he needed Tommy John Surgery which pretty much ended his career*.

4 and 3. Ellis Kinder (1948-55) - Kinder had what may be one of the all-time great nicknames in baseball history, "Old Folks"**. He earned it for a very simple reason; he was a rookie in the majors at the age of 31. When he was traded to the Sox from the St. Louis Browns in 1947, Kinder was already 33 years old. Yet for the next eight years he gave the Sox some solid pitching, including an amazing 1949 season. That year Kinder went 23-6 with 252 innings pitched, a 3.36 ERA and 138 strikeouts. He was fifth in the MVP voting that year and was the Sporting News Pitcher of the Year. And that was all done at the age of 34.

But his story doesn't end there. Come 1951, the Sox needed a good reliever in the pen. So Kinder became the de facto closer and dominated in the role . The highlight for Kinder was in 1953 when he saved 27 games, went 10-6 overall and was 11th in MVP voting. Oh, and he was 38 years old when it happened. Because of his dual roles with the team, Kinder is one of a handful of pitchers in baseball history that has more than 100 wins and 100 saves***.

But by 1955 his career was coming to an end. The Sox placed him on waivers, he bounced between the Reds and the White Sox and by 1957 he was out of the game at the age of 42. Only 11 years later, at the age of 54, Kinder died during surgery.

2 and 1. Jim Lonborg (1965-71) - If I was being fair and just and completely impartial, looking only at the numbers, Kinder would have the top spot. But "Gentleman Jim" Lonborg is forever tied to that magical 1967 team, and he did register one of the all-time great single season performances by a Boston pitcher. That year Lonborg went 22-9, pitching 273.3 innings, struck out 246 batters, had an ERA of 3.16, went to the All-Star game and won both the Cy Young Award and the Sporting News Pitcher of the Year. Not too shabby for a third-year player.

And then he upped the awesome quotient in the World Series against the Cardinals, going 2-1. He still holds the record for fewest hits allowed in back-to-back starts in the World Series, with a one-hitter in Game Two and and three-hitter in Game Five. But he couldn't outduel the legendary Bob Gibson in Game Seven. To be fair, Lonborg was throwing on two days rest. But even with the loss, Boston fans were ready for many more years of Lonborg on the Fenway mound.

And then he had to go skiing.

Lonborg wrecked his knee that winter while skiing and was never the same again for Boston. Over the next four years he posted double-digit wins once in 1971, when he went 10-7. After the season he was traded to Milwaukee with a handful of other players (including George Scott) for three nobodies and Tommy Harper****. At which point Lonborg found his stuff again to some degree by changing his style (think Greg Maddux late in his career) . Over the next seven years (the last six spent in Philly) he went 89-71. He won 11 or more games five times. Then, when he retired in 1979, he went to Tufts University and became a dentist. And if you live in or near Hanover, MA, you can have a tooth drilled by Doctor James Lonborg. Which is pretty awesome if you ask me.

The Sox entered Lonborg into their Hall of Fame in 2002. And here is one last interesting thing I did not know. Remember the sitcom Cheers? The picture of Sam Malone hanging behind the bar is actually that of Lonborg.

-------------------

* Apropos of nothing, do you think it pisses off Tommy John that this is his claim to fame? Between 1977 and 1980 he was in the Top 10 for Cy Young voting all four years and went to three All-Star games. He has a legit argument for getting into the Hall of Fame (288 wins, 2245 strikeouts and 29 shutouts). But all anyone will remember him for is getting a ligament in his elbow replaced. That would irk me big-time.

** Kinder also has what may be the best Fenway Park story ever. Pitching there while a member of the St. Louis Browns, a seagull nailed him with a three-pound smelt. Also, from what I have read, Kinder was the prototype for Dock Ellis, doing his best pitching after getting shit-faced drunk.

*** Three other pitchers with ties to Boston are on this list: Dennis Eckersley, Tom Gordon, and Bob Stanley. Yes, I am as shocked as you to see the Steamer on this list. But we tend to forget that he had a streak between 1978 and 1982 where he won 10+ games each year.

**** And now Harper is going to be remembered as "the second-fastest Boston player ever" because of Ellsbury.

Democrats Crush Republicans, Media Goes Silent

2011-08-17T11:12:00.000-04:00

So in Wisconsin the two Democratic State Senate members that were up for recall both won their elections handily. Which means out of nine recall elections (six R, three D), the Democrats won five elections and flipped two Republican seats. This, you would think, would be big news. Instead the major media outlets have either barely mentioned it or relegated it to obscure sections of their papers and websites.

Imagine if this went the other way, if the lunatic Tea Party Republicans had flipped two seats and won five of nine elections? You wouldn't hear the end of it for a week. It would be a sign of a major change in the national political fabric. You wouldn't be able to flip a channel without some damned Republican shill pimping the victories.

Instead it's "crickets in a field" silent. Liberal media my ass.

Newcastle 0-0 Arsenal

2011-08-15T09:56:00.000-04:00

When your squad is in a bit of turmoil and everyone is questioning your ability, to start the season with a draw at Newcastle isn't a bad result.

A nil-nil draw is a hell of a lot better than last year's 4-4 draw at St James' Park, when Arsenal famously surrendered a 4-0 lead. But like all games, there were good, bad and ugly parts.

First the good. With all the worries about Arsenal's defense, Laurent Koscielny looked solid in the center along with Thomas Vermaelen. Koscielny was never really caught out of position and made a couple of key tackles to prevent Newcastle from ever really threatening to shoot, let alone score. He also held his own against Newcastle striker Demba Ba, who outweighs Koscielny by about 20 pounds. The whole back line looked good the whole match.

Wojciech Szczęsny had to save all of one shot in net. But he looked confident, commanding his space within the box. He read the ball well, coming out a couple of times to deflect the ball away before a Newcastle attacker had a chance to make something out of it.

In general, Arsenal looked like they had a little more bottle than usual. There was a physicality to their play that I haven't seen that much of. Without Cesc and Nasri in the lineup, they will need that.

And that leads to the most obviously bad...a lack of creativity. Arsenal looked very workmanlike. That's not a "bad" think per se, but Arsenal is built on passing and skill. More than once I saw Gibbs flying down the left side looking for a pass and Rosicky or Arshavin completely missing him. That's a pass that Cesc or Nasri would have recognized and made. Van Persie barely made a dent in the match except for his wicked free kick that nearly found the top of the net. That was because he barely got any service from the midfield. It almost looks like Arsenal will need another creative force in the midfield more than a center-back. Preferably both, of course. But it was the midfield that looked more lacking in the match.

Also, newcomer Gervinho made some good runs and had some real chances. But he seemed a little too fond of making that extra touch, that extra dribble. Which gave Steven Taylor plenty of time to disrupt Gervinho or clear the ball away. But Gervinho showed some real flair and pace and he will get his share of goals over the season.

But not for the next couple of games, and that leads us to the ugly. The spat between Joey Barton and Gervinho fourteen minutes from time was ugly, as was the refereeing around it. Gervinho deserved a red for slapping Barton to be sure, but Barton deserved one as well for hauling Gervinho up off the pitch by his shirt after Gervinho was tackled in the box. Did Gervinho go down a little too easily? Yes. But Barton reacting like he was shot after being slapped was even worse. In general, I thought the refereeing was a little sloppy. Arsenal seemed to have at least one penalty shot and a couple of free kicks denied. Though, Alex Song got away with stomping on Barton's calf so maybe that's a wash.

So with a point to their credit Arsenal faces Udinese in the first leg of their Champions League playoff Tuesday before seeing Liverpool on Saturday for their home opener. Arsenal have a tough opening five of Newcastle and Liverpool, with Man U and Blackburn (always a tough one) away. They have Swansea at home September 10 but who knows if that will be as easy as it should be. They will need more creativity if Arsenal is to take some points over this stretch. Wenger better use some of the 25M pounds he's sitting on from the Cesc sale, if not all of it. Jádson from Shakhtar Donetsk is a rumored signing and would be a good choice. Also, Japanese starlet Ryo Miyachi got his work permit and could play for Arsenal, which would also help out. And if Wenger does sign another center back (it was telling that Squillaci wasn't a substitute) Scott Dann would be worth a look. If Wenger could make those signings before the Liverpool match, the Gunners would be in much better shape going forward.

Same Shit, Different Day

2011-08-09T14:11:00.000-04:00

When the GOP isn't trying to crash the economy or screw 95% of the country, it engages in it's other favorite past-time: screwing with the President. Of course, the easy way to do that is to use Fox and their numerous dog whistles (led by Chief Race-Baiter Eric Bolling). But there's always the other stand-by: impeachment.

A brief exchange between US Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville and a local Tea Party member is drawing attention this morning as Burgess advocated pursuing impeachment proceedings against President Obama.
When one attendee suggested that the House push for impeachment proceedings against Obama to distract the president and keep him from getting things done, Burgess was immediately receptive. He said Obama backed away from using the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval because of concerns about getting impeached. He added that there's also some people who believe Obama violated the War Powers Act when he pursued military action in Libya.
"It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up," Burgess said. "No question about that."

When asked what reason the GOP would have to initiate articles of impeachment, Burgess said "They would have to be substantial. Right now, I don't know that you have that substance behind them."

So, Obama has to be stopped. And the best way to do so is through impeachment. Even though President Obama has done nothing to warrant impeachment.

This is why the US is a mess right now. Because idiots like Burgess run the House and waste their time with this bullshit instead of drafting, say, a jobs bill. Just one jobs bill.

We're screwed. And we're all to blame because we voted these asshats into power in the House.

Movie Corner: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

2011-07-25T13:04:00.001-04:00

In the universe of comic books, Captain America is, in many ways, Marvel's answer to DC's Superman. Both men are upright, honest and fundamentally good. Both fight for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" (even if Cap never says that exact phrase). And even without near-limitless powers (and an aversion to Kryptonite), Captain America is every bit Superman's equal in representing what we want our heroes to be.

So in this modern era where we want our heroes flawed, edgy and more than a bit dark, how does Captain America: The First Avenger stand up when compared to the Batman series or even both of the Iron Man films? I think it holds it's own and makes for a good time at the theater.

This is a good, not great, movie. But it does the back-story better than any of the other Marvel films so far. We see Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) trying to enlist to fight in Europe as WW2 breaks out, but he can't due to his underwhelming physique and numerous ailments. During a night on the town with his friend "Bucky" Barnes (who is going to Europe the next day), he tries to enlist again and is noticed by Dr. Abraham Erskine (played wonderfully by Stanley Tucci). Erskine is a doctor working with the Army to develop a "Super Soldier" and feels Rogers would be the perfect candidate.

This leads to Rogers becoming Captain America, of course. But then director Joe Johnston does something nice, which I don't want to give away here. Suffice it to say, Rogers doesn't get to Europe the way you would think. Some people may have found it an odd detour, but I think it is very realistic and smacks of the way a politician would manipulate a situation.

While this is going on we also watch the machinations of the Nazi deep-research division HYDRA and their leader, Johann Schmidt, who is better known as the Red Skull. Hugo Weaving is excellent as the Red Skull. He plays Schmidt broad, but that fits perfectly in this film. HYDRA has found what they call the "Tesseract" but is more commonly known in the Marvel Universe as a Cosmic Cube. A source of unlimited power, Schmidt and HYDRA are going to use it to create fantastic weapons and take over the world for themselves, Adolf Hitler and the rest of humanity be damned. Of course, Captain America will have something to say about this.

Evans is great as Steve Rogers/Cap. He looks and sounds every inch the part. He conveys the inherent decency and goodness Captain America is supposed to have. The shooting tricks to make Evans seem scrawny in the film's beginning are impressive. He really does a nice job here.

The supporting cast is solid in its construction, but varied in how much screen time they get. Tucci, as mentioned before, is great as Erskine but sadly dies early in the film*. Toby Jones as Dr. Arnim Zola - Schmidt's research head - is great. Tommy Lee Jones as Cap's commanding officer , Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark** and Sebastian Stan as Bucky are also solid. But the Howling Commandos get very little introduction or recognition. You wouldn't know Neal McDonough is playing 'Dum Dum' Dugan unless you read the comic books. And while Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter is good, I feel like there was a missed opportunity to make her relationship with Cap even deeper.

And that is part of the larger reason why this is a good, not great, film. And it's not because Cap battles HYDRA instead of fighting on the front lines*** or because he's an upstanding hero when we want our heroes to be flawed****. It's because there are numerous times, be it a battle or an interaction, where it feels like the direction took an easier, quicker path than working to create a real moment. There is a battle on a train that is good, but it left me going "This could have been better". There were more than a couple of moments where I felt that way. Including the climactic battle between Cap and the Red Skull, and that is the film's biggest shortcoming.

But does a film deserve to be slammed for that? Is a good film that doesn't strive to be great a failure? I don't think so. And while I don't think Captain America is in the same tier as the original Superman or Nolan's Batman films, I think it holds it's own quite nicely.

Captain America: The First Avenger is a fun movie. It's fun for kids (my son loved it) and a good time for adults as well. It's worth your money. And in an age of escalating ticket prices, not a lot of movies can claim that.

One last thing...I saw this is 2D. I think 3D, by and large, is a farce. It's meant to separate you from your money and frequently has a negative impact on the film itself. I thought Captain America looked great in 2D. I can't imagine you are getting a big bonus by paying 2x a normal ticket price.

--------------------

* He has to die for many reasons, chief being it's canon in the storyline. But Tucci really brought something to the story with Erskine and it's a shame he had to leave the film so soon.

** The Stark sub-plot is a good one. We get to see Tony's dad as a young man, the repulsor technology at an early stage of development and the entire world's supply of vibranium, which plays a key role in Iron Man II as the element Tony Stark synthesizes to save his life.

*** I saw this put forward as a argument against the film and I admit that it baffles me somewhat. If you have an elite soldier with amazing powers, are you putting him in the front lines of Europe when you already have Hitler on the ropes (it's already late 1943 - early 1944 when Cap hits Europe for the first time) or are you going to assign him to battle HYDRA with their crazy weapons? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

**** You know, I understand, appreciate and even like the flawed hero. It not only adds realism to a character but makes them more relatable. That said...sometimes you want your hero to transcend that, to be the ideal, to be what we'd like to be.

The perfect hero can be dangerous but played well (and Evans does play him well) that hero becomes something more. He isn't saccharine or treacly or pompous. That hero is decent and good and kind and brave. Call him a boy scout or fake or whatever. But that is the person we all, in our private moments, want to be. And personally I like that there is a hero on the screen giving us just that.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 15

2011-07-20T13:53:00.000-04:00

The '15' has been around quite a bit. An astonishing 55 players have worn the jersey. More than once it has seen multiple holders in a single season. But it has seen some remarkable seasons and players in its time, including it's current owner.

5. Earl Webb (1931-32) - Webb was the original owner of the '15' jersey. He joined the Sox in 1930 when he was traded by the Senators to Boston for "Whispering Bill" Barrett, a native of Cambridge*. Webb had a decent season that year, hitting .323 with 16 homers and 66 RBI. But Webb busted out in a big way in 1931. He hit .333, had 14 homers and 104 RBI. His OPS was .932, he had 196 hits and led the AL with 67 doubles. That mark still stands as the all-time doubles record in one season for the Sox. And Webb did all that at the age of 33. He finished sixth in the AL MVP voting that year

Webb fell off in 1932, starting the season with a .281 average. After 52 games the Sox traded Webb to the Tigers for Dale Alexander and Roy Johnson. Alexander came and went but Johnson had a couple of decent years.

4. Kevin Millar (2003-05) - Cowboy up, indeed. The funny thing about Kevin Millar is that you think he didn't do all that much on the field. And then you look at his numbers and realize that wasn't the case. He hit 25 homers and had 96 RBI in 2003. In 2004 he was just shy of a .300 average (.297), knocked in 18 homers and 74 RBI, and had an OPS of .857. The man could swing the stick.

And he could field as well. Millar usually covered first. His worst fielding percentage over that three-year period was .989. That's not Youkilis good, but it isn't bad either. He was one of those guys who holds the team together and contributes in almost a stealth fashion. I still think the Sox made a mistake in not holding onto him.

3. Mike Nagy (1969-72) - A native of the Bronx no less, Nagy was a pitcher drafted by the Sox in 1966, and made his debut with Boston in 1969 at the age of 21. He proceeded to go 12-2 that year with a 3.11 ERA. Despite walking more batters than he struck out, he was still runner-up in the AL Rookie of the Year voting. Some no-name called Lou Piniella beat him. He was voted the AL ROY Pitcher of the Year, however.

And that was the high-point of Nagy's career. Thanks to arm troubles, over the next three years his numbers steadily declined** and, after the 1972 season, he was traded to Cardinals for Lance Clemons. Clemons appeared in six games for the Sox in 1974 and never played in the majors again. Nagy bounced around in the NL for a couple of years and retired. Another cautionary tale of expecting too much from young pitchers.

2. Joe Dobson (1946-50) - No, it's not that crazy Fundamentalist who keeps trying to ban television shows. Joe "Burrhead" Dobson*** started playing for Boston during World War Two after being traded from the Indians in 1940. He played decently during the war years (taking 1944-45 off to serve in the war himself) but didn't wear the '15' until the first post-war season of 1946. And then his talent took off.****

Dobson went 13-7 in 1946 and followed that up in 1947 with the best year of his career. Dobson went 18-8 with a 2.95 ERA. He finished in the Top 30 for MVP voting and his WHIP was second-best in the AL. In 1948 his numbers were down slightly (16-10, 3.56 ERA) but Dobson earned his first and only trip to the All-Star game and finished 24th in the MVP voting that season. During his five years wearing the '15', Dobson had a cumulative record of 76-47, threw 64 complete games and was a solid, if not spectacular, pitcher. All together he won 106 games for the Sox.

But in 1950 the Sox made him part of a multi-player deal that sent him to the White Sox. He had three decent years there, came back to Boston for a cup of coffee and retired at the age of 37 in 1954.

1. Dustin Pedroia (2007-Current) - The Laser Show! Pedroia exploded onto the scene in his first two seasons as Boston's second baseman and has kept getting better ever since. He was AL Rookie of the Year in 2007. He won the AL MVP award in 2008, along with the Golden Glove and Silver Slugger for second basemen. He is a three-time All-Star. And even with an injury-shortened 2010, he has rapidly become one of the best second basemen in Boston's history. He's also near-impossible to strike out*****. And he does all this standing at just 5' 9".

---------------------------------------

* He wasn't very good. He had two good years in 1925-26 for the White Sox and a lot of mediocre ones. Hell of a nickname, though.

** Nagy never had a single season where his strikeout total exceeded his walk total, which is bizarre to me. Two times he was able to match the totals. Otherwise he always walked more batters than he struck out. And you thought Daisuke had control issues.

*** Not only did Dobson have a great nickname, he was also handicapped. Literally; he blew two fingers off his left hand at the age of nine while playing with a dynamite cap. So Dobson put together a solid career in baseball and fought in a war missing half his hand. What did YOU do today?

**** Usually in that period you see players stats spike in the war years and then tail off when the regulars came back at war's end. Dobson did the reverse, which makes me admire him even more.

***** And that is no exaggeration. From 2007 to today, he has only had one year where his strikeouts exceeded his walks (2008). And he has never struck out more than 52 times in a year, though with 50 so far in 2011 than seems likely to change. Nevertheless, Pedroia is one of the toughest hitters in the game.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 14

2011-07-20T13:51:00.000-04:00

It shouldn't take too long to figure out who the best player is to ever wear the '14' for Boston. Really, you should have guessed it before you finished this sentence. And while many players have worn this number for Boston (23 to be exact), only one man deserves to have his name associated with it.

5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. James Edward Rice (1974-89) - Where to begin? Where to begin with the most feared hitter of his time? The one batter no pitcher in the AL wanted to face for more than a decade?

Let's start with these numbers:

Eight-time All-Star
AL MVP (1978)
Top Five in Al MVP voting six times
Two-Time Silver Slugger (1983-84)
Top 10 in slugging percentage 10 times, led two years (1977-78)
Top 10 in batting average six times
Top 10 in total bases nine times, led four years (1977-79, 1983)
Top 10 in hits eight times, led one year (1978)
Top 10 in home runs seven times, led three years (1977-78, 1983)
Top 10 in RBIs nine times, led two years (1978, 1983)
87th All-Time in career slugging percentage (.502)
97th All-Time in hits (2452)
67th All-Time in total bases (4129)
53rd All-Time in home runs (382)
54th All-Time in RBIs (1451)

Add to those numbers the fact that between 1975-86, he led everyone in the AL in extra-base hits, slugging, homers, runs and RBIs. Think about who was around in the AL at that time...guys like Jackson, Brett, Carew, Parrish and Murray. Rice was better than all of them over that time period.

If you go by the Bill James "Hall of Fame Monitor" metric, where 100 represents a good chance of making the HoF, Rice scores a 144.5, the 88th highest score ever. He has more homers than Joe DiMaggio, Ralph Kiner, George Brett and a slew of others. His 2452 hits puts him ahead of guys like Mickey Mantle, Kirby Puckett, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell and Joe DiMaggio. Those 4129 total bases? Rice is ahead of other HoFers like Rod Carew, Joe Morgan, Puckett and, of course, Joe DiMaggio. As far as I can tell, Joe couldn't hold Rice's jock when it came to batting*.

It was a crime that Jim Rice had to wait until his last shot to enter the Hall of Fame. He dominated his era and his numbers more than hold up against others greats from other times.

----------

* Lighten up, Yankee fans. That was (mostly) a joke.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 13

2011-07-20T13:48:00.003-04:00

Whereas the previous number (12) was worn by just about everyone who ever played on the Sox, '13' doesn't get that kind of love. It's a shunned number; only fifteen players have ever dared to wear the unlucky number on their back. In fact, no one wore the number at all between 1940 and 1984; it took the brave (and mostly forgotten) Reid Nichols to bring it back into circulation in 1985. He was promptly traded that year to the Chicago White Sox for Tim Lollar and got to watch the magical/horrific '86 Boston season from fifth-place in the AL West. So there you go. And if that wasn't enough to convince you about avoiding the 13, consider that Carl Crawford is wearing it this year.

5. Alex Cora (2006-2008) - No, his numbers really don't warrant a mention here. But the guy deserves some respect for being a stand-up player for Boston. The life of a utility infielder/pinch-runner is a lonely one. You labor in relative anonymity and get compared to guys like Ken Boswell by baseball-reference.com. It's harder when you've been a starter earlier in your career, like Cora was with the Dodgers.

But Cora never complained about it. He did his job and did it damn well to boot. So hats off to you, sir. You definitely cleaned up the '13' after the stain left by Doug Mientkiewicz in 2004 (It's not your ball, asshole.)

4,3,2 and 1. John Valentin (1992-2001) - He'll always be a Sox lifer to me (that 2002 season with the Mets never happened, understand?) He deserves to be mentioned here just for the fact that he is the only player in the history of baseball to both hit for the cycle (6/6/1996) and complete an unassisted triple play (7/8/1994). How incredible is that?

He was a great shortstop for the Sox, and then (almost-quietly) slid over to third to make room for Nomar. He was always money in the playoffs for Boston (lifetime .347 hitter with a 1.046 OPS in the post-season). And I was privileged enough to watch his best season (1995) from the Fenway bleachers.

Valentin won the Silver Slugger for shortstops in 1995. He came in 9th in the AL MVP voting in 1995. He was 6th in runs scored in 1995 with 108. He was Top 10 in doubles four times (1993, 95, 97-98) and led the AL in 1997 with 47 doubles.

He's currently the hitting coach for the Albuquerque Isotopes, the Dodgers' AAA-affiliate in the PCL. And yes, they took the name from The Simpsons...go 'Topes!

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 12

2011-07-20T13:48:00.000-04:00

The '12' is another of those well-worn Sox jerseys. Forty-seven players have worn that number on their back, from Tom Winsett in 1931 to Jed Lowrie today. The '12' has never been the number worn by mythic figures for the Sox, but it has had it's share of good players. And it does have one historical claim to fame.

Honorable Mention. Pumpsie Green (1959-62) - Pumpsie was never an All-Star or a Gold Glove second-baseman. But he was a symbol of the Red Sox ownership finally being dragged into the modern era. It is a black stain on Boston's past that Thomas Yawkey and some of his staff were unrepentant racists. Green's promotion to Boston in 1959 was an acknowledgment that they could no longer do business that way. The Sox were the last major league team to field a black player. The contrast between the Sox and the Celtics on issues of race during this period is just staggering.

5. Todd Walker (2003) - Picked up by the Sox in the winter of 2002 in a trade with the Reds, Walker was a decent one-year rental. He batted .283, had a .761 OPS, hit 13 homers and had 85 RBIs. He was also money in the post-season; in the ALCS he hit .370 with an eye-popping 1.118 OPS. But Theo allowed him to hit free agency that winter and Walker signed with the Cubs. That may have had something to do with Walker's 16 errors at second-base that year, second only to Alfonso Soriano's 19.

4. Felix Mantilla (1963-65) - When Pumpsie Green was traded to the Mets in the winter of 1962, Mantilla came to the Sox in return. He was primarily a second-baseman but saw time at short and left as well. He had limited playing time in 1963 but still batted .315. That earned him more games, and he responded in 1964 with 30 homers (9th in the AL) and 64 RBIs to complement a .289 BA and .910 OPS. Somehow, though, he earned his one All-Star appearance in 1965. That year he hit 18 homers and drove in 92 runs while seeing his average and OPS drop (.275 and .790). But he made the All-Star team and finished in the Top 30 for MVP voting that year as well. The next year he was traded to the Astros for the immortal Eddie Kasko. Seems almost ungrateful to dismiss Mantilla that way.

3. Pete Fox (1941-45) - Anytime you see someone with the WW2 dates next to them, there is an instinctual reaction to devalue the stats and the player. After all, a lot of the best ballplayers were off fighting the war. But Pete Fox had proven himself pre-war with the Detroit Tigers, so when the Sox purchased his contract they knew they were getting a real ballplayer. Fox played outfield for the Sox all five years he was in Boston. He made the All-Star team in 1944, the year he batted .315 and drove in 64 runs. Fox was also in the Top 15 for MVP voting that year. He was Top 10 in batting average in 1943 and 1944. Fox was also Top 10 in steals in the AL in both 1943 and 1944. He was fourth in the AL in doubles in 1944 with 37. Following the end of the war, the Sox released Fox and he retired. He went on to coach in the minors, including the Sox current AAA affiliate in Pawtucket. Fox died of cancer in 1966.

2. Ellis Burks (1987-92) - Burks was the first-round pick for Boston in 1983. When he made his first start in 1987, the franchise and fanbase expected great things from him. He didn't disappoint that year either, hitting 20 home runs and stealing 27 bases. That made him only the third player in Sox history to join the 20/20 club. When he could stay healthy, Burks was a great player. in 1990 he won the Gold Glove andSilver Slugger for center field while also making the All-Star team. He finished 13th that year in the MVP voting. That same year Burks was also in the Top 10 for slugging percentage, OPS, hits, total bases, triples and RBIs. 1990 was an amazing year for Burks.

The problem was that he couldn't stay healthy. He had his shoulder worked on in 1989 and had back/knee issues all during his tenure in Boston. Despite that, he never had a bad season in Boston. Even playing only 66 games in 1992, Burks was able to hit 8 homers and drive in 30 runs. But after that year the brain trust of Harrington and Gorman let Burks walk into free agency. Of course, he continued to be a solid player. Between 1993 and 2003, Burks played less than 100+ games only once (42 games in 1994). Just another Lou Gorman Special.

1. Wes Ferrell (1934-37) - When you talk about the good pitchers the Red Sox have had through the years, Ferrell's name doesn't come up too often. Which is too bad because he definitely deserves to be in the conversation. Ferrell was traded to the Sox in 1934 by the Indians for two scratch players and $25,000. That year he went 14-5 for the Sox, leading the staff in wins. Ferrell stepped up his game the next two years, going 25-14 in 1935 and 20-15 in 1936. Once again he led the staff in wins both years, and that staff included one Lefty Grove.

All told he finished in the Top 10 for MVP voting twice (1934-35). He was Top 10 in ERA three times (1934-36). He led the AL in wins with that 25-14 record in 1935. Ferrell was Top 10 in win-loss percentage two times (1934-35). He led the AL in innings pitched twice (1935-36), throwing more than 300 innings in each season. He led the AL in complete games twice (1935-36). Ferrell was in the Top 10 for strikeouts and shutouts twice (1935-36). Despite all that, Ferrell never made the All-Star game while with the Sox.

In 1937 Ferrell got off to a 3-6 start and was traded by the Sox to the Senators for Ben Chapman and Bobo Newsom. And so ended his time in Boston. And also the first related pitcher-catcher tandem in Boston history. If the last name sounded familiar, that's because Wes' brother, Rick, was a successful catcher for the Sox during the same period. He also went with Wes to the Senators. Now they are together again with the Red Sox; Wes Ferrell was inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame in 2008, joining his brother*.

-----------

* It also needs to be remembered that Wes Ferrell could hit the cover off the ball. In 1935 he had 179 plate appearances and hit .347 with an OPS of .960. He was, according to some, the best-hitting pitcher to ever play the game.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 11

2011-07-20T13:47:00.000-04:00

And you thought the '10' jersey got around. The '11' has been worn by 36 players in Red Sox history, from Billy Connolly, Sr. in 1931 through Royce Clayton's "Cup of Coffee and Championship Ring Tour" in 2007 to the current wearer, Clay Buchholz . It doesn't exactly have the pedigree of some of the other numbers, but two of the better third-baseman in franchise history have worn it as well as a legend at the end of his career

Honorable Mention: Hideo Nomo (2001) - He played only one season in Boston, but it wasn't a bad one by any stretch. He went 13-10, pitched 198 innings and struck out 220 batters. And he threw that no-hitter to start his season. He ended up leading the AL in strikeouts and K/9 IP that year, as well as giving up the fewest walks (96). Yet he didn't make the All-Star team.

The problem in 2001 was that the staff ace (Pedro) had injury issues and only threw in 18 games. After that you had to depend on 38-year old David Cone and Frank Castillo. The only other pitcher besides Nomo who cracked 150 innings was Tim Wakefield. The Sox ended up at 82-79. Nomo had issues adapting to Boston and that off-season he went back to LA.

5. Clay Buchholz (2010-Current) - Clay had a breakout season in 2010, going 17-7 with a 2.33 ERA and making his first All-Star squad. Clay also finished sixth in the AL Cy Young voting. This was all especially impressive considering how many people were calling for him to be traded prior to the start of 2010. Clay was the proverbial "potential Superstar" that never seemed to be able to get on track. Hell, his 2008 season was abysmal. How abysmal? Try a 6.75 ERA and a WHIP of 1.763. For Clay to bounce back from that is remarkable.

4. Dave Stapelton (1980-86) - Dave split most of his time between first and second base during his career in Boston. He was second in the Rookie of the Year voting in 1980, losing out to Cleveland's Joe Charboneau. That year he also finished in the Top 10 for doubles. After that he was more of a "super-sub", especially in 1986 when he would replace Buckner at first for defensive purposes....

GOOD GOD, MCNAMARA!! WHY DIDN'T YOU REPLACE BUCKNER IN GAME 6?!!?

Sorry, but it still sticks in my craw. Anyway, here's a interesting note: the only major league player to have played for a minimum of seven years and have their batting average drop each season is one David Stapelton. So the question is obvious: how does he beat out Nomo? Well, I take service time into account. And Stapes was here a hell of a lot longer. He also had the ROY voting as well. But mostly it is because he signed my program when I was a kid and so I am making an editor's choice.

3. Bill Mueller (2003-05) - Mueller was only here for three seasons but he exemplified everything we want in our players. He played tough, left it all on the field and cared about the team. His first year in Boston was amazing; he batted .326 to lead the AL, he was Top 10 in OPS and OBP, he was Top 5 in doubles, won the AL Silver Slugger Award for third base and finished 12th in the AL MVP voting. And while he never recaptured that form his last two years, he was a solid cornerman and a vital part of the 2004 World Series winners (he batted an obscene .429 against the Cards.) Just a class act all around and one of the great guys in baseball. We were lucky to have him.

2. Luis Aparicio (1971-73) - I was too young to ever see him play, but my dad still talks about him. Aparicio was already a legend by the time he came to the Sox in 1971. He was also 37 years old. But he would play short for the Sox the next three years and do a damn good job of it, earning two All-Star trips in the process (1971-72). He also finished in the Top 20 for AL MVP in 1972. Not bad for a guy pushing 40.

1. Frank Malzone (1956-65) - My grandfather was a huge fan of Malzone, another Sox lifer (I don't count those 82 games with the Angels in 1966 and neither should you.) He manned the hot corner for the Sox his entire career and was probably the best third baseman Boston ever had. Malzone was a six-time All-Star for the Sox (1957-60, 63-64) and a three-time Gold Glove winner (1957-59). He was second in Rookie of the Year voting in 1957, losing to Tony Kubek of the Yankees even though Malzone had more hits, more home runs and a better OPS. In other words, he got robbed. Malzone also finished seventh in the AL MVP voting in 1957 and in the Top 25 two other times (1958-59).

Malzone was Top 10 in batting average twice (1957, 63), in hits five times (1957-60, 63), doubles four times (1957-60) and in RBIs four times (1957-59, 62). He was inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame in 1995. He still has ties with the team, acting as a consultant. Of course, there was the even-larger tie of his son. John Malzone was in the Sox minor-league system for four years as a catcher.

The real shame here is that Frank Malzone is somewhat forgotten these days. If you ask an average Sox fan about the best third basemen, you'll likely hear three names: Boggs, Mueller and Lowell. Maybe a Butch Hobson here and there. But how many people will say "Frank Malzone," even though he had a much better glove than Boggs and had a much longer tenure than Mueller? Sometimes the greats just don't get the respect they deserve.

Your Own Personal Jesus, Part II

2011-07-19T15:15:00.000-04:00

A while back I talked about Texas Governor Rick Perry's "Day of Prayer" that he is doing August 6th in conjunction with the American Family Association. It's nothing more than politicized Evangelical agit-prop, but it has a deleterious effect on religion. As I said in June:

The truth is that we have Free Will. And God is not going to save us from ourselves. And if we keep pursuing policies that fuck up the planet and create massive droughts in Texas, God is not going to hit the Easy Button just because Perry and the asshats from the AFA are praying up a storm. Ideally, He'd say in a big, booming voice "Listen up you idiots! It's called Global Climate Change. It's your fault. You know how to fix it. So fucking do it already and quite being a bunch of reactionary, greedy assholes!" Well, God would say it in a classier form but that would be the gist of it.

It's what I call "Lazy Man Christianity", where God is treated as a celestial "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Where we can do whatever we want and everything will be fine because God will just...fix it.

Well, our governor in Maine, Paul LePage, has unsurprisingly signed onto this idiocy along with a dozen Maine House Republicans. They said, in part:

“As we have served in the Maine state Legislature, we have become keenly aware that the struggles we face as a state are often beyond the power of government to solve,” according to the statement.

I'm sorry, but it was bullshit when Perry said and it's bullshit now.

We have issues with Global Climate Change because some stupid people made some stupid choices. We have problems with Peak Oil because some stupid people made some stupid choices. We have issues with terrorism, a faltering economy and a hundred other things because some stupid people made some stupid choices. And the way to fix these things is not to treat God like a manservant.

WE made these problems and WE are the ones who can fix them. We just need some smart people to start making smart choices and to start actually facing the mess we have made instead of running from it and using God as cover.

People like Perry, LePage and the AFA do not bring glory to God. They minimize Him and make a mockery of Christianity. They turn God into little more than hired help, someone who comes running when you call Him.

That's not how it works. We can pray to God for comfort, understanding and wisdom should we desire to do so. We can pray to God for strength to see us through bad times. But we cannot pray to God to intervene and simply fix things. That flies in the face of Free Will and implies that God will put his thumb on the scales if we ask nicely enough and often enough. And that simply isn't how it is.

Fiddling While Rome Burns

2011-07-19T09:55:00.000-04:00

With the debt ceiling looming and job growth remaining stagnant, you know the GOP-run House got right to work today on the most important issues of the day, right? Right?

Guess again...

The Cut, Cap and Balance Act that the House will likely pass on Tuesday could end up exacerbating rather than curing budget problems.
For starters, since the bill isn't expected to go anywhere in the Senate, lawmakers are wasting precious time needed to pass a debt ceiling increase before Aug. 2. Without an increase, the largest economy in the world would put itself at risk of default and further economic decline.
And even if the bill were to make it past the House and the Senate, President Obama has promised to veto it.
As for the substance of Cut, Cap and Balance, getting the country's fiscal house in order is a noble goal. But the measures in the bill -- particularly the call for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution -- are unlikely to achieve that end.

So, another useless vote in the House to make sure that the Tea Party's fee-fees aren't hurt. And better yet, a useless vote on a bill that, if it passed, even Reagan's budgets wouldn't have fit the requirements. You know Reagan... better known as Saint Ronaldus Magnus if you have a (R) after your name when you're on television. Apparently he was a closet Socialist all this time. Who knew...

Of course, the irony of all this is that fixing the current deficit short-term and the debt long-term isn't too hard. To start, all we have to do is stop both wars, reinstate the Clinton-era tax rates on the top income tiers and pass some short-term stimulus to get the economy going so more long-term tax revenue comes in. That right there accounts for almost all of our current year-to-year budget deficit in Washington. It's not Medicare or Social Security or Head Start that's driving the debt. It's war and greed.

But instead of actually focusing on real issues, a couple of days will be burned on a bill that has zero chance of passing and may actually be one of the dumbest pieces of legislation to ever be seen in Washington. Considering Eric Cantor is a chief proponent of this bill, that's not particularly surprising.

Oh Look...Sean Bean Just Died.

2011-07-18T15:16:00.000-04:00

Not for real, but the man does have a knack for kicking the bucket.

Love that man...

When Morons Go Wild

2011-07-14T08:31:00.000-04:00

Remember when Republicans said the reason they weren't going to raise the debt limit was so the rating agencies, like Moody's, would know the US would keep it's fiscal house in order? And that threatening to default would keep our AAA rating intact? How's that working out?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The public pressure on lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling was ratcheted up Wednesday when a major rating agency said it would put the sterling bond rating of the United States on review for possible downgrade.
Moody's Investors Services said it had initiated the review because of "the rising possibility" that Congress will fail to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2 -- something that could lead to a U.S. default on its debt.

No kidding? Really? Defaulting on your debt is a bad thing? Who knew? Not Republicans, apparently.

I hope every idiot who voted for these asshats is really pleased with themselves.

This Is Why No One Roots For West Brom

2011-07-13T12:58:00.000-04:00

Seriously. This is just embarrassing.

Movie Corner: Rashomon (1950)

2011-07-11T11:25:00.001-04:00

What is truth? What is the nature of truth? Can we ever know what the truth really is? These are questions that are asked in Akira Kurosawa's classic film Rashomon, the film that introduced both Kurosawa and Japanese cinema to a global audience.

The story is simple on its face. A samurai and his wife are accosted by a bandit. The wife is raped and the husband killed. But how those events occurred, and why they happened are what we cannot figure out. Each participant, including the dead husband (channeled by a medium) give conflicting versions of the events.

We learn of this tale from a priest and woodcutter seeking shelter from the rain at the Rashomon Gate outside Kyoto. The woodcutter found the samurai's body and, we learn later, also saw the events in question. His recounting of what happened adds a further layer of doubt and, despite being the most unbiased, cannot be taken at face value either.

Kurosawa's movie was daring in many ways. He gave viewers a plot that provided no answers (and confused a lot of Japanese film critics at the time). He shot many scenes along with his cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa into direct light, a long-standing taboo in film-making. He shot the film using multiple cameras so he could splice together different cuts depending on which he like the best. Rashomon was a major risk for Kurosawa to take, but it paid off wonderfully.

It's impact globally is obvious, with multiple films and television shows using the basic concept of "competing truths". But unlike Rashomon, they all provide us with an answer. Rashomon is defiant, not giving us the "truth" we want. In the end, we have to choose what we believe is the truth. And what we choose may be different.

To give a personal example, I went through a divorce not long ago. If you asked me or my ex-wife why we got a divorce, we would likely give some of the same reasons but also different ones. If you asked our friends, you'd get more responses. All would share some basic commonalities but each would be different in the end. And each would be the "truth". And we would all believe our version was the right one.

It's a Hell of a topic to tackle with a film. And to not provide a definitive answer is what makes Rashomon more than a classic, but one of the best films ever made. Because that, as much as we may not want to admit it, is how it is in life.

Fuck The Poor and the Middle-Class

2011-07-11T10:44:00.000-04:00

Those seven words embody the modern GOP. It may as well be their official slogan for the 2012 election, because it would at least be honest.

What other conclusion can one make when the Republicans so obviously do not give a rat's ass about creating jobs or reducing the deficit? Their concern is to transfer money from the lower 95% to the top 5%. That is the only answer to the fact that they refuse to allow any tax increases on the top 5% in a deficit reduction plan.

Responsible financial heads, be they Warren Buffett or Robert Gross, or former Republican financial advisers like Bruce Bartlett, will tell you that tax increases MUST be any part of a deficit reduction/jobs creation package. Furthermore, the GOP suffers from collective amnesia since their patron saint (Ronald Reagan) raised taxes no fewer than 11 times during his two terms, including a tax package that raised revenues by 1% of GDP in 1983. It is also worth noting that GDP grew fastest during Reagan's two terms in 1983 and 1984, after the tax hike and with a top marginal tax rate of 50%.

Compare that to Bush's two terms, where slashing top rates resulted in flat growth, no jobs increase and a seriously unbalanced and fragile economy.

Now Republicans are willing to tank the global economy if top rates are even returned to 39.6%, where they were in the late 90s. Does anyone remember the top 5% complaining about their taxes or how much money they had back then? Me neither.

But this is the newer and dumber GOP, where compromise is for losers and facts are lies.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number 10

2011-07-06T13:03:00.000-04:00

The '9' jersey was easy to write about. Out of circulation for some time and worn by one of the greatest players ever makes for an easy entry. Then you have the '10' jersey. No less than 30 players have worn this number since 1931. The '10' may have gotten around a lot (worn by Andre Dawson, Luis Alicea, Lee Tinsley and Scott Hatteberg in successive seasons) and doesn't have the most impressive pedigree (who can forget the immortal Mike Brumley?) but some fine players have worn this number.

5. Coco Crisp (2006-2008) - The starting center-fielder for most of 2007, what Crisp has brought to the Sox more than anything else is stellar defense. He was flat-out robbed of a Gold Glove at the end of 2007, a season where he made insane catches look routine. 2007 was a good season overall for Crisp. He did rank in the Top 10 in the AL for doubles and triples, and was 9th in the AL in stolen bases with 28. Add that to his excellent glove and you can see why he was solid trade material going into 2008.

4. Gerald Moses (1968-70) - A lot of you are probably going "Who?" and no one could blame you. Moses was a back-up catcher for the Sox in 1968 and 1969 before becoming the starter in 1970. That year he went to the All-Star game, his sole achievement of note in the major leagues. That fall he was traded to the California Angels. I know some of you will say "Why isn't Coco fourth?" All-Star games matter, my friends. Moses went to one and Crisp hasn't.

3. Rich Gedman (1981-1990) - Geds had the utterly unenviable task of taking over for Carlton Fisk after management completely fucked up his contract signing and split time with Gary Allenson for a couple of years before the Sox finally went with Gedman full-time in 1984. What people seem to forget about Rich is that he wasn't a bad catcher. He finished second in the AL Rookie of the Year voting in 1981, losing out Yankee pitcher and Sox torturer Dave Righetti (as if 8-4 is some big deal.) He did win The Sporting News Rookie of the Year honors, however. Gedman went to two All-Star games (1985-86) and finished in the Top 25 for AL MVP voting in 1985. Plus, he was a local kid from Worcester and that was always a cool thing to see. Unfortunately, after 1986 Gedman had a lot of injury problems and was never a full-time catcher again for the Sox. In 1990 he was dealt to the Houston Astros for the proverbial "player to be named later."

2. Billy Goodman (1948-57) Goodman was a two-time All-Star (1949, 53) for the Sox. Interestingly, he went for two different positions. Goodman played first base in 1949 but by 1953 was the Sox second baseman, having taken over for Bobby Doerr. Goodman finished fourth in the Rookie of the Year voting in 1948. Some guy named Alvin Dark finished first (that's a joke.) Goodman would finish in the Top 25 for AL MVP voting five times (1950-54) and finished second in 1950. That year he hit .354, leading the AL. Despite that, Phil Rizutto won the MVP award even though he had a lower batting average and OPS than Goodman.

Goodman was Top 10 in batting average five times (1950, 52-55), in OBP four times (1948, 50-51, 55) and runs twice (1951, 55). He also finished Top 10 in hits three times (1951, 53, 55) and in singles and doubles five times (1951-55 for both). Goodman also had good plate discipline, finishing in the Top 10 for At Bats per Strikeout five times (1949, 52-55). In 1953 he struck out only every 46.7 at-bats. That led the AL and is the kind of number you never see these days. By comparison, Placido Polanco led the AL last year with a AB/K rate of 19.6. The last time any batter in the AL topped 40 was 1962 when Nellie Fox had a AB/K rate of 51.8.

During the 1957 season Goodman was traded to the Orioles for pitcher Mike Fornieles, who spent about 5 1/2 seasons in Boston and won a total of 39 games and saved 48. Interesting note; Goodman was traded from the Orioles after the 1957 season to the White Sox. Also sent to Chicago was a young outfielder named Tito Francona, to whom we all owe a huge debt for raising such a fine son. In 2004 Goodman was posthumously voted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame, having died at the age of 58 in 1984.

1. Lefty Grove (1934-41) - One of the all-time great pitchers, Robert Moses Grove came to the Sox in 1934 in one of the all-time great steals. The Sox sent the Athletics $125,000, Bob Kline and Rabbit Warstler. It's the kind of deal the Yankees always put over on the Sox in the 20s.

Grove went to five All-Star games while pitching for the Sox (1935-39). He finished in the Top 15 for AL MVP voting three times (1935-36, 39) and Top 25 once more (1938). In his eight seasons with the Sox, Grove went 105-62. He led the AL in ERA four times (1935-36, 38-39). He was Top 10 in wins four times (1935-37, 39). He was Top 10 in strikeouts three times (1935-37) and K/9IP four times (1935-38). Grove led the AL in shutouts in 1936 with 6 and was Top four times (1935-37, 39). Grove was also Top 10 in complete games four times (1935-37, 39).

Not surprisingly, between his time in Philly and Boston Grove made the Hall of Fame without any trouble in 1947 (Sadly, he went in as an Athletic. I guess those two World Series titles and 195 wins had something to do with it). He is considered the second-best lefty of all-time after Warren Spahn and was also named to the MLB All-Century team in 1999. He is also in the Red Sox Hall of Fame.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number Nine

2011-07-06T12:59:00.000-04:00

Let's be honest...there's only one name that is going to appear here. Trying to pick four other guys to share this space with the greatest hitter ever is a waste of time. I will only note one interesting thing. The '9' was also worn by Bobby Doerr in his rookie year of 1937, which means two Hall of Famers wore the '9' and both had the numbers they were best known for retired by the Sox. I believe this is the only number to hold that distinction.

5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. Ted Williams (1939-60) - If baseball had given out the Rookie of the Year award in 1939, Williams would've had that honor as well. It's not every player that hits .327 with an OPS of 1.045, 31HRs and 145 RBIs at the age of 20. So he just had to settle for fourth-place in the MVP voting (ahead of him were Joe DiMaggio, Jimmie Foxx and Bob Feller.) I don't think too many players had more nicknames than Williams. Teddy Ballgame. The Kid. The Splendid Splinter. The Thumper. But maybe a hitter as great as Williams simply can't be summed up with just one moniker.

If I tried to break out every award and Top 10 finish Williams had in his career, this entry would be 10,000 words long. So let's just hit the highlights:

17-time All-Star: And to note something else I didn't know, they actually played two All-Star games in 1959 and 1960. So Williams actually played in 19 All-Star games.
Five-time Major League Player of the Year (1941-42, 47, 49, 57): No other player in MLB history has won this award as many times as Williams. Only two players (Barry Bonds and A-Rod) have won it three times. And check out that last date; Williams was 38 years old in 1957. He hit .388 with 38 HRs and 87 RBIs. That is an amazing performance by a man just shy of 40 years old. And he did it clean.
Two-time Triple Crown winner: Williams accomplished the feat in both 1942 and 1947. The only other player to equal that record is Roger Hornsby, who did it in 1922 and 1925.
Two-time AL MVP: Williams won it in 1946 and 1949. The truth is that he should've won it in 1941 (the year he hit .406), 1942 and 1947. But his prickly relationship with the press cost him the votes in those years. And if anyone wants to argue the the three guys who won those years (DiMaggio, Joe Gordon and DiMaggio) were actually better than Williams, you're welcome to try. You'll be wrong, but you're welcome to try. All told, Williams was in the Top 10 for MVP a whopping twelve times.
Led the AL six times in batting average. The last player to hit over .400. Currently seventh all-time with a career .344 average, he is the only player in the Top 10 to have played after 1937, making Williams the greatest hitter of the modern era.
Is the all-time leader in OBP with a lifetime mark of .482. He led the AL twelve times in OBP, including a ridiculous .553 mark in 1941 that should be considered the all-time single-season record, since the only player to exceed that mark is Barry "Big Head" Bonds, who broke it in 2002 and 2004. Since he juiced his way to those totals, I say they don't count.
Williams is second all-time in OPS with a career mark of 1.116, trailing only Babe Ruth. Williams led the AL 10 times in this category.

And it goes on and on. Home runs, walks, RBIs, total bases...you name any category outside of steals and Williams will likely rank amongst the best ever. There was no better hitter to play the game. And let's not also forget that he served his country in two wars, flying for the Marines in both WW2 and the Korean War. He even won the Air Medal after a mission attacking a tank and infantry training school and flying his damaged aircraft home. Those five years in the military were five of his prime playing years. Who knows what numbers Williams could've posted?

Greatest hitter ever, hands-down and no contest.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number Eight

2011-07-06T12:57:00.000-04:00

I think we all know who is going to top this list. But a surprising number of good players have worn the '8' for the Sox, including one player I had never heard of and has a decent case for a HoF bid.

5. Hal Wagner (1946-47) -Hal was a catcher for the Sox. He originally came to the team in 1944 but then had to suit up for the war in 1945. Upon his return he took the '8' and went back behind the plate. He went to the All-Star game in 1946 and was in the Top 30 for MVP voting that same year. He was also in the Top 10 for walks in 1946, which is surprising considering he only hit .230 that season. It probably didn't help him much that during the '46 Series he went hitless in 13 at-bats. So early in the 1947 season, Wagner was traded to the Detroit Tigers

4. Birdie Tebbetts (1947-50) - And here is the guy Wagner was traded for. A native of Burlington, VT and graduate of Providence College (a philosophy major to boot), Tebbetts played 3 1/2 seasons with the Sox after being traded from Detroit, all at catcher and all wearing the '8'. While with the Tigers Tebbetts went to two All-Star Games. He went to two more with the Sox, in 1948 and 1949. Tebbetts also was in the Top 20 for MVP voting in both of those years. But Tebbetts was getting old by then; in 1950 he was the oldest player in the AL at the age of 37. He also slagged some of his teammates, calling them "moronic malcontents." So in the off-season the Sox sold Tebbetts to the Indians, replacing him behind the plate for one season with the immortal Les Moss before Sammy White took over for the next eight seasons. Tebbetts said of the sale that "I was sold for a dollar by one drunk owner to another." Tebbetts went on to gain more fame as a manager, even being named the NL Manager of the Year by the AP for getting the Reds into third-place in 1956.

3. Robert “Indian Bob” Johnson (1944-45) - Boston was the last stop for "Indian Bob" (which is now my new favorite nickname). After spending 10 years with the Athletics and one with the Senators, the Red Sox bought the rights for the now 38-year old outfielder. All he did was go to the All-Star Game in both years. He was Top 10 in MVP voting in 1944 and Top 20 in 1945 at the age of 39. (Maybe Clemens should've added this guy to his report.) He was 3rd in batting average in 1944 at .324 and led the AL that year with a .431 OBP and. He was 2nd in slugging in 1944 (.528) and 6th in 1945 (.425). Johnson was 2nd in the AL in 1944 with 106 runs scored and 106 runs batted in, a remarkable piece of symmetry. He was Top 10 in hits in 1944, Top 10 in total bases twice (1944-45), Top 10 in doubles in 1944 and triples twice (1944-45). He was also Top 10 in RBIs for both 1944 and 1945. After the 1945 season Johnson retired at the age of 39.

Now, I had never heard of "Indian Bob" before I researched for this post. In 13 seasons, Johnson had a lifetime .296 batting average. He had 2,051 hits, scored 1,239 runs, drove in 1,283 runs and hit 288 homeruns. He recorded over 4,000 putouts and had a lifetime .968 fielding percentage in the outfield. Even today, Johnson is 124th all-time in homeruns, 227th all-time in hits (more than Johnny Bench or Bill Mazeroski), 140th all-time in runs scored (more than Brooks Robinson, Willie McCovey or Willie Stargell) and is 102nd all-time in RBIs (ahead of Hank Greenberg or Pie Traynor). So why isn't he even in the conversation for the Hall of Fame? His numbers are good enough to warrant at least a discussion about it, right? If you use Bill James' HoF Monitor metric, "Indian Bob" scores a 91.5 where a 100 represents a good chance to make the Hall. So why have I never heard of this guy before now? It makes me want to start an "Indian Bob for the Hall" movement even though he'd wear an A's hat if he went in.

2. Doc Cramer (1936-40) - Also nicknamed "Flit", Doc Cramer came to the Sox from the Athletics in early 1936. An outfield fixture for the next five years, Doc made the All-Star squad four times (1937-40) and was Top 30 in the MVP voting in 1938. He was Top 10 in runs scored twice (1938-39) and Top 10 in hits three times (1938-40), leading the AL in 1940 with 200 hits. He was Top 10 in singles all five seasons he played in Boston and led the AL in 1939 and 1940. Doc was an excellent lead-off hitter, batting over .300 all five seasons he was with the Sox. After the 1940 season he was traded to the Senators for Gee Walker, who was traded that same day to the Cleveland Indians.

1. Carl Yastrzemski (1961-1983) - Oh, like there was any doubt about who was going to top this list...

Where do you begin when trying to talk about one of the all-time greats, the man they retired the '8' for in 1989? Yaz played all 23 years of his career in Boston. He was the key part of the 1967 "Impossible Dream" Season that resurrected the Red Sox as a franchise. That same year he became the last AL batter to win the Triple Crown. He went to 18 All-Star Games. He was ML Player of the Year in 1967 and won the MVP as well. Yaz won seven Gold Gloves in left field (1963, 65, 67-69, 71, 77) and was Top 30 in MVP voting a remarkable 14 times. He was Top 10 in batting average nine times and led the AL three times (1963, 67-68). He was Top 10 in OBP 10 times and led the AL five times (1963, 65, 67-68, 70). He was Top 10 in runs scored nine times and led the AL three times (1967, 70, 74). He was Top 10 in hits seven times and led the AL two times (1963, 67). And it goes on and on; he was Top 10 in doubles nine times and led the AL three times (1963, 65-66). He was Top 10 in HRs six times and led the AL in 1967. He was Top 10 in RBIs seven times and led the AL in 1967. Yaz was a walk machine; he was Top 10 a whopping 12 times and led the AL twice (1963, 68). Elected to the Hall of Fame in 1989, his career totals are still impressive. Sixth all-time in hits and walks, second all-time in games played, seventh all-time in doubles, eighth in total bases, 12th in RBIs, 15th in runs scored and 32nd in home runs.

Yaz is truly one of the living legends of the sport. And how psyched am I that he gets those well-deserved WS rings from the Sox since he's a staff member (roving instructor counts, right?)

You're Welcome

2011-07-04T09:20:00.002-04:00

Happy Fourth, everyone.

Movie Corner: Cars 2 (2011)

2011-07-02T16:18:00.001-04:00

How to review Cars 2...it is a dilemma. Should I delve into the details? Talk about the admittedly crisp and colorful animation? Or should I instead talk about how this is another sequel that was made simply because it could be made, not because it should be made?

Screw it. Here is all you need to know about Cars 2: Half the time I was playing Dungeon Raid on my iPhone. And when I looked up at the screen, I didn't have any trouble picking up the plot.

It was boring with a big ol' B and as thin as a Hollywood starlet after she does blow for a couple of years. I don't even want to get into the plot because it's beside the point. Once the decision was made to give Larry the Cable Guy more voice time...my head. It hurts.

The plot is irrelevant. It was ostensibly about a super fuel being proven viable by a World Grand Prix and there are other cars who want to stop it and...really, see what I mean? This whole movie is all about merchandising and nothing else. They could have had the cars playing tiddly-winks for two hours and it wouldn't have been any worse. There's a good chance it would have been better.

Cars 2 is boring, boring, boring. My son loved it. He's nine, so he has an excuse. But this movie has no point, no message and one reason to exist. And that is to extract money from the pockets of parents and put it in Disney's coffers.

It's a naked money grab. Usually films aren't quite this insulting about it (although from what I hear the new Transformers film does a fine job of it as well). And it is indicative of how far Hollywood is falling. Films now are about box office and little else. Screw plot, dialogue and pacing. If you can blow shit up or sucker grade-school kids into the theater, your film will get the green light.

I don't hate Cars 2. But I have a serious dislike for Pixar for making this piece of boredom.

The War

2011-06-30T11:31:00.001-04:00

These days, UFC is the one-on-one fighting to see on television. Boxing (with a few exceptions like Manny Pacquiao) has become something of a joke. But there was time when boxing was 100x more exciting than anything UFC puts out.

I'll be honest; UFC occasionally bores me. Once it goes to the ground, unless one guy is pounding the crap out of the other or is ready to pop an elbow, it's boring. A great boxing match, on the other hand, is constant motion.

And then there are transcendent boxing matches. I give you "The War". April 15, 1985. Tommy "Hitman" Hearns vs. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler for the Unified World Middleweight Championship. It was the greatest three-rounds ever, a real-life "Rocky" fight.

Enjoy.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

2011-06-30T10:29:00.000-04:00

Last November, a lot of not-very-bright people voted in a mess of not-very-bright Representatives and Senators. These people are known as "Republicans". The result has been some not-very-bright legislation and one monumentally dumb-as-dirt idea: possibly defaulting on the national debt ceiling.

Now, these idiots believe that defaulting on the debt is not only a minor bump in the road, but it may be a good thing. This is the kind of thinking you get when you smoke an ounce of pot and start popping Amyl nitrite. Because here is one horrifically bad result if we default on our debt:

Standard & Poor's will drop the U.S.'s credit rating from its current triple-A to a D if the government misses its debt payment on August 4, Reuters' Walter Brandimarte reports. S&P's managing director John Chambers explained, "If the U.S. government misses a payment, it goes to D. ... That would happen right after August 4, when the bills mature, because they don't have a grace period." The company would downgrade Treasury bills unaffected by the blown deadline, but not as much.

This, of course, will not only sink the US Dollar as the world's reserve currency but will also result in future interest payments costing billions of dollars more. Yes, the Republicans' effort to "cut the debt" will actually result in increasing our debt as billions go to interest payments instead of vital programs.

That is Republican Logic at it's finest.

The New Mission Impossible Film May Not Suck

2011-06-29T11:38:00.000-04:00

In fact, the trailer looks pretty awesome. Maybe after two lackluster follow-ups to the original, we'll get the full-on fantastic M:I film we've been waiting for. If that happens, it will be in part due to the direction of Brad Bird, who is as good a storytelling director as there is right now in the film-making business.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol will be in theaters December 16.

The Real Crime Was In The Workplace

2011-06-28T16:05:00.000-04:00

Either I need to move to Australia where the laws are better or I need compensation pay for all my start-up work between 1997-2000. Apparently the workers who gave us the good-not-great L.A. Noire from Rockstar Games weren't treated fairly.

Now, I would think that a video-game developer would go into a job realizing that the hours will be longer. But the idea that someone is ordered to work 100+ hour weeks and barely gets compensated for it? Or that people do not get credited for their work? That's 100+ different kinds of bullshit.

The video-game industry is competitive on a level that few other fields meet. One game can either make a studio (Shogun: Total War for The Creative Assembly in 2000) or break a company (the fuck-up that was Daikatana sent Ion Storm into a permanent spiral). It demands long hours from its workers. But that also means that the workers should be treated fairly with due compensation and credit where it damn well deserves to be given. If someone is working 100+ hours, they better be getting paid what they deserve.

Also...seven years for one game? I know it's new tech and, hey, it's not Duke Nukem Forever levels of procrastination. But that is a long-ass time. Especially for a game with limited replay value.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number Seven

2011-06-28T12:53:00.000-04:00

The number ‘7’ has been seen on the back of quite a few players, 28 to be exact. Some of those players were excellent, some were good and some…well, Easy Ed Romero wore it in 1986. Nevertheless, some damn fine players for the Sox have worn the ‘7’, including one of the most beloved Sox players of all time.

Honorable Mention. Trot Nixon (1996, 1998-2006) - I really considered leaving him off the list. He is a beloved player to be sure, but stat-wise he didn’t overwhelm me. He never led in a single category and never made the MVP voting list. But Nixon was here for a long time. Nixon was 9th in Rookie of the Year voting in 1999. In 2003 he was Top 10 in the AL in OBP (7th - .396), Slugging (5th - .578) and OPS (4th - .975). Nixon was a gritty player, always leaving everything he had on the field.

5. Rick Ferrell (1934-35) - Ferrell came to the Sox on May 9, 1933 from the St. Louis Browns in a trade. He wore the ‘7’ his first two years before switching to #2 in 1936. He also made that number list, making him the first Sox player to appear more than once in this series. Ferrell went to the All-Star game both years. He was a solid player, never cracking the Top 10 in any category but still putting up solid numbers both years.

4. J.D. Drew (2007-Current) - Would that Drew played with half the fire of Nixon. I don't like putting him here. I am not a big fan of Drew's. I think paying him $14M a year is way too much considering his production. Nevertheless, his numbers warrant his inclusion. In his four full seasons with Boston, Drew has been a .270 hitter with an OPS of .853. That's an OPS+ of 120. He's averaged 19 homers and 66 RBI per season. He was named to the 2008 All-Star game. He has wielded a good glove, leading AL right-fielders in fielding percentage in 2009 and coming in second in 2010. But the simple truth is that his numbers don't match up to his talent.

3. Rick Burleson (1974-80) - The Rooster was a first-round pick for the Sox in 1970. During his stint in Boston, he was one of the best shortstops in the AL. He was a three-time All-Star with Boston (1977-79). He won the Gold Glove for shortstop in 1979. He was Top 30 in MVP voting three times. Burleson was Top 10 in hits twice (1977, 1980) as well as doubles (1977-78). He was Top 10 in singles three times (1977-79). After the 1980 season Burleson was traded with Butch Hobson to the Angels for Carney Lansford, Rick Miller and Mark Clear.

2. Reggie Smith (1967-73) - Reggie was actually signed by the Twins in 1963 but then somehow swiped by Boston late that year in the draft. He was a powerful switch-hitter with a cannon for an arm. He finished second in the Rookie of the Year voting in 1967 to Rod Carew. He was a two-time All-Star (1969, 1972). He finished in the Top 30 for MVP voting four times (1969-72). He won a Gold Glove in 1968. In Boston, Smith never hit less than 15 homers in a single season. He was Top 10 in home runs twice (1971-72) and in RBIs twice (1969, 71). He was Top 10 in batting average three times (1969, 70, 73) and Top 10 in slugging percentage five times (1969-73). Smith was Top 10 in runs four times (1968, 70-72) and in hits three times (1969-71). He led the AL in total bases in 1971 with 302 and in extra-base hits with 65. Smith was Top 10 in doubles four times (1968-71) and led the AL in doubles twice (1968, 71). He was traded to the Cardinals with Ken Tatum in 1973 for Rick Wise and Bernie Carbo.

Not that it has anything to do with his time in Boston, but Reggie Smith is likely best known to you for two incidents in the NL. When he was with the Dodgers in 1978, Don Sutton said he was more important to the team than Steve Garvey. That led to the famous wrestling match between the two. Then in 1981, a fan in Candlestick Park hucked a batting helmet at him after some back-and-forth jawing. Smith, standing at six feet and almost 200 pounds, leapt into the stands and pummeled the poor bastard. Suffice it to say, he was ejected.

1. Dom DiMaggio (1940-42, 1946-53) - "Who hits the ball and makes it go?/ Who runs the bases fast, not slow?/ Who's better than his brother Joe? / Dominic DiMaggio...

“The Little Professor”, always over-shadowed by his brother nationally, was a great player in his own right. He spent his entire career with the Sox, batting leadoff and patrolling center-field. Dom was a seven-time All-Star (1941-42, 46, 49-52). He finished in the Top 30 for MVP voting six times (1941, 46, 48-51). Dom was in the Top 10 three times for batting average and on-base percentage (1946, 49, 50). He was in the Top 10 for runs scored seven times (1941-42, 46, 48-51) and led the AL in 1950 and 1951. Dom was in the Top 10 for hits seven times (1941-42, 46, 48-51). He was in the Top 10 for doubles six times (1941-42, 48-51) and stolen bases seven times (1941-42, 46-50), leading the AL in stolen bases in 1950.

If there was a list of the all-time under-rated baseball players, Dom would have to be on the list. You look at his numbers and your eyes pop. Yet how often is he ever in the modern-day conversation of great Sox players? And as I stated in the last installment, why has there been no movement to retire Dom's number? If the Sox were willing to bend the rules for Pesky, then Dom is worthy of the same consideration. And don't get me started on Dwight Evans.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number Six

2011-06-28T12:51:00.000-04:00

The Number 6 went out of circulation since 2000, when Gary Gaetti wore it. It was retired in 2008, and right so, for a man who may have made the Hall if World War Two had taken three prime years away from him.

5. Mickey Vernon (1956-57) - Vernon came to the Sox on the tail-end of a 20-season career through a trade with the Washington Senators. But he delivered two solid seasons for Boston while covering first base. In 1956, at the age of 38, he batted .310 with an OPS of .914 and made the All-Star game. In 1956 he was Top 10 in the AL in batting average, on-base percentage, slugging, OPS and doubles. At the end of the 1957 season the Sox placed Vernon on waivers.

4 and 3. Rico Petrocelli (1966-76) - Americo Peter "Rico" Petrocelli was a lifetime Red Sox, manning shortstop and third while wearing the '6'. He was a two-time All-Star in 1967 and 1969. He finished Top 20 in MVP voting three times (1967, 1969, 1972). He played two positions for the Sox; shortstop from 1966-1970 and, after the signing of Luis Aparicio, third base from 1971-76. The only time his fielding average ever dropped below .960 for either position was in 1966. In 1969 he was Top 5 in the AL in on-base percentage, slugging, OPS, doubles and home runs. He was Top 10 in home runs three times (1969-71), in doubles two times (1969-70), in RBIs four times (1969-72) and in walks three times (1969, 1971-72). If you're my age, you may remember Rico hosting Candlepins for Cash in the early 1980s.

2 and 1. Johnny Pesky (1942, 1946-52) - One of the most popular players to ever wear the uniform, Pesky played in Boston for seven-and-a-half seasons before being traded in 1952 to the Detroit Tigers as part of a nine-player deal. Like Petrocelli, Pesky split his time between shortstop (1942, 46-47, 1951) and third base (1948-50, 52) after Vern Stephens joined the team. He made the All-Star team in 1946 and finished Top 5 in the MVP voting for 1942 and 1946. Pesky led the AL in hits and singles three times (1942, 46-47). He was Top 10 in batting average five times (1942, 46-47, 49, 1951), in on-base percentage six times (1946-51), in runs scored seven times (1942, 1946-51), in doubles twice (1946, 49) and triples three times (1942, 47, 49). He also managed the Sox for two years (1963-64) and has held various official and unofficial positions with the Sox ever since. It was a great day when the Sox officially retired his number, even if they bent their "official" rules on how a number gets retired. Pesky deserves to be on the wall with Doerr and Williams.*

---------

* With three of the Teammates on the Wall, that begs the question: Should DiMaggio get his number retired as well? It would be bending the rules again, but he spent 10+ years with Boston (11) and unlike Pesky he spent his entire career with Boston. You could also argue his numbers are better. This isn't me saying Pesky doesn't belong on the Wall - he does. I just think that if Pesky is up there, then Dom should be there as well.

Another Log On the Crazy Fire

2011-06-27T15:02:00.000-04:00

Even though she announced she was running for President during a Presidential candidates debate*, Michelle Bachmann is now officially in the running.

Bachmann, according to a number of observers, is believed to be banking on heavy support among Iowa's influential evangelical voters to give her a breakthrough victory in Iowa and establish her as the main GOP alternative to Romney, who is still struggling to overcome skepticism among conservatives.

To help accomplish that task, Bachmann has assembled a team of veteran political operatives.

Among others, she hired Ed Rollins, who directed Reagan's landslide re-election bid in 1984 and managed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 effort, to run her operation.

She also hired Brett O'Donnell, who worked for McCain in '08 and coached Palin before her debate with Biden. So...that's good?

It's becoming apparent that the best candidate the GOP has is a man who is running away from his greatest accomplishment as Governor and takes both sides of every issue when convenient. Bachmann is consistent...consistently wrong and/or crazy, but consistent. So that will appeal to some GOP voters.

But this is a woman who thinks the Obama Administration wants to create a common currency with China. Forget her ridiculous idea that defaulting on the national debt is no big deal. She believes that the President wants to do away with the dollar. That is right out of Crackpot Central and it was espoused by a legitimate GOP presidential candidate.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your modern-day GOP!

...

Oh, and she confused John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy. As of an hour ago or so.

-----------

* She never fails to bring the ridiculous to the table.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number Five

2011-06-27T14:22:00.000-04:00

The number '5' was last worn by Rocco Baldelli in 2009, likely out of respect for the last guy before him to wear it. And while it hasn't been the most prestigious number, it has represented its share of All-Star talent.

5. George Scott (1966-71, 79) - Boomer played first for the Red Sox from 1966-71. He was then traded to the Brewers after the '71 season, before being traded back to the Sox in 1976 for Cecil Cooper. This was a big mistake, because Boomer wasn’t the Boomer of old by then. But in his heyday he could play. He was an All-Star in 1966 and third in Rookie of the Year voting. He finished Top 30 in MVP voting in 1967 and 1971. He won three Gold Gloves wearing the '5', in 1967-68 and 1971.

4. Vern Stephens (1948-52) - 'Junior' Stephens played short for most of his time in Boston. A solid player, he was a four-time All-Star (1948-51). He finished Top 10 in MVP voting twice (1948-49). Stephens led the AL in RBIs twice (1949-50). He was Top 10 in slugging percentage three times (1949-51), Top 10 in runs three times (1948-50), Top 10 in hits three times (1948-50), Top 10 in total bases three times (1948-50) and Top 5 in home runs three times (1948-50). Stephens was traded to the White Sox in February of 1953 and was out of the game by 1955. Sadly, he died of a heart attack in 1968 at the age of 48. Stephens was inducted into the Red Sox Hall of Fame in 2006.

3, 2 and 1. Nomar Garciaparra 1996-2004 - Nomah! It still kills me that he was traded in 2004. Intellectually I understand why, but emotionally it still sucks. You can make an argument he is the best shortstop in Sox history (Petrocelli and Cronin being the other possibilities). Where to begin? In his rookie year (1997 - he only played 26 games in 1996), Nomar won the Silver Slugger, made the All-Star team, was Top 10 in MVP voting and won Rookie of the Year. He was a five-time All-Star (1997, 1999-2000, 2002-03). He was Top 15 in MVP voting six times (1997-2000, 2002-03). Nomar was Top 10 in batting average four times (1998-2000, 02) and led the AL in 1999 and 2000. He was Top 10 in slugging percentage three times (1998-2000), Top 5 in OPS two years (1999-2000) and Top 10 in hits six times (1997-2003). Nomar was Top 5 in doubles four times (1997, 1999-2000, 2002) and Top 5 in triples three times (1997-98, 2003). He was Top 10 in RBIs two times (1998, 2002). He was the heart and soul of the Sox for the vast majority of his time in Boston. And when he retired as a Red Sox (thanks to the ubiquitous one-day contract), it made a lot of Boston fans happy, myself included.

Movie Corner: Black Death (2010)

2011-06-27T12:16:00.001-04:00

Historical horror isn't an easy film genre to pull off, for the very simple reason that you are dealing with history. You cannot have fantastical bogeymen or indestructible killers. The horror has to come from the time and the people. Black Death may be a bit ragged around the edges, but it is a fine film and definitely is successful in making history horrific.

The year is 1348 and the Plague is decimating all of Europe. In England, a knight named Ulric (Sean Bean) comes to a monastery with his band of men on orders from the Bishop. They need a guide through the marsh to a village that has remained untouched by the Plague. It is suspected that necromancy is the reason why. A young monk named Osmund (Eddie Redmayne) agrees to lead them so he can rendezvous with his secret love, Avrill (Kimberley Nixon), in the woods.

You know no good will come of this.

The band fights through bandits and slogs through the swamp to reach the village. It is free of disease and led by Langiva (Carice van Houten) and her assistant Hob (Tim McInnerny). Ulric and his men pose as weary travelers, but that ruse does not hold up for long and...well, that's where the horror comes in.

What I like about Christopher Smith's direction in this movie is that it doesn't rely on blood and gore and close-ups of evisceration to get you to squirm. It cuts away from that and focuses on the face of the victim. Or it cuts away all together and leaves you with the screaming. It allows your imagination to fill in the blanks. And our minds will almost always create a more frightening and disturbing image. It does allow one moment of on-screen dismemberment towards the end. But it is visually effective and proper for the moment.

Dario Poloni's script feels somewhat rushed to me (the film is just 97 minutes long) but it works well and doesn't have a lot of down time. And the twist at the end is fantastic. It's a dark movie and it ends in that same vein.

The actors aren't asked to stretch too much in their roles. Ulric is a man of God, dour and battle-hardened, and ready to kill anyone who has turned from God. Osmund is a naive young monk who is going into a world he knows nothing about. Langiva is a strong woman in a world of men and that unnerves Ulric's band. But they all play their roles well and that is what counts. Better to have good actors in simple roles than bad actors in complex roles.

One other note: the cinematography by Sebastian Edschmid is good. The film's look is gritty and faded, which is how a film with this content should look.

The film this reminds me of, as I would suspect it reminds others of, is Witchfinder General, the 1968 Michael Reeves film starring Vincent Price. Both deal with the inherent falsehoods in hunting witches and blaming events on the supernatural. And how that can corrupt people on either side of the equation.

This film is worth watching if you like the genre. But it is also a well-made film. It's available on Video on Demand and Netflix right now.

Movie Corner: Ironclad (2011)

2011-06-26T23:06:00.003-04:00

If you weren't sleeping through Social Studies or World History during your education, you heard about the Magna Carta. The ancestor of the Declaration of Independence, it was signed by King John of England after a barons' rebellion in June of 1215. So John had his power reduced, the barons had more freedom and that was that. Right?

Of course not. King John was ripped about what he saw as a block against his God-given right to rule. So he went about putting the barons back under his thumb in The First Barons' War. And that is where Ironclad begins. King John (Paul Giamatti) is moving against the Barons, and Rochester Castle is the key to all of England. So before he can take it, the Archbishop of Canterbury sends Lord Albany (Brian Cox) and a renegade Templar Knight (James Purefoy) named Marshall to find some men and hold Rochester Castle against King John until Prince Louis of France can arrive to support the barons.*

The plot really is that simple. There is some sub-plot about the young wife (Kate Mara) of the castle's lord (Derek Jacobi) falling in love with Marshall, but is it at it's core a "men on a mission" movie sent in 13th Century England. And it's good.

First off, it's realistic. Producer Rick Benattar actually recreated Rochester Castle on the studio. It is grimy, dirty and poorly lit. The courtyard is full of mud. It looks like the real thing. The battle scenes are full of blood and gore, just like a real battle with swords and axes would be. One highlight is a man getting his arm severed and then another man getting beaten to death with the severed arm. That had to have happened at least once in England in the 13th Century.

Second, the cast is solid. You have Giamatti really nailing King John as someone who believes that his rule is his birthright and no baron will tell him otherwise. He is arrogant, petulant, intelligent and cowardly all at once. Purefoy is adequate as Marshall, a man who speaks more with his sword than his mouth. But what helps is having men like Cox and Jacobi in supporting roles. It just elevates the quality of the film as a whole.

Director Jonathan English has done a good job combining the "men on a mission" motif (usually found in Westerns and WW2 films) with the "last stand" genre (think Zulu) and then grafting that to the Middle Ages. I'd like to see more of them. The battles are shot up close and personal, with all the yelling, screaming and dying you'd expect from a pitched sword battle. And the special effects are solid; the final breaching of the keep is pretty spectacular.

Negatives...well, the whole romance subplot b/t Purefoy and Mara is pretty tacked on. And the historical accuracy is hit-and-miss, but that is more a sticking point for nerds like myself.

But Ironclad is a fun little film if you enjoy these kind of flicks. I caught it on VOD, where it still is available. It's supposed to get a release on July 26 in the US. I don't know how wide that will be since it is an independent production, but go and see it if it hits your neighborhood theater.

----------

* Sounds weird, but the French and English were still pretty close at this point. Asking Louis to take the throne from John wouldn't be out of line and would be "keeping it in the family" so to speak. The English king held lands in France at this time and was, in a very real way, the vassal of the French King. Having a king be the vassal of another king...now you know why the English and French fought so much.

You Know What's Nice?

2011-06-26T12:54:00.000-04:00

Spending the weekend in Walpole, NH with no Internet connection, a full bottle of Redbreast whiskey and a pool. That, my friends, is a relaxing weekend.

The Top Five Red Sox Players to Wear Number Four

2011-06-21T22:33:00.002-04:00

You'll no longer see the '4' on a player's back, since it was retired in 1984 to honor Joe Cronin (one guess on who's first in this list). But some very good players have worn this number besides Cronin, including a Silver Slugger and an All-American college halfback who was also an AL MVP.

5. Tommy Harper (1972-74) - The man with an Afro larger than all outdoors. In Tommy's three years with the Sox he was Top 30 in MVP voting twice (1972-73). He led the AL with 54 stolen bases in 1973 and was Top 10 in stolen bases all three years he spent in Boston. He was also voted the Red Sox MVP in 1973. Considered the fastest player in Red Sox history, although it looks like Jacoby Ellsbury could challenge Harper for that title.

4. Carney Lansford (1981-82) - Traded to the Sox in December of 1980 in a deal that sent Rick Burleson and Butch Hobson to the Angels, Lansford ripped it up his two years in Boston. He won the Silver Slugger Award in 1981 for third base. He batted .336 to lead the AL in batting average in 1981. That same year he was Top 10 in OBP, Runs, Hits, Doubles and Singles. He was 6th that year in the AL MVP voting. Yet he didn't make the All-Star Team, with Buddy Bell inexplicably being voted as the reserve third baseman behind George Brett. Complete miscarriage of justice. Following the 1982 season he was traded to Oakland to make way for Wade Boggs. I always thought they at least could have tried to play Carney somewhere else and keep them both.

3. Jackie Jensen (1955-59) - An All-American halfback at California who also pitched the Cal baseball team to the first College World Series title, Jensen was a machine while playing outfield for the Sox. While wearing the '4' he was a two-time All Star (1955, 1958), he won the AL MVP Award in 1958 and was Top 30 in MVP voting a total of four times. He also won a Gold Glove in 1959. He was Top 10 in OBP four times (1955-56, 58-59), in OPS four times (1955, 57-59), in runs scored three times (1955, 57, 59), in hits two times (1955-56), in home runs four times (1955, 57-59) and in RBIs five times (1955-59), leading the AL in 1955, '58 and '59. And the best part was he was traded to the Sox for Mickey McDermott and Tom Umphlett. And if you said "Who?" then you understand what a great trade this was. Sadly, Jensen's career was cut short by an intense fear of flying that made it almost impossible for him to play West Coast teams. When it got worse, he retired in 1961.

2 and 1. Joe Cronin (1935, 1937-47) - Of all the retired numbers, Cronin's seems to get the most blank stares from people when you mention his name. This is insane to me considering what an integral part of the Sox he was during his tenure here. He not only was a damn good shortstop but he managed the team as well. With the Sox he was a five-time All Star (1935, 37-39, 41). He finished Top 30 in MVP voting five times. He was Top 10 in OBP three times (1938-39, 41), in doubles four times (1935, 38-39, 41) and in RBIs three times (1937, 39, 40). As a manager he got the Red Sox to the 1946 World Series and had them finish second four times, each time behind the damned Yankees. His record with the Sox was 1071-916, a .539 winning percentage. No one has coached the team longer or gotten more wins than Joe Cronin*. Like Jackie Jensen, he was a gift from the Washington Senators, who traded Cronin to the Sox for Lyn Lary and $225,000. Cronin was one of the best player-managers in the history of the game, maybe the best.**

-----------

* Give Tito another 3-5 years and he'll pass Cronin in wins.

** Cronin was also an unrepentant racist who cost the Sox a chance to sign Jackie Robinson AND Willie Mays. Think Ted Williams would have liked those two guys as teammates?