Today, Frank Thomas became the 21st player in MLB history to hit 500 home runs. The question immediately arises--is Thomas a hall of famer.
The case against him is not so much a direct case but an indictment of the whole era. Basically does the steroid era make Thomas's impressive numbers...well...not so impressive. Does 500 homers still matter?
I think it still does but in my mind Thomas was a hall of famer even before he reached 500 home runs. In fact the steroid era ultimately helps him. The fact remains that Thomas has never been linked directly or indirectly to steroids. His numbers look legit and I think not having a ballooned numbers only reinforces the notion that his stats are on the up and up.
The bottom line is that Thomas was putting up impressive (even monster) numbers prior to the Steroid Era (post '95 strike). This led him to back to back MVP awards ('93 & '94). He has finished in the top 5 in MVP voting 4 other times (including last year). Granted since 2001 his career has been hit or miss with seasons almost completely non-existent--many due to injuries. And to be kind he has a reputation even in Chicago of being a selfish brat. Personally he has never done my much for me.
Nevertheless he is a first ballot hall of famer. He was one of the most feared hitters in the AL for many seasons. Just consider that his career batting stats are as follows: .303(BA)/.423(On-base)/.562(slugging). That is impressive...no matter the era.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
(Sports/TV) Big Ten Network vs. Cable Companies
I know college basketball is a ways off but IU basketball is never far from my mind. I was over at SI.com last night and read an interesting article about the new Big Ten Network by Stewart Mandel.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/06/26/bigten.network/index.html
In essence Mr. Mandel writes how Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is playing hard ball with cable companies over the new network. The bottom line for me...and fellow IU fans...is that IU games that are not going to be on CBS or ESPN will now be on the Big Ten network. Whereas before WTTV 4 (Indianapolis) would show all games not on network TV or ESPN. Anybody...even people without cable could pick these game up.
This could be a problem for a lot of people. Bascially Delany wants the channel as part as a cable's company traditional lineup. Which...if did happen...would be ideal for regular cable subscribers (sorry to those still using an antenna) But it looks like cable companies want the channel as part of a sports package. This proves problematic on two fronts. If you have digital cable then one would have to order the sports package, which isn't that big of a deal...one would just have to shell out more money (and justify to their wife why this would be necessary) The real concern is for people who don't have digital cable, which I'm assuming is a lot of people...especially in my area. These people are going to have to get digital cable first to then get the sports pack.
It is safe to say that this will probably cause a lot of complaining and belly-aching. But for those that only care about Big Ten basketball the fact that football predates the b-ball season...the reality is that the issue should be resolved by the time IU tips off its season.
Ultimately the whole concept of the Big Ten network reeks of corporate greed. If the channel is going to be hard to get than a large number of people (especially IU fans) are going to be upset. I'm not sure why a major conference would want to limit the exposure of being able to watch one's games on TV. Unless the channel is put in the regular lineup than I think many people are going to frustrated with what Delany is doing. He is allowing other sports to be showcased on TV but ultimately, and Mandel refers to this in the article, most fans only care about one or two Big Ten sports teams. (I found it interesting--since it is true---that Mandel directly refers to Indiana basketball fans when making points about a particular fan base being passionate about their sport).
I only care about IU basketball and I better be able to watch all games from the comport of my own couch.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/06/26/bigten.network/index.html
In essence Mr. Mandel writes how Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is playing hard ball with cable companies over the new network. The bottom line for me...and fellow IU fans...is that IU games that are not going to be on CBS or ESPN will now be on the Big Ten network. Whereas before WTTV 4 (Indianapolis) would show all games not on network TV or ESPN. Anybody...even people without cable could pick these game up.
This could be a problem for a lot of people. Bascially Delany wants the channel as part as a cable's company traditional lineup. Which...if did happen...would be ideal for regular cable subscribers (sorry to those still using an antenna) But it looks like cable companies want the channel as part of a sports package. This proves problematic on two fronts. If you have digital cable then one would have to order the sports package, which isn't that big of a deal...one would just have to shell out more money (and justify to their wife why this would be necessary) The real concern is for people who don't have digital cable, which I'm assuming is a lot of people...especially in my area. These people are going to have to get digital cable first to then get the sports pack.
It is safe to say that this will probably cause a lot of complaining and belly-aching. But for those that only care about Big Ten basketball the fact that football predates the b-ball season...the reality is that the issue should be resolved by the time IU tips off its season.
Ultimately the whole concept of the Big Ten network reeks of corporate greed. If the channel is going to be hard to get than a large number of people (especially IU fans) are going to be upset. I'm not sure why a major conference would want to limit the exposure of being able to watch one's games on TV. Unless the channel is put in the regular lineup than I think many people are going to frustrated with what Delany is doing. He is allowing other sports to be showcased on TV but ultimately, and Mandel refers to this in the article, most fans only care about one or two Big Ten sports teams. (I found it interesting--since it is true---that Mandel directly refers to Indiana basketball fans when making points about a particular fan base being passionate about their sport).
I only care about IU basketball and I better be able to watch all games from the comport of my own couch.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
(film) More AFI discussion
I was reading a press release about the new list and came across an interesting tidbit. Guess which decade is most represented...
The 1970's.
That surprises me. There are 20 films from the '70's on the list. That is up from 18 from 1997's list. (For those interested the most represented decade last time around were the 1950's, also had 20 films).
I still believe that the list was finagled with in some capacity but I do believe that the voting that dig occur shows that baby-boomers made up the largest constituency of AFI voters. I know that is an assumption but one that makes sense considering the results. In the seventies Baby Boomers took over Hollywood both artistically and commercially so it is no surprise that a generation that takes itself so seriously anyway would have an inherit bias towards films that represent them and their ideas...which does make sense. (I feel very passionately about movies of my era...that's just human nature.) Furthermore there are several films from the late sixties (The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider) that also favors the mind-set of Baby Boomers. One could make the argument that the list is dominated by the particular opinions of one (large and vocal) generation.
To be honest...it is hard to argue with the selections on the list from 1970's. To me The French Connection could be tossed but other than that it looks like the 1970's might be Hollywood's new golden age.
The 1970's.
That surprises me. There are 20 films from the '70's on the list. That is up from 18 from 1997's list. (For those interested the most represented decade last time around were the 1950's, also had 20 films).
I still believe that the list was finagled with in some capacity but I do believe that the voting that dig occur shows that baby-boomers made up the largest constituency of AFI voters. I know that is an assumption but one that makes sense considering the results. In the seventies Baby Boomers took over Hollywood both artistically and commercially so it is no surprise that a generation that takes itself so seriously anyway would have an inherit bias towards films that represent them and their ideas...which does make sense. (I feel very passionately about movies of my era...that's just human nature.) Furthermore there are several films from the late sixties (The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider) that also favors the mind-set of Baby Boomers. One could make the argument that the list is dominated by the particular opinions of one (large and vocal) generation.
To be honest...it is hard to argue with the selections on the list from 1970's. To me The French Connection could be tossed but other than that it looks like the 1970's might be Hollywood's new golden age.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
(Film) AFI 100 years..
This past Wednesday AFI unveiled its latest list--an update of the 100 Greatest American films (10th anniversary special). I love movies and I love lists so this was no brainer for me to watch. The original list was quite influential on my movie watching agenda as it coincided with me getting into films...and getting into writing about films (as a local newspaper film reviewer). Further adding to the suspense was seeing what films from the past 10 years might make the cut. (I was holding out hope for Batman Begins...needless to say...it didn't make the cut...more on that subject later).
It didn't take me long to start yelling at my TV (much to my wife's chagrin) . Pulp Fiction came in at #94. It moved up one measly spot. As M. Night Shyamalan stated on the program...its the best film of his generation and I agree with him here and also would add that it is also the most influential. How it could barely make the list is beyond me. Furthermore how could The Sixth Sense A) even make the list and B) be higher than Pulp Fiction. I like most of Shyamalan's work and ( I guess film opinion's) but that movie is overated. In my personal top ten Pulp Fiction easily makes it.
It was refreshing that the list is not dominated by newer films...the only films from the past 10 years to make the list are The Sixth Sense (obviously not acceptable), Saving Private Ryan (acceptable), Titanic (also acceptable), and The Fellowship of the Ring (definitely acceptable).
My biggest issue with the list is that I believe that in some way the list has been finagled with. One of the big criticisms of the first list was its treatment of the silent movie era. The old list had 4 films and now the new list has 6 films... 3 that are new additions. It's very cool to see Buster Keaton's The General make the list. It is a comedic classic. But to enter the list at #18 just seems to convenient. Further perplexing is the issue with D.W. Griffith's films. Birth of a Nation goes from #44 to completely dropping off the list. That's ridiculous. I know the film is racist but it is also one of the most important films in cinematic history. It just seemed that the AFI wanted to reward Griffith (and Intolerance should be on the list anyway) but completely ignore the potential controversy of having Birth of a Nation on the list again. One doesn't deal with racism by ignoring it. I really think the AFI took the easy way out with the issue. And I don't buy for one minute that that list was not in some way messed with to make it more comprehensive.
It is also baffling to see some of the films that fell completely off the list. Two of the best films that you will ever see were completely dropped...The Third Man and The Manchurian Candidate. The Third Man is a brilliant film...but the fact that it is pretty much a British film might have indirectly hurt it this time (but that doesn't make a lot of sense). For The Manchurian Candidate...I can't even fathom how this film is less relevant now than it was ten years ago. Other notable films to drop that shouldn't have are Rebel Without a Cause, Fantasia, Fargo, and Frankenstein.
Don't even get me started on the films that didn't make the list this time around. I don't know how any greatest films list could ignore The Big Sleep, Notorious, His Girl Friday, The Hustler, The Great Escape and Cool Hand Luke.
But it was nice to see some films get some much deserved credit. As I said before Keaton's silent gem, The General made the cut. Blade Runner, Sullivan's Travels, The Shawshank Redemption, Spartacus, 12 Angry Men, A Night at the Opera, and Do The Right Thing all belong on the list.
All in all I'm not sure which list is better or more conclusive but what I do know is that I love talking movies and the AFI's lists always lend themselves to interesting debate.
It didn't take me long to start yelling at my TV (much to my wife's chagrin) . Pulp Fiction came in at #94. It moved up one measly spot. As M. Night Shyamalan stated on the program...its the best film of his generation and I agree with him here and also would add that it is also the most influential. How it could barely make the list is beyond me. Furthermore how could The Sixth Sense A) even make the list and B) be higher than Pulp Fiction. I like most of Shyamalan's work and ( I guess film opinion's) but that movie is overated. In my personal top ten Pulp Fiction easily makes it.
It was refreshing that the list is not dominated by newer films...the only films from the past 10 years to make the list are The Sixth Sense (obviously not acceptable), Saving Private Ryan (acceptable), Titanic (also acceptable), and The Fellowship of the Ring (definitely acceptable).
My biggest issue with the list is that I believe that in some way the list has been finagled with. One of the big criticisms of the first list was its treatment of the silent movie era. The old list had 4 films and now the new list has 6 films... 3 that are new additions. It's very cool to see Buster Keaton's The General make the list. It is a comedic classic. But to enter the list at #18 just seems to convenient. Further perplexing is the issue with D.W. Griffith's films. Birth of a Nation goes from #44 to completely dropping off the list. That's ridiculous. I know the film is racist but it is also one of the most important films in cinematic history. It just seemed that the AFI wanted to reward Griffith (and Intolerance should be on the list anyway) but completely ignore the potential controversy of having Birth of a Nation on the list again. One doesn't deal with racism by ignoring it. I really think the AFI took the easy way out with the issue. And I don't buy for one minute that that list was not in some way messed with to make it more comprehensive.
It is also baffling to see some of the films that fell completely off the list. Two of the best films that you will ever see were completely dropped...The Third Man and The Manchurian Candidate. The Third Man is a brilliant film...but the fact that it is pretty much a British film might have indirectly hurt it this time (but that doesn't make a lot of sense). For The Manchurian Candidate...I can't even fathom how this film is less relevant now than it was ten years ago. Other notable films to drop that shouldn't have are Rebel Without a Cause, Fantasia, Fargo, and Frankenstein.
Don't even get me started on the films that didn't make the list this time around. I don't know how any greatest films list could ignore The Big Sleep, Notorious, His Girl Friday, The Hustler, The Great Escape and Cool Hand Luke.
But it was nice to see some films get some much deserved credit. As I said before Keaton's silent gem, The General made the cut. Blade Runner, Sullivan's Travels, The Shawshank Redemption, Spartacus, 12 Angry Men, A Night at the Opera, and Do The Right Thing all belong on the list.
All in all I'm not sure which list is better or more conclusive but what I do know is that I love talking movies and the AFI's lists always lend themselves to interesting debate.
I'm now on the blog bandwagon. Not exactly sure what I will be specifically writing about but you can be sure that it will include such topics such as sports, movies, music, comic books, and some politics. I'm quite sure that this will be a good outlet to vent my opinions as I'm sure my wife will now be relieved that she is not feeling the full force of my rants.
As always keep it real.
As always keep it real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)