I have lately been in the habit of taking the Periodic Table quiz over at Sporcle.com. I first took this test on 3/13/10, and scored a poor 71 out of 118 elements. Subsequent trials have seen my score improve again and again, until finally, this evening, I GOT ALL 118 ELEMENTS! Clearly, I'm on my way to becoming the next Seaborg.
Top that, bitches!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Stunning Similarity
I have a habit, something that developed during my years living in the relative remoteness of my last apartment, where there was little chance of being observed in my habit. Which is this: after I take a shower, I like to towel myself off, then lay down on my bed uncovered, usually with the fan on, blowing gentle breezes over me as any residual moisture is evaporated from my naked skin. I tend to indulge myself thus for perhaps a half an hour, sometimes longer, until I decide I've had enough of this particular pleasure.
Why do I mention this? Because I'm currently reading Doing Nothing by Tom Lutz, described by subtitle as "a history of loafers, loungers, slackers, and bums in America," and I came across this most germane passage:
Imagine that. Me, a modern Ben Franklin! Now if only I could invent a new stove or become Postmaster of someplace...
Why do I mention this? Because I'm currently reading Doing Nothing by Tom Lutz, described by subtitle as "a history of loafers, loungers, slackers, and bums in America," and I came across this most germane passage:
He [Benjamin Franklin] became notorious in London in the 1760s for his daily "airbath," which consisted of lying uncovered and naked on a bed for an hour, a practice he claimed was good for one's health.
Imagine that. Me, a modern Ben Franklin! Now if only I could invent a new stove or become Postmaster of someplace...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
New Knowledge
I came to the conclusion tonight that the two most important substances in the universe are cheese and chocolate. That's all I have right now; if I develop this notion any further, I will report back later with details.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Just Not Good Enough
That is the sad verdict handed down upon the Philadelphia Flyers tonight. I'm disappointed, but the plain truth is they lost to a better team, and they got much further into the playoffs than I ever imagined they would back in February or March.
Early in the playoffs, my evaluation of the Flyers went like this: they need two more impact players, one on defense, one on offense, and they need to solidify their goaltending before they can legitimately contend. The team got within two games of the Cup, but I still think that analysis holds. Adding Pronger was not enough for their blue line; clearly, they need one more big, preferably fast defenseman to make their D rock solid. Can they get more out of the front line with maturation by young players like Leino and van Riemsdyk? Or do they really need to add another scorer? Not sure about that at this point, and I suppose it will have to wait to see who is available in the off-season via free agency or trade.
The goaltending is also a matter for deep thought. Clearly, neither Leighton nor Boucher is going to be the answer there, despite this year's success. Both were exposed against Chicago. They still have Emery (I think), and perhaps he can come back next season and be a solid number one goalie the whole way through. Perhaps.
Then again...perhaps the most galling part of this result lies in the fact that my two favorite teams went out in successive rounds to the same team. First the local team, the Sharks, laid an egg against Chicago, then the Flyers, the team of my youth, couldn't measure up to the Blackhawks. It's worth noting that Nabokov will be a free agent this summer. While he has taken a lot of heat around here for the Sharks' playoff failure, the plain fact is he's a cut above both Leighton and Boucher right now; Nabokov didn't give up 5 or 7 goals to the Blackhawks in any of those four games.
It's very possible, then, that the Flyers will go after Nabokov this summer. Would they have won the Cup with their current team, had Nabokov been in the net? There's no way of knowing, of course, but it is a scenario worth pondering. We will see what we will see.
So congratulations to Chicago, and thanks to the Flyers for a terrific run. I already can't wait for October.
Early in the playoffs, my evaluation of the Flyers went like this: they need two more impact players, one on defense, one on offense, and they need to solidify their goaltending before they can legitimately contend. The team got within two games of the Cup, but I still think that analysis holds. Adding Pronger was not enough for their blue line; clearly, they need one more big, preferably fast defenseman to make their D rock solid. Can they get more out of the front line with maturation by young players like Leino and van Riemsdyk? Or do they really need to add another scorer? Not sure about that at this point, and I suppose it will have to wait to see who is available in the off-season via free agency or trade.
The goaltending is also a matter for deep thought. Clearly, neither Leighton nor Boucher is going to be the answer there, despite this year's success. Both were exposed against Chicago. They still have Emery (I think), and perhaps he can come back next season and be a solid number one goalie the whole way through. Perhaps.
Then again...perhaps the most galling part of this result lies in the fact that my two favorite teams went out in successive rounds to the same team. First the local team, the Sharks, laid an egg against Chicago, then the Flyers, the team of my youth, couldn't measure up to the Blackhawks. It's worth noting that Nabokov will be a free agent this summer. While he has taken a lot of heat around here for the Sharks' playoff failure, the plain fact is he's a cut above both Leighton and Boucher right now; Nabokov didn't give up 5 or 7 goals to the Blackhawks in any of those four games.
It's very possible, then, that the Flyers will go after Nabokov this summer. Would they have won the Cup with their current team, had Nabokov been in the net? There's no way of knowing, of course, but it is a scenario worth pondering. We will see what we will see.
So congratulations to Chicago, and thanks to the Flyers for a terrific run. I already can't wait for October.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Insanity
This post is a few days past its sell by date, but...
I went to the A's game Monday night. The experience was typical; the nachos grande was delightful, the weather was cold (as always for night games at the Coliseum), the game was a dog (Angels 4, A's 2, and it wasn't that close), etc. But that's not what I have on my mind. No, I'm thinking about the thing that should be atypical about going to a ballgame: specifically, the price of attendance.
I often hear the argument about how prices for going to a major league baseball game have kept pace with inflation, it's still a good deal for a family, blah blah blah. I'm sure you can make that case, via either lies, damn lies, or statistics. But I think something else is going on there next to the Nimitz Freeway, and I think that because of the parking fee.
Now, I didn't drive to the Coliseum Monday night. I never do; I always take BART to the game, because of the cost of parking. So it had been a while since I actually knew how much parking at an A's game cost, and I had to ask a couple of folks I passed near the entry gate how much the A's and/or the Coliseum are charging for parking these days. That figure is--I'll pause here so you can put on a diaper, because you're about to shit yourself--that figure is $17.
Seventeen dollars. Just to park your car at the stadium. You don't even get in to watch the game for that; you just get to rest your vehicle somewhere in the lot.
Some reading this will shrug in indifference and say, "Well, sure, parking is expensive anywhere you go these days." That's true to a point. In congested areas where there is minimal space for maximum numbers of cars--downtown Oakland, along Park Street here in Alameda, anywhere in San Francisco--there is a premium on finding space to house your vehicle. It will cost you. No surprise there--that's just simple economics, the dismal science in its most fundamental equation: supply vs. demand. Where there is short supply and high demand, prices go up. Simple.
But that's not the situation at A's games. The Athletics are routinely drawing in the neighborhood of 10K paying customers to their games. Among those few who do show up, a sizable percentage take public transit (like I do) to get there. In other words, for most A's games, there are--and I mean this quite literally--acres of area available for parking cars. They're charging high prices where there is virtually no demand.
Worse still, as I mentioned before, that $17 doesn't even get you into the game. If you're a cheapskate, there are three choices of ticket that will get you into the stadium for less than you paid for parking: the bleachers ($13), "plaza reserved" (a section on "Mount Davis" that is above and beyond the bleachers) for $9 (the cheapest seat in the place), or the "value deck" in the nosebleed section behind home plate, where for $12 you get your seat and a $6 voucher you can spend on food or merchandise. (Of course, almost everything food or merch costs more than $6, so don't leave your wallet in the car.) Every other seat in the house costs even more money, from the $18 plaza outfield tickets all the way up to the $48 MVP box seats on the field behind home plate, where (one presumes) every one of your whims is catered to.
Put it all together, and you've got an expensive night out. For a loner like me, if I drove to the game, sat in the cheapest seat, and ate dinner there (rough estimate, $10 for sufficient food and beverage), that's $36 for one night's entertainment. The cost goes up a steep slope if you have a friend or (god forbid) a family; but at least you get to share that parking cost.
And what does this all mean in the great scheme of things? How has this pricing plan worked out for the A's? Just peachy, of course! For instance, we can see that the A's are currently 26th in attendance in MLB; they average 17,997 per game, selling 41.2% of available tickets. Basic math informs us that 58.8% of their tickets--way more than half--go unsold.
And those figures are probably not truly representative. For one thing, baseball teams are notorious liars about attendance figures; teams usually announce tickets sold, not bodies in the seats, for attendance figures. Nor would one be surprised to find that the numbers were fudged beyond that, just to make attendance look more robust for public consumption than it really is. Even if the numbers are wholly accurate, with the A's their attendance gets boosted by selling lots of discounted tickets. (Their "double play Wednesday" promotion always boosts the gate count; plus they engage in various other promotional giveaways and discounts). Most games, the MVP seats are filled, but the rest of the crowd is scattered throughout the wide open spaces of the Coliseum.
In sum: parking--low demand, high supply, high cost ($17). Tickets--low demand, high supply, high cost (most $18 and above). Simple economics would indicate that both the tickets and parking are set way above their price point. And this in the middle of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. What is going on here?
There are, I think, two possible answers to this seeming economic dilemma:
1) Everyone running the A's is insane. They (and their adjuncts with the city of Oakland and Alameda County, who have some input in running the Coliseum) are out of their fucking minds and completely devoid of any connection with economic reality. They should lower prices in order to boost attendance and gain the associated benefits of more bodies in the seats, but their derangement makes them unable to make sensible business decisions. Or,
2) This is not the product of insanity, but a calculated strategy to drive down attendance and make the A's seem to be not viable in their current location.
See, I'm leaning toward option 2. And it's the parking fee that gets me there. I can understand overpriced tickets. People will always want to go to the game; however they get there, when they arrive, they'll pay a few bucks (or much more than a few bucks) to get in the gate. You'll always find a few suckers who will pay top dollar. And no matter how you get there, be it driving or riding or just plain walking, you need to buy a ticket to get in. But $17 for parking? In a lot that, for most games, will never be more than 1/4 full? If the cost of the ticket is spitting in the customer's face, then that parking fee is kicking the customer in the groin. It is an expression of utter contempt for the people who, by any reckoning, should be the ones paying your way.
The next time someone argues that the A's simply can't make a go of it in their current location, in their current stadium, with their current karma, etc. etc. etc., I think that parking fee is the trump card to play against that argument. I think it shows that the current ownership simply doesn't give a damn about making the A's a legitimate and viable organization. They just want to cash their luxury tax checks from the real team owners and slink away into the night. The sooner they do that slinking, the better off baseball fans in the East Bay will be.
I went to the A's game Monday night. The experience was typical; the nachos grande was delightful, the weather was cold (as always for night games at the Coliseum), the game was a dog (Angels 4, A's 2, and it wasn't that close), etc. But that's not what I have on my mind. No, I'm thinking about the thing that should be atypical about going to a ballgame: specifically, the price of attendance.
I often hear the argument about how prices for going to a major league baseball game have kept pace with inflation, it's still a good deal for a family, blah blah blah. I'm sure you can make that case, via either lies, damn lies, or statistics. But I think something else is going on there next to the Nimitz Freeway, and I think that because of the parking fee.
Now, I didn't drive to the Coliseum Monday night. I never do; I always take BART to the game, because of the cost of parking. So it had been a while since I actually knew how much parking at an A's game cost, and I had to ask a couple of folks I passed near the entry gate how much the A's and/or the Coliseum are charging for parking these days. That figure is--I'll pause here so you can put on a diaper, because you're about to shit yourself--that figure is $17.
Seventeen dollars. Just to park your car at the stadium. You don't even get in to watch the game for that; you just get to rest your vehicle somewhere in the lot.
Some reading this will shrug in indifference and say, "Well, sure, parking is expensive anywhere you go these days." That's true to a point. In congested areas where there is minimal space for maximum numbers of cars--downtown Oakland, along Park Street here in Alameda, anywhere in San Francisco--there is a premium on finding space to house your vehicle. It will cost you. No surprise there--that's just simple economics, the dismal science in its most fundamental equation: supply vs. demand. Where there is short supply and high demand, prices go up. Simple.
But that's not the situation at A's games. The Athletics are routinely drawing in the neighborhood of 10K paying customers to their games. Among those few who do show up, a sizable percentage take public transit (like I do) to get there. In other words, for most A's games, there are--and I mean this quite literally--acres of area available for parking cars. They're charging high prices where there is virtually no demand.
Worse still, as I mentioned before, that $17 doesn't even get you into the game. If you're a cheapskate, there are three choices of ticket that will get you into the stadium for less than you paid for parking: the bleachers ($13), "plaza reserved" (a section on "Mount Davis" that is above and beyond the bleachers) for $9 (the cheapest seat in the place), or the "value deck" in the nosebleed section behind home plate, where for $12 you get your seat and a $6 voucher you can spend on food or merchandise. (Of course, almost everything food or merch costs more than $6, so don't leave your wallet in the car.) Every other seat in the house costs even more money, from the $18 plaza outfield tickets all the way up to the $48 MVP box seats on the field behind home plate, where (one presumes) every one of your whims is catered to.
Put it all together, and you've got an expensive night out. For a loner like me, if I drove to the game, sat in the cheapest seat, and ate dinner there (rough estimate, $10 for sufficient food and beverage), that's $36 for one night's entertainment. The cost goes up a steep slope if you have a friend or (god forbid) a family; but at least you get to share that parking cost.
And what does this all mean in the great scheme of things? How has this pricing plan worked out for the A's? Just peachy, of course! For instance, we can see that the A's are currently 26th in attendance in MLB; they average 17,997 per game, selling 41.2% of available tickets. Basic math informs us that 58.8% of their tickets--way more than half--go unsold.
And those figures are probably not truly representative. For one thing, baseball teams are notorious liars about attendance figures; teams usually announce tickets sold, not bodies in the seats, for attendance figures. Nor would one be surprised to find that the numbers were fudged beyond that, just to make attendance look more robust for public consumption than it really is. Even if the numbers are wholly accurate, with the A's their attendance gets boosted by selling lots of discounted tickets. (Their "double play Wednesday" promotion always boosts the gate count; plus they engage in various other promotional giveaways and discounts). Most games, the MVP seats are filled, but the rest of the crowd is scattered throughout the wide open spaces of the Coliseum.
In sum: parking--low demand, high supply, high cost ($17). Tickets--low demand, high supply, high cost (most $18 and above). Simple economics would indicate that both the tickets and parking are set way above their price point. And this in the middle of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. What is going on here?
There are, I think, two possible answers to this seeming economic dilemma:
1) Everyone running the A's is insane. They (and their adjuncts with the city of Oakland and Alameda County, who have some input in running the Coliseum) are out of their fucking minds and completely devoid of any connection with economic reality. They should lower prices in order to boost attendance and gain the associated benefits of more bodies in the seats, but their derangement makes them unable to make sensible business decisions. Or,
2) This is not the product of insanity, but a calculated strategy to drive down attendance and make the A's seem to be not viable in their current location.
See, I'm leaning toward option 2. And it's the parking fee that gets me there. I can understand overpriced tickets. People will always want to go to the game; however they get there, when they arrive, they'll pay a few bucks (or much more than a few bucks) to get in the gate. You'll always find a few suckers who will pay top dollar. And no matter how you get there, be it driving or riding or just plain walking, you need to buy a ticket to get in. But $17 for parking? In a lot that, for most games, will never be more than 1/4 full? If the cost of the ticket is spitting in the customer's face, then that parking fee is kicking the customer in the groin. It is an expression of utter contempt for the people who, by any reckoning, should be the ones paying your way.
The next time someone argues that the A's simply can't make a go of it in their current location, in their current stadium, with their current karma, etc. etc. etc., I think that parking fee is the trump card to play against that argument. I think it shows that the current ownership simply doesn't give a damn about making the A's a legitimate and viable organization. They just want to cash their luxury tax checks from the real team owners and slink away into the night. The sooner they do that slinking, the better off baseball fans in the East Bay will be.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Tough Situation
So, the Flyers are now down 0-2 to the Blackhawks in the Finals. Not a happy circumstance. Yet, I still feel vaguely hopeful. Chicago has certainly not blown out the Flyers by any stretch of the imagination. It is very easy to envision the next two games, nudged just slightly in the other direction by a home-ice boost in energy and confidence, going to Philadelphia. And I will be much more satisfied if that happens than I feel right now. Still, I feel mostly prepared for anything, come what may. The Flyers have already gotten way further down the road than I ever hoped they would this season, and winning the Cup would be a dream come true. Let's just hope they get it together and remember some dreams of their own.
Now if we can only teach the Phillies how to hit again. Yeesh.
Now if we can only teach the Phillies how to hit again. Yeesh.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Tasty
Around 3:45 this afternoon I ran over to Yo! Philly's to pick up a cheesesteak, and a package of Tastykake chocolate cup cakes, in anticipation of tonight's Game 7 between the Flyers and Bruins. It was delicious, except for the fact that the Flyers were down 3-0 by the time I finished my sandwich. Yet, I never panicked, and neither apparently did the Flyers, since it was 3-3 by the end of the second period. And now I just finished watching them complete the comeback and win 4-3, both game and series. Talk about a tasty treat indeed!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
I Come From The Land Of Pussycats
I just got back from a walk through my neighborhood. In 40 minutes of walking I had scratch-behind-the-ears encounters with 3 pussycats, plus visual meetings with at least 5 others. That's about a new cat every 5 minutes. And that is why I moved back to Alameda.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Publication Sensation
My essay The Champs/Chumps Ratio has been published in the new edition of the online 'zine teemings. Throw me a bone and click on over to take a look. I thank you in advance.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Writings
I've posted a couple of diary entries over at Daily Kos recently. In the interest of full access, here's a couple of links to those pieces:
Baseball the size of hail
Streets Paved With Zinc
There will also be a link here to my piece, "The Champs-Chumps Ratio," which will be in the upcoming issue of the e-zine teemings. I'll post a link to that when it is up and available.
Further cross-reference links will show up in the blog whenever I write something for another outlet.
Baseball the size of hail
Streets Paved With Zinc
There will also be a link here to my piece, "The Champs-Chumps Ratio," which will be in the upcoming issue of the e-zine teemings. I'll post a link to that when it is up and available.
Further cross-reference links will show up in the blog whenever I write something for another outlet.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Baseball 2010
To inaugurate Malchats Matters, my new home on the web, I am reproducing here my predictions for this year's baseball season. As always, it's a rich and savory chance to be dead wrong in public, and to put that chance on the record, or at least on someone else's server. So, enjoy. But please, as always, no wagering.
It's that time again: the budding cusp of a new baseball season, and another chance to be hideously wrong in a public forum. It's a chance I can never pass up, so here they are, my predictions for who will do what in Major League Baseball 2010:
AL East
New York 108-54
Boston 101-61
Tampa Bay 88-74
Toronto 77-85
Baltimore 74-88
AL Central
Chicago 92-70
Minnesota 90-72
Detroit 87-75
Kansas City 74-88
Cleveland 65-97
AL West
Los Angeles 106-86
Seattle 86-76
Oakland 78-84
Texas 74-88
NL East
Philadelphia 100-62
Atlanta 95-67
Florida 83-79
New York 79-83
Washington 72-90
NL Central
St. Louis 90-72
Milwaukee 85-77
Chicago 77-85
Houston 74-88
Cincinnati 72-90
Pittsburgh 57-105
NL West
Los Angeles 99-63
San Francisco 85-77
Colorado 83-79
San Diego 79-83
Arizona 75-87
You'll notice a lot of really gaudy records predicted in that table. I don't really expect, for instance, that the Yankees will win 108 games. And I don't think baseball has ever seen a season where four teams won 100 or more games. These inflated records are a product of my methodology for predicting teams' records. I introduced some new factors to my calculations this year, and there are obviously a few flaws in the system, kinks that need to be worked out in the coming years. Nevertheless, while the records may not prove precise, I stand by the relative strengths and weaknesses indicated by the predictions above. The strong teams do stand a substantial cut above the weaker teams throughout the leagues. And I expect, given the predicted records above, that this will be another season where strong AL teams feast upon an abundance of weaker NL teams.
As for individual division outlooks:
AL EAST -- This looks depressingly familiar. The plain truth is, New York looks to be better than last year, Boston has stepped up a notch...and the rest of the teams mostly stood pat. Noises have been made to the contrary, but the disgraceful truth remains that the other three teams in this division are simply not making the effort (spending the money?) to challenge the top two teams. Tampa Bay is a nice little team, but nice little teams don't cut it against the rapacious beasts who live above them. Toronto looks like a major backslide, and Baltimore still doesn't have a legitimate rotation.
AL CENTRAL -- Chicago finally looks like it has the team that can recapture the mid-decade magic that led to a title. They look just a hair better than the Twins, who look less impressive on paper--as always--yet seem to know how to get it done. Detroit has the look of a team with one hand tied behind its back, though whether that's an offensive or defensive hand is hard to tell; maybe it's both. Kansas City is just not there--not much pitching, not much offense, not much hope. At least they're not Cleveland; I foresee a major meltdown for the Tribe, who contended for a championship just a few years ago. It just goes to show, kids: be careful when you play with trading Cy Young Award winners.
AL WEST -- It is an absurdity to predict 100 wins for the Angels, after they lost both their #1 starter and biggest bat in the off season. Yet, they actually look better than last year's squad, which got no competition from the rest of the division. They may be the insider pick to win it all this year. Seattle is better, but not as much better as people think they are; this will be, essentially, a year of treading water for them. Oakland could make a jump up to a winning season, or even contend for a wild card spot if things get crazy...but I just don't trust their hitting or management to make that happen. Texas was a feel good story for a while, but I'm afraid there's backsliding going on, and last year's good showing will now disappear in a white, cloudy puff of...something.
NL EAST -- The best team got better; the other teams didn't. That's the short of it here, where the Phillies should comfortably cruise into the playoffs again. Better pitching overall, and simply the best lineup top to bottom in the league--and even improved over last season's juggernaut--should get them all the way to another championship series. Atlanta is coalescing into a fine team, one that could contend for it all in a year or two. But not now. Florida is Florida--lots of young talent, just not enough to take them very far (short of another lightning in a bottle championship, and I don't see that happening again soon). New York and Washington form the ugly underneath--one team on the way down, the other rising ever so slowly. There will be optimism in the Capital by the end of the season, and insanity in Queens by the same time.
NL CENTRAL -- St. Louis wins almost by default, as the best of an otherwise meager bunch. Lucky for them they have Pujols; otherwise they might be just another one of the Five Dwarves. Milwaukee gets to brag about being runner-up--generally not an enviable position but which makes them look fine compared to the rest of this division. You'll hear plenty of blather about Chicago this year, as always. The Cubs get lots of press; what they don't get are a lot of wins, which is how they determine who reaches the playoffs. Houston is the same as they ever were: an up and down team that will do a little of this, then a little of that, all of which will ultimately amount to nothing. Cincinnati should be better than this, yet they don't seem to be stepping up and getting the players they need to compete. They're a rudderless ship. Speaking of which, by now Pittsburgh has become the NL's Mary Celeste: a ghost ship, aimlessly drifting through empty seas, barely echoing with the memories of the vibrant, alive vessel it used to be. It's a crime that Pirate fans have had to endure this for so long.
NL WEST -- Here lives the one chance to stop the Philly machine in its tracks: the Dodgers. These guys pitch, they hit, they field, they light up the Jumbotron--Los Angeles is clearly the best team in this division, and may be the team that takes down the Phillies. San Francisco is continuing a nice resurgence, but they don't look like they've stepped up from last year--just held steady where they were. Another team treading water, as it were. Colorado is the chic pick in the NL this year, but don't get caught up; they may catch fire again, but not for the whole season, and you've got to sustain the good play over 162 to get invited to the party. It says here they'll hit a rut that will cost them enough to keep them out of it. San Diego is finally trying to tailor their team to their ballpark. Good idea, but the experiment must play out over a few seasons to get the blueprint down pat. Arizona is supposed to be loaded with pitching, but so are the other contenders in this division, and at least those guys can hit, too. Not much there in the desert to satisfy a skeptic.
Playoffs
It looks like we'll get LA vs. Boston in one division series. In the past this would have been a clear choice for Boston, but LA exorcised those demons last season. The Angels will take care of them again this year. The other side sees Chicago vs. New York in the other division series. The White Sox will put up a fight, but the Yankees will eventually overwhelm them. This sets up an LA vs. NY rematch. Last year's series was closer than it looked, which is why I think that this time I think LA will pull it out.
In the NL, form shows a Philadelphia vs. St. Louis series going to the Phillies, despite one or two good moments for the Cardinals. In the other series, LA vs. Atlanta, the Dodgers will quickly dispatch the upstart Braves. So, another rematch, LA vs. Philadelphia. This one goes seven games this time; good thing the Phillies have that last game in their home park; they pull it out, probably in their last at bat.
World Series
Los Angeles Angels vs. Philadelphia Phillies. This is scary for a Phillies fan. The Angels are no slouches, they can pitch with the best of them, and they have proven playoff performers in their lineup. But the Phillies will have Halladay, a revived Hamels, an improved Happ, and tough-in-a-corner Blanton to count on as starters. No slouches there, either. Plus anyone they might pickup during the season--and you can count on them to go after anyone who is quality and who is available. And they still have that ferocious lineup, which can wear down the Angels high quality arms. I see Phillies in 6 this time, and the mini-dynasty is made.
Hoo-rah.
It's that time again: the budding cusp of a new baseball season, and another chance to be hideously wrong in a public forum. It's a chance I can never pass up, so here they are, my predictions for who will do what in Major League Baseball 2010:
AL East
New York 108-54
Boston 101-61
Tampa Bay 88-74
Toronto 77-85
Baltimore 74-88
AL Central
Chicago 92-70
Minnesota 90-72
Detroit 87-75
Kansas City 74-88
Cleveland 65-97
AL West
Los Angeles 106-86
Seattle 86-76
Oakland 78-84
Texas 74-88
NL East
Philadelphia 100-62
Atlanta 95-67
Florida 83-79
New York 79-83
Washington 72-90
NL Central
St. Louis 90-72
Milwaukee 85-77
Chicago 77-85
Houston 74-88
Cincinnati 72-90
Pittsburgh 57-105
NL West
Los Angeles 99-63
San Francisco 85-77
Colorado 83-79
San Diego 79-83
Arizona 75-87
You'll notice a lot of really gaudy records predicted in that table. I don't really expect, for instance, that the Yankees will win 108 games. And I don't think baseball has ever seen a season where four teams won 100 or more games. These inflated records are a product of my methodology for predicting teams' records. I introduced some new factors to my calculations this year, and there are obviously a few flaws in the system, kinks that need to be worked out in the coming years. Nevertheless, while the records may not prove precise, I stand by the relative strengths and weaknesses indicated by the predictions above. The strong teams do stand a substantial cut above the weaker teams throughout the leagues. And I expect, given the predicted records above, that this will be another season where strong AL teams feast upon an abundance of weaker NL teams.
As for individual division outlooks:
AL EAST -- This looks depressingly familiar. The plain truth is, New York looks to be better than last year, Boston has stepped up a notch...and the rest of the teams mostly stood pat. Noises have been made to the contrary, but the disgraceful truth remains that the other three teams in this division are simply not making the effort (spending the money?) to challenge the top two teams. Tampa Bay is a nice little team, but nice little teams don't cut it against the rapacious beasts who live above them. Toronto looks like a major backslide, and Baltimore still doesn't have a legitimate rotation.
AL CENTRAL -- Chicago finally looks like it has the team that can recapture the mid-decade magic that led to a title. They look just a hair better than the Twins, who look less impressive on paper--as always--yet seem to know how to get it done. Detroit has the look of a team with one hand tied behind its back, though whether that's an offensive or defensive hand is hard to tell; maybe it's both. Kansas City is just not there--not much pitching, not much offense, not much hope. At least they're not Cleveland; I foresee a major meltdown for the Tribe, who contended for a championship just a few years ago. It just goes to show, kids: be careful when you play with trading Cy Young Award winners.
AL WEST -- It is an absurdity to predict 100 wins for the Angels, after they lost both their #1 starter and biggest bat in the off season. Yet, they actually look better than last year's squad, which got no competition from the rest of the division. They may be the insider pick to win it all this year. Seattle is better, but not as much better as people think they are; this will be, essentially, a year of treading water for them. Oakland could make a jump up to a winning season, or even contend for a wild card spot if things get crazy...but I just don't trust their hitting or management to make that happen. Texas was a feel good story for a while, but I'm afraid there's backsliding going on, and last year's good showing will now disappear in a white, cloudy puff of...something.
NL EAST -- The best team got better; the other teams didn't. That's the short of it here, where the Phillies should comfortably cruise into the playoffs again. Better pitching overall, and simply the best lineup top to bottom in the league--and even improved over last season's juggernaut--should get them all the way to another championship series. Atlanta is coalescing into a fine team, one that could contend for it all in a year or two. But not now. Florida is Florida--lots of young talent, just not enough to take them very far (short of another lightning in a bottle championship, and I don't see that happening again soon). New York and Washington form the ugly underneath--one team on the way down, the other rising ever so slowly. There will be optimism in the Capital by the end of the season, and insanity in Queens by the same time.
NL CENTRAL -- St. Louis wins almost by default, as the best of an otherwise meager bunch. Lucky for them they have Pujols; otherwise they might be just another one of the Five Dwarves. Milwaukee gets to brag about being runner-up--generally not an enviable position but which makes them look fine compared to the rest of this division. You'll hear plenty of blather about Chicago this year, as always. The Cubs get lots of press; what they don't get are a lot of wins, which is how they determine who reaches the playoffs. Houston is the same as they ever were: an up and down team that will do a little of this, then a little of that, all of which will ultimately amount to nothing. Cincinnati should be better than this, yet they don't seem to be stepping up and getting the players they need to compete. They're a rudderless ship. Speaking of which, by now Pittsburgh has become the NL's Mary Celeste: a ghost ship, aimlessly drifting through empty seas, barely echoing with the memories of the vibrant, alive vessel it used to be. It's a crime that Pirate fans have had to endure this for so long.
NL WEST -- Here lives the one chance to stop the Philly machine in its tracks: the Dodgers. These guys pitch, they hit, they field, they light up the Jumbotron--Los Angeles is clearly the best team in this division, and may be the team that takes down the Phillies. San Francisco is continuing a nice resurgence, but they don't look like they've stepped up from last year--just held steady where they were. Another team treading water, as it were. Colorado is the chic pick in the NL this year, but don't get caught up; they may catch fire again, but not for the whole season, and you've got to sustain the good play over 162 to get invited to the party. It says here they'll hit a rut that will cost them enough to keep them out of it. San Diego is finally trying to tailor their team to their ballpark. Good idea, but the experiment must play out over a few seasons to get the blueprint down pat. Arizona is supposed to be loaded with pitching, but so are the other contenders in this division, and at least those guys can hit, too. Not much there in the desert to satisfy a skeptic.
Playoffs
It looks like we'll get LA vs. Boston in one division series. In the past this would have been a clear choice for Boston, but LA exorcised those demons last season. The Angels will take care of them again this year. The other side sees Chicago vs. New York in the other division series. The White Sox will put up a fight, but the Yankees will eventually overwhelm them. This sets up an LA vs. NY rematch. Last year's series was closer than it looked, which is why I think that this time I think LA will pull it out.
In the NL, form shows a Philadelphia vs. St. Louis series going to the Phillies, despite one or two good moments for the Cardinals. In the other series, LA vs. Atlanta, the Dodgers will quickly dispatch the upstart Braves. So, another rematch, LA vs. Philadelphia. This one goes seven games this time; good thing the Phillies have that last game in their home park; they pull it out, probably in their last at bat.
World Series
Los Angeles Angels vs. Philadelphia Phillies. This is scary for a Phillies fan. The Angels are no slouches, they can pitch with the best of them, and they have proven playoff performers in their lineup. But the Phillies will have Halladay, a revived Hamels, an improved Happ, and tough-in-a-corner Blanton to count on as starters. No slouches there, either. Plus anyone they might pickup during the season--and you can count on them to go after anyone who is quality and who is available. And they still have that ferocious lineup, which can wear down the Angels high quality arms. I see Phillies in 6 this time, and the mini-dynasty is made.
Hoo-rah.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Reel Reviews
Casino Royale -- The operative word here is "shrewd." The owners of the Bond franchise made a shrewd choice to reinvent the series by taking their main character back to the beginning; the post-Cold War series had grown rudderless. They made another shrewd choice in bringing in Daniel Craig to play Bond; he is immediately the most hardass 007 since Connery's heyday. And they made the shrewdest choice of all in opting for a very professional execution of this, the first installment of the new Bond series--the production is first rate, the hallmarks remain with the campiness dialed back, and there's a serious tone that tells you everyone present means business. Like many, I had lost interest in the franchise, but I recommend this one, and I'm geared up for the next installment, at the very least. Posted 2/10/08. ETA on re-viewing: It is, perhaps, even better on a second viewing, and more appreciable--less a reboot of the series than a total re-imagination of the franchise. Easily a top five entry in the series.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Reel Reviews
Captains Courageous -- Kipling without the raging imperialism. It starts slow, but once the waves start rolling so does the movie. The relationship between Spencer Tracy's poor Portuguese fisherman Manuel (a great, Oscar-winning performance) and Freddie Bartholomew's stranded spoiled brat forms the core of what is ultimately an effective tale. Worth a look. Posted 11/28/07.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Reel Reviews
Zathura -- Standard issue, mild juvie entertainment, with a half-and-half feel. Some good stuff (nice visuals, some nice character moments, a blissful lack of skateboards), some bad (the kids are a little grating, the usual product placements). Blend it together an you get a decent, though not especially engaging, movie. Kids will probably like it; if you're uncritical, maybe you will too. Posted 9/30/06.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Reel Reviews
The Caine Mutiny -- When it sticks to its core story--a clash between captain and crew, with subsequent court-martial, during WWII--this is a very good film. When it fools around with a dull and dreary romantic subplot, it really drags. Fortunately, the ship-bound stuff dominates, and that makes it worth a look, along with a cast stacked with heavy-duty actors giving professional performances. Enjoy. Posted 11/15/05.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
