Posts
Coming off an absolutely brutal week, helped by Bill Belichick's idiotic decision to hand Indianapolis the ball as close to the end zone as possible instead of punting the damn ball (but I'm not bitter), I finally figured out my all-time record for picks on this site. Sadly, the 40-31-4 record is actually far better than what I've done this year. My totals since I went back to making picks in September stand at: NFL 15-18; NCAAF 3-12; Baseball 5-1; overall 24-31. Experimenting with the new "points" system didn't help much last week as I went 2-5 and dropped -30.48 from 100 to 69.52. It could be a quick experiment.
If you're still reading, I'll assume you're looking for a good laugh or to employ the George Costanza "opposite" theory. I'll keep it in the NFL for Week 11:
Tennessee +180 (money line) over Houston (10 points to win 18)
Chicago +135 (money line) over the Eagles (10/13.5)
New England -10.5 over the Jets (10/9.52)
Indianapolis -1.5 over the Ravens (10/9.52)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Review of Changeling starring Angelina Jolie
I finally caught Changeling, starring Angelina Jolie, over the weekend. This portrayal of the 1920s Los Angeles police stirs plenty of emotion. Maybe it's just that society focuses on the corrupt as opposed to the positive things done by public figures, but the arrogance of those in power never ceases to amaze me.
Dubbed as a true story, Changeling details the life of Christine Collins after her young son disappears when the single mother is called to work on a Saturday. Already under intense scrutiny, the LAPD "solves" the headline grabbing case after several months by attempting to substitute a similar looking boy for Collins' son. When the mother protests, threatening the positive media attention the LAPD was desperately trying to generate, Collins is abruptly locked away in a mental institution.
It might be too strong to suggest that this film "grabs you" right from the beginning, but there is definitely not much effort needed to get into the film. Knowing the basic premise of the movie may be the reason, but I found myself glued to the opening scenes with Collins and her son, Walter (played by Gattlin Griffith). Perhaps I was looking for clues to what I knew was coming, but whatever the reason, the scenes worked. The recreation of 1929 Los Angeles was also a cool aspect of the early part of the movie.
Jeffery Donovan stood out as J.J. Jones, the main symbol of corruption within the LAPD. I never quite buy that an actor brings out the emotion as opposed to the writer of the script; I'm sure it's the wannabee writer in me. But Jones certainly personified every little weasel with an ounce of power we've all had to tolerate in our lives. Unfortunately, Jones had actual power, and single-handedly had Collins institutionalized. From there, she learns that any female who becomes a nuisance to the police was declared unstable.
Jolie received plenty of acclaim for this role as I heard many had said she stole every scene she was in. I didn't really have a feeling one way or another on her acting, but I imagine not noticing the acting while being very intrigued by the plight of the character — as I was — is in fact complimenting the actress. Her fight against "the system" came through in a powerful way, and I'm sure women of today and other minorities relate to battling against the patronizing attitudes that were perfectly acceptable in the era in which the film took place.
John Malkovich was a tad creepy as Reverend Gustav Briegle, the LAPD's harshest critic who becomes an advocate for Collins. However, his role in aiding Jolie's character helps him win over the audience.
A minor character that really stood out was Sanford Clark played by Eddie Alderson. The young actor was very good as the kid who ultimately reveals how Walter disappears, and may have played the best part in the movie. He walked the line between tough kid who had to do whatever was necessary to survive and a vulnerable young teen or pre-teen very well.
Despite running for more than two hours, the film never really felt long. It does a good job of following the story of Collins, the case that ultimately involves a number of children and includes some brutal moments, and the corrupt police force.
Changeling is definitely worth watching.
Dubbed as a true story, Changeling details the life of Christine Collins after her young son disappears when the single mother is called to work on a Saturday. Already under intense scrutiny, the LAPD "solves" the headline grabbing case after several months by attempting to substitute a similar looking boy for Collins' son. When the mother protests, threatening the positive media attention the LAPD was desperately trying to generate, Collins is abruptly locked away in a mental institution.
It might be too strong to suggest that this film "grabs you" right from the beginning, but there is definitely not much effort needed to get into the film. Knowing the basic premise of the movie may be the reason, but I found myself glued to the opening scenes with Collins and her son, Walter (played by Gattlin Griffith). Perhaps I was looking for clues to what I knew was coming, but whatever the reason, the scenes worked. The recreation of 1929 Los Angeles was also a cool aspect of the early part of the movie.
Jeffery Donovan stood out as J.J. Jones, the main symbol of corruption within the LAPD. I never quite buy that an actor brings out the emotion as opposed to the writer of the script; I'm sure it's the wannabee writer in me. But Jones certainly personified every little weasel with an ounce of power we've all had to tolerate in our lives. Unfortunately, Jones had actual power, and single-handedly had Collins institutionalized. From there, she learns that any female who becomes a nuisance to the police was declared unstable.
Jolie received plenty of acclaim for this role as I heard many had said she stole every scene she was in. I didn't really have a feeling one way or another on her acting, but I imagine not noticing the acting while being very intrigued by the plight of the character — as I was — is in fact complimenting the actress. Her fight against "the system" came through in a powerful way, and I'm sure women of today and other minorities relate to battling against the patronizing attitudes that were perfectly acceptable in the era in which the film took place.
John Malkovich was a tad creepy as Reverend Gustav Briegle, the LAPD's harshest critic who becomes an advocate for Collins. However, his role in aiding Jolie's character helps him win over the audience.
A minor character that really stood out was Sanford Clark played by Eddie Alderson. The young actor was very good as the kid who ultimately reveals how Walter disappears, and may have played the best part in the movie. He walked the line between tough kid who had to do whatever was necessary to survive and a vulnerable young teen or pre-teen very well.
Despite running for more than two hours, the film never really felt long. It does a good job of following the story of Collins, the case that ultimately involves a number of children and includes some brutal moments, and the corrupt police force.
Changeling is definitely worth watching.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Renewing the Call for Reid to be Fired
I don't write much about the Eagles anymore because there's basically been nothing new to say about them for the last several years. Andy Reid continues to think he can re-invent football by passing the ball a ridiculous amount of times while virtually ignoring the running game. He does this despite pouring draft picks and free agency dollars into offensive lineman who would likely excel at driving off the line of scrimmage to fuel a run game. He also has stayed with a quarterback who has proven for more than a decade that he is not accurate enough to perform in the West Coast offense in the most critical times, and, until recently, receivers that have been proven unworthy of starting for any other team.
But a stat that has been discussed a lot this week caused me to revisit this dreadful team in a little more depth for the first time, I believe, in about a year. The Eagles are an absurdly bad 1-8-1 in their last 10 games decided by 6 points or less.
1-8-1.
I don't know what more evidence is needed that Reid is completely inept as an NFL head coach the minute he is forced to think on his feet.
I said it a while back (as have plenty of others) and stand by it: Andy Reid needs to be fired. Even people who are defending the coach talk about how prepared and organized he is going into a season or a game, which merely emphasizes the point that once things don't go as planned Reid is lost. Then his supporters go back to the fact that he's the most successful coach in franchise history, referencing the five NFC Championship game appearances and the one Super Bowl appearance.
First of all, this franchise essentially has a history of failure in the Super Bowl era, so it's ridiculous to defend Reid based on being the most "successful" coach in team history. The argument amounts to him being the best of the worst. It's meaningless.
More importantly, the Super Bowl appearance was in 2004.
Since then the Eagles are 32-28-1 in meaningful games with McNabb starting.
As I wrote last season after the Eagles dropped to 2-3, they were 8-8 in 2007 with 3 consecutive meaningless wins to end the season. In 2006, they were 11-5, but only 6-3 with Donovan McNabb, and Jeff Garcia won a playoff game. In 2005, the Eagles were 6-10, with McNabb going 4-5 as the starter despite the absurd suggestions that he was off to a great start. This year they are 4-2 with McNabb.
After that 2-3 start, the Eagles squeaked into the playoffs thanks to a set of unlikely outcomes miraculously coming together, and the Eagles made the NFC Championship Game. So, everyone forgot about what a terrible year they really had and, for the fourth time in five tries, the Eagles lost that game.
Now, the Eagles are 5-3, yet I still feel very comfortable with my 8-8 prediction based on how they have looked. Even if the Eagles go on yet another run as they are apt to do in the second half of the season, which I think has little chance of happening, it will be yet another hollow run that will end in disappointment once they play a good team. How do I know? They're 1-8-1 in close games, and they are not going to blow out a good team.
Finally, as mentioned, Reid must go due to his handling of the quarterback position. Garcia, A.J. Feeley, and Kevin Kolb have all shown signs of being more suited to run this offense than McNabb. Feeley certainly faded quickly, but Garcia was jettisoned to save McNabb's psyche and there's little question Kolb will get a chance to start once he can escape the Eagles if Reid continues to coddle McNabb.
That falls well short of the much needed leadership by the head coach.
The scariest thing about the situation for Eagles fans is that all indications are that Jeff Lurie continues to live in his own world where the Eagles are a gold standard. He seems quite pleased by the "stability" of having had the same coach for 11 seasons.
Until Andy Reid is fired, Lurie will also have the stability of ending each season without having to attend a Super Bowl parade.
But a stat that has been discussed a lot this week caused me to revisit this dreadful team in a little more depth for the first time, I believe, in about a year. The Eagles are an absurdly bad 1-8-1 in their last 10 games decided by 6 points or less.
1-8-1.
I don't know what more evidence is needed that Reid is completely inept as an NFL head coach the minute he is forced to think on his feet.
I said it a while back (as have plenty of others) and stand by it: Andy Reid needs to be fired. Even people who are defending the coach talk about how prepared and organized he is going into a season or a game, which merely emphasizes the point that once things don't go as planned Reid is lost. Then his supporters go back to the fact that he's the most successful coach in franchise history, referencing the five NFC Championship game appearances and the one Super Bowl appearance.
First of all, this franchise essentially has a history of failure in the Super Bowl era, so it's ridiculous to defend Reid based on being the most "successful" coach in team history. The argument amounts to him being the best of the worst. It's meaningless.
More importantly, the Super Bowl appearance was in 2004.
Since then the Eagles are 32-28-1 in meaningful games with McNabb starting.
As I wrote last season after the Eagles dropped to 2-3, they were 8-8 in 2007 with 3 consecutive meaningless wins to end the season. In 2006, they were 11-5, but only 6-3 with Donovan McNabb, and Jeff Garcia won a playoff game. In 2005, the Eagles were 6-10, with McNabb going 4-5 as the starter despite the absurd suggestions that he was off to a great start. This year they are 4-2 with McNabb.
After that 2-3 start, the Eagles squeaked into the playoffs thanks to a set of unlikely outcomes miraculously coming together, and the Eagles made the NFC Championship Game. So, everyone forgot about what a terrible year they really had and, for the fourth time in five tries, the Eagles lost that game.
Now, the Eagles are 5-3, yet I still feel very comfortable with my 8-8 prediction based on how they have looked. Even if the Eagles go on yet another run as they are apt to do in the second half of the season, which I think has little chance of happening, it will be yet another hollow run that will end in disappointment once they play a good team. How do I know? They're 1-8-1 in close games, and they are not going to blow out a good team.
Finally, as mentioned, Reid must go due to his handling of the quarterback position. Garcia, A.J. Feeley, and Kevin Kolb have all shown signs of being more suited to run this offense than McNabb. Feeley certainly faded quickly, but Garcia was jettisoned to save McNabb's psyche and there's little question Kolb will get a chance to start once he can escape the Eagles if Reid continues to coddle McNabb.
That falls well short of the much needed leadership by the head coach.
The scariest thing about the situation for Eagles fans is that all indications are that Jeff Lurie continues to live in his own world where the Eagles are a gold standard. He seems quite pleased by the "stability" of having had the same coach for 11 seasons.
Until Andy Reid is fired, Lurie will also have the stability of ending each season without having to attend a Super Bowl parade.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Week 10 Picks
A couple of early games this week, so I'm putting those out there and will organize this post with the rest of my picks tomorrow.
San Francisco -3.5 over da Bears
South Florida +110 (money line) over Rutgers
Friday Update.
I've been thinking of trying something new with my picks, and last night's split has prompted me to test it out at least for a couple weeks starting now. Let's face it, some games are more attractive than others, and I especially put more "weight" on NFL games as opposed to college games.
So, starting with this weekend's games I'm going to attribute point values (wink, wink) to games. Don't worry, I'm not running from my pedestrian record, which stands at a putrid 22-26 for all sports since Week 1 of the 2009 NFL season. But I have hit a few underdogs on the money line, which would can't be reflected in a win-loss tally. Hopefully, the point system will offer a truer sense of how I'm doing. Feel free to play along in the comments section. For purposes of giving the point total a meaning, I'll start with 100 points.
As indicated above, last night I split with San Francisco -3.5 and the terrible South Florida +110 on the money line. As an aside, those were two of the worst football games I've seen in a while. It just goes to show that games in prime time aren't necessarily "prime time" games.
Here are the rest of my Week 10 picks:
Cincinnati -9.5 over WVU (5 points to win 4.76 - based on one source)
Pitt -6.5 over ND (5 points to win 4.76)
San Diego -1.5 over the Eagles (10 points to win 9.52)
Denver -3.5 over Washington (20 points to win 19.05)
New England +125 over Indianapolis (10 points to win 12.5)
And, as Jody McDonald says, you get what you pay for and . . . how much did you pay for these?
San Francisco -3.5 over da Bears
South Florida +110 (money line) over Rutgers
Friday Update.
I've been thinking of trying something new with my picks, and last night's split has prompted me to test it out at least for a couple weeks starting now. Let's face it, some games are more attractive than others, and I especially put more "weight" on NFL games as opposed to college games.
So, starting with this weekend's games I'm going to attribute point values (wink, wink) to games. Don't worry, I'm not running from my pedestrian record, which stands at a putrid 22-26 for all sports since Week 1 of the 2009 NFL season. But I have hit a few underdogs on the money line, which would can't be reflected in a win-loss tally. Hopefully, the point system will offer a truer sense of how I'm doing. Feel free to play along in the comments section. For purposes of giving the point total a meaning, I'll start with 100 points.
As indicated above, last night I split with San Francisco -3.5 and the terrible South Florida +110 on the money line. As an aside, those were two of the worst football games I've seen in a while. It just goes to show that games in prime time aren't necessarily "prime time" games.
Here are the rest of my Week 10 picks:
Cincinnati -9.5 over WVU (5 points to win 4.76 - based on one source)
Pitt -6.5 over ND (5 points to win 4.76)
San Diego -1.5 over the Eagles (10 points to win 9.52)
Denver -3.5 over Washington (20 points to win 19.05)
New England +125 over Indianapolis (10 points to win 12.5)
And, as Jody McDonald says, you get what you pay for and . . . how much did you pay for these?
Glee Offers Solid Episode Focused on a Character with a Disability
I checked out Fox's Glee last night after reading that the show focused on the group's efforts to pay for an accessible bus to bring Artie, a member of the group that uses a wheelchair, to a contest with the others. I had also read that the character is played by an able-bodied actor, Kevin McHale, news that I wish was shocking but certainly is not.
Entering the show with trepidation -- glee club was just never on my radar -- I found myself basically entertained by the show. At first I was watching Artie's rendition of "Dancing with Myself" thinking it was a bit over the top, but then I realized that type of sequence is probably a regular part of a show about a glee club. Once that clicked in my brain, I actually thought it was a creative take on the song.
However, I will admit that the sequence was the one part of the show in which I was bothered by the knowledge that Artie was played by an able-bodied person. It was a very smooth routine complete with a few wheelchair maneuvers on two wheels (as opposed to four). I understand the realities of Hollywood, and I hate to use soft words in this situation, but it just didn't feel right.
Even an occasional observer of Hollywood knows it's a superficial world that will go with the best looking person over someone who may bring more authenticity to a role 99 times out of 100. Tom Cruise didn't get the lead role in Jerry Maguire because he had some deep understanding of NFL agents. So, it's not too outrageous to suggest that giving McHale the role of Arty is just par for the course. Not that an actor with a disability couldn't have been just as good, but it's at least possible that the producers did their due diligence in seeking out an actor with a disability and McHale won the part. I doubt that occurred and even if it did there are still problems with this casting, but let's assume for the moment that was the case.
Watching McHale do tricks in a wheelchair raises a question that goes beyond role playing or star power. Certainly, some people with disabilities can do those maneuvers, but there just seemed to be a hint of leaving the disability behind when it was time to perform. It's disingenuous and potentially sends a poor message to the show's teenage target audience that someone with a disability can just shake it off when necessary. To be fair, the episode addressed that very issue later.
Again, it's a show about a glee club, so it gets some latitude. Certainly it's a long way from the days of a character in a wheelchair showing up out of nowhere on a show like What's Happenin' and having all of his problems solved with a pop-a-wheelie for Rog, Rerun, and the gang at the end of the half-hour. In fact, the Glee story line that lead to the entire club spending three hours a day in a wheelchair was done fairly well. The club's teacher/sponsor brought up the often overlooked issue of the need to have the person with a disability, Artie, travel with the group to be part of the comradery of traveling as opposed to just going in a separate car with his dad. Even the Rolling on a River finale performed with everyone using wheelchairs and the ultimate conclusion of the story line about Artie was solid.
One question remains though, especially in light of the news that Brothers is likely to be canceled. This is the only other show I'm aware of currently running -- or possibly was running -- with a character who has a disability (and is played by an actor who actually uses a wheelchair, Daryl Mitchell) Is Artie's disability a true part of the show even when it's not the centerpiece?
I was disappointed by the news on Brothers, as the show was genuinely funny, though not uproariously so, and the disability of Chill, Mitchell's character, was dealt with in a manner that needs to be seen much more. It was simply part of who he was, not the center of the show. C.C.H. Pounder's character, the mother of Chill and Michael (played by Michael Strahan) delivered a couple of great lines in the pilot about Chill using the chair as a tool as opposed to being stuck in a chair, but it was a real reaction from a caring mother and the show moved on.
This may be unfair to question with Glee as I've only seen one episode and the show may already be dealing with the disability as part of the show. But last night disabilities were shown to touch the lives of three characters and was a central theme of the show. One of the other story lines involved a gay member of the club. Was this the "minority" episode after which these characters return to the background?
Hopefully not.
Entering the show with trepidation -- glee club was just never on my radar -- I found myself basically entertained by the show. At first I was watching Artie's rendition of "Dancing with Myself" thinking it was a bit over the top, but then I realized that type of sequence is probably a regular part of a show about a glee club. Once that clicked in my brain, I actually thought it was a creative take on the song.
However, I will admit that the sequence was the one part of the show in which I was bothered by the knowledge that Artie was played by an able-bodied person. It was a very smooth routine complete with a few wheelchair maneuvers on two wheels (as opposed to four). I understand the realities of Hollywood, and I hate to use soft words in this situation, but it just didn't feel right.
Even an occasional observer of Hollywood knows it's a superficial world that will go with the best looking person over someone who may bring more authenticity to a role 99 times out of 100. Tom Cruise didn't get the lead role in Jerry Maguire because he had some deep understanding of NFL agents. So, it's not too outrageous to suggest that giving McHale the role of Arty is just par for the course. Not that an actor with a disability couldn't have been just as good, but it's at least possible that the producers did their due diligence in seeking out an actor with a disability and McHale won the part. I doubt that occurred and even if it did there are still problems with this casting, but let's assume for the moment that was the case.
Watching McHale do tricks in a wheelchair raises a question that goes beyond role playing or star power. Certainly, some people with disabilities can do those maneuvers, but there just seemed to be a hint of leaving the disability behind when it was time to perform. It's disingenuous and potentially sends a poor message to the show's teenage target audience that someone with a disability can just shake it off when necessary. To be fair, the episode addressed that very issue later.
Again, it's a show about a glee club, so it gets some latitude. Certainly it's a long way from the days of a character in a wheelchair showing up out of nowhere on a show like What's Happenin' and having all of his problems solved with a pop-a-wheelie for Rog, Rerun, and the gang at the end of the half-hour. In fact, the Glee story line that lead to the entire club spending three hours a day in a wheelchair was done fairly well. The club's teacher/sponsor brought up the often overlooked issue of the need to have the person with a disability, Artie, travel with the group to be part of the comradery of traveling as opposed to just going in a separate car with his dad. Even the Rolling on a River finale performed with everyone using wheelchairs and the ultimate conclusion of the story line about Artie was solid.
One question remains though, especially in light of the news that Brothers is likely to be canceled. This is the only other show I'm aware of currently running -- or possibly was running -- with a character who has a disability (and is played by an actor who actually uses a wheelchair, Daryl Mitchell) Is Artie's disability a true part of the show even when it's not the centerpiece?
I was disappointed by the news on Brothers, as the show was genuinely funny, though not uproariously so, and the disability of Chill, Mitchell's character, was dealt with in a manner that needs to be seen much more. It was simply part of who he was, not the center of the show. C.C.H. Pounder's character, the mother of Chill and Michael (played by Michael Strahan) delivered a couple of great lines in the pilot about Chill using the chair as a tool as opposed to being stuck in a chair, but it was a real reaction from a caring mother and the show moved on.
This may be unfair to question with Glee as I've only seen one episode and the show may already be dealing with the disability as part of the show. But last night disabilities were shown to touch the lives of three characters and was a central theme of the show. One of the other story lines involved a gay member of the club. Was this the "minority" episode after which these characters return to the background?
Hopefully not.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Week 9 picks, Myers Gone, etc.
Now that sports fans' in Philadelphia can turn their full attention to football, it's time to turn it around on my football picks. A disappointing 3-4 last week, including baseball, I'm 20-23 overall since the fall. Brutal.
For Week 9, here's my picks:
Falcons -10 over the Redskins
Packers -10 over the Buccaneers
Eagles -3 over the Cowboys
Cardinals +120 (money line) over the Bears
Penn State -5 over Ohio State
Other thoughts:
• Brett Myers has already been told he will not be back next season with the Phillies. If he's healthy and Brad Lidge doesn't have a bounce back year, this is a move we'll be hearing about for a long time. It's hard to disagree with Ruben Amaro Jr. after the last two seasons, but I don't like this move.
• Did the Eagles really spank the Giants last weekend? Is this really Eagles-Cowboys week? Well, Joe Banner can stop high-fiving people over the Phillies loss, and start praying his team shows up every week because we'll be paying attention again.
• I'd like to keep writing because I think I'm about to hit "Publish" and watch the Sixers. I thought the scary movies ended after Halloween?
For Week 9, here's my picks:
Falcons -10 over the Redskins
Packers -10 over the Buccaneers
Eagles -3 over the Cowboys
Cardinals +120 (money line) over the Bears
Penn State -5 over Ohio State
Other thoughts:
• Brett Myers has already been told he will not be back next season with the Phillies. If he's healthy and Brad Lidge doesn't have a bounce back year, this is a move we'll be hearing about for a long time. It's hard to disagree with Ruben Amaro Jr. after the last two seasons, but I don't like this move.
• Did the Eagles really spank the Giants last weekend? Is this really Eagles-Cowboys week? Well, Joe Banner can stop high-fiving people over the Phillies loss, and start praying his team shows up every week because we'll be paying attention again.
• I'd like to keep writing because I think I'm about to hit "Publish" and watch the Sixers. I thought the scary movies ended after Halloween?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Phillies' Bid to Repeat Ends
In the end, the Yankees had just a little more as they ended the Phillies' bid to repeat as World Champions last night.
The Phillies best hitters, except for Chase Utley to some degree, simply didn't get the job done. Ryan Howard set a record for strikeouts in the World Series. Jimmy Rollins and Shane Victorino did next to nothing. The sensation that was Raul Ibanez was cut short after his stint on the injury list.
Don't get me wrong, the Yanks were the better team over the last 6 games. Neither team hit all that well, but the Yankees did it just enough to win. Unless, of course, you live in the world of Fox and ESPN in which case you believe this was simply pre-ordained.
Didn't you enjoy ESPN's "Bummer in the Bronx" tease for SportsCenter after the Phillies won Game 1? I wasn't a bit bummed. It was almost as enjoyable as the multiple times Joe Buck and Tim McCarver uttered sentences like, "You just hope Alex Rodriguez gets going." Really? I wasn't hoping that. (Psst, fellas, you're supposed to be neutral. Start sentences like that with, "If you're a Yankees fan . . ." to at least act like you're hiding your network's bias.)
Yet, another cliché about "wait til next year" actually offers some sliver of comfort on a day when it's usually something true fans really don't want to hear. The core of this team isn't going anywhere for at least a couple of years, and going to a second straight World Series with a chance to repeat leaves no doubt that this is an elite team.
That said, the same pitchers that carried the Phillies in 2008 are now a major concern. Cole Hamels and Brad Lidge earned plenty of leeway after their performances last season, and Hamels certainly earned the MVP of the World Series last year. Unfortunately, both used up all of that good will in just one season.
And no, not just because this is Philadelphia.
After the Phillies became winners fans adjusted to Hamels' California laid-back attitude that lets him say things that often infuriates Philadelphians without him becoming a marked man. That won't continue with another season like this one, though. I'll give Hamels the benefit of the doubt that he will bounce back next season. Talent doesn't disappear often, and going into next season the hope just has to be that he will be the second half of a 1-2 pitching punch with Cliff Lee.
I don't have the same confidence in Brad Lidge. He gets a place in Philadelphia sports lore for what he did in 2008, but following up a perfect season with the most blown saves in the majors is an indication that there's something going on in his head. The Phils have to use him somehow next year due to his large contract, but they absolutely need to seek out a Plan B at closer. Brett Myers is a possibility in my mind.
Unfortunately, repeating as champions is no longer a possibility for the Phils.
The Phillies best hitters, except for Chase Utley to some degree, simply didn't get the job done. Ryan Howard set a record for strikeouts in the World Series. Jimmy Rollins and Shane Victorino did next to nothing. The sensation that was Raul Ibanez was cut short after his stint on the injury list.
Don't get me wrong, the Yanks were the better team over the last 6 games. Neither team hit all that well, but the Yankees did it just enough to win. Unless, of course, you live in the world of Fox and ESPN in which case you believe this was simply pre-ordained.
Didn't you enjoy ESPN's "Bummer in the Bronx" tease for SportsCenter after the Phillies won Game 1? I wasn't a bit bummed. It was almost as enjoyable as the multiple times Joe Buck and Tim McCarver uttered sentences like, "You just hope Alex Rodriguez gets going." Really? I wasn't hoping that. (Psst, fellas, you're supposed to be neutral. Start sentences like that with, "If you're a Yankees fan . . ." to at least act like you're hiding your network's bias.)
Yet, another cliché about "wait til next year" actually offers some sliver of comfort on a day when it's usually something true fans really don't want to hear. The core of this team isn't going anywhere for at least a couple of years, and going to a second straight World Series with a chance to repeat leaves no doubt that this is an elite team.
That said, the same pitchers that carried the Phillies in 2008 are now a major concern. Cole Hamels and Brad Lidge earned plenty of leeway after their performances last season, and Hamels certainly earned the MVP of the World Series last year. Unfortunately, both used up all of that good will in just one season.
And no, not just because this is Philadelphia.
After the Phillies became winners fans adjusted to Hamels' California laid-back attitude that lets him say things that often infuriates Philadelphians without him becoming a marked man. That won't continue with another season like this one, though. I'll give Hamels the benefit of the doubt that he will bounce back next season. Talent doesn't disappear often, and going into next season the hope just has to be that he will be the second half of a 1-2 pitching punch with Cliff Lee.
I don't have the same confidence in Brad Lidge. He gets a place in Philadelphia sports lore for what he did in 2008, but following up a perfect season with the most blown saves in the majors is an indication that there's something going on in his head. The Phils have to use him somehow next year due to his large contract, but they absolutely need to seek out a Plan B at closer. Brett Myers is a possibility in my mind.
Unfortunately, repeating as champions is no longer a possibility for the Phils.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
