Uncut Gems, and Sports Movies Exploring the Inverse of Fandom

It is 2012, and I am madly in love with the Philadelphia 76ers.

Call me a bandwagoner, call me frustrated with the Phillies and Flyers, but the Sixers are stronger than they've been in years, they're worth more than the cheap tickets, and they finally have a strong core with Andre Iguodala, Lou Williams, Elton Brand and, of course, JRUUUUUUUE Holaday.

Therefore, the 2012 Eastern Semis against the Boston Celtics was a very big one in my house. The team that snuck into the series vs. the big bads, led by Kevin Garnett and Rajon Rondo. For the first, and arguably only, time, I followed this series very closely, watching full games and growing impressed with my team for hanging in there for seven games.

And then Game 7 happened, and Garnett came alive, Rondo had his moment in the spotlight, and the 76ers lose by ten points. It was a crushing defeat, because this team had given me the illusion that winning was a possibility, especially against the unstoppable Celtics. From this perspective, the perspective of a war-weathered Philadelphia sports fan who'd already seen the Flyers and Eagles fail at a national level to this point, and was about to lose the Phillies into the abyss again, the 2012 NBA Eastern Conference Semis evokes only the emotion of crushing defeat, anguish, and disappointment.

Now what if you were to frame that series from the opposite direction. What if you were made to want the Celtics to win, and not only win, but win BIG?

This is the question that the Safdie Brothers' insanely engaging film Uncut Gems asks. Okay, granted...Uncut Gems asks a lot of questions, and a lot of the film is about some really messed up interpersonal things that have nothing to do with sports. It's really just a drama about a single person going further and further down the rabbit hole, and it's hard to recommend to a group of people who write feel-good posts about baseball cards.

But the movie is technically a sports movie, because it's kinda about sports betting. Since it is 2020, and sports betting is now legal, ubiquitous and over-heralded, it makes sense that there can be a movie about sports betting, and about people getting so tied up in interpersonal transactions and putting his hands in every single pocket, and vice versa, that extreme sports betting is the only way he gets satisfaction. And it's a very alarming portrayal of sports betting, especially in the statement the film's ending makes.

But...the film is centered around the 2012 NBA Eastern Conference Semis. Celtics-Sixers. And Kevin Garnett is a major character in this film, because his entire wellbeing is tied to a rare Ethiopian gem that our central Adam Sandler gem guy is going to sell to him. It's very cool just having KG moseying around the film as himself, and he's great in it.

But...the climax of the film is Game 7. And because Sandler's character has put a large bet on the Celtics, and KG, and because the entire movie revolves around this bet saving our hero...as we watch this game in the film...I had to root for the Celtics.

The movie Uncut Gems was so good...that I found myself cheering every time the Celtics scored a point in this movie. About a game from 8 years ago whose outcome made me want to kill Rajon Rondo.

I find it very revolutionary that a movie can do this, take a game you remember from your childhood and make you learn to see it from the other perspective. And it's not like Uncut Gems was the first to do this. Moneyball was about a season where the goal was to beat the Yankees, a team that ousted them a year prior, and seeing the 2002 season like the A'S were the most heartbreaking playoff departure was odd.

I do think it's very interesting that sports films, and filmmaking in general, can make the viewer have a vested interest in whatever central figure or team is depicted, regardless of whether or not said central figure correlates or is contradicted by the viewer's pre-existing bias. Cubs fans must still get sad at Eight Men Out. Giants fans must still cheer at Jackie's climactic hit in 42. Hell, even Mariners fans can get behind being the villains in Little Big League.

There's something to be said about good sports filmmaking then. You can even root that back to NFL Films, a company that knows how to give any team an inspirational story and let any fan, regardless of bias, root for them over the course of the film. There's a reason Steve Sabol just got inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Sometimes you have to tell a story a certain way in order to win the viewership of countless people.

Anyway. Just my two cents about a sports movie that's only barely about sports. As you were.

Khris Davis' Neighborhood

Thank you, Japan. Without you, we wouldn't have a team in third place have a 6-4 record. The A's and Mariners are literally just Captain America and Bucky. They look young, but they have more games under their belt, and it occasionally shows.

Anyway, let's talk about Khris Davis, the single most consistent power hitter of his era. Oh, not consistently great or anything. No, Khris Davis has had the exact same batting average for the past four seasons. From 2015, where he hit 27 home runs with the Brewers, until 2018, where he led the AL in homers with 48...Khris Davis has finished every single season with a .247 batting average.

That...takes skill.

It reminds me of a detail about Fred Rogers that they talked about during that documentary they did on him last year. For most of his life, Rogers had the exact same weight, and exercised at a local pool every day to maintain that exact weight. It's insanely fascinating, and boils down to the bare bones of Rogers' personality, and...is another challenge for Tom Hanks' metabolism, I imagine.

Am I saying that Khris Davis is the Fred Rogers of the MLB? Well...sort of.

Khris Davis does the exact same thing every year. He hits home runs. Not much else. And to some people, that brings joy. But the important thing is that Davis hasn't tried to change things up or modify his act. He just...does what he does, and keeps doing it until he can't any longer. That's the kind of thing Mr. Rogers would find admirable, I think.

Also, Pittsburgh and Oakland are very similar. Hell, there's a neighborhood in Pittsburgh just called Oakland. So there's that comparison as well.

Also...Tom Hanks happens to be from Oakland as well. However, I don't especially think he's going to play Khris Davis in a biopic anytime soon.

Anyway, Khris Davis will probably continue to be the power supplier for the A's for the foreseeable future. I can't imagine the team any other way.

Coming Tonight: Somehow, this team has lost two World Series'...and gotten even better. Here's their backup catcher, who knows a thing or two about catching for this team.

90's Baseball Cards Reenact 90's Movies

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)- dir. Frank Darabont

Scream (1996) - dir. Wes Craven

Darkman (1990) - dir. Sam Raimi

Clueless (1995) - dir. Amy Heckerling

The Waterboy (1998) - dir. Frank Coraci

Speed (1994) - dir. Jan de Bont

Sleepless in Seattle (1993) - dir. Nora Ephron

The Matrix (1999) - dir. Lana & Lily Wachowski

Happy Gilmore (1996) - dir. Dennis Dugan

Multiplicity (1996) - dir. Harold Ramis

Fargo (1996) - dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

Liar Liar (1997) - dir. Tom Shadyac

The Crying Game (1992) - dir. Neil Jordan

How the Oscars are Exactly Like the MLB World

Tonight, at some eastern primetime slot padded out by an overlong red carpet special, the Academy Awards will take place. I don't usually work the sort of crossover from baseball to movies, because the last time I wrote a post that involved something other than baseball, I got several cries of "STOP!!" So at least I know what I'm up against here when I write a comparison post about how similar some of the major figures in baseball right now are to some of the fellows sitting in Hollywood, waiting for their award.

I did this with the Grammys a few years ago, and it was fun. Movies are fun to write about, and comparison posts are cool, so here we go.

Chris Rock (Host of the Oscars) is like Rob Manfred (MLB Commissioner)
The ringleader of the freak-show that is this year's festivities. Both are replacing highly-disappointing choices for the role (NPH and Bud Selig, and I refer to the last half of Selig's tenure as the disappointing part). Both have a lot against them right now, but have, so far, done pretty well given the circumstances.

Cate Blanchett (up for her third award tonight for Carol) is like Clayton Kershaw (Dodgers pitcher)
Both seem to have a superior knack for being amazing and winning awards every so often. Both have shown their versatility, and both have had a substantial period of time between some awards. Both are considered the best in their field. Both are plausible options for Rooney Mara to date.

Jacob Tremblay (the kid from Room) is like Corey Seager (rookie shortstop for the Dodgers)
Both have literally just arrived on the scene. Both are too young to make a full impression on. Both are adorable.

Sylvester Stallone (up for Best Supporting Actor for playing Rocky Balboa again) is like Albert Pujols (1st baseman for the Angels)
Last year nobody could take either of them seriously. Sure, they were amazing back in the day, belting out hit after hit for an entire decade. But it only took a couple of crappy years to bring them down. However, 2015 was a HUGE improvement for both of them, with Albert returning to his hard-hitting roots, and Sly teaching a new breed of boxer in Creed. Only sad part is that both of them are highly unlikely to make another huge impact after this year, but they're both definite standouts in their respective fields.

Mark Ruffalo (up for Best Supporting actor for Spotlight) is like Noah Syndergaard (long-haired flamethrower for the Mets)
Both are part of a versatile and powerful ensemble that has taken home many accolades already. Also, both Ruffalo and Syndergaard moonlight as members of the Avengers.

Alejandro G. Inarritu (director of The Revenant and last year's Birdman) is like Nelson Cruz (outfielder for the Mariners)
Have been around for longer than people could imagine. Only now have decided to become relevant, even if they both started making huge seasons 10 years ago. Have had two spectacular years in a row, though may come short of a big title this year. Probably have a ton of huge years ahead of them, but only if their tactic of doing the same thing every year doesn't tire the crap out of people.

Meryl Streep (not nominated this year but has 3 Oscars) is like Miguel Cabrera (first baseman for the Tigers
Both win at least something every year since they came up, however, both surprisingly had a very quiet 2015, as they're not really up for any of the big awards. One must think they're both warming up for a huge 2016.

Wes Anderson (not nominated this year, but directed The Grand Budapest Hotel) is like Adam Wainwright (pitcher for the Cardinals)
Both are quirky and divisive enough to have supreme followers, and supreme haters. Both took 2015 off. Both will probably make another madcap attempt at the big award sometime soon.

Eddie Redmayne (nominated for The Danish Girl after winning for The Theory of Everything last year) is like Mike Trout (2014's MVP and Angels outfielder)
Both have popped up in the last few years as absolutely insane talents in their respective fields, especially at their very young ages. Both have been consistently stellar since coming up. Both had an equally stellar performance in 2015, however both performances might be overlooked in favor of someone who deserves it a bit more.

Martin Scorsese (director of all of your dad's favorite movies, not nominated this year but his next, Silence, is out in 2016) is like Ichiro Suzuki (outfielder for the Marlins)
Both are revered by many, and both have started immense movements in their fields that have led to a ton of support, praise, and approximately one big award (that they deserved). Both are coming down to their last few big moments, yet both are headed for definite enshrinement and will live forever in the hearts of hardcore fans.

Jennifer Lawrence (nominated for Joy) is like Bryce Harper (NL MVP and Nationals outfielder)
Both have won a prestigious award once, yet have been up for it many more times. Both are young enough, and talented enough, to make several subsequent runs at the big award. However, both are way too flashy for their own good, and need to do some serious public image work before they lose everybody too soon.

George Miller (director of Mad Max: Fury Road) is like Buck Showalter (manager of the Orioles)
Both have been around forever, and both are underratedly amazing at what they do, yet both haven't really gotten a chance to snatch the gold until now. Both probably have one more solid effort left in them, and this writer waits with glee for both of them.

Quentin Tarantino (nominated for directing The Hateful Eight) is like Aroldis Chapman (closer for the Yankees)
Both are supremely talented, and have been for years. Both pissed off a ton of people in 2015, yet this controversy was overshadowed by a supreme effort on both parts. Both are going to play to win this year, and hopefully this will get them somewhere other than jail.

Leonardo DiCaprio (nominated for the Revenant, and everyone's favorite heartthrob) is like Joe Maddon (manager of the Cubs)
Will do, and have done, anything possible for the big award. Haven't won one quite yet, though have been very close numerous times. Will likely get it this year, however there's always room for an upset.

That's enough for one night, but I think my point is clear- there are two completely separate entities that have a lot of similarities if you squint a little bit.

Enjoy the Oscars. Go Leo!

Hollywood Never Learns

Almost two months ago, I told you about a depressing rumor that Brett Ratner, director of such cinematic classics as Rush Hour 3 and Tower Heist, was trying to make a movie about how Yasiel Puig defected from Cuba. And that was a pretty bad one. The dude's career just started in America, why exactly would you do that so early in their career?

Casey Affleck (whose brother, Ben Affleck, has starred in such cinematic classics as Gigli and Daredevil, and also directed such actual cinematic classics as Argo and The Town) has thought around this. You see, Casey Affleck knows that you have to wait until a player is either retired, or somewhat irrelevant, to make a movie about them.

Which is why he's already signed on to direct a movie about Josh Hamilton....who's actually still a generally big MLB figure. Come on, guys, learn a little!

The proposed Josh Hamilton movie is all about the big, heart-wrenching story about how he came close to burning out of the leagues on every drug possible, and then he came back and became a second-string outfielder with the Angels. Okay, maybe they're some more important crap in there, but I'm not in charge of writing it.

The funny thing is that I really don't have a problem with this movie. You can definitely do a Josh Hamilton movie, because he doesn't have that much left in his career, so that by the time the movie comes out, it'll be like, one of the last few things Josh Hamilton has to worry about. Plus, if it's a really good movie, then maybe it'll give Hamilton a reason to stick around in the leagues a bit.

I mean, yeah, it bothers me that one of the costars of the new Transformers movie will be playing Hamilton, but it's not a big loss. I mean, as long as we don't have any Ratner Interference, I think we'll be fine.

Custom Card of the Day: Puig Edition

I'm back. I'm not dead. I got busy. Moving on.

Being a baseball fan and talking about Yasiel Puig is like being a Star Wars fan and not talking about J.J. Abrams. Sooner or later, you just kinda have to. Which is why I'm going to.

I get it, too. Yasiel Puig is the ultimate baseball story, because he defied great odds to get out of Cuba, and get to the MLB, and then basically become Lindsay Lohan for a month in LA. You don't talk about him, you're dodging a huge bullet.

Which is why I'm gonna talk about the weirdest Yasiel Puig story I heard this week.

You see, Yasiel Puig's escape-from-Cuba story has become a pretty big deal among sportswriters. It has become so big that the rights to Puig's story have been sold to Hollywood. Yes, sports fans, you may end up seeing the true story of Yasiel Puig play out in theatres all over the world.

And yes, I am that guy who spells theatre the artsy way. Come at me.

It seems pretty odd, the prospect of a movie about a ballplayer  coming out while the ballplayer is still active in the sport. Like, maybe if the movie's awful, the Giants fans could use it to taunt Puig. They would just chant the title of the movie every time he'd go up to bat. I mean, it worked the last time, too; for a good year the Yankee fans called Johnny Damon 'Fever Bitch'.

The funnier part of this potential 'Puig's escape from Cuba' movie is that a potential director is already being rumored, and said director is none other than Brett Ratner.

Anyone who paid money opening weekend to see X-Men: The Last Stand just cringed at the mention of Ratner's name.

Brett Ratner makes movies that are sort of good, but have one huge flaw preventing them from being taken seriously. And you're asking Brett Ratner to direct a movie, a SERIOUS MOVIE, about a Cuban ballplayer escaping from his homeland by stowing away with a drug cartel? Brett Ratner. The director of ALL THREE RUSH HOUR MOVIES. The guy who said 'you know what, the world IS ready for one more Rush Hour movie.'

So yeah. I personally want Yasiel Puig to keep playing really well, so that if this movie is as awful as it sounds, he can outlive it.

Coming Tomorrow (?)- He got suspended. He came back. He's Milwaukee's only hope. He's not Ryan Braun. And he fights dirty.

Custom Card of the Day: Brown Edition

For every prospect that makes it, and for every prospect that pans out, there's always one prospect that fakes you out, and pretends they're not gonna make it while reestablishing themselves later.

I liken these fakeouts to Back to the Future, or more specifically, the last half hour of Back to the Future. I love the movie, but I've seen it so many times to grow accustomed to the number of fakeouts they use during the climax. Every time it looks like Marty's gonna get home safe, something happens. Or every time it looks like Marty's gonna get away with something, something else happens, to the point where you're screaming at the TV in exhaustion. They're gonna get out okay, but the car runs out of battery. He charges it up, but the cable falls. He gets the cable back up, but it won't reach. They're very annoying, but they pay off, eventually.

I'd like to think of Domonic Brown as reminiscent of the last 30 minutes of Back to the Future. Because every time you think things are gonna go swell, he has a setback. Best prospect in the organization, but he stops hitting. Rehabs it up for a season, but they trade for Hunter Pence. 19 home runs, but he fails to get any more in a week. It's the same sorta suspense that frustrates fans of Marty McFly.

But, there is, somehow, a perk to all of this maddening confusion.

How different would the movie Back to the Future be if Marty McFly gets to 1955, talks to his folks, gets them together, and promptly goes back home, without anything happening, without him endangering anyone's lives?

It would be one boring-ass movie, I'll tell you that much. No excitement. No real drama, or action. If all the little fakeouts were taken out, it'd easily be fodder for the Satellite of Love (MAJOR obscure reference there, folks. Only a certain breed of geek will get that.)

Now, lemme go the other way. How different would Back to the Future be if he goes back, and doesn't get the happy ending? He does all these things, and he ends up either dying, or killing Doc Brown, or doing something that off-sets everything, and it ends in a somber tone? No, that can't happen either. You can't just start something with so much potential, only for it to just end up a total mess. I mean...that happens a lot in movies (see Steel, Man of), but people don't like it when it does.

No, Back to the Future works because it has all the suspense, and things happen, and even when the little fakeouts happen, they amount to something. It's not a one note shoot to a happy ending, but it's not too bleak, either. Hell, if you want bleak, watch Back to the Future Part II (or The Hangover Part II). But it's a fine balance between ending well and ending horribly, by having moments where you're not sure it's gonna end well.

And that's what makes Domonic Brown's sudden rise to Philly fame so satisfying. It's been bleak, it's been suspenseful, and it's been a hell of a ride, but all that matters is that it's currently amounting to something. And all of those little fakeouts are pesky, and frustrating, but by the end (or at least by right now), Domonic Brown is playing well, hitting well, getting a million All Star votes (yet 10th in the polls), and making Philly fans happy.

You could argue here that it may not take money, or a sudden onset of fame, or a AmEx to ride this transit system. But all it takes is the fact that fans have waited a long time to see Domonic Brown play like everybody else hyped him up to be. And now that he is, it's a long like of relief, and satisfaction.

And THAT...is the power of Brotherly Love.

(scoots away while dancing to Huey Lewis music)

Coming Tomorrow- What's that? You want more Diamondbacks? Fine, here's the probable starter at 1st base for the NL All Star team, unless the Cincinnati fans start stuffing ballots.

Custom Card of the Day: Pujols Edition

First of all, that custom is probably one of the best I've done in the five years of doing customs. It's like something you'd see in the 1970's. Or maybe a 70's movie.

I don't talk about this very much, since this is a baseball card blog, but I have a very keen interest in the art of cinema. I don't just review movies, I dissect them. I'm tall and thin enough to be a younger Gene Siskel, all I need is the impending receding hairline.

But tonight, I saw the latest film attempt at reviving F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. And, here's what I have to say about it: It has all the materials. Big stars, lots of cash, a reliable man behind the action, great locales, a trusted source material. Yet, it pounds so much in there that at times there just seems to be something amiss. And for every time where something is just like F. Scott intended it, there are more where it just doesn't work.

One could compare the new Gatsby movie to the current Angels team. Several have. More will.

Pujols is like Leo DiCaprio here. He's doing all he can to make things golden, and make the whole thing a hit. His performance alone boosts attendance, and rises the entire morale of the project. Hell, the whole thing's turned into his vehicle at times, not even realizing the rich history. And still, I imagine Pujols, like DiCaprio, will go on to higher fame and more accolades in the future.

Of course, for every performance that is right on par, you have someone like Josh Hamilton, or Tobey Maguire. They seemed like a logical choice for this role to begin with, but for whatever reason it doesn't work. They can't perform to the caliber that they did in other roles. Hell, even in those other roles you could argue that it wasn't 100% perfect. And here, it doesn't seem like it's genuine. Like maybe he's trying too hard to please everybody. Nothing's natural. And it's sad, too.

Then you have somebody like Mike Trout, or Joel Edgerton in this situation. They're younger, they're new to this game, and they do exactly what they're supposed to. So really, they're both doing things exactly right. I have really no complaints from either man, just as long as they keep moving at a steady pace after this.

But then there's Chris Iannetta, or Carey Mulligan. I really never got their appeal, and I don't think they really work in this sort of situation. In terms of their role, I could think of 20 other people who could work a lot better than they do in it. Hell, I imagine 20 different people have passed through before they signed on. And here, as well as everywhere else, it just doesn't do it for me. I don't know if it does it for anyone else, but it really drags everybody else down.

Everyone else plays their roles well, in smaller ways. But overall, it's too overstuffed, too grand, and too...big to really flow well. And that's its overall flaw. Don't get me wrong, I think that both the movie and the team had so much potential at the start of the year. But it didn't really pay off to anything. People are very let down.

But that's what I have to say, about the Angels, and Gatsby. If you want a thrill, regardless of the flaws, go and see both.

Coming Tomorrow- The Brewers have since gone down in the standings, but here's their top pitcher anyway.

4/15 and '42'

Now's about the time I should get to talking about Jackie Robinson. Why? Because, around the league, it's Jackie Robinson day, which means every Yankee will be wearing Mariano Rivera's number. In all seriousness, it must be cool for Dodger fans especially to see everyone on their team wearing 42, and remembering one of the greatest baseball players of all time.

However, that's not why I wanted to talk about Jackie Robinson. True, today is a big honking deal, and it should be remembered, but Jackie Robinson's story was just featured in a biopic. And it came out last Friday. And yes, I saw it.

So what can I say about 42? It is detailed. Any sports movie's job is to be detailed, but it really shows its stuff. Every shot is well lit, well designed, with the right amount of subdued light. Every uniform is reminiscent of the ones from the 40's. Hell, a lot of the actors playing the players look like them, like the guy who plays Ostenmuller, or the guy playing Pee Wee Reese, or a bunch of the other Dodgers. A few exceptions to that are the known actors in those roles. Like when you see Christopher Meloni as Leo Durocher, you don't seen Durocher, you see the guy from Law and Order playing him. Or when you see Alan Tudyk from Dodgeball playing Ben Chapman. You sorta see the actor coming through.

However, two actors in this are truly remarkable, and disappear into their roles. The first, of course, is Jackie Robinson, played by Chadwick Boseman. He captures the personality, appearance and thoughts of Jackie Robinson, and he's really, really good. The way the movie's written shows us where he's coming from, and what he has to deal with, and he's very good in that department. There's a scene where Ben Chapman, the Phillies' manager, basically yells curses at him for five minutes, and he holds it in, and tries not to lose his temper. And he's very good. Of course, part of what makes Boseman fit in so well is the fact that he wasn't a very big star, and his largest prior credit was on a short-lived crappy show called Persons Unknown, which I believe I was the only person who watched.

The other actor, also unsurprisingly, is Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey. When I heard he was playing Rickey, I thought he'd really fit, and he'd add a lot to the role. He's brilliant here, taking the crotchety-but-wise aspect, and having some of the best lines of the movie. He also just fits into the character perfectly, and adds a lot of his own to the character. Thanks to Ford, Rickey comes off as a compassionate, driven-to-win kinda guy, who starts out wanting Robinson for the money, but ends up wanting him for something greater.

On the whole, the movie is beautiful, a brilliant baseball movie, one that should be universally loved and remembered through the years, such as Field or Dreams, Bull Durham and The Natural. However, this is different than any of those, in that it's a beautiful movie, but also a great portrayal of a real person, and a real year in the life of a team. Those movies are made up, but still classic. This should be a classic because it tells the story in a way to appeal to everyone who witnessed it, as well as everyone who didn't.

So to answer your question, I thoroughly enjoyed 42. Jackie would be proud.

(And I still have another post coming, because April 15th means something else to me besides Jackie Robinson.)

Custom Card of the Day: Chapman Edition

Back when the Reds acquired Jonathan Broxton, I explained that Aroldis Chapman should be used more, and should be promoted to starter, which actually happened. However, looking back on it now, I have to say that my opinion was a bit skewed, and that Baker was right in moving Chapman back to closer. Why? Well, to explain that would mean I'd have to explain something I'd like to call "The Hulk Factor".

You see, back in the early 2000's, when every superhero was getting his own movie, it was decided that the Incredible Hulk should receive his own as well, directed by Ang Lee. It was too long, too boring, and too terrible. Five years later, they tried again, only with a French guy, Louis Leterrier, directing. It was shorter, but it was disappointing, and flawed.

For a while, it seemed like there'd be no satisfying version of the Hulk. Then last year, he appeared in the Avengers, and was arguably the best part of the movie. Why was that? Because if he was handled in smaller chunks, and given less duration, then he'd be an effective and awesome character. If you devote too much time to the Hulk, give him a needless emotional complex and some random plot devices, the character is non-effective, and you get bored with him.

Dusty Baker must have seen the Avengers, because what he did with Aroldis Chapman is very reminiscent of this.

You see, if Chapman had remained a starter, he would have blown out his arm, and overstayed his welcome. 7 innings of Aroldis Chapman once a week would be tiring, and his career might not last as long. Now if he  is switched back to closer, you get one inning every day or so of him pitching 100+ mph fastballs and wrecking batters. Here he won't overstay his welcome; here he'll thrive and people will finally see how awesome he is.

Just like the Hulk, Aroldis Chapman can only be enjoyed to his fullest extent in small increments. And every second of those small increments is a good one.

Coming Tomorrow- You know what we haven't had in a while? A good Red Sox prospect. Not like a good prospect for the Red Sox (Will Middlebrooks or Daniel Nava), I mean a good prospect for baseball in general (like Pedroia). And I have a feeling that this guy could be that kinda prospect.

Greatest Baseball Movie: The Debate has Resurfaced

Up until very recently, if you asked a casual sportsfan what his favorite baseball movie was, he would give you a choice from four or five answers. 1- He would take the easy way out, and say Bull Durham. 2- He would tell you that he's passionate about the game, and say Field of Dreams (Which used to be my answer). 3- He would come out of left field and say Major League. 4- He'd be a film-lover, and add The Natural. 5- She'd have no choice but A League of their own. And those five movies, with the exception of one obvious choice, are very good.

But what happens when a new movie comes into the mix? And yes, blogosphere, you know which one I'm talking about.

I saw Moneyball the first time this past Saturday night, with my parents. Not only did I think that it was an excellent baseball movie, it was also an excellent film period. The attention to detail, the dialogue by Aaron Sorkin, the performances of Brad Pitt, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, hell even Jonah Hill- and that says something.

After that first time, I thought it was one of the greatest baseball movies ever. Was it as good as Field of Dreams? Possibly. Was it as good as Bull Durham? Definitely. Was it as good as Major League? No, it was a billion times better than Major League. Major League's like the Police Academy of Sports Movies.

Of course, the next day was one of relaxation for me...until my friend called me up, and said he and another friend were seeing Moneyball, and asked if I wanted to join them.

I then searched my mind for a reason to refuse. After not finding one, I accepted.

So now I've seen Moneyball twice. And yes, I agree with what I said about it the first time. Because some people might say it's better than Bull Durham, and better than A League of their Own. And I would agree with them, with no disrespect toward Kevin Costner and Tom Hanks. Come on guys. There's no crying in baseball movies.

But the debate still rages on for other casual sportsfans, most of which have recently seen the movie. I swear, if the rest of the went to see The Lion King this weekend, they shouldn't be a sports fan. But anyway, these other fans have different levels of judgement in terms of baseball films than I do. They could still think Bull Durham's better, they could say Moneyball's the best, because it's really an Oscar movie about Baseball. Hell, they could even still say Major League's the best...to that, I would respond "Mr. Sheen, what the hell are you still doing here?"

But if they can't all agree that Moneyball isn't the greatest baseball movie of all time, they'll still think it's a great movie. Which is really all that counts.