Thursday, July 31, 2014

San Francisco Giants: July Slipped Through Like Dan Uggla Fielded It

Somehow not fielded cleanly.
Would it be possible for the San Francisco Giants to play all of their games on the road for the rest of the season? While for some clubs this might be seen as a disadvantage, for these guys the disadvantage is playing at home. On the road, Madison Bumgarner is 8-2 with an ERA under two, at home he's 4-6 with an ERA of 5.60. The Giants have a worse home record (29-30) than the 46-59 Padres (who are 29-20), yet the men of Orange and Black are closing in on 60 wins and would be in the playoffs should the season screech to a halt today.

Of course, a team that started so hot (21 games over .500, 42-21, on June 8th, I'll mention yet again) can stumble a long way before they fall flat on their face, and I keep waiting for the final shoe to drop. Having the worst record in the majors from June 8th to the All-Star break (over a month) is one thing, Dan Uggla looking like his hands are made of cement over the weekend is another. Lacking a second baseman who could hit, the Giants signed Uggla a week or so ago and assigned him to the minors, but brought him up when Marco Scutaro went back on the disabled list after being “active” (I use the word very loosely) for a week. This is the same Dan Uggla who the Atlanta Braves flat released despite owing him 13 million dollars next year. Yep, the Braves decided to eat the contract and not even have Uggla on the roster at all. That's a lot of eating. Looking for any sort of offense, the Giants started him all three games against the Los Angeles Dodgers... and Uggla went 0 for 8 with 5 strikeouts and three errors.

What is it with the Giants trying to get something out of Atlanta Braves rejects in mid-July? Remember last year, when looking also looking for something resembling offense, the Giants signed Jeff Francouer? Jeffy had also recently been, you guessed it, flat released from the Braves before inking with the G-men, and he was nobody's idea of a good mid-season signing. One of the reasons (excuses, etc.) I heard for the Giants signing these guys is that SF did the same thing with Cody Ross in 2010- he had been released from the Marlins mid-season- and all he did was become World Series MVP as the G-men took their first title since 1954. But according to Ross's Wiki page, the Giants claimed him off waivers in part to keep him from going to their competitors for the division that season, the San Diego Padres. Ain't nobody fighting for Uggla or Francouer. Four years later, Ross is still playing decent ball for a team (70 games with Arizona, 64 starts in the outfield), while Francouer barely has a career (four games this season) and Uggla... well, he might get less playing time than Francouer next year, let's put it that way (and since the ATL still has to pay him the $13 mil, why would he bother?). On Wednesday night, the Giants may or may not have released him- after he went 0 for 11 with 6 k's, a walk and a .083 on-base percentage in four games. He only got on base one more time then I did and I didn't even play. That's bad.

(My true theory for Uggla being so bad is that he wore number 22, which was Will Clark's number, which has not been retired by the team. "The Curse of Not Retiring Will Clark's Jersey" is a little long for a catchy title, but it'll do for now.)

Buster played short AND led FSU in saves one year.
In theory the Giants should improve in August even if they play a ferret at second base, because the majority of their games are against sub-.500 teams (the Mets, the White Sox, the Phillies, the Cubs, and the Rockies), but hell, who knows? Tim Lincecum went back to struggling, but at least the Giants snapped a six-game losing streak by beating the Pirates because of a rock-solid bullpen outing (just one hit and no runs in five and two-thirds innings) and one of the most bizarre double plays you will ever see- it started with a walk. I would say it's the most bizarre but a lot of bizarre things happen in baseball.
On the plus side, a guy I covered in college, Andrew Susac from Oregon State, got called up because Hector Sanchez is on the concussion DL. In Wednesday's win, Susac got his first MLB hit and RBI- naturally it happened on the same play, which is nice to see. One would imagine that the transition of Buster Posey from full-time catcher to full-time infielder has begun. I have even seen hypotheticals that if the Giants do not re-sign Pablo Sandoval after the season that they might move Buster to third base. It seems odd for a catcher to transition to third- Pablo did it, of course, but not in the majors. Buster did play a lot of left side of the infield for Florida State, but I don't see him having the range. Of course, when Pablo was, er, not slim, he didn't have much range either. Buster would at least have more range than that. Posey was also a pitcher at FSU, but there's no way they'll make him a closer. So let's just breathe on this whole Posey to third thing. Intriguing to think about, though.

Then there's Jake Peavy, newly acquired from the Red Sox. Better than a beat up Matt Cain, I guess. Who has only two wins. And won't pitch again until... well, who knows at this point?

"Well, at least I'm not in Boston."
 Photos courtesy: fanduel.com, collegebaseballhall.org, sfgate.com

Friday, July 18, 2014

San Francisco Giants: Out of the Break

For the San Francisco Giants- and everybody else- it's not really the beginning of the second half. Clubs are well beyond the halfway point as far as games played, (SF is at 95, halfway is 81) it just sounds better to call it the start of the second half. Besides, it would be weird to play the All-Star game on the first day of summer.... actually, no it wouldn't! But that's another column, or several.

Anyway, if you'd told me at the end of spring training that coming out of the All-Star Break the Giants would be 52-43 and a game behind the Dodgers in the West, I'd've taken it, and so would've every other Giants fan. However, seeing as how SF was 21 games over .500 at 42-21 and led the division by nine and a half games on June 8th... well, the glass is half-empty, indeed.

I don't have a lot of possible solutions to the Giants "woes" at this point (should the season end today, not only would everybody be very confused, but SF would get the second NL Wild Card), but I do know that if Marco Scutaro is the answer, then somebody's asking the wrong question. A 38-year-old shortstop who has missed 94 of 95 possible games is not likely to be an offensive spark. But for a club looking for one, who the hell knows.

The biggest change out of the break concerns the starting rotation. Coming out of spring training, it was MadBum, Matt Cain, Tim Hudson, Lincecum, and Ryan Vogelsong. The struggles of Cain, the resurgence of Vogey, and the early-season domination of Hudson have been well documented in many places, including this very site. Manager Bruce Bochy has juggled the rotation to account for these incidents. MadBum remains at the top, but Cain is now moved to the five-spot and everybody else slides up one.

As a result, Cain and his astonishing 2-7 record will be matched up against the other team's fifth starter, and will be much more likely to put up some wins. The more I think about this, the more I wonder why teams don't do this more on a regular basis. It's kind of like the lineup. How many times is your leadoff guy actually going to lead off? For pitching, why wouldn't you put one of your good starters against the back end of another rotation? Then you've got a much better chance of getting a win, seeing as how fifth starters are praised if they go .500 (for example, Vogey is 5-7 and is getting lauded day after day).

Also, if Cain returns to form (and this gives him quite the opportunity to do so), then there's a tremendous one-two-three, er, five-one-two punch of Cain, MadBum, and Huddy. Toss in 2-time no-hit man Lincecum and Vogey and the pitching should carry them into the playoffs. Especially is MadBum keeps hitting the way he has.
The second "Mad Slam" of the year.
 
 photo courtesy: sfgate.com



Monday, July 14, 2014

MLB All-Star Game: The Exhibition Game That Counts

It is fashionable around this time of year to complain about the MLB All-Star game. And it's an easy thing to do. Since every regular game is available to everybody who wants to watch it for a price, and comprehensive highlights are available to everyone with a half-decent internet connection for free, it's completely lost its relevance as a showcase for guys you could only see once a year. (Imagine a time, kids, when you couldn't see Minnesota Twins games unless you lived in Minneapolis or the surrounding area. I know, weird. Yet, it happened. Now, if you want to, you could watch them in Sumatra. But, if you're in Sumatra, why would you want to watch Twins games?)

Then, of course, the infamous TIE happened in 2002, and of course that was an awful moment- at least, as far as baseball executives were concerned. The rest of us didn't really think it was that big a deal. It's an exhibition game, why shouldn't it end in a tie every now and again? It wasn't the first time the All-Star Game ended in a deadlock, it had happened in 1961 at Fenway Park, (back when they played TWO All-Star Games a year) and nobody thought the game was spinning out of control then.

Now usually, when something happens, the consequences are a direct result of the previous action that everyone can figure out pretty easily. I put on my swimsuit, it means I will then go swimming. I go to bed, it's because I'm going to go to sleep. I go to Costco, I'm going to buy something I really don't need. Things like that. So when the MLB All-Star Game ended in a tie, it would then make sense to make a roster modification to prevent that from happening again. But as we all know, Alleged Commissioner Bud Selig decided to make it so the winning League of the game got home field advantage in the World Series. And my scientific response to that, a full dozen years later, continues to be: “Huh?”

Is it an exhibition game or isn't it? Is it a competitive game with meaning or isn't it? An exhibition game means that everybody gets a chance to play. A competitive game means there's a direct consequence as a result. And yet, the All-Star Game is.... both. Which means that it has now become neither. If either manager ever decided to treat it like a competitive game with a direct consequence- because there IS- then they would play their top players the entire game. Nobody would get pinch-hit for in the third inning for no apparent reason. If the starting pitcher was dominant he would stay in for as long as possible, etcetera and so on.

But because it is still mind-bogglingly treated like an exhibition game, the starters are pretty much all gone by the 5th inning. It is not managed like a competitive game- even though it IS- and as a result, the final score is pretty much a joke, and they might as well figure out home-field advantage for the World Series by flipping a coin. It would be less arbitrary than having a random exhibition game decide it in July.
Would make about as much sense

Before this happened, baseball decided home-field advantage in another bizarre, unrelated-to-the-actual-playing-field kind of way: it rotated between the American League and National League every year. If the AL team had won 105 games and the NL team had won 95- which would have been home-field advantage for the AL team in every other sport- but it was an NL team year, the NL team had home-field advantage. It was AL teams in odd years and NL teams in even years, and I remain convinced to this day that's the reason the Minnesota Twins won the 1987 series in seven games over the St. Louis Cardinals, (St Louis won 95 games that year, the Twins 85), and the Los Angeles Dodgers won the '88 Series over the Oakland A's (Oakland: 104, LA: 94). Before you start yelling Kirk Gibson at me, remember that if Oakland had home-field advantage, they would have had a chance to bat in the bottom of the 9th, even if Gibby had hit that home run to give LA the lead in the top of the inning. And who knows if it would have even gotten to that point. So many variables (first off, Gibby likely would have already been in the game as DH).

So there are two questions. One, why didn't baseball made it so home-field advantage in the World Series goes to the team with the best record starting in, say, 1960? Or 1920, for that matter? If the answer was “we've always done it this way,” then that should be worrisome. But that's a topic for another day.

The real question is, why does the All-Star game continue to be this bizarre mishmash of an exhibition game that counts? The game would be much more entertaining if home-field advantage wasn't tied to anything that happened there. Why not make home field advantage determined by which league wins home run derby? It would make about as much sense.

Instead, I suggest two tweaks to the All-Star Game, which would make it much more enjoyable. One, home-field advantage goes to the team with the best record. That's simple. But the argument baseball continues to make is that having home-field advantage tied to the All-Star Game result makes people more interested. But it doesn't. Real fans think it makes the game look stupid, and casual fans wonder why such a thing would ever be considered. If the NBA did the same thing with their All-Star Game, it would be a public relations nightmare. So instead of gaining fans, MLB continues to lose fans.

But what if the rules were tweaked so that if all players were used in the roster, you could bring them back in? Let's say that this year, Derek Jeter started at shortstop. He played a couple innings, he batted, and then he got pulled for Alexi Ramirez. Then, in a tight game, John Farrell looks at his bench and contemplates his options. “Let's see,” he muses. “If I bat Kyle Seager, who is only here because the rules demand that everybody have somebody, then my pinch-hitting options are Jeter.... Jose Bautista, Nelson Cruz, and Mike Trout. Oh yeah, my pinch-hit options become everybody who I had to pull by the fourth inning.”

You're telling me viewers wouldn't stick around to see Trout bat in the late innings- again? Nellie Cruz versus Aroldis Chapman in the 9th (after Cruz took an Adam Wainright pitch to St. Paul in the 1st) wouldn't be a good matchup that people would like? I would suspect that Farrell would rip through his bench in order to be able to bring back Joey Bats in the 7th, much less the 9th.

But fine, the issue is pitchers. Okay. If it's an exhibition game, who cares? Have the same rule! Bring Wainright back and tell him to lob it in there. I guarantee you Chris Sale has thrown enough in his career that he could throw an inning, take two hours off, and come throw 15 more pitches. Come on. It's an exhibition game we're talking about.

So, you don't like that idea. I'm cool. In that case, why don't you steal a page from World Cup Soccer and end the game with.... Home Run Derby! If it's a tie after nine innings, then you get three guys from each team each half inning. They don't get three outs, they get one out each. They can take as many pitches as they want, they can foul off as many as they can.... but if they hit it into the playing field and it's not a home run, they're out. Home team gets last ups. You wouldn't like that? A 15-inning game would last about an extra 20 minutes. And if you run out of those dudes, then the guys from the actual Home Run Derby who weren't in the All-Star game get to bat. Then, you're free to bat whoever you want.

Tell me you wouldn't like that. I guarantee I would never write another column complaining about the All-Star Game if that happened. And neither would anybody else.


photos courtesy: sportslogos.net, martinprint.com.au, leanblog.org, therunnersports.com, espn.com



Wednesday, July 9, 2014

50 Years Later, "A Hard Day's Night" Still Rocks

The ride doesn't stop for 88 minutes. The Beatles classic film “A Hard Day's Night” was released in theatres 50 years ago on Thursday, and it influenced everything you've ever seen since. I'm only exaggerating slightly.

For comparison, one need only look at the most popular Elvis Presley movie of his career, which was also released in the summer of 1964. That particular film is “Viva Las Vegas,” which is mostly looked upon as a period piece. I'm also convinced that “Viva” would not have the appeal it does nowadays if Elvis did not become an artist-in-residence at Las Vegas casinos after he quit doing schlock movies. Nevertheless, it does represent the apex of the Elvis formula. Not only is it in the best location, but it has the prettiest girl (Ann-Margaret), the best race, the best dance sequence (did I mention Ann-Margaret was involved?) and the most memorable song, the title track. But Viva Las Vegas is stuck squarely in the early 60's with its attitude, look, and entire way the film is plotted, scripted, and shot. It doesn't show any signs of the coming hippie revolution, not even to make fun of them in that way nearly all 60's establishment movies did until they realized that the hippies were great consumers of film and television.
Nobody cared that Ann got most of the close-ups, especially Elvis.

It really took “A Hard Day's Night” to show that it was possible to make films about the young people for the young people in an innovative way that still made a boatload of money. But it all happened by accident. The Beatles were very nearly in an awful, Elvis-type movie that made fun of them instead of celebrating them.

United Artists bought the rights to the Beatles first movie without wanting much more than the soundtrack. Although an American, producer Walter Shenson had gotten wind of Beatlemania in Britain and negotiated a highly favorable deal to make the movie with Beatles manager Brian Epstein- Shenson was prepared to give the Beatles up to 25 percent of the profits, unheard of at the time. However, Epstein said to Shenson that “the Beatles would not accept less than 8 percent of the profits,” and Shenson put on his best disappointed face and agreed to the deal.

Despite this, Shenson wanted to make a good movie- or at least a decent one. Unlike Elvis or other rock and roll stars who appeared in movies at the time, Shenson let the Beatles have a say in choosing the screenwriter and the director. Naturally, they chose people whose work they liked, and Shenson agreed with their choices- he knew the soundtrack would sell like hotcakes, he'd get his money, and if the film wasn't any good, he didn't really care. (Naturally, after the movie proved to be highly influential and loved by critics, for the rest of his life he continuously gave interviews casting himself as the “magnificent man who put it all together.” I'm not saying he was a bad person, I'm saying he was a businessman looking to make cash. There is a difference, you know.) The writer was Alun Owen, a playwright with a talent for “natural” dialogue, especially Liverpool, where the boys were from. Instead of making up things and forcing the square-peg Beatles in a round-hole of dialogue, Owen travelled with them for a week or so and listened to how they spoke, the witticisms they used, and their general nature. He then incorporated these observations into his script, and at times it feels less like a movie than a documentary.
Obstacle shooting, emphasizing the "cage."

Of course, that also has much to do with the director, Richard Lester, and his film-making choices. Lester was another American, but he was an ex-pat living in Britain who had gotten a reputation as an innovative comedy director, albeit with short films and television. His most notable work before “AHDN” was “The Running Jumping Standing Still Film” with Peter Sellers. The Beatles has seen and enjoyed that immensely, so Lester's first feature-length film was also their first movie. His first major decision was to shoot the film in black-and-white in order to give it a documentary feel. Despite most scripted films being in color at the time, black-and-white was still the choice of documentary filmmakers because it was much cheaper to get. A documentary crew in Africa following a pride of lions for months would still use black-and-white film in 1964. Lester wanted that feel for this movie, and instead of hindering the film (Shenson was against the decision), it enhances it.

Lester's visual choices were so impactful to everything that came after it that MTV gave him an award as the “Father of the Music Video.” (Whenever somebody brings it up, he demands a paternity test.) Lester brought experimental film-making into the general public's eye for the first time in AHDN, and nowadays it's not considered experimental at all- quick cuts (there isn't a shot that lasts more than seven seconds in the first sequence), close-ups where part of the body is cut off, shooting through obstacles to intentionally narrow the viewer's focus, and unusual lighting. Of course, these techniques had been used many times before (famed American director Howard Hawks used obstacle shooting to great effect, and the entire genre of film noir is named because of its lighting), but Lester's efforts were the first time that these features were used so effectively in a “pop” movie, and within a few years his efforts were being ripped off around the world, some done better than others. (The Monkees group and TV show, for example, are blatant rip-offs of this film and the style Lester gave it.) United Artists and Shenson didn't have too big of a problem with Lester's visual choices, because he got the movie done quickly- filming began in March of 1964, and the finished product was released on July 10th.

One of the best stories- of both the film-making and the Beatles evolution as a band- concerns the first Beatles song to be considered “acoustic,” Paul McCartney's “And I Love Her.” The Beatles were on an extremely tight schedule in the early months of 1964. The film had been agreed to in late 1963, around the time the Beatles also agreed to go to America and appear on the Ed Sullivan show, an especially critical turning point in their career. And they still had to fulfill their Parlophone record contract at the time. In order for Richard Lester to have a choice over what new songs were in the movie (remember, the entire reason United Artists wanted to do the film in the first place), those songs had to be completed by the time filming began in March. So immediately upon their return from America in mid-February of 1964, the Beatles had to go into the studio and record at least a half-dozen songs for Lester to choose from. Most other bands would toss off a few tracks and not think about innovation. But the Beatles were like no other band.

The mistake that wasn't.
Despite the pressure, Paul wrote “And I Love Her” with the full intention doing it acoustically, but met with resistance from the others, especially their producer, George Martin. As a result, the Beatles did an electric demo of the song, which appears on“Anthology 1.” It is all electric, with heavy drums from Ringo and George picking his electric guitar. It was quickly determined that Paul's original vision of an acoustic song was the right one, and the song was re-made- all within a space of a few days, while recording six other songs, while preparing for the film.

When it came to time to choose the songs for the film, Lester must have known “And I Love Her” was a winner. He chose to use it when the Beatles are supposed to be “rehearsing” for their TV performance, meaning he had even more leeway to make it seem spontaneous. He removed the camera from the tripod and had a hand-held shot that lasts almost a minute. The camera revolves around Paul as he's singing, and at one point the spotlight on Paul blasts right into the camera lens, blinding the viewer while showing what it's like from Paul's perspective when he's on stage. Shenson saw the edited sequence and remarked that aside from fixing the mistake with the hand-held camera and the light blast, it looked pretty good. Lester told him that it wasn't a mistake, and they had an exchange of words, with Shenson insisting he re-edit the sequence and Lester telling Shenson what he could do with his suggestions. Lester won the argument, and the shot is used as an example in film textbooks to this day... provided textbooks are still used.

George and Patti got serious quick.
Lester was also one of the first to really take advantage of having two or more things going on in one shot and making you choose what to look at. In the very first dialogue sequence of the film, a small mirror reflects back the two other characters talking in that shot, so you could look at George and Ringo, or Paul and his Grandfather in the mirror, and see everyone who's speaking without needing a cut. In the “And I Love Her” scene as well as multiple times in the TV studio, the singer will be on one side of the screen, but the camera will also be on two monitors showing what the TV cameras are seeing, and they're seeing two of the other Beatles playing their instruments. Occasionally, Lester simply puts the camera on the multiple monitors, letting you choose who to watch.

As you can tell, I am continuously fascinated by this movie and the many stories about it. Here I am 15 hundred words in and I haven't even mentioned that George met his first wife, Patti Boyd, while filming the train sequence- the same Patti Boyd that left George ten years later to marry Eric Clapton, all the while inspiring songs like “Something,” “Layla,” and “Wonderful Tonight.” Boyd clearly made an impression on George as well as Richard Lester, because in all the sequences where “schoolgirl” Patti and her schoolgirl extras appear, Patti is at the center of the action. She has the line “Prisoners?” as she faces the camera in the dining car, she's the one John Lennon drops to his knees in front of when they're going through the train, she's the only one of the girls inside the cage with the lads when they're singing “I Should Have Known Better” (Paul pretends to hit her on the head with his bass guitar), and she's standing at the door as the Beatles dash off the train. (If you watch George throughout her time on screen, he can't keep his eyes off her.) Yep, Patti got in on the action early.

And fortunately for us, because of Walter Shenson, Alun Owen, Richard Lester, and the Beatles, we're all in on the action in “A Hard Day's Night,” and the rise of the Beatles as pop-culture masters continued to grow as 1964 kept on. The ride doesn't stop for 88 minutes? Heck, the ride shows no signs of slowing down.  Even the lack of Ann-Margaret doesn't hurt.


 photos courtesy: beatlesarchive.net, allvip.us, ign.com, giphy.com, dograt.com, moviemorlocks.com