Welcome to Bobby V's Fake Stache, a blog about sports, movies, TV, and other pop culture! We feature the Gibbons & Cote in the Evening podcast, as well as fairly frequent updates on the world of sports & entertainment.
As I finished having breakfast with my family after opening presents on Christmas morning, I realized that there were only 45 minutes left before the tip-off of the NBA season. I rushed through a shower, threw on some clothes, and hurried downstairs just in time to catch the Knicks and Celtics open the 2011-12 season. And boy am I glad that I didn't miss a second of the game.
It was an instant classic between two teams that genuinely seem to dislike each other, and that made the match-up even more intriguing than I was expecting. The game was chippy from the start, and stayed that way until the end, when after missing the potential game-tying jumper, Kevin Garnett (who even Celtics fans think is a somewhat dirty player) and Homeless Bill Walker (I call him Homeless because he looks and plays like someone who has been sleeping on the street) got into a scuffle. Homeless, a former Celtic, exchanged some words with KG, who proceeded to grab him by the throat. The incident was brief, but it summed up the game very well: it was a hard-fought battle that the Knicks eventually won.
Gibbons & Cote in the Evening is back for our last joint show before the Christmas holiday! In this episode, we preview all of the BCS games, as well as a few other bowl games that piqued our interest. It's pretty contentious, since I think we disagreed on all but one pick. Also, if you're interested, we talk a little bit of English football at the end, and preview the end of the world. Happy holidays!!
Generally, I don't follow the NFL as much as I do MLB or the NBA. Professional football begins to pique my interest once the playoff push starts in earnest, and the weather begins to get worse. For some reason, football just doesn't appeal to me as much when it's not freezing cold and snowy outside, but that time is rapidly approaching. The playoff picture is beginning to be sorted out, but there are still a lot of teams in contention for the final few spots in each league. This weekend features multiple big games between serious playoff contenders that may decide who gets in and who is left out once the regular season ends. So, now that the NFL has begun to attract my attention, I figured I might as well make some picks this week. My picks are in bold, and to make it more fun, I picked against the spreads (courtesy of Yahoo).
On our second edition of the Gibbons & Cote in the Evening blurbcast, we break down the Giants/Cowboys game from this past weekend and preview the upcoming Broncos/Patriots matchup. We talk about the Pats' chances of stopping the man, the myth, the legend, the Tebow, as well as discussing the playoff hopes for the two teams atop the NFC East. Take a listen!
Welcome back to another episode of Gibbons & Cote in the Evening. Tonight our guest is friend of the pod and Bobby V's Fake Stache NBA 'expert' Brian O'Connor. We talk all things NBA, including the CP3 trade nonsense, Dwight Howard's possible landing spots, and the absurdity of Mikhail Prokhorov. We also preview every NBA team (unless you are from Toronto, sorry Raps fans), so check us out on Spreaker if you are craving some basketball talk!
Wow… I can’t say that I saw this coming. It is now official that the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have signed Albert Pujols for 10 years and a staggering $254 million dollars. Even with numerous rumors swirling that the Miami Marlins were courting the slugger, I (naively) assumed that Pujols and the Cardinals would ultimately hash out a deal. Pujols on the Cardinals always seemed right. Pujols is a truly transcendent baseball player and the passionate St. Louis fans are knowledgeable enough to recognize and appreciate this. I originally wanted to write this column about how loyalty in sports has disintegrated, but I will avoid that at risk of sounding like an old, out of touch curmudgeon. A quarter of a BILLION dollars is a lot of money for anybody to turn down. Instead, I think it is more interesting to examine what Albert Pujols has to accomplish over the next ten years to be “remembered” as an Angel. Pujols has spent the past 11 years establishing a legacy with the Cardinals. It will take a lot to replace these memories.
Over here at Bobby V's Fake Stache, we always try to deliver the newest ideas to our followers. Our newest innovation is the blurbcast, a mini podcast in which we discuss one particular topic. Our inaugural edition of the blurbcast focuses on the one and only Tim Tebow. Listen in to hear our thoughts on the most polarizing athlete in the NFL in a quick audio clip!
As I was driving to Saddle River, NJ from my apartment in Brighton, MA, news broke that elite point guard Chris Paul would be traded from the New Orleans Hornets to the Los Angeles Lakers for a package that included Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. The Hornets would then spin off Gasol to the Houston Rockets for Kevin Martin, Luis Scola, Goran Dragic, and possibly draft picks. When I originally heard the news, I was conflicted emotionally; I am a proud New York Knickerbockers fan and Paul was supposed to be the final piece in New York's very own 'Big Three'. However, I have nothing against the Lakers (I love watching Kobe play) and the trade seemed pretty fair to me, as the Hornets gave up one great player for four pretty good players. I liked the deal for all sides, but apparently the NBA, through commissioner David Stern, did not feel the same way. The trade was vetoed by the league (which is totally in their power to do, both as the governing body of the sport and as the de-facto owner of the bankrupt Hornets) late in the evening, and I was flabbergasted. I heard all day about how the deal was basically already done, and all of a sudden it was no more. I didn't understand the reasoning at the time, and I still don't.
Apparently, Stern was swayed by the protests of many small-market owners who did not want Paul going to a big media market to help the Lakers continue their historical dominance of the Western Conference. The most vocal owner opposing this deal was Cleveland Cavaliers boss Dan Gilbert, who sent this email to the league office regarding the deal. Please take the time to read the email, because I'm sure it'll make you as angry as it made me. First of all, Mr. Gilbert should really stop sending out strongly worded letters/emails; they make him look a like a jerk (which he probably is). Second, he had no right to try and block the trade, as Commissioner Stern expressly stated that Hornets' GM Dell Demps had the full power a normal GM has and could trade as he saw fit to help the franchise. That's exactly what Demps did: he got a good deal for a star that was guaranteed to walk away for nothing at the end of the season. He also helped avoid his own version of the 'Melo-Drama' that really hurt Denver's chemistry for half of the season last year. By all accounts, Demps made the right move to help his struggling franchise stay competitive. Finally, Gilbert's question at the end of the email was absolutely outrageous. He said, "When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?" I find this quote ridiculously stupid for many reasons. Just because stars are choosing to play in larger markets than Cleveland and New Orleans, it doesn't mean that the other "25" teams have no shot to compete for a title. The Heat's Big Three lost the title last season, and the small-market Memphis Grizzlies & Oklahoma City Thunder each had a great shot at representing the West in the NBA Finals. I also dislike the connotation that the Washington Generals comment implies: the NBA is rigged. With the massive Tim Donaghy scandal already hurting the NBA's credibility in the fairness department, the league doesn't need any more observers thinking the results are fixed.
Through listening to Gilbert and the other small-market owners, David Stern and the NBA made a big mistake by not allowing this trade to go through. Let me explain. Chris Paul is GONE at the end of the year, no matter what happens with the Hornets this season. He does not want to play in a small market, and I don't blame him. He has the right to opt out of his contract, and should be able to choose where he wants to play. Since free agency was won by MLB players in 1975, after breaking the reserve clause system (which was almost like indentured servitude), players in all American sports have had the right to move freely between teams and cities when their contractual obligations were satisfied. Paul's contractual obligations will be satisfied at the end of the season, and he will leave. By not allowing the Hornets management to make a trade that betters their team and sends Paul somewhere he would like to go, the NBA is toeing a fine line. If Paul brings suit, as he is strongly considering doing, the NBA's anti-trust exemption and the brand-new collective bargaining agreement are up for challenge and could be eliminated. The NBA does not want this, and I think they should have known that their actions would lead to something like this.
The NBA has also irreparably harmed the future of basketball in New Orleans. The team was already bankrupt and owned by the league (a huge conflict of interest, by the way) and buyers weren't exactly lining up to purchase the franchise. The NBA is continuing to say that buyers will not be interested in the Hornets without Chris Paul. I agree. Unfortunately for the league and the Hornets, that will be the reality at the end of the season. Trading Paul for the best possible package of assets, both players and picks, would be the only way to salvage any hope of a buyer making an offer and keeping the team in New Orleans. This was not allowed to happen. At first, Stern said that the deal was vetoed because of basketball reasons, but now he is changing course and saying that it hurts the 'value' of the Hornets. I'm sorry, but the Hornets have no value; they are a team that is perennially mediocre with Chris Paul and would be much worse if he left for nothing. Nobody is jumping at the chance to own a team that consistently loses money in a market with few available corporate sponsors and fans that are unable to afford the skyrocketing ticket prices that would be required to break even. By vetoing this trade offer, which was fair and probably the best package that the Hornets could hope for, Stern has set a dangerous precedent. Now he will not be able to accept a deal in the future for Paul without making the league look like a rigged game. This means that Paul is going to walk away at the end of the season and sign with whatever team he chooses, leaving the Hornets with nothing in return. I think this will effectively kill basketball in New Orleans, whether it leads to an owner buying the team on the cheap and moving them to a more profitable location, or the outright contraction of the Hornets.
As bad as this situation is for the Hornets, Lakers, Rockets, and the NBA as a whole, I am ecstatic as a Knicks fan. Chris Paul's number one destination has always been my favorite team, but the Knicks have no one to trade for him. By not allowing the Hornets to trade Paul, the league gave the Knicks another chance at him through free agency. And I can't wait to see what happens.
This past weekend I saw The Muppets in theaters and it was fantastic. As a big fan of the muppets, I had high expectations for the movie, and it did not disappoint. I plan on writing a full review of the film in a future post.
One of the high points of the movie features the whole cast singing one of my favorite songs “The Rainbow Connection.” The original Muppet Movie, back in 1979, opens with Kermit the Frog, sitting on a log, playing the banjo and singing this beautiful song. Many of you may be familiar with the song, but are unaware of just how brilliant it really is. It’s a catchy song and “the lovers, the dreamers and me” is a very memorable line, but what is the rainbow connection?
I must preface this post by saying The Rainbow Connection is kind of an emotional song for me. I’m not sure why, but something about it chokes me up. Maybe it’s a lot of nostalgia, as The Muppet Movie has always been one of my favorite films. I remember a photo of myself, probably about five years old, reading what I think is the booklet from inside the Muppet Movie VHS which I had just gotten for Christmas. Now seventeen years later, a muppets calendar hangs above my desk as I write this. As so much has changed in my life, the things that stay the same become all the more powerful. And as I grow, the song takes on new meaning. It’s far too deep for any five year old to understand.
Let’s focus on the lyrics:
Why are there so many songs about rainbows
And what's on the other side
Rainbow's are visions, but only illusions
And rainbows have nothing to hide
So we've been told and some chose to believe it
But I know they're wrong wait and see
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me
Who said that every wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that and someone believed it
And look what it's done so far
What's so amazing that keeps us star gazing
What so we think we might see
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me
All of us under its spell, we know that it’s probably magic
Have you been half asleep and have you heard voices
I've heard them calling my name
Are these the sweet sounds that called the young sailors
I think they're one and the same
I've heard it too many times to ignore it
There's something that I'm supposed to be
Someday we'll find it, the Rainbow Connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me
It’s profound.
The first two lines ask: who cares about rainbows? Why should we care about rainbows? “The other side” represents the unknown. If rainbows are only illusions, what do they matter? The first couple lines sound as if the singer is disparaging interest in the rainbow, but he turns it all around with “I know they’re wrong, wait and see.” We’ve been told that rainbows are just illusions, and while most people accept it as common knowledge, the singer does not. It’s a powerful profession of faith with no facts to support it. Emotion can’t be rooted in fact, why does belief have to be rooted in fact? But the final discovery has yet to be made (“someday we’ll find it”).
The next stanza asks: how did the belief in wishing upon stars begin? I think wishing on stars here is a metaphor for prayer, religion, superstition, or any other acts of putting faith in the supernatural. “Somebody thought of it and someone believed it” shows that its inception needed only one personcreating and one personfollowing, showing the simplicity of faith in the supernatural. The next line “and look what it’s done so far” is brilliant because it’s completely open ended. While religions have caused wars, pain and discrimination, belief in a God continues to bring healing, meaning and hope to the lives of people all over the world. Again, we haven’t found it yet, but someday we will. We’re all under its spell, it’s probably magic. It’s not real, but it’s probably something far, far greater and more powerful than that.
The final stanza is about finding and answering your personal calling. While the lyrics talk about hearing voices calling your name, it has to be a metaphor for something calling you in life. The sweet sound calling the young sailors creates an image of sailors, slowly navigating open waters, following a sound that invites them.
I think the next two lines finally explain what the rainbow connection is: “I’ve heard it too many times to ignore it. It’s something that I’m supposed to be.” The rainbow connection is your calling in life, what your existence is supposed to be all about. What is your purpose? Why do you exist? I don’t know. Nobody knows, really, but we have to keep searching for it and someday we’ll find it. Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection, the lovers, the dreamers, and me.
The lovers are people who think with their heart. The dreamers are people who think with their mind. This leaves the singer (me) somewhere in between, not categorized. In order to find your life’s meaning, you must combine the two: emotion and intellect.
I just want to remind those of you who are still reading that this is the opening of The Muppet Movie! We’re talking about a song sung by a puppet frog playing the banjo. But it’s incredibly profound. The end of the movie supports the meaning of The Rainbow Connection, as well. *Spoiler Alert* Just when the Muppets finally achieve their goal of making it to Hollywood and filming their movie, everything falls apart. Disaster strikes the set and almost all the equipment and scenery are destroyed, when a rainbow emerges from the sky. In the last lines of the song, the muppets sing:
Life’s like a movie, write your own ending,
Keep believing, Keep Pretending,
We’ve done just what we set out to do.
Thanks to the lovers, the dreamers and you.
Keep searching for your rainbow connection. The Rainbow Connection is a song about hope. There is hope that there really is a calling for each of us, a reason why we are here. It’s a song about faith. We have to have faith that there is a greater reason for our existence, though there is little fact to support it. Thinking back to the photo of five year old Matthew reading the VHS booklet (studying and analyzing the lyrics to this song, I’m sure), there’s no way he knew what that this song was about. All he knew was a singing frog playing the banjo made him happy. Since then, I’ve only grown older and smarter (I intentionally didn't use "wiser"). If ignorance is bliss, then knowledge must mean unhappiness, and as I’ve gotten older, I’ve certainly gotten more cynical and skeptical. At times, I find it hard to believe in a greater reason for my existence. Logic and reason do nothing to support its existence. But this song gives hope. Someday we’ll find it. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but someday. It’s a lot more powerful than just a singing frog playing the banjo and it makes me happy, too.
Oklahoma St. fans celebrating their berth in the BCS Championship...oh wait...
Gibbons & Cote in the Evening is back! For our first of (hopefully) many December podcasts, we talk MLB hot stove, conference championship weekend in college football, and the return of the National Basketball Association. And of course, we analyze Bobby V's move to the Red Sox, as well as his claim to have invented something we all know and love. Listen to us on Spreaker!
I've been writing a lot of sports-related articles recently, and I wanted to go in a different direction with this post. Movie of the Week will be a recurring column that rotates writers and will span all genres. This week, in the inaugural edition of the MotW, I ventured into my favorite film genre: action movies. So, without further adieu, here's my take on Collateral Damage, a 2002 Arnold Schwarzenegger flick.
Until today, I had never seen Collateral Damage in its entirety. I'm a huge fan of action movies of all sorts, as those of you who know me can attest, but this movie was pretty underwhelming. Ahnold is a great action movie actor, partially because he is such a poor actor in general, and generally mediocre acting is (at least for me) an action movie staple. But the Governator (who actually didn't become Governor of Cal-ee-four-nyeah until a year later, in 2003) seemed disinterested and aloof in his portrayal of firefighter/hero Gordy Brewer. Campy acting is good in action flicks, but this was more in the category of careless acting, which is never a good thing. The rest of the cast is similarly lacking in ability, and don't really convince as their fairly cliched character archetypes. John Leguizamo plays an annoying Latino stereotype, who thankfully is dispatched via headshot about halfway through the film. The main bad guy, a Colombian terrorist named the Wolf, is lacking in inspiration and really doesn't make me feel any emotions about him whatsoever. I love action movie villains in the vein of Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) from Die Hard or Russian terrorist Ivan Korshunov (Gary Oldman) of Air Force One. Those characters, and their fantastic portrayals, elicited a reaction from me, whether it was 'Oh man, that guy is such a badass' or 'He is really an evil dude', but the Wolf just made me tune out when he was on screen.
This guy sucks.
Enough about the acting, though. Nobody (in their right mind) watches an action movie like Collateral Damage solely for the acting ability of the people involved; we watch for the explosions, gunfights, and epic set pieces that are the cornerstones of any good blockbuster action movie. The movie delivers on some of these aspects, but flops spectacularly in others. There are very few large action scenes in this movie, and they are pretty overdone with explosions and unimpressive special effects, but not in a good way. There are movies that overdo the special effects to campy levels (e.g. The Expendables), which I love, but Collateral Damage seems to take itself too seriously. Many of the scenes involving any sort of excitement are smaller, one-on-one type of fights or hit-and-run terrorist attacks, which aren't always well-done. Arnold carries the fight scenes by (as usual) defeating fairly overwhelming odds, and literally biting a man's ear clean off his head, a Mike Tyson patented move. The violence is very tame for an R rated film (I really have no idea why it's not PG-13), but I think much of that is due to the subject matter of the movie and the fact that the film was slated to come out less than a month after 9/11. The release was pushed back until February 2002, so I'm sure they cut out some particularly eerie scenes (like the one where Sofia Vergara is supposed to hijack a plane) to make it more palatable for audiences. I don't fault the studio for doing what they had to do, but the movie suffers as a result.
The action is really only a symptom of a larger problem: the plot of this movie is ill-conceived and honestly quite poorly explained. There is minimal backstory given to any of the characters, other than the requisite 'Ahnold watched his wife & kid blow up so now he's mad' opening scene. The terrorist's main motivation is really not fleshed out, so whenever he is on screen he seems more like the director's 'deus-ex machina' tool to serve as a barrier for Ahnold than as a separate and distinct character on his own. The idea that a Colombian narco-terrorist is bringing the war against drugs to the good ole' US of A is a decent starting point for a movie, but there needs to be some kind of extra level built on top to make the film a successful one. Collateral Damage just seemed to me like a house that had a solid foundation, but was completed with cardboard and boring personalities. The movie lacks in a key dramatic aspect of the action movie: the constant building of intrigue and intensity. There are definitely scenes where the director tries to build this necessary drama, but he fails time and time again to do anything of the sort. What results is a film that is severely wanting in story and utterly flounders when it comes to keeping the audience involved and on the edge of their collective seats. And isn't that what action movies are really for?
One of the main reasons that I love baseball is the historical aspect of the sport and the ability to compare players across eras better than in other sports. Comparing players across the 130 or so years of organized professional baseball has been made significantly easier by statistic compilation websites like Baseball Reference and Fangraphs, but there will always be one area that cannot be compared whatsoever between today's game and the game that was played at the turn of the 20th century: the names and nicknames of old school players. Today's MLB is full of diversity in names, as players from across the world compete in the league, but is surprisingly lacking in quality nicknames. Far too often, today's fan simply abbreviates a player's name and calls it a nickname (e.g. A-Rod), but the creativity has really left the process. Fortunately, the late 1800s and early 1900s had the baseball names category locked down. I've always been infatuated with old-timey baseball names and have finally compiled a list of the all-time greats by position. I included a starting 9 and filled out a 5 man rotation, but there are still a ton of classics out there, so please let me know who I've missed by posting in the comments section below! Now, without further ado, let me introduce you to the Chicken Wolf All-Stars (the listed team is the one with the best name that the player played for):
How did he get the nickname Candy?
Catcher:Ossee Schrecongost, 1902 Cleveland Bronchos
- Ossee played for 11 seasons from 1897 to 1908, with a variety of teams. This isn't really a nickname, but the name was preposterous enough to fill out our catcher position. Mr. Schrecongost was quite fast for a catcher today; he had three seasons where he registered 5 or more triples!!
1st Base:Candy LaChance, 1896 Brooklyn Bridegrooms
- Candy played for many teams, and had a fabulous mustache, as you can tell by his headshot on the right. I generally don't understand how a man that looks like Mr. LaChance gets the nickname Candy, but I'd love to hear the story. Candy was actually part of the 1903 Boston Americans team that won the World Series, possibly becoming the only stripper-named person to win a championship.
2nd Base:Cupid Childs, 1899 St. Louis Perfectos/1900 Chicago Orphans
- Cupid Childs' nickname is much more understandable, as he looks quite cherubic in his Baseball Reference picture. I had to pick two teams for Cupid, since you can't go wrong with either the Perfectos or the Orphans. I also found it quite funny that he seriously downgraded in team name, and went from riches to rags. On a related note, can we call the 2007 Patriots the Perfectos for purely ironic reasons? Too soon?
Shortstop:Pebbly Jack Glasscock, 1884 Cincinnati Outlaw Reds
- Pebbly Jack Glasscock is one of the superstars of the Chicken Wolf All-Stars, both for his odd nickname and his, frankly, hilarious last name. I'm hoping the Glasscock part was not a nickname of any sort, because I do not want to know how he got it. Pebbly Jack put up a beastly .419 average with 72 hits in 38 games for the 1884 Outlaw Reds, who actually only existed for that one season.
3rd Base:Hick Carpenter, 1881 Worcester RubyLegs
- Hick was born before the Civil War, made his professional ball debut in 1879, and lived to the age of 81. That's all I really have to say about the man, but his picture is decidedly more interesting. Whose hand is grabbing his head? It sure as hell isn't his own, since he would have to be in a very uncomfortable pose or have a detachable arm, which would hurt his burgeoning baseball career. I don't think this mystery will ever be solved...
- Now we get to the real studs on this squad, including Chicken Wolf, the captain and namesake of the all-time old-timey baseball names team. Chicken Wolf had a mediocre 11 year baseball career, but his name was as good as it gets. As you can see by his picture, he also had unbelievable facial hair and personal style. I think he looks like he is either a steamship captain or some kind of World War I German official, both of which are fantastic professions that William Van Winkle Wolf could have explored had he not died at the young age of 41. I'm sure he went out in a suitably spectacular way, like a pistol duel or a horrible prospecting accident.
-WWW, as I'll call him, only played for one season in 1884, but made a lasting impact with his fantastic name. If you click on the link above, you'll be able to see that WWW is black, which is quite odd for 1880s baseball. The Toledo Blue Stockings were actually the only major league team with African-American players (WWW's brother also played for the team) and white players playing together until Jackie Robinson's debut for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947.
Outfield:Peek-A-Boo Veach, 1890 Cleveland Spiders
- Unless he was an adult baby, I don't really get this nickname. Veach was joined in the Peek-A-Boo club by 1990s Olympic skier Picabo Street, who I'm sure was named after the short-lived professional baseball player. Why else would she have such a dumb name?
Starting Pitcher:Old Hoss Radbourn, 1887 Boston Beaneaters
- Old Hoss is the only baseball Hall of Famer on the Chicken Wolf All-Stars, and is regarded as one of the best pitchers of the dead-ball era. In 1884, when playing for the Providence Grays, Radbourn threw an unbelievable 73 complete games and went 59-12 on the year. He was a 300-game winner and had a career winning percentage of .614. No wonder he's a Hall of Famer. Well, that & his awesome nickname.
Starting Pitcher:Urban Shocker, 1927 New York Yankees
- I had to throw in my favorite Yankees name of all-time, and no old-timey baseball names list is complete without the immortal Urban Shocker. Shocker was one of the starters on the Murderer's Row Yankees in 1927 and helped lead them to a World Series title. Shocker has two International League records to his name: longest scoreless innings streak (54) and lowest single season ERA (1.31). He was also the last Yankee to ever throw a spitball in a game, but he will always be remembered (at least by me) for his legendary name.
Starting Pitcher:Pretzels Getzien, 1886 Detroit Wolverines
- This is one of my favorite baseball names ever, since I'm sure he got the name either by being constantly tangled up in his own legs or by loving him some hot pretzel. Pretzels was an unspectacular player over his 9 season career, and definitely didn't make the Chicken Wolf All-Stars for his performance as a pitcher. But his nickname was as good as anybody's, and that's what really counts.
Starting Pitcher:Phenomenal Smith, 1888 Baltimore Orioles
- One of the most nonsensical nicknames of all-time: Phenomenal Smith was decidedly mediocre. He jumped from team-to-team over his 8 seasons in professional baseball, and wasn't particularly 'phenomenal' for any of them. He has a career ERA approaching 4, and only pitched over 200 innings three times. Phenomenal, my ass.
Starting Pitcher: The Only Nolan, 1884 Wilmington Quicksteps
- Were there any other Nolans at the time? Or was The Only Nolan actually the only Nolan? Nolan only played for 5 seasons, and wasn't particularly spectacular in any of them. However, he seems to be the forefather of the modern archetype of the cocky, self-involved athlete in the vein of Chad Ochocinco and Terrell Owens. I guess he will be remembered for that, and his fabulous nickname.
Well, that winds up our whirlwind tour of the Chicken Wolf All-Stars, but the quest for great old-timey baseball names never ends. Please let me know who I might've missed and your personal favorites by commenting on the post. Hope you enjoyed the rundown, and be sure to look to Bobby V's Fake Stache for all of your fictional All-Star team lists!
It's official: Suck for Luck is on in Indianapolis. The Colts just benched their starting QB, the immortal Curtis Painter of Purdue Boilermakers fame, for the great Dan Orlovsky, who hasn't started a game since the 2008 season. For those of you who don't remember Orlovsky's 0-7 performance for the 0-16 Detroit Lions in the only winless 16 game season in NFL history, it wasn't pretty. This is probably the most pertinent highlight (lowlight?) of Orlovsky's from that fateful season (sorry about the poor video quality):
Orlovsky very well could play better than Painter has, but throwing the QB who once accidentally ran out of the back of his own end zone into the fire against the 20 point favorite New England Patriots is almost guaranteed to blow up spectacularly. I know the Pats defense isn't particularly good, but the Colts have a chance to be historically bad this year. And it seems to me that the Colts are actively pursuing that history by making Orlovsky the centerpiece of their offense. We'll see what happens, but Orlovsky could be the only QB in history to play for two 0-16 teams. Let's see if he builds his legacy.
The namesake of this blog is finally relevant again, thank god.
As you may know from either knowing me, or reading this blog, I'm a huge Yankees fan. And baseball is by far my favorite sport. So you may be wondering, why is the blog named after a Mets manager?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not lambasting the Red Sox for picking my mustachioed friend as their manager; one could easily make an argument that he was the best available candidate and has experience managing in a big media market. However, I don't see Valentine's tenure with the Sox as being nearly as successful as Tito Francona's was. Francona had the benefit of a then-revolutionary GM in Theo Epstein and an absolutely loaded lineup featuring Manny Ramirez at his juiced-up best. Bobby V won't get the benefit of either of those. But Francona had something else that Valentine doesn't: the ability to beat the Yankees when it counts and win the division title multiple times.
Valentine's record with the Mets against the crosstown rival Yankees was anything but stellar: 12-18. His Amazin' Mets in 2000 were very nearly swept by the Yankees in the World Series, and only ended up winning one game in the series loss. As any Yankees or Mets fan can tell you, the Subway Series games are often just as intense as games against the Red Sox or Phillies/Braves. Not winning these games was not solely a product of the Mets' talent level, but an indication that Valentine had difficulty winning key rivalry games against elite opposition. This also came up in the games the Mets played against their main divisional competition at the time, the Atlanta Braves. During Valentine's tenure as Mets manager (1996-2002), his teams went 41-59 against the Braves and only made the playoffs twice. The Braves won the division every single year that Valentine was with the Mets. This doesn't bode well for the Red Sox. Valentine is entering a division that is perennially the best and most competitive in baseball, one that the Red Sox have only won once since 1996. The Sox completed the most epic collapse in the history of baseball last September, and the division is only going to get harder this year; the Yankees and Rays will be in the playoff hunt again and don't sleep on the Blue Jays, as GM Alex Anthopoulos is absolutely fleecing teams in trades and building a quality contender in the Great White North.
I think Valentine will be loved by Red Sox fans, as he is a funny guy who doesn't pull punches when it comes to his team (see the infamous Whartongate incident for an example), but much to the Nation's chagrin, he will engender the same feelings among Yankees fans for entirely different reasons. Let's just say that it'll be a fun couple of years with the master of disguise back in the managerial ranks.
Gibbons & Cote in the Evening is back! On this post-Turkey Day podcast, we discuss the NCAA football action from the weekend, the upcoming conference championships, LSU-Bama II, and the NFL's Thanksgiving slate. We also hear about a very interesting news story that isn't sports-related. Check us out on Spreaker!!
As a sports fan, I will remember 2011 not for the Packers winning the Superbowl or the St. Louis Cardinals' amazing run to the World Series title, but for the labor deals (or non-deals in the case of the NBA) that have been the pivotal stories of this year. The NFL and NBA both decided to lockout their players in their respective offseasons and those lockouts led to contentious negotiations and union dissolutions, along with many, many lawsuits filed by both the player and owner sides. The NFL lockout was eventually decided before any actual games (I'm not counting the one cancelled preseason affair) were missed, but the NBA has not been so fortunate. It's still a serious question mark whether the NBA will have any sort of season this year, which is absurd given the insane popularity and success the league enjoyed last season.
With all of this labor chaos unfolding in professional sports, it blows me away that Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association, who have historically been the bitterest of rivals, worked out a 5 year labor deal without a problem. The deal itself is very interesting and it is quite easy to see why the MLBPA had no problem approving it: nothing really changes for today's players. However, future players have had their earning potential severely curtailed by the, in my opinion, draconian new draft bonus pool system.
But before I get into the nitty-gritty of the economics of this new deal, I'll do a quick rundown of what I think of the non-economic aspects of the agreement. First off, the Houston Astros will be moving to the AL West for the 2013 season, which I think is long overdue. I always found it so weird that the leagues didn't have the same number of teams, and this will rectify that issue. Of course, it'll mean that there will be constant interleague play throughout the season, but I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I hope that this will be MLB's first step towards a fully balanced schedule. Personally, I find the current scheduling format terrible and unfair, due to the seemingly random interleague matchups and the fact that divisional rivals play each other too often. It just isn't fair that the Blue Jays and Rays have to deal with the Yanks and Sox almost 20 times each year, while the Tigers get to beat up on crappy teams like the Royals and Indians. Another non-economic aspect of the new deal is the fact that there will be one extra wild card team added to each league's playoffs, and this team will play the other wild card in a one game playoff to decide who advances to face a division winner. I have no problem with this addition, mostly because I am a diehard Yankees fan and this basically ensures that my Yanks will never miss the playoffs again (knock on wood). HGH testing was also added to this new CBA, and I'm extremely glad that baseball is out in front of the performance enhancers issue by being the first American sports league to make HGH testing mandatory. Other issues that were addressed include a semi-ban on smokeless tobacco (who cares), a more extensive replay process (long overdue), and enhanced player safety measures (this seems to be a big issue in all sports today).
And now we get to the fun part of this CBA - the economic issues that really define where professional baseball will be going in the future. Let's begin with the changes to free agency rules, which I am a big fan of. There will no longer be any Type A or Type B free agents, which means that there will be significantly fewer compensation picks doled out to any team that doesn't re-sign its top free agents. Also, for free agents that will actually be worth compensation picks (only the few elite players), picks are only granted if the player stays with one team for the whole season. Gone are the days of teams trading for a year-end free agent solely to pick up the compensation draft picks. Thank god. Other changes to the compensation rules increase the minimum MLB and minor league salaries and make an extra 5% of Super-2 players (those players with between 2 & 3 years of MLB service time) arbitration-eligible each season. This new Super-2 rule may actually be a perverse incentive for teams to hold young players in the minors for even longer so as to delay arbitration eligibility. Currently, this is seen when teams often wait until June or July to call up young stars, and this new rule may lead to even fewer call-ups before rosters are expanded in September.
The changes in revenue sharing are very interesting, and I personally find them refreshing. First, the 15 clubs in the largest markets will be totally ineligible to receive any revenue sharing money starting in 2016. I think this is a good thing, as any team in a big media market has no excuse for not making money. Another long overdue change that was made in this CBA involves what revenue sharing dollars can and cannot be used on. Far too often, owners of teams that receive revenue sharing money use this money for 'debt service', which basically means that the Yankees and Red Sox are paying the personal bills of the owners of teams like the Royals and Athletics. This has been a huge problem with the revenue sharing system since its inception, and the Yankees bring it up every year in a fairly scathing letter they attach to the revenue sharing check they send into the MLB offices. I'm extremely glad that Bud Selig finally realized that this has been an issue, and has addressed it in this CBA. It's definitely one of the big positives that has come out of this new agreement.
Unfortunately, the biggest changes that were made by this CBA are fairly negative in nature, at least in my opinion. I'm talking about the wholesale changes to the amateur signing structure, both in the Rule 4 draft and the international arena. These modifications severely hamper the ability of small-market teams to compete, as most lower-budget teams gain talent almost solely via the draft and international signings. In the Rule 4 draft (the MLB draft of high school & college players), MLB is changing from a 'recommended' slotting system that was almost universally ignored to a signing bonus pool system that comes with heavy penalties for teams that exceed their bonus pool. In the new system, teams will be allotted a specific amount of money for their signing bonus pool, which applies to picks in the first 10 rounds of the draft. Each team will only be able to give signing bonuses up to the bonus pool amount without penalty, and these penalties are severe, to say the least. Penalties include at a minimum a 75% tax on the overage, and this figure goes up to 100% once the bonus pool amount is exceeded by 10%. Any team that exceeds the bonus pool amount by over 5% will lose at least one 1st round draft pick, and teams that go over by more than 15% will forfeit their 1st round picks for the next 2 years. These penalties are extremely harsh, and will realistically only be enforced on small-market clubs. These teams often use large signing bonuses to attract young talent, as they believe their money is better used on amateurs in the draft than on high-priced free agents that are the main targets for big clubs like the Yanks and Sox. This is one of the only areas that small-market teams have an advantage in, and MLB looks to be doing all it can to eliminate that advantage. Major League Baseball is also changing the way teams are allowed to scout and sign international players, which is both good and bad. It is good in that the league is attempting to organize an international draft in the future, which would allow the international signing process to be much more transparent and would help eliminate the often sketchy 'academies' that funnel Latin American talent into the minor leagues. When the international draft is instituted and teams get used to it, the process will be much improved. However, until then the process is as bad as ever. MLB has instituted a similar bonus pool system as the Rule 4 draft for international prospects. The overage penalties are just as harsh as those in the draft, and again, small market clubs are the ones that will feel the hurt the most. On a small positive note, the CBA has a provision that redistributes forfeited picks (as the result of bonus pool overage penalties) to teams based on their winning percentage and revenues, but this is a small consolation prize for small market teams that are being severely hamstrung by the new draft and international signing rules.
When I look at this labor deal, it seems obvious that Major League Baseball, which already has the most capitalist economic system of all the major sports, is heading even further towards a system where cash is truly king. As a Yankees fan, I love this CBA, since it makes it even easier for teams like the Yankees to dominate the talent acquisition market. However, as a fan of the sport of baseball, this deal greatly saddens me. One thing that makes baseball my favorite sport is the fact that on any given day, any team can beat any other team. The randomness of each independent game is so exciting to me, and I would be devastated if this aspect of baseball vanished. Unfortunately, Bud Selig and the MLB seem to heading down that dark path. Just consider this post a eulogy: MLB parity, rest in peace.
Bond, James Bond. This epic 2 part podcast is all about the world of James Bond, and it's a can't miss if you're a fan of the series. We go through each & every Bond flick and discuss our favorite moments, characters, and themes from each. Friend of the pod and fellow Bond aficionado Matt Bernarducci joins in on the action. Check it out on Spreaker and be sure to post your comments on this article!
One might have called the summer of 2011 the height of the superhero movie craze, at least up to this point. According to Forbes, the three big 2011 movies based on Marvel properties (Thor, X-Men: First Class, and Captain America: The First Avenger) grossed over $1 billion worldwide. Superheroes and comic books haven’t had this level of widespread acceptance across the world in a long time, and the superhero film craze does not look to be slowing down. Sequels to Thor and Iron Man 2 are already in the works, as are significant franchise reboots like The Amazing Spiderman and Man of Steel. Even more projects are rumored to be in discussions and many of these involve less widely known heroes such as Deadpool and Ant-Man. Summer 2012 will see the releases of two huge, competing superhero sequels that will dominate the summer blockbuster competition: The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. To me, these two movies define the separate and distinct paths that are being followed in the superhero movie industry.
There are two major comic book companies that have been successful in transitioning their characters and properties to the silver screen: Marvel and DC. I have to admit that I am strongly biased in this case; I first discovered comic books and superhero fiction through Marvel’s Avengers series and, with the robust exception of Batman, I am really not a fan of any DC heroes. Both Marvel & DC have had a long history of developing iconic characters, but over the past few years they have taken wildly divergent paths when it comes to how their characters are presented in film.
DC’s recent approach has been rooted in reality, and has tried to bring the superhero into the real world of today. Movies like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have had extreme success by using this formula, garnering Rotten Tomatoes ratings of 85% and 94%, respectively. Grittiness and realism are very important to this style of filmmaking, and director Christopher Nolan is a master of creating scenes that fit this mold. Batman is an easy character to transform into a more ‘real’ hero, as he has no superpowers and relies on fighting skill, stealth, and high-tech gadgetry to defeat Gotham City’s criminal element. Although the Dark Knight himself might not need much massaging to exist in a more realistic environment, his nemeses most definitely do. Foes like the Joker, Two-Face, and Mr. Freeze are classic villains who all exhibit qualities and characteristics that don’t translate perfectly to the world that Nolan envisioned for his Batman films. The storytellers succeeded in making Batman’s most popular villain, the Joker, viable in this new, gritty Gotham City by transforming him from a comical (if very dark), over-the-top madman into a cold, calculating (yet still quite insane) terrorist kingpin. I think this transformation was executed pretty well, in large part to the late Heath Ledger’s portrayal, but I disagree with the idea of the metamorphosis in general. I am a man who enjoys his superheroes (and villains) more when they are located firmly in the realm of the fantastic and unreal.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I vastly prefer Marvel’s film renditions of its most popular heroes to those of DC. Marvel has stuck to its guns in keeping large elements of fantasy involved in its movie storytelling, and I appreciate this effort. Each of the recent Marvel offerings (the pre-Avengers movies , e.g. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America) retained a true comic book feel by embracing the fantastical aspects so central to the medium. Superheroes are by nature super, and Marvel doesn’t think this should be hidden or downplayed. For example, Thor largely revolved around conflicts that spanned multiple extraterrestrial worlds and included fights with massive automatons and armies of frost giants. In his namesake movie, Captain America led the WWII-era US special forces into battle against the super-Nazi hordes of the Red Skull, who, by the way, looks like this. I think the heavy use of fantasy elements in Marvel movies not only improves the storylines, but also the cinematography and overall artistic direction of the films. This is totally a personal preference, but I like watching superhero movies that are set in bright, visually stunning environments. Marvel’s recent superhero films have had, in my opinion, excellent art direction and have captured the spirit and essence of the comic book worlds. From the golden towers of Asgard in Thor to the expansive mountain lair of the Red Skull in Captain America, Marvel has excelled at envisioning and bringing to life these epic fantasy environments. Altogether, this acceptance of the fantastic has not hurt Marvel’s review scores, as Thor, Captain America, and X-Men all were well-received with scores over 77% on Rotten Tomatoes for each movie.
As one can easily tell by the astounding box office numbers they generate, superhero movies are not a genre of film that is going away anytime soon. Marvel and DC can continue down their separate stylistic paths, and I’m fine with that. One thing that I’m definitely happy about is that audiences around the world seem to have accepted both paths. In the end, I get why people loved The Dark Knight so much, but there will always be a special place in my heart for the superhero movie that embraces the absurd and fantastic nature of the characters it depicts. And in that vein, here’s a trailer for the awesome new Avengers movie coming out in May of 2012.
In sum, that’s the reason that I will see this movie on the day it comes out.
It was an electric moment in Boston's own TD Garden: as Mick Foley was giving hometown hero John Cena the 'This is Your Life' treatment, the People's Champ stormed into the ring to his signature music and proceeded to deliver a huge Rock Bottom that left Foley prone on the mat. Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson left the ring without saying a word, but the message he left was indelible: the Rock was back.
I've been an on-and-off casual wrestling fan since I was in elementary school in the glory days of pro wrestling: the Monday Night Wars between then bitter rivals WWF and WCW. I don't know why the sport (and yes, I'm going to refer to pro wrestling as a sport, even though it is largely scripted) appealed to me, but I've always appreciated the theatre and in-ring interplay between talented wrestlers. Don't get me wrong, bad wrestling can be atrocious, but matches between great performers can be a unique and special mix of high-level athleticism and storytelling. The Rock, as you can see below, is one of these great performers and is the self-proclaimed 'most electrifying man in entertainment'.
Wrestling is unique in that it is the sport, in my opinion, that most involves the fan. Wrestling fans vary wildly in almost all aspects, including the kids who idolize the performers and believe the whole thing is real and the older, wiser fans who know the action is scripted but still tune in. WWE fans also contribute to the action through their fantastic use of signs that deprecate the fictional reality of the sport in very funny ways. Without the in-ring talent, however, the crowd is a resource that can go unused. The great wrestlers don't only have the physical attributes to become superstars, but the microphone skills to keep the diverse crowd hanging on their every word. From Stone Cold Steve Austin's iconic 'What?' chant that is still heard on nearly every episode of Monday Night Raw to the multitude of famous Rock one-liners, the WWE has had its share of catchphrases. But the real test of microphone skills for a WWE superstar comes not in making people laugh or boo, but inducing the crowd into becoming another integral part of the overall performance. A great wrestling crowd can make a good match into a classic, and makes the in-ring action, whether it involves fighting or talking, better and more exciting. The crowd reactions are real, but can at times flow so well with the in-ring action that it seems like a fake soundtrack. The best part of any huge match, move, or announcement is the 'pop' that a true fan favorite can get if he and his fellow entertainers work the crowd right. These moments can be absolutely electrifying. In my opinion, nobody made better use of the crowd as a tool to make his performance truly shine like the Rock does. And as he showed on tonight's episode of Raw by making it seem like no time has passed since the Attitude Era glory days, it's nice to have the Brahma Bull back in the WWE.
Earlier today, the NBA Players' Association executive committee and player representatives unanimously voted down the deal that the owners had offered to them. According to the owners, this was the best deal that the players were going to get, and I agree with them. The players agreed to lower their share of Basketball Related Income (BRI) from 57% under the 2005 collective bargaining agreement to 50% under a possible new agreement already. The owners have stated unequivocally that this is the last deal that will have a 50/50 split of BRI, and the players will not strengthen their position by declining this proposal. They say that the proposed deal is unfair and has clauses in it that are detrimental to players. There are a few clauses that are not beneficial to players, but that is to be expected in a bargaining session when both sides need to compromise. The players are lucky that this deal included a soft cap and a mid-level exception amount at all, and these small matters are not going to swing in the players' favor if this deal is well and truly dead. I do not think that the NBPA negotiators acted in the best interests of the vast majority of players, and I feel bad for those players.
I don't see these two men being in the same room together for quite some time.
This is the letter that NBPA executive director Billy Hunter & president Derek Fisher sent out to players after the negotiating team decided to decline the deal and move down the path towards decertification, which NBA commish David Stern said would lead to "the nuclear winter of the NBA". From a reading of that letter it is clear who has the power in the player camp: the star players and the agents. The star players have no need for a labor union; they would actually have a good chance of making even more money if they weren't bound by the union framework. The union is for the injured veteran, the non-lottery draft picks, and the career journeymen. They are the ones who need the protection afforded by collective bargaining of rights, not superstars like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Dwight Howard. Those guys are no longer merely players, but worldwide brands that rack up millions of dollars in non-basketball-playing income each year. You don't really see many insurance commercials starring guys like Brian Cardinal or Sundiata Gaines; they would be lucky to be an extra in a local car dealership ad without an NBA season. When the executive committee says that it will "dedicate itself to supporting individual NBA players in the assertion of your [their] non-labor rights to be free of any illegal restrictions on competition for your [their] services", it is clear that they are not looking out for the non-superstars: how much non-NBA competition is there for the services of Quincy Pondexter? The vast majority of the 500 or so members of the former NBPA are going to really feel the hurt if they lose the entire season, both in terms of lost income from cancelled games this season and in smaller BRI percentages in the future. Agents are also a driving force behind this move by the negotiators, as they seek only to protect the large commissions they derive from outsize deals like the one the New Jersey Nets gave to Travis Outlaw (5 years, $35 mil for 9.2 ppg and 4 rpg...ouch). They could not care less if players lose wages this season, as they have jobs and a constant flow of income. Agents would do anything possible to protect their wallets, and that is a fact that is working against the majority of the NBA players.
By decertifying this far into the negotiating process, the NBPA is almost totally writing off this season. The NFLPA went this route and was unsuccessful, but they chose to do so much earlier on. The NFLPA's claim was decided in relatively quick fashion, and it still took more than 2 months. The NBA players do not have 2 months to spare before the whole season is in jeopardy. Only time will tell what results from today's action, but looking at it from here it seems like the negotiating committee made the right decision for the superstars and their agents, but the wrong decision for the NBA players who aren't household names.
One of the things that I love about the NFL is just how many great franchises and story lines there are right now. It is the only league where I will watch an entire game between two teams for which I have no rooting interest and be glued to the television. Some great rivalries have emerged in the league recently. The best is probably the Steelers and Ravens. These two teams have dominated the AFC North in recent years ("We're working on it" -Andy Dalton & the Cincinnati Bengals) and the guys on these teams outright dislike each other. It's a fun game to watch, purely because it is so physical, but it is not my favorite rivalry in the league because I dislike both teams. The face of one team is a rapist. The face of the other is a murderer. I can't root for either of these teams.
Maybe my favorite rivalry in the league right now is between the New England Patriots and the New York Jets. There are so many great facets to this rivalry and I love the way that it has played out. If you've been living under a rock for the past decade, the Patriots have been probably the best team in the league since 2001 (I know they haven't won a playoff game in a while but their overall record is still excellent). The Jets have not, but they have a new loud mouth head coach who has built one of the best defenses in the league. Despite Ryan's annual Super Bowl victory guarantees, he has made good on most of his talk, having taken the Jets to the last two AFC championship games.
These two teams have built polar opposite brands over the past decade. In New England, you have Bob Kraft's Patriots, a team led by Tom Brady, probably the definition of a "pretty boy." On the sidelines is Bill Belichick, a 5 time super bowl champ and a 3 time NFL coach of the year. The Patriots are glamorous and live in the spotlight. Even down to their color scheme, mascot and uniforms, the Patriots try to brand themselves as American and...well...patriotic.
The Jets are a scrappy group that has historically been second best even in their own city (they played in "Giants Stadium" for decades). The Jets used to be mediocre and hard to dislike. Now, I can't stand them. These Jets talk trash and they want to prove themselves to the world.
I find the Jets-Pats rivalry to be fairly similar to the way the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry used to be (before the Sox won the World Series and became the same monster as the Yankees) except with the two cities reversed. When it comes to sports, Boston and New York just do not get along. It's interesting to see the tables turned in football with Boston having the proven team and New York having the scrappy underdog.
The thing I love about the Patriots-Jets rivalry right now is that leading up to each game, people in New York get pumped up that they are going to slay the mighty Pats and the people in New England are scared that their dynasty may be coming to an end. I've watched the Pats and listened to far too much sports radio up here in Boston. The secondary is awful, the wide receivers have been flat, they made disastrous signings in the offseason (Ochocinco and Haynesworth) and Belichick has drafted terribly. On the other side of the ball, the Jets defense shuts people down and the offense is...competent? I'm not going to try to get into the head of the average Jets fan, that thought frightens me. The point is, the Jets always pumped up for the Patriots.
And the Patriots still win. I'm not saying that the Jets never beat the Patriots, they did just that last year in Foxboro in the playoffs ("Can't Wait!" -Bart Scott). But last night, at MetLife Stadium (home of the Jets, at least for last night) the Pats won 37-16. The Jets shot themselves in the foot several times, including a play that Rex Ryan called one of the "stupidest" he'd ever seen (yes, "stupidest" is a direct quote from Rex). In my eyes, the biggest reason why the Jets lost was that they could not stop beast tight end and personal friend of porn star Bibi Jones, Rob Gronkowski. As a fantasy owner of his, I love Gronk. The guy is a monster and the Jets had no one who could match up against him all night. Despite this, the majority of ESPN experts picked the Jets last night. The Jets were even favored to win by 1.5 points according to Vegas. Did everyone forget the game a couple weeks in Foxboro where the Patriots solidly dominated?
I'm disappointed that this is the end of the season series between these two teams. These are the two best teams in the AFC East. Saturday's Bills-Cowboys game ran like an episode of the Maury Povich show, only instead of "You are NOT the father," Maury came out and read the test results to the Bills saying "You are NOT a contender." (patting myself on the back for working that clip into this post) After their two wins over the Jets, it looks like the Patriots are going to win that division, but there is plenty of time left. Who knows? Maybe the Jets sneak in as a wild card and we get another matchup between these two teams in the playoffs. I hope so, because when these two teams play, I can't help but get excited about it.
Gibbons & Cote in the Evening is back!! Take a listen for our thoughts on the big sports events of the weekend, including Saturday's great college football games. We also discuss the Penn State scandal, NASCAR, and boxing versus UFC. Check us out on Spreaker!
It seems like an appropriate time to work some music into the Bobby V's Fake Stache blog, a slight (ok, pretty dramatic) departure from the content so far. I have seen my fair share of fantastic concerts and heard my fair share of amazing albums. I'm always on the look out for new music as well. It's important to be open to new music, new stories, new art. However, at least once a year, I make sure that I listen to one of my favorite albums ever, Genesis' The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. With my music taste constantly evolving, I like to remind myself of the brilliance of this album. The first time I heard the album was in 9th grade. I have been a fan of it ever since and have picked up new things every time I listen to it.
I have to preface the rest of this blog post by saying, early Genesis was, for lack of a better word, weird. It's true, I'll admit it. Genesis was one of the innovators of progressive rock in the early 70s, with bands like King Crimson, Yes and Pink Floyd. Some of you may have heard of Genesis, but are familiar with the 80s Phil Collins Genesis. I'm a big fan of that Genesis too, but that's not the band I'm talking about. In the late 60s and early 70s, Genesis was led by front man Peter Gabriel, with Phil Collins on drums and fanastic personnel on all the other instruments. Peter Gabriel, if you can believe it, was even crazier back then than he is now. Gabriel would wear elaborate costumes and create fantastic characters he would portray during shows.
What science fiction is to film and novels, progressive rock was to music and Genesis was pretty out there. It is not music to be listened to in the background of whatever you're doing. Their last album, before Gabriel decided to go solo, was The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway. It is a two hour concept album, which plays like one really long sonic story, following a Puerto Rican from New York who falls into a parallel universe. I can't even begin to describe what the album is "about." There exists an annotation of the album, written by some hard core Genesis fans, which when put into a word document stretches to over 60 pages. Two summers ago, when my roommates and friends all went camping and I stayed back, I listened to the album straight through and followed the annotation. Woah. The brilliance of the writing by Gabriel borders on the insane. The whole album is enigmatic. The final track, called It, describes "it" but never says what "it" is, leaving it up to the listener. Deep.
In this blog, I don't want to delve much into the subject matter of the Lamb (which is far too ambitious for a blog post) but rather the music. I want to take you through my favorite track, In the Cage. Please watch the attached YouTube video of the song.
In this track, the narrator and protagonist finds himself trapped in this parallel world.
1:16 - The main groove kicks in and it's a great use of polymeter. The keyboards and vocals are in 4/4 time (they're playing with 4 beats in a measure) while the bass, guitar, and drums are in 6/8 (6 beats in a measure). The result: 2 beats in the keys and vocals equal 3 beats in the bass, guitar and drums. It's a tough technique to pull off well, but Genesis does.
3:20 - A keyboard solo that blew my mind the first time I heard it. Tony Banks absolutely nails this one. As a 9th grader and piano player, I was always jealous of the guitar. Listening to mainly classic rock at the time, the guitar got all the great solos. When I heard this, it really opened my eyes to how the keyboard could be used. Banks doesn't play this solo like a piano player, he never plays multiple notes at once. He plays it like a lead guitar player and it's brilliant, soloing over complex chord changes effortlessly. He and the rest of the band do a great job of building and leading into...
4:14 - The climax section. The repeating figure in the bass and guitar just makes me wanna nod my head with each time they hit it. The keyboard holds the last note of the solo above the rest of the music throughout. Collins plays the drums on the downbeats with such an intensity. The organ lays down a series of chords that are begging for a resolution.
4:39 - Gabriel's vocals join in again. Gabriel, though far from the best technical singer at this point in his career, sang with such a passion really embodying the mentality of these characters he created. This is one of the biggest climaxes of the album and Gabriel definitely conveys that with the intensity in his voice.
5:40 - The song returns to the main section again, only it becomes more frantic as it continues. The bass is now doing playing in an indecipherable rhythm, which just adds to the disjointedness. This section repeats and fades, the song is virtually over by 7:23 and the rest is transition into the next track.
If you liked what you heard, great! If you didn't, I'm not surprised or offended. It takes a very specific taste in music to appreciate Genesis. I listen to Genesis the same way I listen to classical and orchestral music, not rock music. The Lamb, for what it's worth, may not even be my favorite Genesis album (their best is probably Selling England by the Pound). Regardless, The Lamb always serves as a reminder to me that rock music can be meaningful, technically impressive, and artistic. It is anything but commercial. I've been listening to it for years, I will continue listening to it for years to come, and I will probably never really know what it is about, but I'm gonna keep trying to figure it out.
Edit: Paterno was fired by the PSU Board of Trustees after their meeting Wednesday evening. He will not coach this weekend.
As I sit down to write this post, the news of Joe Paterno's coming end-of-season retirement has just broken. I am not a Penn State fan, nor am I an alumnus of that school. But for some reason, I always have felt some connection to the football team & the university itself. Maybe it was the 6 weeks I spent there in summer of 2005, or the fact that the Nittany Lions were always on TV when I was a kid, or perhaps it was just the respect and admiration I had for Joe Paterno. Throughout this massive and tragic scandal involving former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, I still haven't lost that respect. The man obviously made a mistake in not reporting what was told to him to the police, but he performed his legal duty, according to this Grand Jury report. In that report, all of the horrible things that Sandusky did to children under his watch are chronicled. If you aren't interested in reading the report, be assured that the details are sordid and disgusting and Sandusky should be locked away for life. But there are people that are much more blameworthy than JoePa in this circumstance. AD Tim Curley & business VP Gary Schultz are both under investigation for perjury in front of the Grand Jury and are implicated in an effort to cover up the terrible acts that were perpetrated by Sandusky. However, none of the people at Penn State who learned of the specific event that occurred on PSU's campus had ANY idea that Sandusky was a serial pedophile. A victim came forward in 1998, but was Sandusky was not charged, even as another victim stepped up. Why aren't these local law enforcement authorities catching any heat?
Joe Paterno has largely been bashed in the media recently for his inaction regarding this matter, and it seems to have led directly to his retirement. As written in the Grand Jury report, Paterno did not witness the attack, nor was he told intimate details. He referred the matter to his superiors and the university itself, and they were the ones presented with the details of the eyewitness account. I agree with most pundits in that I think Paterno and everyone else who knew about the attack should have reported it immediately to the police. However, I do not think that this man, who has had such a long track record of community activism & charity, should be crucified for one bad decision that he (and many others who knew) made.
Paterno was an all-time great coach, and is the leader in career victories. He led the Nittany Lions to 2 national championships in his ridiculous 46 years in Happy Valley. He has buildings all across the campus named after him (as well as an ice cream, Peachy Paterno, which is damn good by the way) and is by far the name that people associate most with Penn State University. Some might say that Joe hung on too long, but the man is a legend and has led his team to winning records every year since 2005. It is a shame that something like this scandal will be the last chapter in such an amazing story. I will remember Paterno as a great coach and leader of men, as well as a great man himself. I just wish he went out on top, like he deserves to, but I'm sure that he will be remembered in the future not for this mistake, but for the incredible accomplishments he had with Penn State.
