TheRealMattKain

Oh I wouldn't say that, I bet he takes down a good sassage. Wow, thanks for contributing to the conversation with a vulgar, off-topic ad hominem. My comment was meant (I thought rather obviously, guess not) to be tongue-in-cheek and silly, but it obviously threatened the masculinity of several board members. To all who took umbrage, I apologize. Next time I'm in Wisco, we can run a race. I promise to go easy so you can win (I'll blame it on the tofu and my lack of energy). That way everyone's masculinity can be vindicated.

Actually, I was talking about *my* brother, and he does eat meat (next time I'll get out the blue font). Learn to take a joke, dude.

Here's something to take our minds off of the Brewers. In 1990 the AL Cy Young award ended up going to Bob Welch, who won an astounding 27 games for the A's. However, it really was an amazing year for several pitchers who put together seasons that arguably could have won the Cy Young award in any number of seasons. Looking back, who do you feel should have won the Cy Young award? Bob Welch Pros: 27-6 record - you have to go all the way back to Denny Mclain in 1968(!) to find a pitcher who won more games. Cons: Wins are a poor way to evaluate pitchers (especially when you have a strong offense like the '90 A's behind you), only 127 Ks on 238 innings, walked 77 (mediocre K/BB rate), 126 ERA+ is good but not great. Bobby Thigpen Pros: Saved a MLB record 57 games - the record still stands today. 210 ERA+ is pretty dominant. Cons: Saves are somewhat arbitrary and often based on opportunity rather than performance. 70 Ks, 32 BBs in 88.7 innings - pretty good, but not amazing. Dennis Eckersley Pros: 48 saves (2nd in league). 0.61 ERA and 606 ERA+(!). WHIP of 0.614(!!). 73 Ks to 4 walks is unreal. 2 homeruns and 5 earned runs allowed entire season in 73.3 innings. Cons: Not many cons. About the only thing here is that he pitched 73.3 innings out of the bullpen vs. the 200+ that you might get from a starter. Roger Clemens Pros: 21-6 record. 1.93 ERA and 213 ERA+ are dominant (led league in both). 209 Ks and 54 BBs in 228.3 innings is pretty excellent (led league in K/BB rate). Only gave up 7 HR all season. 7 CG and 4 shutouts. Cons: Again, wins not best indicator of performance. Only finished 4th in the league in Ks, not even in top 5 in innings pitched. Personally, I've got to go with Eck. I think Clemens is a close second, but Eck was insane and put up probably the best season ever for a closer (maybe the best season ever out of the bullpen). Anyone else? MK

Here, here! I couldn't agree more. Some day I want all you meat eating Wisconsinites to come out to the Bay Area for a big grill out. We'll have burgers, brats, and polish sausage for the meat eaters and veggie dogs, fakin bacon (tempeh style, truly delicious), bbq seitan, and grilled eggplant strips for the veggies. Then we can put on our Braun, De la Rosa, and Cocanower jerseys, turn on the Brewer game, cheer wildly for Branyan, collectively groan when Sheets leaves the game with a toothache, and complain endlessly when Yost's bullpen management blows the game. MK

Oh no. Not the "it's not natural" argument. Look around you, and I think that you'll find that 99% of the things in your life aren't "natural". Do you eat processed foods (i.e., soda, canned soups, candy bars, most cookies, chips, white bread, sugary breakfast cereals, most fozen foods)? Bad news - they're not "natural". Better toss 'em out. I hope all your veggies are organic cuz guess what? GMOs and pesticides are definitely not "natural". Airplanes? Dagnabbit! If we were meant to fly, God would have given us wings. Not natural. Wait. Since when is swinging a big wooden stick at a little round ball "natural"? Oh oh, better quit playing baseball. I don't know about you, but I try not to make value judgments based on what people were doing tens of thousands of years ago. The vegetarianism isn't "natural" argument is pretty weak IMHO.

I'm also not a professional athlete, nor do I claim to be. You can blame that on genes, motivation, primary level athletic programs, etc., but it has little to do with the fact that I prefer seitan and natto to a bratwurst and chicken wings. This notion that vegetarianism somehow precludes one from being an elite athlete is a bit baseless and seems better placed in the 1950s than the 21st century. Sure, there's not a lot of vegetarian athletes, but there's also not a lot of vegetarians in general. We're a tiny, tiny minority. Not to mention, any athlete that even *considered* becoming a vegetarian would have to deal with a ridiculous amount of stereotypes, misinformation, and criticism from teammates, fans, and the press. Yeah, all that negativity, peer pressure, and constant condemnation (which ironically usually comes from people with absolutely no background in sports nutrition) probably turns most high level athletes away from vegetarianism. Sort of like, you know, exactly what Prince has to deal with. How many "Prince eats tofu, muscles atrophy overnight" articles and message board posts do we have to read? Nonetheless, I'm not trying to claim that going veggie magically makes one healthy. If you're living off of doritos, mountain dew, marshmallow peeps, and hot dogs, dumping the hot dogs isn't going to fix much. Prince is a heavy set dude with some big-boned genes running the show. Whether he's taking care of that body or not, I don't really know. When he comes up to bat, I think we all have to admit that he doesn't look too fit. He looks like someone that... well... lives off of doritos, mountain dew, and marshmallow peeps. Mix this in with NL pitchers figuring him out and a disgruntled attitude over contract negotiation, and I'm not really surprised his numbers have declined. Probably not. He eats meat. MK

Wow. I guess I forgot what it's like to live in the Midwest. This sort of close-minded attitude towards vegetarianism seems so antiquated. Do people really think like this, or is this supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? Anyway, I just got back from weight-training so excuse me while I go make a disgusting, protein-rich tempeh sandwich. signed, A healthy, vegetarian athlete who can probably out-run, out-swim, out-bike, and out-lift 99% of the people on this message board

danzig6767 wrote: I was wondering about this too. I've actually always had the impression that he gets hammered in the first, and then cruises from there on out (but this might be from 1 or 2 games from last year). Here's some numbers tracking how hitters do against Bush in each inning over his career: (Sorry, I have no clue how to format this. Anyone want to PM me how? BBC codes don't seem to work here.) BA OBP SLG OPS 1st inning .311 .373 .500 .873 2nd inning .273 .323 .464 .788 3rd inning .241 .294 .400 .694 4th inning .219 .282 .384 .666 5th inning .276 .315 .435 .750 6th inning .285 .320 .478 .798 7th inning .273 .310 .477 .787 Bush gets killed in the 1st, gets a little better in the 2nd, rolls in the 3rd and 4th, and starts struggling again in the 5th (I left out the 8th and 9th since the sample size was very small).

Just some more thoughts on if Kendall is doing a good job with our pitchers. Obviously the following stats are influenced by a HUGE range of factors (defense, personnel changes, schedule, luck), but I thought it would be interesting to compare some basic numbers between our '07 and '08 pitching staffs. 2007: ERA: 4.41 ERA+: 101 K/Inning: .81 BB/Inning: .35 HR/Inning: .11 2008 ERA: 4.66 ERA+: 91 K/Inning: .72 BB/Inning: .44 HR/Inning: .14 Our ERA is worse, we're walking more, we're striking out less, and we're giving up more homers. As bad as our pitching was last year, it's even worse 1/4 of the way through this season. What, if any, contribution does Kendall have to all of this or should we assume that we would be far worse without him?

I'm a little confused about this whole "handling the pitchers" line that keeps coming up in regards to Kendall. We're currently sporting a team ERA of 4.64 - good for second to last in the NL. Our team WHIP is 1.50 - second to last in the NL. We're 11th in the NL in strikeouts, and we've walked the 4th most batters in the NL. What exactly is Kendall doing in terms of "handling the pitchers" that's so great? It seems to be based on reputation more than anything else. Does anyone care to give some numbers that try to prove or at least argue that Kendall is somehow helping our pitchers? I'm not interested in anecdotal stuff - I'd like to see the stats to back up his reputation.

Let's face it, over the past 2 years his K rate has gone down, his walk rate has gone up, and his homerun rate has gone up. The major defense independent peripherals (so far) do not look good for Bush. Heck, if he keeps up his current numbers, we're talking about 42 or 43 homeruns over 200 innings. That's terrible (the saddest part is that he doesn't even have the worst homerun rate on the team). Maybe we just have to accept the idea that 2006 was a career year for Bush, and now, for whatever reason, he's declining. Granted he's only a little over 45 innings into the season, but if anyone wants to put money on these number getting much better (or anywhere near what they were in 2006), please send me a PM: 2006 K/Inning = .79 BB/Inning = .18 HR/Inning = .12 2007 K/Inning = .72 BB/Inning = .24 HR/Inning = .14 2008 K/Inning = .51 BB/Inning = .39 HR/Inning = .21 Edit: I meant "2006" where I typed "2005"

Wow, Mike Adams just pitched 2 scoreless innings for the Padres! I was wondering where he went. I was at the game in SF a few years back when he got pulled and Turnbow eventually came in to get the save and take over the closer role. Unbelievable that at the time Adams was our best option to close until Turnbow took over. I'll never forget the nervous look on his face. Yikes.

Realistically, what does next year hold for Gagne? Say hypothetically he loses the closer job, tanks in a middle relief role, and finishes the season with an ERA over 5 or 6. Add this to Mitchell Report allegations and a not-so-blemish-free injury history, is there any way that Gagne could be out of baseball next year? Someone would have to take a league minimum flyer on him, right? Then again, part of me wouldn't be shocked one bit if we never see Gagne again after this year. For some reason I found great relief and relaxation in this possibility.

Names out of a hat? Someone please tell me this isn't real. This must be a joke, right?

Has anyone noticed that over the past few seasons our catchers have really performed well offensively in the first month of the season? It especially seems like they've been hitting a ton of doubles. Check out these numbers (BA/OBP/SLG/OPS): Chad Moeller (March/April 2004): .245/.351/.449/.800 Damian Miller (March/April 2005): .304/.368/.406/.774 Damian Miller (March/April 2006): .302/.384/.492/.876 (9 doubles) Johnny Estrada (March/April 2007): .312/.346/.455/.800 (8 doubles) Jason Kendall (March/April 2008): .328/.378/.448/.826 (8 doubles) Weird, eh? Even Moeller had a pretty good start back in '04. The only downside is that in each case, their offensive numbers regressed as the season went on. Obviously Kendall's numbers will come down as well (partly because he's hitting way over his head, partly because catcher is such a grueling position), but let's hope that we don't see a repeat performance of the last 5 years (awesome March/April -> mediocre to terrible rest of season). Matt Kain

Good point. I'm 30, and I'm looking to retire around age 60-65.

That was one of the first things I tried. I went to my bank (Wells Fargo - I live in California) and met with the retirement specialist. It did not go well. It's a long, long story (which I'll share if anyone is interested), but our conversation resulted in my banker crying. Needless to say, after this experience, I have little to no confidence in the opinions of anyone at Wells Fargo. MK

Anyone have any advice for opening an IRA? I have a little less than a month to get my 2007 Roth IRA started. I'm new to investing, so I'm looking for something that will work well for a beginner. At present I'm looking at the 2040 Life Cycle or Target Date mutual funds offered by Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price. They all have very low expense ratios, no loads, and are auto-adjusted over time (more aggressive early on, more conservative later on). On the other hand, I've read that it might be better to just get a low expense ratio index fund (like the Vanguard S&P 500 fund) since few mutual funds (inlcuding the Target Date/Life Cycle funds) beat the market index. I'm a complete newcomer to this so any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated, Matt Kain

Couldn't agree more. 1984 was a high-point for '80s comedy and an unbelievable year for genre pics. Along with the movies you listed there's also DUNE, BEVERLY HILLS COP, GREMLINS, NEVERENDING STORY, BUCKAROO BANZAI, REPO MAN, FIRESTARTER, MISSING IN ACTION, CLOAK AND DAGGER, LAST STARFIGHTER (not one, but two videogame movies!). It's a midnight movie marathon's dream come true. Don't forget that not only did the Coens get their start in 1984, but so did Jim Jarmusch with STRANGER THAN PARADISE. Two heavyweights of American indie cinema that still rule the scene today. A couple memorable foreign films: Miyazaki had a huge success with NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WINDS, Lars Von Trier released the dreary, fragmented ELEMENT OF CRIME. In Hong Kong Sammo Hung's WHEELS ON MEALS dazzled audiences (another "3 Brothers" movie starring Sammo, Jackie Chan, and Yuen Biao and featuring an epic and controversial fight between Jackie and Benny The Jet Urquidez), the gritty LONG ARM OF THE LAW paved the way for John Woo's "heroic bloodshed" Triad thrillers, Chow Yun-fat achieved super-stardom with HONG KONG 1941, Tsui Hark released his wonderfully witty SHANGHAI BLUES, and the end of Shaw Studio's stranglehold on HK cinema was marked by the tragic death of mega-star Alexander Fu Sheng during the filming of 8 DIAGRAM POLE FIGHTER (Fu Sheng died during the filming in '83 actually, but I believe the film was released in '84). Matt Kain

I wouldn't say FANNY AND ALEXANDER was exactly shut out. It did win 4 awards (including coveted ones like best foreign film and cinematography) and was nominated for 2 others. Still, Bergman's never won an Oscar, and this strikes me as either incredibly strange or incredibly revealing of how irrelevant the Oscars are. Nonetheless, FANNY AND ALEXANDER is a great film, but I wouldn't say it's Bergman's best work. I'll take PERSONA, WILD STRAWBERRIES, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE, SARABAND, VIRGIN SPRING, THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY, or SEVENTH SEAL over it any day. Which is really a testament to how incredible Bergman's work is. FANNY AND ALEXANDER would be a crowning achievement for most directors. By the way, I always liked Linda Hunt's performance, but the more I think about it, you're right. It's really gimmicky. Reminds me of a certain someone from this year that was nominated for a mediocre performance where they put on trousers, lowered their voice, and played a fella (cough, Cate Blanchet, cough). Matt Kain

A couple more thoughts on 1983... I think it's imperative to give a hats-off to Robert Bresson's final film, L'ARGENT. In my opinion, this is easily the best film of the year and arguably one of the great movies in all of film history. Bresson's movies can be challenging and a bit rough for the uninitiated, but few directors approached Bresson's ability to synthesize film form and storytelling to reach such elegiac, profound heights. L'ARGENT is no exception. Powerful commentary on capitalism, Christianity, and the struggle to define morality in a world where random, terrible events happen to ordinary people. Also, just as Bresson's career was coming to an end, another French director was getting started. 1983 saw the start of Luc Besson's career with the US release of the excellent LE DERNIER COMBAT. It's a truly unique movie - imagine Mad Max meets Jacques Tati. I would also have put RUMBLE FISH in with the best pics. One of my favorites from Coppola - wonderfully shot and great performances from Matt Dillon and Mickey Rourke. Hong Kong side note. Lots of great stuff came out in HK in '83, but I'll just mention a few highlights: ZU: WARRIORS OF THE MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Looks a little cheesy today, but Tsui Hark took special effects to a level never before seen in Hong Kong cinema and paved the way for the wildly popular BRIDE WITH WHITE HAIR and CHINESE GHOST STORY franchises. HEALTH WARNING (aka FLASH FUTURE KUNG-FU): Kirk Wong's post-apocalyptic vision of grim kung-fu heroes taking on video game obsessed nazis. As strange and intriguing as they come. I'm still waiting for a widescreen DVD release. CHAMPIONS: Twenty years before Stephen Chow's SHAOLIN SOCCER came the first true movie mixture of soccer and martial arts. Yuen Biao and the always well-dressed Dick Wei show of some jaw-dropping and non-CGI-enhanced moves. PROJECT A: Blame Jackie Chan for my boredom with most US action films. It doesn't get much better than watching Jackie fall 2 stories from a clock tower and, in the same shot, get up and deliver dialogue (no cuts, no CGI). Amongst Jackie's best work as a director and one of the great HK films of the decade. Matt Kain

Number (gulp!) 2 on the 2000 AFI comedy list. TOOTSIE has plenty of fans - no doubt about that. I guess there's two ways of asking the question:1. Given a movie's historical and cultural context, how is it viewed critically today? 2. If a movie were *released* today (i.e., no one had ever seen or heard of the movie), how would it be viewed critically? In both cases, we probably want to think about how the question would be answered by so-called movie pundits, Academy voters, and everyday viewers. There are, of course, problems with taking the question 1 approach. I do not believe that most critics or Academy members would be able to give an objective opinion about a movie that has been canonized or is considered iconic (but I realize that this is what you're trying to do). Does anyone really believe that most industry insiders (and most importantly for this discussion, Academy voters) would trash or harangue some *classic* film if polled today? Of course not. The AFI lists prove this. This isn't to say that critical opinion doesn't change over time (many movies that were once thought to be irrelevant are now thought of as major or highly influential works) - I just think that for the most part people don't challenge the general consensus when it comes to art. Question 1 also assumes that we must view a movie based not simply on quality, but also on influence (which I totally and completely agree is important). As per your AIRPLANE! comments, I have no qualms admitting that it was an influential film. I simply don't see it as a *good* film (lots of bad movies are influential) or a movie that really holds up today. Going back to TOOTSIE, if we use question 2, I am convinced that it would flop. Try showing TOOTSIE to viewers who have never seen the movie and have never been taught to believe that it's a "classic" comedy. I really don't think it would do so well. Matt Kain

I couldn't agree more. BLADE RUNNER was robbed, and E.T. is great sc-fi. I would have liked to have seen SOPHIE'S CHOICE get nommed, but oh well. Being a software engineer and spending most of my teenage years dreaming of becoming a video game programmer, I confess to a certain bias. That being said, I think TRON is a wonderful film. I watched this just a couple of years ago, and was amazed at how impressive the special effects still look. I'll take the beauty of TRON's hand-painted and rotoscoped cells over today's mounds of hackneyed CGI slop any day. I couldn't disagree more. I think TOOTSIE is one of the most over-rated films of all-time. Lowest common denominator, guy-in-drag humor. A tired cliche that has been seen countless times. Heck, I got sick of this sort of joke from watching Bugs Bunny shorts in grade school. The only thing missing from TOOTSIE is a pie in the face and a slip on a banana peel. TOOTSIE has coasted on Hoffman's reputation and a lack of hindsight for 25 years. No way this would get nommed if released today. I'm hard pressed to believe that it would have much better critical reception than the whole SCARY MOVIE, DATE MOVIE, etc. cycle. Robert, I think we have very different taste in comedy. Other 1982 favs: FITZCARRALDO (mentioned, but should have received a best picture nomm), LIQUID SKY (too avant-garde to ever get Academy notice), FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH (another classic '80s teen movie), and THE PRODIGAL SON (Hong Kong film by Sammo Hung, huge step forward in martial arts choreography and often considered to contain one of the finest Wing Chun fights ever committed to celluloid). In addition to THE PRODIGAL SON it was another exciting year for Hong Kong cinema: start of the massively popular and influential Bond spoof series ACES GO PLACES, more great New Wave films for art cinema lovers (NOMAD, BOAT PEOPLE), and early works from some of the most influential action stars of the next 2 decades including SHAOLIN TEMPLE (Jet Li's first film), MIRACLE FIGHTERS (early stuff from Yuen Woo-Ping), and NINJA IN THE DRAGON'S DEN (early work from Corey Yuen-kwai). Look forward to more of your thoughts, Robert. Matt Kain

I was so inspired by this thread that I rewatched CADDYSHACK, AIRPLANE!, and BLUES BROTHERS this week, and I still feel that I must disagree. In my opinion, AIRPLANE! feels like little more than a terribly long MAD TV sketch. The storyline is trite, some of the acting is atrocious (Kareem, for example), and 95% of the humor relies on throw-away puns and language misunderstandings that get old after the first 15 minutes. BLUES BROTHERS, on the other hand, has a more engaging story and some superb music, but after nearly 3 decades I think very little of the humor stands up. BLUES is a purely generational movie that I'm sure people that saw it in 1980 still hold an affinity for. However, show it to a group of 20-somethings today, and I think it would get few laughs. Personally, I really like the story in CADDYSHACK. A classic underdog tale, but with scraps of '80s edginess infused (drug use, pregnancy). The way the various storylines are woven together in the finale is perfect comic writing (the intersecting storylines reminds me a bit of an episode of Seinfeld). Not to mention classic efforts from Dangerfield, Chase, and Murray. Don't forget the Chinese Fifth Generation directors (Zhang Yimou, Chen Kaige) - I'm sure many Americans' first exposure to Chinese cinema was through a Zhang film (especially important when discussing '80s cinema). Although not nearly as influential as the others, it's also worth mentioning the Taiwanese New Wave (Hou Hsiao Hsien, Edward Yang, and Tsai Ming-liang are widely acclaimed and admired directors), the Chinese Sixth Generation directors (Zhang Yuan, Wang Xiaoshuai, and the always-hypnotic films of Jia Zhang-ke), and the current breakthrough of Thai art cinema (Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Pen-ek Ratanaruang, Wisit Sasanatieng, the Pang Brothers). Matt Kain

I guess I need to qualify my DAS BOOT comments. Even though it was released in Germany in 1981, it didn't get a US release until 1982 (and hence became eligible for an Academy Award in '82 not '81). This really confuses my argument, so take it for what it's worth (and begins to shed light on some of the strange and often unfair Academy rules - especially concerning foreign films. But that's getting off topic...). I still see DAS BOOT as the best film of '81. And, for the record, I'm totally behind RAGING BULL as best picture of 1980. MattKain