Jump to content

“The Streak” Thread


NelsonCruuuuuz

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, BRobinsonfan said:

By far, you have been my favorite OH contributor since I joined this board in September of 2003.  In 19 years I think this is the only time I have so completely and violently disagreed with you.  Field of Dreams is not just the greatest baseball movie of all time, it's the GREATEST movie of all time.  I once broke up with a girl because she thought it was a silly movie about grown men in a corn field.  If DrungoHazewood could be so wrong about this what else is he wrong about???  It's like growing up to find out Brooks Robinson bet on baseball, cheated on his wife, regularly kicked his dog, and sold nuclear secrets to the Russians.  I just don't know what to believe anymore.  

Be better DrungoHazewood.  Be better.  

 

 

😉

:)

I admit that when I watch it it's pretty emotional and gripping.  It's a good movie.  I've been to Dyersville and walked into the corn field.  But I also am not at all a fan of Shoeless Joe Jackson hagiography, this whole oh he and the Black Sox are victims narrative.  He took $5000 to throw the World Series.  He's lucky he didn't end up in jail.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moshagge3 said:

Sandlot is "right up there" with the Bad News Bears in the sense that Nickelback is "right up there" with the Beatles.

If I didn't alienate enough people with putting The Sandlot and the Bad News Bears on the same plateau, I also always thought the Beatles were a little overrated.  Zeppelin, too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If I didn't alienate enough people with putting The Sandlot and the Bad News Bears on the same plateau, I also always thought the Beatles were a little overrated.  Zeppelin, too.

I mean, they're so famous it would be hard for them to be underrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I forgot Bull Durham, probably because I haven't seen it in a loooong time. I need to rewatch it.

This is like the cinematic equivalent of you forgetting John McGraw!?!?

Worthy follow-ups like Major League 4.7.1989 and Field of Dreams 4.21.1989 were just following the trail Bull Durham 6.15.1988 blazed, like the Orioles going all opener-bullpen attack on Tampa this weekend.   It has real baseball soul, and is actually about baseball to some small extent.    The other two are just for laughs and about parenthood.

I have to declare the bias of it being the first R-rated movie I remember getting past the ticket booth cops for in adolescence, but even actively trying to do so, I don't feel there's anything else close.

The screenwriter is on B-Ref and was maybe filming an autobiography, or at least there's genuine baseball heart in the artist's rendering.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=shelto003ron

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

This is like the cinematic equivalent of you forgetting John McGraw!?!?

Worthy follow-ups like Major League 4.7.1989 and Field of Dreams 4.21.1989 were just following the trail Bull Durham 6.15.1988 blazed, like the Orioles going all opener-bullpen attack on Tampa this weekend.   It has real baseball soul, and is actually about baseball to some small extent.    The other two are just for laughs and about parenthood.

I have to declare the bias of it being the first R-rated movie I remember getting past the ticket booth cops for in adolescence, but even actively trying to do so, I don't feel there's anything else close.

The screenwriter is on B-Ref and was maybe filming an autobiography, or at least there's genuine baseball heart in the artist's rendering.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=shelto003ron

 

It's soul is a chick flick (no disrespect intended) romantic comedy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

This is like the cinematic equivalent of you forgetting John McGraw!?!?

Worthy follow-ups like Major League 4.7.1989 and Field of Dreams 4.21.1989 were just following the trail Bull Durham 6.15.1988 blazed, like the Orioles going all opener-bullpen attack on Tampa this weekend.   It has real baseball soul, and is actually about baseball to some small extent.    The other two are just for laughs and about parenthood.

I have to declare the bias of it being the first R-rated movie I remember getting past the ticket booth cops for in adolescence, but even actively trying to do so, I don't feel there's anything else close.

The screenwriter is on B-Ref and was maybe filming an autobiography, or at least there's genuine baseball heart in the artist's rendering.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=shelto003ron

 

I didn't see Field of Dreams or Bull Durham in the theater, but I actually took a date to see Major League. So that'll always be high on the list for me. All of them came out when I was a junior/senior in high school. Even though I appeared to be 12* at the time, I don't remember any problems getting into R-rated movies.

* Guy at Memorial Stadium laughed at me on beer stein night when I was maybe 20 years old ("no way kid!"), but I got my revenge later that winter when I got the 14-and-under hockey stick at the Caps game.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

It's soul is a chick flick (no disrespect intended) romantic comedy.

 

I'd agree with that.    That's just baked into almost anything the Hollywood storytelling industry complex will put out, just riffing on William Shakespeare and Jane Austen.    Human pair-bonding an evergreen story element.

Annie-Nuke-Crash, Bella-Edward-Jacob if it needs to be more complicated than Romeo-Juliet and something aside from a 3rd interested individual keeping 2 people apart, etc.    I feel Shelton met the Hollywood technical requirements to get the bandwidth he needed to tell some of the baseball story he wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chelsea_Phil said:

I’ll stand by my unpopular opinion of the sandlot.  So ‘the natural’ was different than the book, so what?

and, again as it seems to be a minority opinion, I think the tearjerker ‘bang the drum slowly’ with a super young De Niro is right up there.

The Natural is another one that I will watch and enjoy the heck out of, but still have these lingering issues about how they could have done it differently.  Someone needs to remake the Natural (Tim Burton? Herzog? Coens?  Someone who can really pull off depressing and weird) and stay true to the book, so at the end Roy strikes out, then is met outside the stadium by a kid with a newspaper that says "Hobbs suspected in gambling scheme", and he just weeps as the credits roll.

Bill James once wrote that the lesson of Malamud's book was that no matter what you do nothing ever works out in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The magic of the internet and B-Ref in about five clicks has gotten me to the 1971 Rochester Red Wings team page, about the end of the line for future screenwriter Shelton.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/team.cgi?id=337a85a1

Baylor, Grich, Crowley...pretty much expected to see them.     But Johnny Oates and Ray Miller played for that team too!

Now I wonder if Crash Davis is Johnny Oates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

The magic of the internet and B-Ref in about five clicks has gotten me to the 1971 Rochester Red Wings team page, about the end of the line for future screenwriter Shelton.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/team.cgi?id=337a85a1

Baylor, Grich, Crowley...pretty much expected to see them.     But Johnny Oates and Ray Miller played for that team too!

Now I wonder if Crash Davis is Johnny Oates.

Steve Dalkowski inspired Nuke LaLoosh.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

The magic of the internet and B-Ref in about five clicks has gotten me to the 1971 Rochester Red Wings team page, about the end of the line for future screenwriter Shelton.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/team.cgi?id=337a85a1

Baylor, Grich, Crowley...pretty much expected to see them.     But Johnny Oates and Ray Miller played for that team too!

Now I wonder if Crash Davis is Johnny Oates.

Damn, Dutch Weems batted 1.000 on that team .  Is that the Weems of this forum who passed away last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...