Jump to content

“The Streak” Thread


NelsonCruuuuuz

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, BMann said:

Yeah, I was in my late 20s in '93, still a few years from having kids, so The Sandlot wasn't on my radar. Watched it a few years ago and thought it was OK, nothing special. But I can see how kids who grew up with it might love it. I was just born at the wrong time.

Maybe the thing that sets The Sandlot apart from most other baseball movies is that kids playing baseball is a lot more believable than adult actors playing baseball.  In almost every baseball movie about major leaguers, at least to some extent, you have to suspend disbelief that these guys are actually really good ballplayers.  Because they're clearly not. Maybe it's easier with period pieces like The Natural or Eight Men Out because your mind already kind of recalibrates what 1920 or 1935 is supposed to look like.  Just about every movie with Babe Ruth is super cringy because they feel the need to make a goofy fat guy play arguably the best player who ever lived. I love Major League, but you really have to suspend disbelief to think 90% of those guys could play rookie ball, much less be in the Majors.

Bad News Bears, Sandlot, they're believable because they're really just kids playing baseball like kids play baseball.  But even The Sandlot doesn't completely escape (hopefully not too much of a spoiler) because the cheesiest part of the movie is Benny on the Dodgers at the end.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IPlayGM said:

My golfing buddies get on me the same way for never seeing Caddyshack.

I know at least two people who work Caddyshack quotes into their daily lives.  All the time.  That's kind of an epic sports movie for someone to not have seen, even if you're not a golfer.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Maybe the thing that sets The Sandlot apart from most other baseball movies is that kids playing baseball is a lot more believable than adult actors playing baseball.  In almost every baseball movie about major leaguers, at least to some extent, you have to suspend disbelief that these guys are actually really good ballplayers.  Because they're clearly not. Maybe it's easier with period pieces like The Natural or Eight Men Out because your mind already kind of recalibrates what 1920 or 1935 is supposed to look like.  Just about every movie with Babe Ruth is super cringy because they feel the need to make a goofy fat guy play arguably the best player who ever lived. I love Major League, but you really have to suspend disbelief to think 90% of those guys could play rookie ball, much less be in the Majors.

Bad News Bears, Sandlot, they're believable because they're really just kids playing baseball like kids play baseball.  But even The Sandlot doesn't completely escape (hopefully not too much of a spoiler) because the cheesiest part of the movie is Benny on the Dodgers at the end.

Good point. John Goodman as "The Babe" was probably the worst offender of what you describe, but as you also note, there are MANY "actors playing athletes (esp baseball players)" that don't come close to pulling it off. Maybe that's why the original "The Longest Yard" remains one of my favorite sports films - Burt Reynolds was clearly a decent athlete, having played at FSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Very interesting Voth’s quotes on the video analysis and data available in Baltimore that he wasn’t accustomed to. I have no idea if that is truly making a difference with these guys but you can certainly make an argument it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Maybe the thing that sets The Sandlot apart from most other baseball movies is that kids playing baseball is a lot more believable than adult actors playing baseball.  In almost every baseball movie about major leaguers, at least to some extent, you have to suspend disbelief that these guys are actually really good ballplayers.  Because they're clearly not. Maybe it's easier with period pieces like The Natural or Eight Men Out because your mind already kind of recalibrates what 1920 or 1935 is supposed to look like.  Just about every movie with Babe Ruth is super cringy because they feel the need to make a goofy fat guy play arguably the best player who ever lived. I love Major League, but you really have to suspend disbelief to think 90% of those guys could play rookie ball, much less be in the Majors.

Bad News Bears, Sandlot, they're believable because they're really just kids playing baseball like kids play baseball.  But even The Sandlot doesn't completely escape (hopefully not too much of a spoiler) because the cheesiest part of the movie is Benny on the Dodgers at the end.

I loved the 2005 remake of Bad News Bears even more than the original, especially because of Sammi Kane Kraft's performance as the team-saving tomboy pitcher. It was such a shock to find out years later that she had passed away at the age of 20.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IPlayGM said:

Very interesting Voth’s quotes on the video analysis and data available in Baltimore that he wasn’t accustomed to. I have no idea if that is truly making a difference with these guys but you can certainly make an argument it is.

Well it certainly isn’t hurting them, that’s for sure.

More info can only be a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Well it certainly isn’t hurting them, that’s for sure.

More info can only be a good thing.

If it is ranked, presented, taught, and absorbed in a way that is adaptive, but consistent and can be integrated well into the player's skill set. I.e., the manager, coaches, and daily regimen are a huge intangible factor. During the Duquette & Showalter years, I think that clarity and synchrony were often lacking.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BMann said:

Good point. John Goodman as "The Babe" was probably the worst offender of what you describe, but as you also note, there are MANY "actors playing athletes (esp baseball players)" that don't come close to pulling it off. Maybe that's why the original "The Longest Yard" remains one of my favorite sports films - Burt Reynolds was clearly a decent athlete, having played at FSU.

I love John Goodman, but he was a ridiculous Ruth.  Teenage Babe probably weighed 180 or something.  Goodman was bigger and much less athletic than Walter Young or Calvin Pickering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In almost every baseball movie about major leaguers, at least to some extent, you have to suspend disbelief that these guys are actually really good ballplayers.

One of my favorite things about Major League is that the Yankees MVP slugger Haywood is portrayed by Pete Vukovich.   Pitchers can really hit, man.

I too have never seen The Sandlot all the way through.    Now that I have a 7-year old, the circle of life is I guess coming around again to its spot in the batting order.    Recently another 1st grade mom was sharing about their family's watch with their kid, and from the 2020's perspective of what she was trying to teach her boy, one of her takeaways was in the ballpark of "you do NOT kiss Wendy Pfeffercorn that way"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LA2 said:

I loved the 2005 remake of Bad News Bears even more than the original, especially because of Sammi Kane Kraft's performance as the team-saving tomboy pitcher. It was such a shock to find out years later that she had passed away at the age of 20.

I think the original was much better but I did enjoy Billy Bob Thornton as Buttermaker 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Orioles4Life21 said:

I think the original was much better but I did enjoy Billy Bob Thornton as Buttermaker 

Better movie structurally and script-wise, yes, but I was allergic to Tatum O'Neal at the time, and had long been tired of Matthau's shtick.

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...