I wouldn’t call Field of Dreams bad, but I enjoyed the book, Shoeless Joe, so much more a few years earlier. (Partly because a college pal pulled a used copy from a dusty shelf at an off-campus store and said it was just the book for me.)
Off topic, my favorite baseball book is If I Never Get Back by Darryl Brock.
On topic, I do imho consider For The Love of the Game to be a (very) bad baseball movie, however I respect and defer to the poster's perspective of "If you have ever pitched," because I most definitely never did.
Along with Shoeless Joe I’d list You Know Me Al, The Great American Novel and The Natural. That about exhausts the baseball fiction I’ve read, though. Despite the great reviews, I haven’t even managed to get to The Art of Fielding.
Ball Four is a classic by Jim Bouton. But I never liked Costner movies, especially the schmaltzy baseball stuff.
I really like Bull Durham, but the speech Crash gives to Annie that everyone else loves makes me cringe. The Crash/Annie romance is the part of the movie that as far as I'm concerned could have been left on the cutting room floor.
and the film gets extra points with me for having The Smithereens on the soundtrack
Ball Four is a classic by Jim Bouton. But I never liked Costner movies, especially the schmaltzy baseball stuff.
Field of Dreams: schmaltzy. Bull Durham: “It’s not ‘woolly.’ Nobody gets woolly. Women get weary. They don’t get woolly. Nobody’s got ‘stress.’ They’re wearing a dress. God damn, I hate people that get the words wrong.”
Ball Four for favorite nonfiction. Also The Glory of Their Times and, sentimentally (aka schmaltzy), The Wax Pack.
Random question - if you have a retractable roof should you have it closed if it's not raining, but it is really windy? I think it should have been a requirement for the teams in the Northeast, and Minnesota, that built new stadiums to have retractable roofs. But I suppose then the Yankees couldn't have had their fans sitting around for 3 hours last week spending money waiting for a game that had no chance at being played.
I think it should have been a requirement for the teams in the Northeast, and Minnesota, that built new stadiums to have retractable roofs.
My favorite characteristic of Citizens Bank Park is how open it is, from Ashburn Alley to the concourses. I don’t think you get that with a retractable-roof design.
My favorite characteristic of Citizens Bank Park is how open it is, from Ashburn Alley to the concourses. I don’t think you get that with a retractable-roof design.
Agreed, and I love the design of CitiField. I'm just not too fond of sitting through a game when it's 43 degrees out, though I would gladly take that option instead of waiting until next year.
I wouldn’t call Field of Dreams bad, but I enjoyed the book, Shoeless Joe, so much more a few years earlier. (Partly because a college pal pulled a used copy from a dusty shelf at an off-campus store and said it was just the book for me.)
One of my favorite books but Definitely my favorite movie.
In response to two posts above. The Art of Fielding is wonderful and I also always hated the Costner/Bull Durham soliloquy. The definition of cringe worthy.
I think this is a great sentiment from Howie Rose:
"Congratulations to the Phillies. Well earned. However, epic fail by FS1. Read the graphic. “Advance to World Series”? Goodness. Now matter how hard MLB tries, this is not the NHL or NBA. The Phillies WON THE PENNANT. Three of the most romantically beautiful words in sports."
I think this is a great sentiment from Howie Rose:
"Congratulations to the Phillies. Well earned. However, epic fail by FS1. Read the graphic. “Advance to World Series”? Goodness. Now matter how hard MLB tries, this is not the NHL or NBA. The Phillies WON THE PENNANT. Three of the most romantically beautiful words in sports."
Live texts from son:
very disappointed with joe davis's call, "the phillies are going to the world series"
Thoughts on Melvin’s decision to bunt in the ninth?
I know Grisham was oh-for-ever, but to me, outs were more precious to the Phillies than advancing the runners was to the Padres (even with the possibility of more WPs), and I was grateful for the gift.
Thoughts on Melvin’s decision to bunt in the ninth?
I know Grisham was oh-for-ever, but to me, outs were more precious to the Phillies than advancing the runners was to the Padres (even with the possibility of more WPs), and I was grateful for the gift.
Better decision than not having Hader face Harper. Guess he was saving him for Game 6.
Thoughts on Melvin’s decision to bunt in the ninth?
I know Grisham was oh-for-ever, but to me, outs were more precious to the Phillies than advancing the runners was to the Padres (even with the possibility of more WPs), and I was grateful for the gift.
I disagree with the bunt, but do understand the thinking behind it. You have a slumping hitter and a brand-new pitcher in a high-pressure situation on a cold night with a wet baseball. Execute the bunt perfectly, it gets past the pitcher for a hit. Fail to execute it perfectly and you still might have Suarez bobble it or make the throw wide of the bag. Of course, it didn't happen. The bunt wasn't perfect and Suarez fielded and threw it cleanly.
I disagree with the bunt, but do understand the thinking behind it. You have a slumping hitter and a brand-new pitcher in a high-pressure situation on a cold night with a wet baseball. Execute the bunt perfectly, it gets past the pitcher for a hit. Fail to execute it perfectly and you still might have Suarez bobble it or make the throw wide of the bag. Of course, it didn't happen. The bunt wasn't perfect and Suarez fielded and threw it cleanly.
Right, the strategy was sound for the reasons you give. I’d add another: You’d rather play for the lead than a tie on the road. The Phillies were sweating outs, though, and from the other (Padres) side I’d rather have two in my pocket in that situation, with a runner already in scoring position. (As for possibly getting more out of the bunt than a sac, I’m sure the Padres were aware that Suarez is an exceptional fielder.)
Yeah, Smoltz talked about asking too much out of Hader to finish the game as if Hill, say, couldn’t dispatch the 6-7-8 hitters in the ninth after Hader presumably handles the game’s pivotal inning.
(I can see how my questions could sound like rhetorical ones, but they were meant to be honest ones. I agree that Melvin had options.)
Off topic, my favorite baseball book is If I Never Get Back by Darryl Brock.
On topic, I do imho consider For The Love of the Game to be a (very) bad baseball movie, however I respect and defer to the poster's perspective of "If you have ever pitched," because I most definitely never did.