This is directly copied from the Jenkins article linked at the bottom of this post:
To source No. 5: Isn't this a really bad look for the organization?
"Here's a guy, Neukom, who was always the smartest guy in the room, without acting like it or trying to prove it. He simply wanted the Giants to stay on top of the heap, and he made every move with that in mind. This is a guy who helped Microsoft stare down the United States government in the Supreme Court. And he's supposed to ask all these investors for permission on the moves he's supposed to make? Petty jealousy knows no bounds, and it may well have just cost this organization the best leader they ever had."
Neukom seemed really hurt by all this. Will he recover?
"Put it this way: In his last two years, Neukom's organization won a world championship and then sold every seat in the house. That's a hell of a legacy. Let's see anyone top that."
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Hey Comcast: Stay Out of My Browser, Part 1
You probably already know this but I wanted to write it. I've probably already written something quite like it.
Television and internet are ever converging. We're getting to an age (and might be there, depending on your definition) when viewing "television" can legitimately take place without a television. Digital cable and satellite TV services use browsers to navigate their offering. And cable providers like Comcast are whining and crying and scared as hell.
It comes down to this basic premise: given adequate programming online, savvy consumers can subscribe to an internet service and not but a cable package.
Comcast's fear is justified. Comcast is, at its core, a cable company. They also happen to provide internet service. They can, in general, squeeze a lot more money out of cable than internet. With basic cable subscriptions and add-ons like sports packages, HBO, Showtime, and pay-per-view a cable provider can easily make well over $100 per month on TV bills alone.
General residential internet service costs about $50/month or less if I remember correctly (the guy who lives downstairs subscribes to the internet while I pay for yard trimming).
If I were the cable provider I wouldn't want to lose the business where I make $100 from a customer in favor of another subscription that she already pays $35 for in addition to the first service. I understand that logic.
But what's Comcast's response? They want to be able to limit your access to web-based video sites like Netflix, Hulu, and others (including broadcast network sites that almost all show full episodes of many shows). Instead of providing us with more bandwidth (perhaps at a higher price), with which an actual television revolution might occur, Comcast is trying to suppress this development in order to line its own pockets. Rather, to keep its pockets lined.
With more bandwidth we get higher-bit streaming and faster downloads, two things that are huge for television viewing. The ideal would be to be able to wirelessly stream full 1080 (or higher) resolution video on your personal device at all times, but the nature of internet distribution does not allow for this at this time. I constantly get jumps up and down in video quality, and I imagine it's only worse in more areas more densely populated than Memphis. Unless you have a fiber-optic connection, which costs mad bank. So we need faster, more constant, reliable internet connection. We need a consumer connection where two or more people on the same home network can stream different shows at full resolution and not encounter any playback problems.
Instead, Comcast claims that it has the right to limit what you can view on their connection. They want to monitor you watching "Wilfred" on hulu.com and lower your connection speed to a point where it's not even worthwhile to watch.
Yikes.
I'll give more thoughts on this in the next few days. Consider this the place-setter.
Television and internet are ever converging. We're getting to an age (and might be there, depending on your definition) when viewing "television" can legitimately take place without a television. Digital cable and satellite TV services use browsers to navigate their offering. And cable providers like Comcast are whining and crying and scared as hell.
It comes down to this basic premise: given adequate programming online, savvy consumers can subscribe to an internet service and not but a cable package.
Comcast's fear is justified. Comcast is, at its core, a cable company. They also happen to provide internet service. They can, in general, squeeze a lot more money out of cable than internet. With basic cable subscriptions and add-ons like sports packages, HBO, Showtime, and pay-per-view a cable provider can easily make well over $100 per month on TV bills alone.
General residential internet service costs about $50/month or less if I remember correctly (the guy who lives downstairs subscribes to the internet while I pay for yard trimming).
If I were the cable provider I wouldn't want to lose the business where I make $100 from a customer in favor of another subscription that she already pays $35 for in addition to the first service. I understand that logic.
But what's Comcast's response? They want to be able to limit your access to web-based video sites like Netflix, Hulu, and others (including broadcast network sites that almost all show full episodes of many shows). Instead of providing us with more bandwidth (perhaps at a higher price), with which an actual television revolution might occur, Comcast is trying to suppress this development in order to line its own pockets. Rather, to keep its pockets lined.
With more bandwidth we get higher-bit streaming and faster downloads, two things that are huge for television viewing. The ideal would be to be able to wirelessly stream full 1080 (or higher) resolution video on your personal device at all times, but the nature of internet distribution does not allow for this at this time. I constantly get jumps up and down in video quality, and I imagine it's only worse in more areas more densely populated than Memphis. Unless you have a fiber-optic connection, which costs mad bank. So we need faster, more constant, reliable internet connection. We need a consumer connection where two or more people on the same home network can stream different shows at full resolution and not encounter any playback problems.
Instead, Comcast claims that it has the right to limit what you can view on their connection. They want to monitor you watching "Wilfred" on hulu.com and lower your connection speed to a point where it's not even worthwhile to watch.
Yikes.
I'll give more thoughts on this in the next few days. Consider this the place-setter.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Apologies
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a while....been very busy. I'm going to try to get back to it....write every day, right?
Two topics I'll be gunning at: elder care in broadcast drama and "The Franchise," the SF Giants' Showtime series currently airing.
Two topics I'll be gunning at: elder care in broadcast drama and "The Franchise," the SF Giants' Showtime series currently airing.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Traveling
Hello.
So I'm sorry that I haven't updated in a little bit. It'll be a few days off, as I'm traveling to San Francisco tomorrow. I'm hoping to write as much as I watch TV during that trip. But do please continue to follow me as I get my writing chops back. After some atrophy my writing muscles are now a little sore but that is only a sign that they're getting back into shape.
Thanks,
Stef, your Bandito of Burritos
p.s. If you invite me for a burrito on this trip I will likely oblige.
So I'm sorry that I haven't updated in a little bit. It'll be a few days off, as I'm traveling to San Francisco tomorrow. I'm hoping to write as much as I watch TV during that trip. But do please continue to follow me as I get my writing chops back. After some atrophy my writing muscles are now a little sore but that is only a sign that they're getting back into shape.
Thanks,
Stef, your Bandito of Burritos
p.s. If you invite me for a burrito on this trip I will likely oblige.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Copyright Criminals
I just watched Copyright Criminals, a documentary directed by Benjamin Franzen and Kembrew McLeod. The 53-minute documentary is a retrospective of copyright issues as applied to sampling in hip-hop music. It was shown on PBS so I'll consider it fair game for this television blog.
The film* introduces the viewer to a handful of the artists who use samples in their work (members of Public Enemy, De La Soul, etc), a couple artists whose music is regularly sampled (Clyde Stubblefield and George Clinton), as well as a selection of record execs, copyright lawyers, and academics.
Cinematography is often poor, as one might expect when someone takes the roles of producer/director/editor/cinematographer, as Franzen does. Very few can effectively handle all of these roles at one time, especially not an “auteur” making his first documentary. Budget for documentary filmmaking often allows for merely adequate cinematography but I feel that something shown on PBS should be shot professionally. They had the money to clear lots of the music,** why not get a real cameraman? To be fair, some of the interviews do look good and the Clyde Stubblefield drumming sequence is well-lit.
As opposed to the camerawork, I was very happy with the effective, appropriate editing. The directors consider it “collage-heavy” and I agree to this assessment, as it weaves in and out of various shots, interviews, and subjects. I hate montage but I do like this collage approach as applied here, particularly as it parallels the pastiche of many sample-heavy songs. My favorite edited sequence might be when Stubblefield hammers out the beat to "Funky Drummer," the most sampled beat in hip-hop. Audio weaves his live acoustic beat with various songs that use the "Funky Drummer" sample while split-screen shows Stubblefield drumming and the appropriate music videos cycle through. It’s an excellent example of how foundational some samples, this one in particular, are to a given song or an entire genre.
While I'm talking about editing, it's also notable that one of the film's subjects, the music and video collage-duo Electric Method, are credited for “Audiovisual Remix Sequences.” I can think of one excellent sequence near the end of the film that clearly echoes their work. This sequence effectively gives viewers a good understanding about how "found samples" can create interesting, original art.
On the PBS show site, the directors claim that, "The position Copyright Criminals takes is not as simple as good or bad." But the truth is that the film doesn't actually take any kind of position on the issue. The film presents the problems with musical sampling and the interview subjects give a certain amount of their perspectives about sampling but we're never presented with any kind of alternative to these issues.
The film doesn't include enough information on copyright law itself. The directors recognize this but say that such information wouldn't be interesting, "It would be nice to include more information about copyright law, but we often found that the technical details tended to be dry and far less dynamic." This is a somewhat reasonable argument to a certain point. I do take some exception though, because the onus is upon the filmmakers to make the issues of copyright law interesting. Personally, I think that the intricacies of copyright law would be fascinating. But as a result of their view, we are not presented with a fundamental understanding of copyright and related issues in a documentary that centers around this issue. Copyright Criminals barely touches on fair use.
The documentary works very well as a chronicle of musical sampling history but I can't get wholly behind it because it stops short of any kind of resolution. We hear both sides of the issue (though it seems heavily slanted towards sample piracy) and the conclusion is that we're at an imperfect moment in which artists don't have freedom to sample the music they otherwise might.
I feel the filmmakers should have included a line of questioning about what could be done to appropriately give the artists the freedom they want. This documentary could have been truly foundational if it made the attempt an answer to the issue that could reasonably suit all parties. Find a way to use what the sampling artist wants while at the same time adequately compensating the original artist. As it stands I hear it as a whole lot of whining when artists complain about their creative process being cramped but then give no solution to this problem.
This doesn't mean that I have any problem with musical sampling. I consider it an important musical form and it is important that it has been adequately chronicled. But I do think that some concession needs to be made to the sampled artist, it's only fair. At the same time, musicians have to go through certain sources to clear the samples they want to use. This first causes a problem with cost, but there are some who will never clear their music for sampling. For example, the Beatles don't let you clear samples for their songs but you are free to cover their song. A line used a few times in Copyright Criminals is that it's more expensive to use two bars of a song than it is to cover the whole song.
But rather than even asking how this can be changed, all we see and hear is people complaining about it. To really cut to the bone we need to take this a step further. While this documentary was admirable in its ability to bring out artists like Stubblefield, Clinton, Public Enemy, and the Beastie Boys, the audience needs to be taken to someplace new for this to go from "good and worthwhile" to "great and transcendent."
In the end it's little more than "Behind the Music: Sampling."
Final rating: Certainly worthy of your time but not transcendent by any means. I could probably give a second burrito if they gave us some argument or some original thought to take away. Rather, it’s a fairly well-executed summary of established ideas. It’s entertaining and informational but not foundational. One Burrito.
*I actually don't like the term "the film" unless something is actually made on film. This was shot on video, but the term "video" has a different connotation than intended. "The work" doesn't quite fit either. So I'll use "film" until I figure out something better. If you have any ideas, feel free to share them.
** "Our documentary budget enabled us to be able to remunerate many copyright owners for more significant uses of their work." - from PBS website
The film* introduces the viewer to a handful of the artists who use samples in their work (members of Public Enemy, De La Soul, etc), a couple artists whose music is regularly sampled (Clyde Stubblefield and George Clinton), as well as a selection of record execs, copyright lawyers, and academics.
Cinematography is often poor, as one might expect when someone takes the roles of producer/director/editor/cinematographer, as Franzen does. Very few can effectively handle all of these roles at one time, especially not an “auteur” making his first documentary. Budget for documentary filmmaking often allows for merely adequate cinematography but I feel that something shown on PBS should be shot professionally. They had the money to clear lots of the music,** why not get a real cameraman? To be fair, some of the interviews do look good and the Clyde Stubblefield drumming sequence is well-lit.
As opposed to the camerawork, I was very happy with the effective, appropriate editing. The directors consider it “collage-heavy” and I agree to this assessment, as it weaves in and out of various shots, interviews, and subjects. I hate montage but I do like this collage approach as applied here, particularly as it parallels the pastiche of many sample-heavy songs. My favorite edited sequence might be when Stubblefield hammers out the beat to "Funky Drummer," the most sampled beat in hip-hop. Audio weaves his live acoustic beat with various songs that use the "Funky Drummer" sample while split-screen shows Stubblefield drumming and the appropriate music videos cycle through. It’s an excellent example of how foundational some samples, this one in particular, are to a given song or an entire genre.
While I'm talking about editing, it's also notable that one of the film's subjects, the music and video collage-duo Electric Method, are credited for “Audiovisual Remix Sequences.” I can think of one excellent sequence near the end of the film that clearly echoes their work. This sequence effectively gives viewers a good understanding about how "found samples" can create interesting, original art.
On the PBS show site, the directors claim that, "The position Copyright Criminals takes is not as simple as good or bad." But the truth is that the film doesn't actually take any kind of position on the issue. The film presents the problems with musical sampling and the interview subjects give a certain amount of their perspectives about sampling but we're never presented with any kind of alternative to these issues.
The film doesn't include enough information on copyright law itself. The directors recognize this but say that such information wouldn't be interesting, "It would be nice to include more information about copyright law, but we often found that the technical details tended to be dry and far less dynamic." This is a somewhat reasonable argument to a certain point. I do take some exception though, because the onus is upon the filmmakers to make the issues of copyright law interesting. Personally, I think that the intricacies of copyright law would be fascinating. But as a result of their view, we are not presented with a fundamental understanding of copyright and related issues in a documentary that centers around this issue. Copyright Criminals barely touches on fair use.
The documentary works very well as a chronicle of musical sampling history but I can't get wholly behind it because it stops short of any kind of resolution. We hear both sides of the issue (though it seems heavily slanted towards sample piracy) and the conclusion is that we're at an imperfect moment in which artists don't have freedom to sample the music they otherwise might.
I feel the filmmakers should have included a line of questioning about what could be done to appropriately give the artists the freedom they want. This documentary could have been truly foundational if it made the attempt an answer to the issue that could reasonably suit all parties. Find a way to use what the sampling artist wants while at the same time adequately compensating the original artist. As it stands I hear it as a whole lot of whining when artists complain about their creative process being cramped but then give no solution to this problem.
This doesn't mean that I have any problem with musical sampling. I consider it an important musical form and it is important that it has been adequately chronicled. But I do think that some concession needs to be made to the sampled artist, it's only fair. At the same time, musicians have to go through certain sources to clear the samples they want to use. This first causes a problem with cost, but there are some who will never clear their music for sampling. For example, the Beatles don't let you clear samples for their songs but you are free to cover their song. A line used a few times in Copyright Criminals is that it's more expensive to use two bars of a song than it is to cover the whole song.
But rather than even asking how this can be changed, all we see and hear is people complaining about it. To really cut to the bone we need to take this a step further. While this documentary was admirable in its ability to bring out artists like Stubblefield, Clinton, Public Enemy, and the Beastie Boys, the audience needs to be taken to someplace new for this to go from "good and worthwhile" to "great and transcendent."
In the end it's little more than "Behind the Music: Sampling."
Final rating: Certainly worthy of your time but not transcendent by any means. I could probably give a second burrito if they gave us some argument or some original thought to take away. Rather, it’s a fairly well-executed summary of established ideas. It’s entertaining and informational but not foundational. One Burrito.
*I actually don't like the term "the film" unless something is actually made on film. This was shot on video, but the term "video" has a different connotation than intended. "The work" doesn't quite fit either. So I'll use "film" until I figure out something better. If you have any ideas, feel free to share them.
** "Our documentary budget enabled us to be able to remunerate many copyright owners for more significant uses of their work." - from PBS website
Ratings system
I have devised a rating system appropriate to the title of this blog. Never having been a fan of the star system, this is more appropriate to my taste:
Two Burritos: Excellent. In the canon. Go out of your way to see this.
One Burrito: Worthy. Something that you don't need to go out of your way to see but worth your time if you come across it.
No Burritos: Don't waste your time.
And a provisional rating, I'm not sure if I'll use it:
A Taco: Maybe you don't need to change the channel if you come across it. Maybe.
Two Burritos: Excellent. In the canon. Go out of your way to see this.
One Burrito: Worthy. Something that you don't need to go out of your way to see but worth your time if you come across it.
No Burritos: Don't waste your time.
And a provisional rating, I'm not sure if I'll use it:
A Taco: Maybe you don't need to change the channel if you come across it. Maybe.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Don't limit your viewers
Finally having made my way through season 4 of Friday Night Lights, I thought I might write a little about it. There is an inherent problem, however.
Friday Night Lights is currently seven episodes into season 5. So I can't be current with it due to NBC's rule of only having four episodes available at a time online. Well, I could buy the episodes on Amazon or iTunes, but I'm not really a fan of paying more for something that I should be getting for free.
NBC is only losing my viewership by taking this approach. I've been watching Friday Night Lights for six months now and would love to get current. But NBC decides that I'm going to have to pay (yeah right) or wait for it to come up on Netflix Watch Instantly. Personally, I think this is a load of BS. I'm willing to watch the ads on hulu or the NBC site. If they're willing to show the latest four episodes, why aren't they willing to show episodes beyond that?
There must be some argument for cost effectiveness and I would welcome it. But I feel like NBC should prefer to have its viewers up to date on the series to increase the likelihood of viewing the show on broadcast.
I know I'm a special case at the moment, as I'm not subscribed to TV and am exclusively viewing television online, but I have to imagine that I'm not the only person in this situation.
iTunes charges $2.99 for the HD episodes of Friday Night Lights. Episode three drops off of NBC.com and hulu tomorrow, so one would assume that I can't watch three episodes of a show by that point.
I'm not going to pay $9 to get up to date on a season that I'll just be able to catch up on when it goes to Netflix in six months. Get with it NBC, you're losing out.
Friday Night Lights is currently seven episodes into season 5. So I can't be current with it due to NBC's rule of only having four episodes available at a time online. Well, I could buy the episodes on Amazon or iTunes, but I'm not really a fan of paying more for something that I should be getting for free.
NBC is only losing my viewership by taking this approach. I've been watching Friday Night Lights for six months now and would love to get current. But NBC decides that I'm going to have to pay (yeah right) or wait for it to come up on Netflix Watch Instantly. Personally, I think this is a load of BS. I'm willing to watch the ads on hulu or the NBC site. If they're willing to show the latest four episodes, why aren't they willing to show episodes beyond that?
There must be some argument for cost effectiveness and I would welcome it. But I feel like NBC should prefer to have its viewers up to date on the series to increase the likelihood of viewing the show on broadcast.
I know I'm a special case at the moment, as I'm not subscribed to TV and am exclusively viewing television online, but I have to imagine that I'm not the only person in this situation.
iTunes charges $2.99 for the HD episodes of Friday Night Lights. Episode three drops off of NBC.com and hulu tomorrow, so one would assume that I can't watch three episodes of a show by that point.
I'm not going to pay $9 to get up to date on a season that I'll just be able to catch up on when it goes to Netflix in six months. Get with it NBC, you're losing out.
(Slight) Change of Mission
It has been decided that I'll actually start editing the posts after writing. The intent is to come away with a tighter product. I'm a big fan of the immediacy of writing without editing, using the blog as a diary of sorts. But this needs to be super tight if I ever decide to use this as a writing sample.
The positive side? Some rambling pontifications might be cut down. There might be a lot less first person in the narrative.
Considering I don't get paid for this, it's possible that I don't post as much as I might otherwise. But we'll see.
The positive side? Some rambling pontifications might be cut down. There might be a lot less first person in the narrative.
Considering I don't get paid for this, it's possible that I don't post as much as I might otherwise. But we'll see.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Footwork
Okay, so I’ve posted twice about how cable networks and the DVR have functioned as catalysts for brilliant programming. And I’ll admit that a lot of my writing has been pretty obvious. What I’m hoping to do is to lay a foundation for future posts so that readers who start with the beginning of the blog and go forward (as if there were any) can have an understanding of where I’m coming from.
It’s the same as sports where the most basic aspect of any given skill is not how you’re holding the ball; rather, you begin with footwork and go from there. To briefly sidetrack myself, I will talk about sports footwork here.
I used to coach volleyball and I feel like I have played almost every sport there is. Whether you’re talking about track, football, baseball, volleyball, hockey, cricket, or bowling, footwork is the basic fundamental above all else. This is for a few reasons:
Anyway, I got sidetracked by footwork. I love the topic and could go on for days and days. But now I want to bring it all back home to my television emphasis:
So even if we don’t think about it (indeed, footwork needs to become an unconscious, natural, or instinctive aspect of athletic pursuit) we need to understand its importance.
Think of the movie theater. If I am making the effort to go to another place to interact with visual medium it implies that I have already invested myself in that experience. I’m not going to drive twenty minutes, park, pay $15, buy a giant tub of popcorn, and sit next to a bunch of strangers for a 15-minute event. We want something more substantial because we’re invested in this fashion. Also, we’re probably going to want a standalone installment of whatever we went to see because we’re not going to want to repeat that experience the next week. That’s not to say that we won’t see a sequel but we want to have some kind of a full experience of a story when we go.
If we’re buying a TV at the store they want to show us nature shots and sports shots but no narrative structure at all. That’s what works in that moment.
With television it's important that we don't invest too much effort because then we can keep coming back.
So this discussion has this foundational relevance when considering our interaction with moving picture media. I may dwell on it for quite a long time, we’ll see. I’ll probably jump around topics a little bit but I do find this kind of stuff very interesting.
And damn it, I’m gonna write about it.
It’s the same as sports where the most basic aspect of any given skill is not how you’re holding the ball; rather, you begin with footwork and go from there. To briefly sidetrack myself, I will talk about sports footwork here.
I used to coach volleyball and I feel like I have played almost every sport there is. Whether you’re talking about track, football, baseball, volleyball, hockey, cricket, or bowling, footwork is the basic fundamental above all else. This is for a few reasons:
- You’re talking about where you come into contact with something else the most. Football is a contact sport but your feet are on the ground a lot more than your shoulder is in a running back’s sternum. Basic physics tells us that the ground is actually giving us resistance, so this is where you are dealing with the most force.
- You are setting a foundation on which all other actions occur. Think of the lower half of your body as a tripod for a camera. You can get a clean shot with an unsteady tripod but you have to compensate for lots of other things, maybe by using a fast shutter, which then might lead to other dominoes down the line (faster shutter means either wider aperture [focus issues] or faster film [more grain]) that you might not want to deal with.
- Your legs are the biggest, strongest muscles in your body. Example: much of the force generated by a baseball pitcher is from the lower half in the windup. Proper weight transfer in throwing (baseball, football, shot put) or striking (boxing, baseball, football) is key to a number of sports. As is load and push off in explosive/jumping sports (volleyball, basketball, etc.).
- Speed/quickness. This is a complicated issue, somewhat related to the next point as there are a few aspects of this. You’ve got your strength and range of motion issues that relate to the speed and quickness. Speed is obvious: the ability to run really fast. This relies on strength, form, and stamina. Quickness is also pretty obvious: the relationship among reflex, reaction, and explosion of a particular physical movement.
- Rhythm/timing. I could write a whole post on this as it applies to sports and TV, and I probably will someday. But this is one of the things that Bill Walsh preached to guys like Joe Montana. Actually, many of the other points come out of this. Your legs and feet set the foundation for the rhythm of your movement. In order to excel at a sport, you need your body to be in a certain rhythm, a certain flow. Sure, there is a lot of brute force in some sports but an athlete needs to have a certain grace. Perhaps it’s because being in rhythm helps you control your body rather than having to fight it. But each step you take jars your body a little, and if that movement is in a comfortable rhythm then you probably have a better chance at success.
- Efficiency of movement. You know how getting from A to B is quickest with a straight line? That’s not always the case in sports, due to body positioning. You’ll understand this explicitly if you’re familiar with volleyball and the steps that a middle blocker or a swing hitter has to take to get into position for the various attacks a setter might call. If the setter wants to run a shoot or a slide then you’d damn well better be in position to hit it. It’s not about just running as fast as you can to the spot where you need to take off, you need to take the right steps to a.) get there and b.) have your body in position for the best attack.
Anyway, I got sidetracked by footwork. I love the topic and could go on for days and days. But now I want to bring it all back home to my television emphasis:
The way we ingest TV is the foundation of our experience with TV.
It has many nuances, just like footwork in sports,
but it is the basic aspect of our interaction.
So even if we don’t think about it (indeed, footwork needs to become an unconscious, natural, or instinctive aspect of athletic pursuit) we need to understand its importance.
Think of the movie theater. If I am making the effort to go to another place to interact with visual medium it implies that I have already invested myself in that experience. I’m not going to drive twenty minutes, park, pay $15, buy a giant tub of popcorn, and sit next to a bunch of strangers for a 15-minute event. We want something more substantial because we’re invested in this fashion. Also, we’re probably going to want a standalone installment of whatever we went to see because we’re not going to want to repeat that experience the next week. That’s not to say that we won’t see a sequel but we want to have some kind of a full experience of a story when we go.
If we’re buying a TV at the store they want to show us nature shots and sports shots but no narrative structure at all. That’s what works in that moment.
With television it's important that we don't invest too much effort because then we can keep coming back.
So this discussion has this foundational relevance when considering our interaction with moving picture media. I may dwell on it for quite a long time, we’ll see. I’ll probably jump around topics a little bit but I do find this kind of stuff very interesting.
And damn it, I’m gonna write about it.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Reboot
So I've been a little lax with this blog the past while. That doesn't really matter if nobody is reading, so I'm not too worried. But I have decided to reboot this as a television blog. My live is largely based on television as a means of income but I'm also fiercely passionate about TV and much of what surrounds it. This ranges from TV shows to TV production to television sets to the way that we ingest our moving picture media.
So I'm going to write about these things as often as possible. I'll start with a brief theory of how the way that we view television affects the programming itself.
I have not watched Dallas but it was a tremendously popular series. "Who Shot JR" is still one of the most viewed episodes of all time. Dallas was a primetime soap, what we'll call serials from now on. The problem with these shows is that a viewer can't miss an episode without being out of the loop. This, clearly, is problematic. I would also argue that it takes a certain amount of mental dexterity to keep up with a serial–something might come up that relies on information from three weeks ago.
For these reasons, a lot of serials were targeted at a younger audience who would be more devoted to watching the show every week and be more willing to expend the necessary energy to keep track, especially in the 1990s. Think of 90210, Melrose Place, and Dawson's Creek. You had other shows as well, the aforementioned Dallas or something like Hill Street Blues.
But more of the most popular dramas, shows like Law and Order, ER, or Gunsmoke were episodic. See, people liked having things mostly figured out in the end. Every week you tune in and get a little movie. There's character development, sure, but in general any time any kind of narrative arc is going to happen in multiple episodes you'd get the legendary "to be continued" title at the end.
Then along came The Sopranos. Everyone loved the show. Unhindered by advertisements or any real restraint from the FCC, HBO was able to make a show like nobody had ever made a show before. They poured resources into it. The narrative was compelling, the characters were interesting, the camerawork was beautiful, and–perhaps as part of the show's theme of ambiguity–questions were almost never answered, so we all wanted to know what was going to happen in the next episode. But notice that I don't say next week.
That's because the way we watched TV changed right around here as well. While HBO was revolutionizing what we expected from a TV show (at least making it more mainstream, as OZ was an HBO serial before Tony Soprano's first "How you doin'?"), the viewing public no longer needed to be in front of the glowing box at a specific time. Both The Sopranos and TiVo were introduced in 1999. Online streaming is a relatively recent phenomena of the last few years but it's heightening the effect. On-demand viewing. It changes your life.
Now I don't have to tune in every Thursday at 10 to watch ER. I can watch Breaking Bad hours, days, or weeks after broadcast. I can watch LOST in rapid succession online without having to strain my brain to thing back to what the numbers mean. So now more people can make the effort and fit their television into their own schedules. What we watch is no longer determined by our free night of the week. Yeah, NBC comedies are on Thursdays but maybe there's a rock show to go to or a poker game to play in.
So the advent of the DVR age of programming gives us a wealth of dramatic serials, which have raised the bar for television as art.
Cable TV is notable as well. In direct lineage from HBO's ability to show whatever the hell they want on screen, now the cable networks have much more freedom than the major broadcast networks and less responsibility to address the country as a whole. FX can target its harder-edged audiences, largely the male 18-45 gigantor advertising revenue demographic, with shows like Justified or Sons of Anarchy. AMC can make shows like Breaking Bad or Mad Men which, though alliterative, that have a unique concept that perhaps only HBO can match.
HBO, of course, remains the king. Whether it's a show with a complex palate like The Wire or candy pills like True Blood, they have proven to be the standard against which all others will be measured.
So these two factors of on-demand viewing and
And, with a nod to a recent passing, this DVR revolution has been televised–to be screened on demand.
So I'm going to write about these things as often as possible. I'll start with a brief theory of how the way that we view television affects the programming itself.
I have not watched Dallas but it was a tremendously popular series. "Who Shot JR" is still one of the most viewed episodes of all time. Dallas was a primetime soap, what we'll call serials from now on. The problem with these shows is that a viewer can't miss an episode without being out of the loop. This, clearly, is problematic. I would also argue that it takes a certain amount of mental dexterity to keep up with a serial–something might come up that relies on information from three weeks ago.
For these reasons, a lot of serials were targeted at a younger audience who would be more devoted to watching the show every week and be more willing to expend the necessary energy to keep track, especially in the 1990s. Think of 90210, Melrose Place, and Dawson's Creek. You had other shows as well, the aforementioned Dallas or something like Hill Street Blues.
But more of the most popular dramas, shows like Law and Order, ER, or Gunsmoke were episodic. See, people liked having things mostly figured out in the end. Every week you tune in and get a little movie. There's character development, sure, but in general any time any kind of narrative arc is going to happen in multiple episodes you'd get the legendary "to be continued" title at the end.
Then along came The Sopranos. Everyone loved the show. Unhindered by advertisements or any real restraint from the FCC, HBO was able to make a show like nobody had ever made a show before. They poured resources into it. The narrative was compelling, the characters were interesting, the camerawork was beautiful, and–perhaps as part of the show's theme of ambiguity–questions were almost never answered, so we all wanted to know what was going to happen in the next episode. But notice that I don't say next week.
That's because the way we watched TV changed right around here as well. While HBO was revolutionizing what we expected from a TV show (at least making it more mainstream, as OZ was an HBO serial before Tony Soprano's first "How you doin'?"), the viewing public no longer needed to be in front of the glowing box at a specific time. Both The Sopranos and TiVo were introduced in 1999. Online streaming is a relatively recent phenomena of the last few years but it's heightening the effect. On-demand viewing. It changes your life.
Now I don't have to tune in every Thursday at 10 to watch ER. I can watch Breaking Bad hours, days, or weeks after broadcast. I can watch LOST in rapid succession online without having to strain my brain to thing back to what the numbers mean. So now more people can make the effort and fit their television into their own schedules. What we watch is no longer determined by our free night of the week. Yeah, NBC comedies are on Thursdays but maybe there's a rock show to go to or a poker game to play in.
So the advent of the DVR age of programming gives us a wealth of dramatic serials, which have raised the bar for television as art.
Cable TV is notable as well. In direct lineage from HBO's ability to show whatever the hell they want on screen, now the cable networks have much more freedom than the major broadcast networks and less responsibility to address the country as a whole. FX can target its harder-edged audiences, largely the male 18-45 gigantor advertising revenue demographic, with shows like Justified or Sons of Anarchy. AMC can make shows like Breaking Bad or Mad Men which, though alliterative, that have a unique concept that perhaps only HBO can match.
HBO, of course, remains the king. Whether it's a show with a complex palate like The Wire or candy pills like True Blood, they have proven to be the standard against which all others will be measured.
So these two factors of on-demand viewing and
And, with a nod to a recent passing, this DVR revolution has been televised–to be screened on demand.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
MLB.tv issues
I take issue with how MLB.tv provides its content to subscribers. As a Giants fan living in Memphis, I pay $130 a season for the ability to watch my team's games.
Memphis, of course, has no MLB team. But three teams DO claim Memphis as within its broadcasting territory: the Atlanta Braves, the Saint Louis Cardinals, and the Cincinnati Reds. Any games involving any of these three teams are blacked out in Memphis. The problem is that nobody actually broadcasts these games here in Memphis.
MLB.tv claims that someone does own broadcasting rights in Memphis, so they have to honor that and blackout these teams. A Giants fan ends up not being able to see his teams' home opener against the Cardinals. In all we're talking about (if you go by a six-game season series versus each non-division team) eighteen games that are unavailable in the area. That's over one-tenth of a team's games in a season. And what if I want to watch another game? Say the Mets and Reds are in a heated race for the NL wildcard. Cincinnati is 475 miles away from my house, its games are not broadcast here, and this September 28 game would still blacked out.
This is the response I got from MLB.tv, directly copy-pasted:
"there is a local network that owns the rights to those games within your area. even if they choose not to broadcast the games we must still honor that exclusivity."
The other question is why those teams? The Texas Rangers and Kansas City Royals are both closer than Cincinnati.
Frankly, I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the service. I completely understand a blackout if the game is being broadcast in the area, but I feel that the spirit of the MLB.tv service is that it provides you with the opportunity to view games that you otherwise would not be able to view. The service isn't inexpensive, priced at $130 for the package I subscribe to.
Fans are effectively being punished for happening to be in a city where, almost arbitrarily, some teams are blacked out. My proposal would be that, no matter whether a network owns broadcast rights, games not broadcast in an area should be available on MLB.tv.
I actually wonder if there's some legal recourse to be taken.
Memphis, of course, has no MLB team. But three teams DO claim Memphis as within its broadcasting territory: the Atlanta Braves, the Saint Louis Cardinals, and the Cincinnati Reds. Any games involving any of these three teams are blacked out in Memphis. The problem is that nobody actually broadcasts these games here in Memphis.
MLB.tv claims that someone does own broadcasting rights in Memphis, so they have to honor that and blackout these teams. A Giants fan ends up not being able to see his teams' home opener against the Cardinals. In all we're talking about (if you go by a six-game season series versus each non-division team) eighteen games that are unavailable in the area. That's over one-tenth of a team's games in a season. And what if I want to watch another game? Say the Mets and Reds are in a heated race for the NL wildcard. Cincinnati is 475 miles away from my house, its games are not broadcast here, and this September 28 game would still blacked out.
This is the response I got from MLB.tv, directly copy-pasted:
"there is a local network that owns the rights to those games within your area. even if they choose not to broadcast the games we must still honor that exclusivity."
The other question is why those teams? The Texas Rangers and Kansas City Royals are both closer than Cincinnati.
Frankly, I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the service. I completely understand a blackout if the game is being broadcast in the area, but I feel that the spirit of the MLB.tv service is that it provides you with the opportunity to view games that you otherwise would not be able to view. The service isn't inexpensive, priced at $130 for the package I subscribe to.
Fans are effectively being punished for happening to be in a city where, almost arbitrarily, some teams are blacked out. My proposal would be that, no matter whether a network owns broadcast rights, games not broadcast in an area should be available on MLB.tv.
I actually wonder if there's some legal recourse to be taken.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
New Entry?
Pirated from an old journal entry:
At some point, probably about ten or eleven weeks into the pregnancy, I dreamt that I saw a child with his back to me looking out at a pasture. The light was golden, as was his wavy blond hair that hung past his ears. I would say he was about three years old. Thinking back to this image, I don’t know how I knew it was a boy. The long hair seems like it should have thrown me off, but maybe the clothes (a red sweater) or something else hinted at a boy.
I’m not one to take many signs from dreams–I think of myself as trying to be the least superstitious person around–but at the twelve week checkup we found out that Leslie is carrying a baby boy. I called my parents that they would have a grandson. Yeah, we all cried. I texted a bunch of friends and family members and a fellow NFL Films cameraman sent back, “Future NFL Films top guy.”
This blew me away as well, as shooting for NFL Films is one of the most cherished connections I have with my father. He gave me a foothold to climb up the mountain that led to one of my favorite things in the world. NFL Films, second to Reid.
At some point, probably about ten or eleven weeks into the pregnancy, I dreamt that I saw a child with his back to me looking out at a pasture. The light was golden, as was his wavy blond hair that hung past his ears. I would say he was about three years old. Thinking back to this image, I don’t know how I knew it was a boy. The long hair seems like it should have thrown me off, but maybe the clothes (a red sweater) or something else hinted at a boy.
I’m not one to take many signs from dreams–I think of myself as trying to be the least superstitious person around–but at the twelve week checkup we found out that Leslie is carrying a baby boy. I called my parents that they would have a grandson. Yeah, we all cried. I texted a bunch of friends and family members and a fellow NFL Films cameraman sent back, “Future NFL Films top guy.”
This blew me away as well, as shooting for NFL Films is one of the most cherished connections I have with my father. He gave me a foothold to climb up the mountain that led to one of my favorite things in the world. NFL Films, second to Reid.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
I have not been keeping this up.
My apologies. Apparently taking care of a baby takes a lot of time. Why didn't anyone say that?
Anyway, lots of people keep rooting for the NFL to have a lockout because they think it'd be cool to see pro athletes and owners make fools of themselves.
Well, I don't think so. It'd be less work for me.
Unless this show idea gets picked up, in which case it would be the best thing in the world for me.
But most likely bad. So root for a new CBA.
Anyway, lots of people keep rooting for the NFL to have a lockout because they think it'd be cool to see pro athletes and owners make fools of themselves.
Well, I don't think so. It'd be less work for me.
Unless this show idea gets picked up, in which case it would be the best thing in the world for me.
But most likely bad. So root for a new CBA.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
More Delays
Hello Folks,
So I thought my day off before the Super Bowl would be a day to get all four of my pending projects organized, read three books, get in a great workout, and update the blog. I kind of got half of a project organized.
Everything has been work and baby. I'll write when I can, my apologies.
-stef-
So I thought my day off before the Super Bowl would be a day to get all four of my pending projects organized, read three books, get in a great workout, and update the blog. I kind of got half of a project organized.
Everything has been work and baby. I'll write when I can, my apologies.
-stef-
Friday, January 28, 2011
Sandwiches
Now, I love sandwiches. I mean, what's a burrito if not a Mexican sandwich? Oh, and I know that I haven't been posting. I've been quite busy trying to get things done. And here's what I've been working for:
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
More Television
It's been a few days since I last posted, my apologies. I'm thinking about reality TV.
It's a little late to think of reality TV as a phenomenon. It is obviously a successful format...not because the shows tend to make a huge profit but because they tend to turn a profit in the first place. The crews can be smaller and you don't have to pay Schwimmer, Aniston, Cox, and the other F*R*I*E*N*D*S something like $2 million and episode EACH.
So fewer ads will cover your costs and anything past that is gravy.
You end up with shows like Monday night's "Heavy."
This show followed a 350+ lb woman and a 650+ lb man around as they tried to lose weight. The show followed these two people and two trainers on through their days and months. It was light on flash and light on graphics. Very inexpensive to do. Kind of like late night shows. The salaries are crazy for the hosts, but they get that huge salary but the network gets to put their show on every night. So the talent fees are lower than the major series. And on a show-by-show basis, so are the crew fees.
But anyway, "Heavy" seems like a great show. I'll admit that I fell asleep, but that had more to do with the Chicagoan and the baby who I spent my day with. It was trashy but also hard-hitting. We were brought inside the world of the extremely obese to see them try to help themselves get better. Cool stuff.
Not all reality is good though. "Jersey Shore" is definitely trash, as is "The Bachelor(ette)." Bu they're incredibly successful. "American Idol" is incredibly well done and is one of the highest rated shows on TV. It's got a big budget for reality shows, but that doesn't mean it's got a big budget for other shows. See, here's the secret: keep talent costs down. "Idol" is an example of the talent making a lot of money, but production costs are still down because they don't have to pay for three weeks of shooting to make one episode. It's a day per episode. Period.
That's why the news is still on. Nobody watches the nightly news anymore, but you don't have to pay outlandish salaries to five people. Maybe one anchor, but (s)he is going to be on every night. Brian Williams is expensive but NBC sure gets some bang for their buck.
Anyway, I don't really know what the end to this posting is. I think it's that reality TV isn't as bad as we all want to think it is?
I'm not sure. Sorry.
It's a little late to think of reality TV as a phenomenon. It is obviously a successful format...not because the shows tend to make a huge profit but because they tend to turn a profit in the first place. The crews can be smaller and you don't have to pay Schwimmer, Aniston, Cox, and the other F*R*I*E*N*D*S something like $2 million and episode EACH.
So fewer ads will cover your costs and anything past that is gravy.
You end up with shows like Monday night's "Heavy."
This show followed a 350+ lb woman and a 650+ lb man around as they tried to lose weight. The show followed these two people and two trainers on through their days and months. It was light on flash and light on graphics. Very inexpensive to do. Kind of like late night shows. The salaries are crazy for the hosts, but they get that huge salary but the network gets to put their show on every night. So the talent fees are lower than the major series. And on a show-by-show basis, so are the crew fees.
But anyway, "Heavy" seems like a great show. I'll admit that I fell asleep, but that had more to do with the Chicagoan and the baby who I spent my day with. It was trashy but also hard-hitting. We were brought inside the world of the extremely obese to see them try to help themselves get better. Cool stuff.
Not all reality is good though. "Jersey Shore" is definitely trash, as is "The Bachelor(ette)." Bu they're incredibly successful. "American Idol" is incredibly well done and is one of the highest rated shows on TV. It's got a big budget for reality shows, but that doesn't mean it's got a big budget for other shows. See, here's the secret: keep talent costs down. "Idol" is an example of the talent making a lot of money, but production costs are still down because they don't have to pay for three weeks of shooting to make one episode. It's a day per episode. Period.
That's why the news is still on. Nobody watches the nightly news anymore, but you don't have to pay outlandish salaries to five people. Maybe one anchor, but (s)he is going to be on every night. Brian Williams is expensive but NBC sure gets some bang for their buck.
Anyway, I don't really know what the end to this posting is. I think it's that reality TV isn't as bad as we all want to think it is?
I'm not sure. Sorry.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Mornings and Late Night
Reid tend to sleep very well through the night, and we're lucky. He's just a month (minus a day) old and is sleeping five to seven hours in one stretch...awesome! But despite this, I'm still tired all the time. The thing is that when he does get up, it's pretty immediate that he needs a change. One might be able to go back to sleep when you change a baby in the middle of the night, but you don't have much of a shot when you're dealing with a screaming baby at 7:30 in the morning.
So then you're good for a while. The first couple hours are devoted to baby and mommy care, which is actually pretty good. At first it was constant, then got to a point where Reid and Leslie took the first four hours of the day at least. But now Leslie has recovered pretty fully from the operation.
So you're up at 7:30 or 8 (which I actually think is a pretty good time to be up) but then you are going-going-going until midnight or so. You're exhausted but not sleepy, so you start to cue up a DVD on your laptop. But then you have to change a crying baby and in the middle of it he pees and poops everywhere so you have to change his clothes, too.
You do put on his Giants onesie and are happy about that. Then you head back to your bed (which is really a bedroll on the floor) and fire up "Band of Brothers." 2am by the time it's done.
You think, "I could have used that extra hour of sleep."
So then you're good for a while. The first couple hours are devoted to baby and mommy care, which is actually pretty good. At first it was constant, then got to a point where Reid and Leslie took the first four hours of the day at least. But now Leslie has recovered pretty fully from the operation.
So you're up at 7:30 or 8 (which I actually think is a pretty good time to be up) but then you are going-going-going until midnight or so. You're exhausted but not sleepy, so you start to cue up a DVD on your laptop. But then you have to change a crying baby and in the middle of it he pees and poops everywhere so you have to change his clothes, too.
You do put on his Giants onesie and are happy about that. Then you head back to your bed (which is really a bedroll on the floor) and fire up "Band of Brothers." 2am by the time it's done.
You think, "I could have used that extra hour of sleep."
Thursday, January 13, 2011
TV Razes the Bar
"Cheers" was one of the most popular TV shows of all time. It was a great show, but one that could never happen today. Society is a weird thing...our society has decided that it's bad for things to take place in a bar or to show smoking, but there is an ever-increasing amount of violence on TV.
Society: "Hey buddy, it's immoral to show people who spend most of their time in the bar."
TV Dude: "But I don't want to show that, I just want to show a mutilated corpse."
Society: "Sounds fine."
Not that I advocate alcoholism. It's just that people need to lighten up. Maybe make another show that takes place in a bar. Oh wait--there is one! I the weather in Philly is pretty nice.
"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" is a great show. One of the best shows on TV. What's great about it? The fact that the people in the show are the most horrible people you can possibly imagine. It doesn't take much more analysis than that....put horrible people into an absurd, abstract situation. Works every time!
Society: "Hey buddy, it's immoral to show people who spend most of their time in the bar."
TV Dude: "But I don't want to show that, I just want to show a mutilated corpse."
Society: "Sounds fine."
Not that I advocate alcoholism. It's just that people need to lighten up. Maybe make another show that takes place in a bar. Oh wait--there is one! I the weather in Philly is pretty nice.
"It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" is a great show. One of the best shows on TV. What's great about it? The fact that the people in the show are the most horrible people you can possibly imagine. It doesn't take much more analysis than that....put horrible people into an absurd, abstract situation. Works every time!
Late Night TV
Conan failed as a mainstream guy. I love Conan, but he wasn't the right fit on the show. He can whine and complain as much as he wants but the fact is that in today's world, it would take a rare talent to actually be someone I'm interested in watching and also be right for the Tonight Show. Alec Baldwin maybe? Dana Carvey might have been great 20 years ago. But for now, it's too hard to be mainstream and edgy. I think it ruined Conan's career. Of course, when you get the money he got, it's hard to claim his career is ruined.
Jay is exactly right for the show, and I also have no interest in watching. Jimmy Fallon sucks--he has a nervous energy that better subside or he'll keep sucking. Dave's over the hill and the show will always have a fatal flaw as long as Paul Shaffer is the principle foil. Shaffer is a fine musician but he's not a funny guy.
Stewart and Colbert are great for what they are but neither one is a major network flagship late night talent.
And none of it is better than watching "Band of Brothers" on DVD.
Jay is exactly right for the show, and I also have no interest in watching. Jimmy Fallon sucks--he has a nervous energy that better subside or he'll keep sucking. Dave's over the hill and the show will always have a fatal flaw as long as Paul Shaffer is the principle foil. Shaffer is a fine musician but he's not a funny guy.
Stewart and Colbert are great for what they are but neither one is a major network flagship late night talent.
And none of it is better than watching "Band of Brothers" on DVD.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
SF Giants World Series Parade
 |
| I call this one "Fear the Beard" because of the kid doing the Brian Wilson pose in the front, complete with a beard in black marker. I think maybe the framing could have been wider to show a little more of the fire truck, but I like it alright. |
 |
| This is in mostly because it's Tim Lincecum. |
 |
| I call this one "All Eyes on Aubrey." I'm often more interested in the hoopla surrounding the event than the event itself and I feel this one shows both Huff's passion for the moment and everyone else's enthusiasm. I also like that it makes you realize that the camera taking the picture is just another one of the cameras in the crowd. |
 |
| "Natty Light." I wanted to call it "Baptism" but thought that might be a little heavy-handed. The backstory is that the guy getting doused had been giving "baptisms" (his use of the word, not mine) to his friends previously (note the wet shirt of the douser). The tables were turned. |
 |
| This is maybe my favorite shot of the whole set (there are a lot more that I haven't put on here). I call it "Long Arm of the Law." I was blown away by all the confetti on the ground and asked a group of people to take some and throw it up in the air so it could catch the backlight. Kind of corny, I admit, but I figured I could just not show anyone if it seemed too much. But right as they were throwing it in the air, a cop came over and told us to clear the street. I was pissed because he wouldn't let me get the shot I wanted and his arm was in the only two frames I fired off of the shot. But then I saw the flare and realized the shot wasn't perfect anyway and just became more interesting to me with the cool scene as well as the cop's arm. |
Also, please let me know if you know how to set it up so you can click on the photo and see it in its original size.
Thank you!
All images copyright Stephen Allan.
Omar Vizquel
I'm not sure that this deserves to be my first full post but it's what I'm thinking about, so I guess it does. Unfortunately I'm probably not going to do a lot of research about it--it's more of an impulse post than anything. Anyway, I promise that not all of my posts will be about sports.
I read Rob Neyer's interesting article about whether Omar Vizquel is a Hall of Famer. As a Giants fan, I felt the impulse to assume that he is one. But I started thinking about it and a few questions came up in my mind about what a Hall of Famer is and what rubric one might use to determine worthiness.
If you don't want to read the whole article, Neyer makes an argument about MVP votes: basically, that the Hall of Fame is proof of greatness and that the MVP award is a certain standard of greatness that should be taken into account. But an argument about MVP voting misses the point in Hall of Fame discussion regarding Omar Vizquel because a player like Vizquel rarely even receives a vote. He's the archetype slick-fielding, bat-handling shortstop.
If you're the guy who starts the double play and moves the runner from first to second, the people who are going to get the most credit are the pitcher who threw the slider and the guy behind you who knocks the runner in from second with a single. The principal question for Hall of Fame voters is whether this type of player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame--your prototypical #2 hitter if you will.
It's also a judge of the value of the glove. It's a hard thing to quantify but if the general wisdom is that Ozzie Smith and Omar are the two "greatest fielding shortstops of all time" and that the shortstop is the most difficult defensive position one then has to evaluate Omar with Ozzie. Batting-wise, Omar wins in almost every category (Ozzie gets him in stolen bases, which isn't surprising considering he played on Whitey Herzog's Cardinals). Supremacy in the field is debatable. So head-to-head, Omar should be elected.
But I'm not an advocate of pure numbers. I'm an advocate for more than that, in that a player needs to transcend the numbers in some way. This is the same reason I don't think Rafael Palmiero should be in the Hall...he has all kinds of numbers, but he didn't transcend them. Think of it this way, in 20 career seasons, Palmiero only made four All-Star teams. Despite having 569 home runs, he never led the league. The only things Palmiero ever led the league in were runs, hits, and doubles. He only won each of those categories once. A very good hitter, sure, but not great. And NOT a Hall of Famer.
Vizquel, on the other hand, played in a way that transcended his numbers. He was often the emotional soul of his team. He might be the best defensive shortstop ever. But now that I've claimed that I won't do research to back up my post I will break that promise and throw some numbers at you.
He only hit over .300 once in his career. He is only 8th among active players in runs scored despite being first in plate appearances. He did lead the league in sacrifices four times (mad credit, Omar) but he NEVER led the league in any other offensive category. Defensively, he is third all-time in SS assists, despite having played more games at short than anyone else. Eleventh in putouts at SS.
And, in a 22 year career, Omar only made 3 All-Star teams. On top of that, I only found one year (1993) in which Omar spent the majority of his at-bats hitting leadoff. And that year he hit almost as often (275 times) in the 9-hole as he did hitting leadoff (283). I would guess that he spent more games in the 9-hole that season, considering how many more at-bats a leadoff hitter generally gets than a 9th-place guy. Omar was never a middle-of-the-order guy and spent his best years in the 2-hole.
It pains me to say it (I have always thought of myself as a #2 hitter) but #2 hitters are not your Hall of Fame guys. The Hall is for the stars. It's for guys who bring everybody home or for the rare leadoff hitter dynamic enough to transcend that role.
In my penultimate point, I will bring up Willie McGee. Willie was a much better hitter, leading the league in batting twice and hitting .300 seven times. He was fast on the basepaths and a very good outfielder. He won an MVP award (1985) But nobody claims he's a Hall of Famer.
Think of it this way, Maury Wills is not in the Hall of Fame. Pee Wee Reese had to wait until the Veterans Committee. Omar was a very good player but I can't justifiably say that he was a better shortstop than Maury Wills or Pee Wee Reese. Can you?
If you don't want to read the whole article, Neyer makes an argument about MVP votes: basically, that the Hall of Fame is proof of greatness and that the MVP award is a certain standard of greatness that should be taken into account. But an argument about MVP voting misses the point in Hall of Fame discussion regarding Omar Vizquel because a player like Vizquel rarely even receives a vote. He's the archetype slick-fielding, bat-handling shortstop.
If you're the guy who starts the double play and moves the runner from first to second, the people who are going to get the most credit are the pitcher who threw the slider and the guy behind you who knocks the runner in from second with a single. The principal question for Hall of Fame voters is whether this type of player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame--your prototypical #2 hitter if you will.
It's also a judge of the value of the glove. It's a hard thing to quantify but if the general wisdom is that Ozzie Smith and Omar are the two "greatest fielding shortstops of all time" and that the shortstop is the most difficult defensive position one then has to evaluate Omar with Ozzie. Batting-wise, Omar wins in almost every category (Ozzie gets him in stolen bases, which isn't surprising considering he played on Whitey Herzog's Cardinals). Supremacy in the field is debatable. So head-to-head, Omar should be elected.
But I'm not an advocate of pure numbers. I'm an advocate for more than that, in that a player needs to transcend the numbers in some way. This is the same reason I don't think Rafael Palmiero should be in the Hall...he has all kinds of numbers, but he didn't transcend them. Think of it this way, in 20 career seasons, Palmiero only made four All-Star teams. Despite having 569 home runs, he never led the league. The only things Palmiero ever led the league in were runs, hits, and doubles. He only won each of those categories once. A very good hitter, sure, but not great. And NOT a Hall of Famer.
Vizquel, on the other hand, played in a way that transcended his numbers. He was often the emotional soul of his team. He might be the best defensive shortstop ever. But now that I've claimed that I won't do research to back up my post I will break that promise and throw some numbers at you.
He only hit over .300 once in his career. He is only 8th among active players in runs scored despite being first in plate appearances. He did lead the league in sacrifices four times (mad credit, Omar) but he NEVER led the league in any other offensive category. Defensively, he is third all-time in SS assists, despite having played more games at short than anyone else. Eleventh in putouts at SS.
And, in a 22 year career, Omar only made 3 All-Star teams. On top of that, I only found one year (1993) in which Omar spent the majority of his at-bats hitting leadoff. And that year he hit almost as often (275 times) in the 9-hole as he did hitting leadoff (283). I would guess that he spent more games in the 9-hole that season, considering how many more at-bats a leadoff hitter generally gets than a 9th-place guy. Omar was never a middle-of-the-order guy and spent his best years in the 2-hole.
It pains me to say it (I have always thought of myself as a #2 hitter) but #2 hitters are not your Hall of Fame guys. The Hall is for the stars. It's for guys who bring everybody home or for the rare leadoff hitter dynamic enough to transcend that role.
In my penultimate point, I will bring up Willie McGee. Willie was a much better hitter, leading the league in batting twice and hitting .300 seven times. He was fast on the basepaths and a very good outfielder. He won an MVP award (1985) But nobody claims he's a Hall of Famer.
Think of it this way, Maury Wills is not in the Hall of Fame. Pee Wee Reese had to wait until the Veterans Committee. Omar was a very good player but I can't justifiably say that he was a better shortstop than Maury Wills or Pee Wee Reese. Can you?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Will I be able to keep this up?
Well, I've signed up for a blog....I'm hoping that I might keep up with it. You think I can?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)