Enough already.
And, don't YOU start, Mother Earth!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
TBG Reviews: The New Carl's Jr. Patty Melt
My friends at Carl's Jr. introduced a new menu item last week and on Wednesday, I pulled the Bootlegmobile into my local drive-thru just so I could try their Patty Melt.
Served on grilled rye bread, then topped with two slices of American cheese and grilled onions, this was a pretty damn good fast food take on the classic diner sandwich. I would've personally gone all-the-way authentic and substituted Swiss cheese for the "processed cheese food" and there could've been a few more onions on the one I ordered, but otherwise it's another winner for Carl's Jr.
Now, that they have their marketable sound bite from me, let's talk about their new Patty Melt ad campaign. As one or two of you know, my degree is actually in marketing. Consequently, if I'd actually seen the below commercial before I ordered, I'd have probably gone back to Burger King.
(1) It's not funny. Not even remotely so.
(2) It barely mentions the product.
(3) It attempts to sell a sandwich by focusing on the bread.
But, I believe one of the guys is untalented Houston rapper Paul Wall (who also took my order last night) so all is not lost.
Served on grilled rye bread, then topped with two slices of American cheese and grilled onions, this was a pretty damn good fast food take on the classic diner sandwich. I would've personally gone all-the-way authentic and substituted Swiss cheese for the "processed cheese food" and there could've been a few more onions on the one I ordered, but otherwise it's another winner for Carl's Jr.
Now, that they have their marketable sound bite from me, let's talk about their new Patty Melt ad campaign. As one or two of you know, my degree is actually in marketing. Consequently, if I'd actually seen the below commercial before I ordered, I'd have probably gone back to Burger King.
(1) It's not funny. Not even remotely so.
(2) It barely mentions the product.
(3) It attempts to sell a sandwich by focusing on the bread.
But, I believe one of the guys is untalented Houston rapper Paul Wall (who also took my order last night) so all is not lost.
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Oakland A's Monday #15
Overall: 65-67 (3rd Place, AL West)
Last Week: 4-3 (3-0 vs. Blue Jays, 1-3 vs. Devil Rays)
A's fans don't exactly have the best reputation.
About three years ago, there was this wee little fracas involving Oakland fans, a Texas Rangers reliever and a steel folding chair. (Scott Keith gave the whole thing ¼* and he doesn't usually review battle royales!)
The year before that, an A's fan threw a cell phone off the dome of Jurassic Carl Everett. And, try as I might, I can't come up with a better "dinosaur" gag than that.
A few years ago, I was at the Coliseum when the A's played the Mariners and saw fans wearing bootlegged "Ichiro Wok'd My Dog" t-shirts. You stay classy, Oakland.
It's quite the contradiction when one considers how the A's franchise is often labeled as one of the most intelligent in the game. And, all it took was one hopelessly lost season for all the idiots to come out and offer their own ill-formed opinions on everything with the team.
One of the most popular comments making the rounds on just about every A's blog and message board is that the team never should have gotten rid of OF Eric Byrnes.
Even if you're just a casual baseball fan, you've probably seen the guy. He's a regular on Baseball Tonight and their "Web Gems" highlight reel. His unkempt hair and glib, self-deprecating tone turned him into something of an overnight media sensation as he offered "expert" commentary during last year's playoffs on Fox TV.
And, he just signed a 3-year, $30 million extension with the Arizona Diamondbacks.
Amazingly, he's only been out of Oakland for two years and, already, the locals have forgotten why we got rid of him.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should let all of you know that I never liked the guy. Even when he was hitting for the cycle or pinballing himself all over the outfield walls, my one response to anything he did in an A's uniform was: "He's still not an everyday player". And, he wasn't…until his age 27 season in 2003.
That year, Byrnes hit a respectable, if unspectacular .263/.333/.459. More disturbingly, though, is that those numbers included an off-the-cliff drop off after the All Star Break (.168/.242/.310) and a stark platoon split, overall (.752 OPS vs. RHP, .864 OPS vs. LHP). Byrnes also contributed one of the biggest baserunning gaffes in playoff history.
In Game #3 of the 2003 ALDS vs. the Red Sox, Byrnes attempted to score from third on a groundball from Miguel Tejada. Instead of tagging home plate, Byrnes inexplicably sought contact with Boston catcher Jason Varitek, missed the plate entirely and then was tagged out as he walked back to the dugout, because the throw home got away from Varitek, who chased it down.
In 2004, Byrnes put up almost identical numbers in the first and second half, but his platoon differential became more pronounced (.741 OPS vs. RHP, 1.005 vs. LHP) and his defense – always an adventure – became outright unacceptable.
He took routes like a Little Leaguer, regularly threw to the wrong base, missed cutoff men and, because he was occasionally capable of outrunning his own late jumps, gained a wildly undeserved reputation as "good". Finally, in July 2005, the A's got rid of the Kamikaze Crash Test Dummy (no, that really is his nickname) and let him stink up two other teams (Colorado, Baltimore) after the All Star Break (.191/.255/.282).
So, why do so many A's fans want him back?
Well, for one, he's a nice guy. I'd argue that there are a LOT of fans who truly believe that a team full of Eric Byrneses and David Ecksteins would be better (and more fun to watch!) than a team full of A-Rods and Bonds. I'll take my chances with the assh*les, thanks.
Secondly, and along the same lines, don't ever discount the "Hustling White Guy Theory". Perennial offensive mediocrities like Darin Erstad and Eric Owens built entire careers on the foundation that they run hard to first base. Hell, Pete Rose extended his own career for seven years past its expiration date because of…hustle. And, check those numbers: save for a fluky spike in 1981, Rose should've hung 'em up after the '79 or '80 season.
Finally…our old friend, "the recency effect". A's fans see Byrnes having a career year at the age of 31 and are all too willing to overlook the guy's litany of limitations. Thankfully, the D-Backs have saved the A's from themselves.
Make no mistake: This is a terrible, terrible contract for Arizona. They've got some great kids who are cheaper and better than Byrnes, but are now blocked by a guy who isn't nearly as good as he's looked this year.
Besides, we've already got Shannon Stewart, who's filling that particular description quite nicely for the A's. And, if Beane gives him a three year contract…
This Week: vs. Blue Jays (3), vs. Tigers (3)
Last Week: 4-3 (3-0 vs. Blue Jays, 1-3 vs. Devil Rays)
A's fans don't exactly have the best reputation.
About three years ago, there was this wee little fracas involving Oakland fans, a Texas Rangers reliever and a steel folding chair. (Scott Keith gave the whole thing ¼* and he doesn't usually review battle royales!)
The year before that, an A's fan threw a cell phone off the dome of Jurassic Carl Everett. And, try as I might, I can't come up with a better "dinosaur" gag than that.
A few years ago, I was at the Coliseum when the A's played the Mariners and saw fans wearing bootlegged "Ichiro Wok'd My Dog" t-shirts. You stay classy, Oakland.
It's quite the contradiction when one considers how the A's franchise is often labeled as one of the most intelligent in the game. And, all it took was one hopelessly lost season for all the idiots to come out and offer their own ill-formed opinions on everything with the team.
One of the most popular comments making the rounds on just about every A's blog and message board is that the team never should have gotten rid of OF Eric Byrnes.
Even if you're just a casual baseball fan, you've probably seen the guy. He's a regular on Baseball Tonight and their "Web Gems" highlight reel. His unkempt hair and glib, self-deprecating tone turned him into something of an overnight media sensation as he offered "expert" commentary during last year's playoffs on Fox TV.
And, he just signed a 3-year, $30 million extension with the Arizona Diamondbacks.
Amazingly, he's only been out of Oakland for two years and, already, the locals have forgotten why we got rid of him.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should let all of you know that I never liked the guy. Even when he was hitting for the cycle or pinballing himself all over the outfield walls, my one response to anything he did in an A's uniform was: "He's still not an everyday player". And, he wasn't…until his age 27 season in 2003.
That year, Byrnes hit a respectable, if unspectacular .263/.333/.459. More disturbingly, though, is that those numbers included an off-the-cliff drop off after the All Star Break (.168/.242/.310) and a stark platoon split, overall (.752 OPS vs. RHP, .864 OPS vs. LHP). Byrnes also contributed one of the biggest baserunning gaffes in playoff history.
In Game #3 of the 2003 ALDS vs. the Red Sox, Byrnes attempted to score from third on a groundball from Miguel Tejada. Instead of tagging home plate, Byrnes inexplicably sought contact with Boston catcher Jason Varitek, missed the plate entirely and then was tagged out as he walked back to the dugout, because the throw home got away from Varitek, who chased it down.
In 2004, Byrnes put up almost identical numbers in the first and second half, but his platoon differential became more pronounced (.741 OPS vs. RHP, 1.005 vs. LHP) and his defense – always an adventure – became outright unacceptable.
He took routes like a Little Leaguer, regularly threw to the wrong base, missed cutoff men and, because he was occasionally capable of outrunning his own late jumps, gained a wildly undeserved reputation as "good". Finally, in July 2005, the A's got rid of the Kamikaze Crash Test Dummy (no, that really is his nickname) and let him stink up two other teams (Colorado, Baltimore) after the All Star Break (.191/.255/.282).
So, why do so many A's fans want him back?
Well, for one, he's a nice guy. I'd argue that there are a LOT of fans who truly believe that a team full of Eric Byrneses and David Ecksteins would be better (and more fun to watch!) than a team full of A-Rods and Bonds. I'll take my chances with the assh*les, thanks.
Secondly, and along the same lines, don't ever discount the "Hustling White Guy Theory". Perennial offensive mediocrities like Darin Erstad and Eric Owens built entire careers on the foundation that they run hard to first base. Hell, Pete Rose extended his own career for seven years past its expiration date because of…hustle. And, check those numbers: save for a fluky spike in 1981, Rose should've hung 'em up after the '79 or '80 season.
Finally…our old friend, "the recency effect". A's fans see Byrnes having a career year at the age of 31 and are all too willing to overlook the guy's litany of limitations. Thankfully, the D-Backs have saved the A's from themselves.
Make no mistake: This is a terrible, terrible contract for Arizona. They've got some great kids who are cheaper and better than Byrnes, but are now blocked by a guy who isn't nearly as good as he's looked this year.
Besides, we've already got Shannon Stewart, who's filling that particular description quite nicely for the A's. And, if Beane gives him a three year contract…
This Week: vs. Blue Jays (3), vs. Tigers (3)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Did He Say "That's My Better Ho"?
Was I the last person to learn of this video's existence?
Best. YouTube. Ever.
Thanks, Nicka.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Linky, Linky!
We're smack-dab in the middle of our six weeks of summer here in San Diego. From about August 15 to the end of September, temperatures generally soar into the high 80s (even the low 90s!) as the locals rediscover our beaches, parks and outdoor malls.
As for me, I managed to catch a cold over the weekend. Consequently, everyone else is doing the writing today:
First up, your favorite bi-racial writer is back at it with a terrific piece on the state of a certain music genre:
As a black man, I find it really offensive that these aural images are being broadcast and consumed by a white audience. It's almost like the critique and dismissal of jazz as "jungle music", only this time there's really no defense against it. I mean, T-Pain is no Cab Calloway.
Next, my former Machine Gun Funk boss drops his latest SMonday Swindle Sheet and features the heretofore unknown deliciousness of Kylie Minogue's sister…and friends:
DANNII MINOGUE (a.k.a. The Larger-Breasted Version of KYLIE MINOGUE) has told reporters that she felt humiliated when she found out that pictures of her enjoying a lap-dance at a London strip club had been printed in London's News of the World early last year, claiming that she was "set up" by people looking to stir up some controversy. In the interest of journalistic integrity, The SMonday Swindle Sheet has procured the EXCLUSIVE images of Minogue in the back room of the club with a supply-endowed dancer…
My link IS safe for work…
Hey, everyone…it's Movie Joe Reid's birthday! He's that guy who writes the Low Resolution blog. Occasionally. No, he didn't die…he just doesn't care a lick about you, the reader. His one post for the month is a doozy, though. It's Round 2 of his "Beyond Actor-Dome" elimination tournament. Joe extinguished any and all actors of color in the first round, so click on through and see Hollywood through Hitler's eyes!
It's a closer race than you'd think, considering for the first half of our ten-year judging period, I thought (Mark) Wahlberg was something of a one-flick wonder, while (Edward) Norton was Acting Jesus.
M'man Tom Daniels had a new post on the New York Football Giants a few days ago, but I'm linking to his fantabulous review of Michael Lewis' "Moneyball". Aside from being one of about eight people who actually "got" the book, TD suckered me quite nicely with this paragraph:
About six months ago, someone introduced me to this odd concept. It's a store, kind of like a video store, but with books instead of movies. It must be like a chain because they have them all over the city. What's better, they don't even charge a rental fee… just late fees… and you get three whole weeks when you rent a book. The website, similar to Netflix, allows you to create an account and set up a book queue. You can pick which location you want your book to go to. When you bring it back, you can even request another book to be sent to your location.
SPOILER ALERT: He's talking about the library! Or, in español, la biblioteca.
Last, but least, White America's favorite sportswriter is back with a predictably pandering piece on Michael Vick. I'm pretty sure that Dave Chappelle covered this territory four years ago, but if it gets Jason another appearance on Oprah, then it was all worth it:
(Vick) threw it all away because he bought into the self-destructive, immature, hip-hop model of "keeping it real."
As for me, I managed to catch a cold over the weekend. Consequently, everyone else is doing the writing today:
First up, your favorite bi-racial writer is back at it with a terrific piece on the state of a certain music genre:
As a black man, I find it really offensive that these aural images are being broadcast and consumed by a white audience. It's almost like the critique and dismissal of jazz as "jungle music", only this time there's really no defense against it. I mean, T-Pain is no Cab Calloway.
Next, my former Machine Gun Funk boss drops his latest SMonday Swindle Sheet and features the heretofore unknown deliciousness of Kylie Minogue's sister…and friends:
DANNII MINOGUE (a.k.a. The Larger-Breasted Version of KYLIE MINOGUE) has told reporters that she felt humiliated when she found out that pictures of her enjoying a lap-dance at a London strip club had been printed in London's News of the World early last year, claiming that she was "set up" by people looking to stir up some controversy. In the interest of journalistic integrity, The SMonday Swindle Sheet has procured the EXCLUSIVE images of Minogue in the back room of the club with a supply-endowed dancer…
My link IS safe for work…
Hey, everyone…it's Movie Joe Reid's birthday! He's that guy who writes the Low Resolution blog. Occasionally. No, he didn't die…he just doesn't care a lick about you, the reader. His one post for the month is a doozy, though. It's Round 2 of his "Beyond Actor-Dome" elimination tournament. Joe extinguished any and all actors of color in the first round, so click on through and see Hollywood through Hitler's eyes!
It's a closer race than you'd think, considering for the first half of our ten-year judging period, I thought (Mark) Wahlberg was something of a one-flick wonder, while (Edward) Norton was Acting Jesus.
M'man Tom Daniels had a new post on the New York Football Giants a few days ago, but I'm linking to his fantabulous review of Michael Lewis' "Moneyball". Aside from being one of about eight people who actually "got" the book, TD suckered me quite nicely with this paragraph:
About six months ago, someone introduced me to this odd concept. It's a store, kind of like a video store, but with books instead of movies. It must be like a chain because they have them all over the city. What's better, they don't even charge a rental fee… just late fees… and you get three whole weeks when you rent a book. The website, similar to Netflix, allows you to create an account and set up a book queue. You can pick which location you want your book to go to. When you bring it back, you can even request another book to be sent to your location.
SPOILER ALERT: He's talking about the library! Or, in español, la biblioteca.
Last, but least, White America's favorite sportswriter is back with a predictably pandering piece on Michael Vick. I'm pretty sure that Dave Chappelle covered this territory four years ago, but if it gets Jason another appearance on Oprah, then it was all worth it:
(Vick) threw it all away because he bought into the self-destructive, immature, hip-hop model of "keeping it real."
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Oakland A's Monday #14
Overall: 61-64 (3rd Place, AL West)
Last Week: 5-2 (1-0 vs. Tigers, 3-0 vs. White Sox, 1-2 vs. Royals)
I'm going to try and defend Marco Scutaro.
For those of you who don't follow the A's, Scutaro is essentially our own David Eckstein: a perfectly serviceable player who's been tagged with clichéd labels like "clutch", "knows how to win" and "knows how to win in the clutch". In fact, to hear some A's fans tell it, Scutaro has "that special something" that magically allows him to raise his game in late inning pressure situations. Perhaps our friends at Baseball-Reference.com can settle this once and for all:
Runners in Scoring Position, 2 Outs (BA/OBP/SLG): .233/.363/.358
Late & Close: .242/.314/.366
Tie Game: .250/.324/.369
Team within 1 Run: .261/.320/.391
Career Overall: .258/.319/.390
(Late & Close are PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.)
These numbers underscore the stat-head theory that, while there are clutch hits, "clutch hitting" as a repeatable skill is a myth. Scutaro's "clutch" numbers roughly align with his career numbers, which aren't that great to begin with. In fact, the "clutch numbers" = "career numbers" connection is generally true for most players, good or bad.
Whoops, almost forgot…I'm here to defend Scutaro.
Check out this article from Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle.
It seems the A's are planning to phase out Scutaro over the next several weeks, in an effort to see if some younger, cheaper players can fill the same role. Now, as much as this makes sense from both a fiscal (in 2008) and competitive (in 2008) perspective, it highlights one of the things (hell, the thing) I hate most about my favorite team.
The A's do a terrible job of giving opportunities to players who deserve them and, conversely, staying too long with players who don't.
Scutaro is not a great or even good everyday player, but he's a solid back-up infielder who can help the team on the field in the last six weeks of this season and, quite frankly, deserves better than to be stapled to the bench at the expense of "Quadruple-A" players like Donnie Murphy and Jack Hannahan. (Who? Exactly.)
In a very limited number of plate appearances, Scutaro is killing left-handed pitching this year. If the A's want to go in a different direction in 2008, would it be the worst thing in the world to let Scutaro puff up his overall '07 numbers while playing him in a strict platoon down the stretch? A few anonymous kids get most of the ABs, while Scutaro, in theory, can cash in with some National League team smitten with his #8 hitter skill set built on a fluky line against southpaws.
It's a "goodbye" and a "thank you" and a "good luck with the Mets next year" all rolled into one.
Hey, that's as close as a defense for him as you'll get from me.
This Week: at Blue Jays (3), at Devil Rays (4)
Last Week: 5-2 (1-0 vs. Tigers, 3-0 vs. White Sox, 1-2 vs. Royals)
I'm going to try and defend Marco Scutaro.
For those of you who don't follow the A's, Scutaro is essentially our own David Eckstein: a perfectly serviceable player who's been tagged with clichéd labels like "clutch", "knows how to win" and "knows how to win in the clutch". In fact, to hear some A's fans tell it, Scutaro has "that special something" that magically allows him to raise his game in late inning pressure situations. Perhaps our friends at Baseball-Reference.com can settle this once and for all:
Runners in Scoring Position, 2 Outs (BA/OBP/SLG): .233/.363/.358
Late & Close: .242/.314/.366
Tie Game: .250/.324/.369
Team within 1 Run: .261/.320/.391
Career Overall: .258/.319/.390
(Late & Close are PA in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.)
These numbers underscore the stat-head theory that, while there are clutch hits, "clutch hitting" as a repeatable skill is a myth. Scutaro's "clutch" numbers roughly align with his career numbers, which aren't that great to begin with. In fact, the "clutch numbers" = "career numbers" connection is generally true for most players, good or bad.
Whoops, almost forgot…I'm here to defend Scutaro.
Check out this article from Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle.
It seems the A's are planning to phase out Scutaro over the next several weeks, in an effort to see if some younger, cheaper players can fill the same role. Now, as much as this makes sense from both a fiscal (in 2008) and competitive (in 2008) perspective, it highlights one of the things (hell, the thing) I hate most about my favorite team.
The A's do a terrible job of giving opportunities to players who deserve them and, conversely, staying too long with players who don't.
Scutaro is not a great or even good everyday player, but he's a solid back-up infielder who can help the team on the field in the last six weeks of this season and, quite frankly, deserves better than to be stapled to the bench at the expense of "Quadruple-A" players like Donnie Murphy and Jack Hannahan. (Who? Exactly.)
In a very limited number of plate appearances, Scutaro is killing left-handed pitching this year. If the A's want to go in a different direction in 2008, would it be the worst thing in the world to let Scutaro puff up his overall '07 numbers while playing him in a strict platoon down the stretch? A few anonymous kids get most of the ABs, while Scutaro, in theory, can cash in with some National League team smitten with his #8 hitter skill set built on a fluky line against southpaws.
It's a "goodbye" and a "thank you" and a "good luck with the Mets next year" all rolled into one.
Hey, that's as close as a defense for him as you'll get from me.
This Week: at Blue Jays (3), at Devil Rays (4)
Sunday, August 19, 2007
TBG Reviews: The Simpsons Movie
In the Springfieldian dialect, I'd call it cromulent entertainment.
In fact, it was somewhat surreal to watch a movie like this in a theater setting. The comedic elements were met mostly with light laughter that was the guffaw equivalent to the "golf clap". While the one or two genuinely laugh out loud moments appeared to be too subversive for most of the audience.
The plot was pretty much a supersized version of 99% of the usual "Simpsons" small screen storyline: Homer screws up. The road to redemption tweaks the noses of familiar pop-culture and political targets (a scene with a room full of government eavesdroppers pays off nicely), but ultimately, if you've been watching the seminal series since the beginning, you'll find yourself sifting through moments during the movie that have been recycled from earlier events in the TV show.
That's not to say I was disappointed.
My expectations were low enough that I hemmed and hawed and bought a bootleg "studio copy" a few weeks back that turned out to be a different (yet, equally underwhelming) animated movie, instead.
The Simpsons Movie killed about 80 minutes of an otherwise lazy (and f*cking hot) Saturday in San Diego and, on a grander scale, served as something of a (belated) victory lap for the writers and producers who were told back in 1990 that going up against "The Cosby Show" was sheer lunacy. On these levels, I had no problem with the flick.
But, you should still just wait for the DVD.
In fact, it was somewhat surreal to watch a movie like this in a theater setting. The comedic elements were met mostly with light laughter that was the guffaw equivalent to the "golf clap". While the one or two genuinely laugh out loud moments appeared to be too subversive for most of the audience.
The plot was pretty much a supersized version of 99% of the usual "Simpsons" small screen storyline: Homer screws up. The road to redemption tweaks the noses of familiar pop-culture and political targets (a scene with a room full of government eavesdroppers pays off nicely), but ultimately, if you've been watching the seminal series since the beginning, you'll find yourself sifting through moments during the movie that have been recycled from earlier events in the TV show.
That's not to say I was disappointed.
My expectations were low enough that I hemmed and hawed and bought a bootleg "studio copy" a few weeks back that turned out to be a different (yet, equally underwhelming) animated movie, instead.
The Simpsons Movie killed about 80 minutes of an otherwise lazy (and f*cking hot) Saturday in San Diego and, on a grander scale, served as something of a (belated) victory lap for the writers and producers who were told back in 1990 that going up against "The Cosby Show" was sheer lunacy. On these levels, I had no problem with the flick.
But, you should still just wait for the DVD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
