"Field Of Dreams" Sucks

I really have problems with Field of Dreams. I’ll probably come off as the kind of baseball fan that is untouched by nostalgia for the game, but that’s simply not true. The fact is that Field of Dreams attempts to co-opt nostalgia for its own insidious purposes. Where love of the game is earned by fans over time by going to the park and occasionally witnessing some statistically unlikely hit, or diving catch, or some other big moment that may be smaller than a game winning homerun, but just as significant to the observer for personal reasons, Field of Dreams cheapens what is very real by pairing it up with nonsensical garbage.

Field of Dreams is meant to be a tribute to the game, but I see it as leeching rather than enhancing. And I think you can do “baseball fantasy” right. I’m not against fantasy or “magical realism” in general. Mark Helprin’s “Winter’s Tale” is one of my favorite novels, and Michael Chabon’s Summerland isn’t a half bad attempt at a baseball fantasy novel.

So what specifically is wrong with Field of Dreams?

1. At one point in Field of Dreams, Shoeless Joe jokes that they didn’t let Ty Cobb play because he was such a bastard in life. There is a certain irony in Joe Jackson willfully excluding someone else from baseball heaven, even if he was a bastard.

2. Where are the Negro League players? If Joe Jackson is allowed into baseball heaven because of an allegedly unfair exclusion from the game, perhaps Josh Gibson should be allowed in as well? Does Jackie Robinson have to break the Heaven color barrier first?

3. Kevin Costner is apparently riverdancing on this promotional poster. We may never know why.



4. The idea of sacrifice. I dislike sacrificing based on sabrmetric principles. But I also disdain sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Sacrifice can be noble if it saves a life or makes the world a better place, but sacrifice for no reason is pointless. Ray acts like a crazy person in the movie, endures Job-like trials, puts his family into financial hardship, all because he hears voices in his cornfield. His faith (and don’t get me started on faith) pays off, but what was the point in putting him and his family though hardship to get a mystical baseball field? God couldn’t have provided some land? I here he does that occasionally. There wasn’t a barren parcel around? There wasn’t some soil with a messed up PH level around that could have been turned into a field? Or maybe a Superfund site? Why was this so hard for Ray and his family? What was gained? If Ray had been familiar with Stephen King’s “Children of the Corn” would this story have happened?

Also, Moonlight Graham is a young ghost when he’s on the field, but when he steps off the field he ages into an elderly doctor and becomes visible to unbelievers. The theological questions are mind-boggling. Do ghosts age? Or do they age only if they let themselves be observed by unbelievers? And what’s bad about being an old ghost? Can you die again? Do you feel pain in your non-body? If Joe Jackson stepped off the field would he become an aged liquor store owner ghost?

5. The belittling of miracles. When the comic book character Superman first came about before the advent of Super Villains, Superman spent most of his time preventing petty theft in Metropolis. He did this even though he was basically invincible and apparently very efficient at converting sunlight into energy. Superman probably would have been put to better use running on a giant hamster wheel and generating electricity, or plowing fields in poor nations or doing any of million other things that would be more valuable than fighting petty crime in what appears to be a fairly well-off city.

Field of Dreams falls into a similar trap. Let’s think about the implications of a baseball field where the spirits of dead baseball players continue to play baseball. What does this tell us about the world? There is an afterlife, apparently. Is there a God? Do the players know? If we plow under an office on Wall Street will the spirits of legendary floor traders start posthumously investing for all to see? What other breaches of the laws of nature are possible with this knowledge? Is creationism actually true? And does God really care so much about baseball that his first recorded miracle in 2000 years involves a haunted baseball field?

And why is no one suitably impressed? Terrence Mann tells Kevin Costner that “people will come” to watch the players. That’s the extent of his vision? You know who else will come? Physicists, priests, photographers, the New York Times, Fox News, and ESPN4 – The All Ghost Sports Channel. And Terrence, I think they’ll plunk down more than a 20 for the privilege. Instead we get “Ray’s farm is saved because he can charge admission for his ghost baseball field! Hopefully we can compete with the Wonder Spot down the road.”

6. “Have a catch”. I’m from the Midwest, and it may very well be that most of the rest of the country asks their dad to “have a catch.” If it is, please feel free to correct me. I have never heard anyone say “have a catch” outside of this movie. Kevin asks at one point, “Can you imagine that? An American boy refusing to have a catch with his father?” There’s only one activity that people routinely “have” and it has little to do with baseball.

7. Assuming that Terrence Mann was allowed to leave the corn again, wouldn’t his subsequent writing on the subject be the most important thing ever in the history of the universe?

8. While much of my analysis has been spiritual so far, is it possible that time travel is involved? Since Joe Jackson reveals the mysterious voice to be Kevin Costner’s own, it is logical to assume that there is super-cool technology in the future. It also seems likely that Costner has caused some type of rift in the space-time continuum which allows these ballplayers to play again. Moreover, it seems likely that this rift will endanger the existence of the universe. There’s probably a good sci-fi horror tale out there about Kevin Costner accidentally destroying the universe in an attempt to “have a catch” with his dead father.

9. The concessions at the Field of Dreams appear to be lacking. Couldn’t he plow under some of his soy bean crop to create the ghosts of dead concession employees and beer vendors?

10. Who are the umpires? I think that an unnamed, undead umpire is a terrifying concept. Especially as he appears to be crooked. Shouldn’t an undead umpire be at least as good as PitchFx?

11. Is there a soccer Field of Dreams out there? Soccer is a bigger sport than baseball worldwide, complete with passionate fans and everything. Or does God just love America and baseball. Perhaps this supports the time travel theory? And do minor sports get their own fields? Is there a plowed under Blockbuster Video somewhere where the ghosts of the greatest badminton players of all time still beat the shuttlecock?

Field of Dream is an ill-conceived mess. Some suspension of disbelief is always involved in the fantasy genre, but this movie seems to be about a complete change in civilization so Kevin Costner and his dad can make up. That, after all, is the conclusion. If the movie is intended as a paean to baseball, shouldn’t the conclusion focus on baseball instead of using baseball and inter-dimensional time-travel as a means to solve Costner’s longstanding familial issues?

Major League gets closer to the spirit of baseball for me. It’s ostensibly a brainless comedy, but it’s far more real, and more evocative than anything in Field of Dreams. As far as I’m concerned Kevin Costner and Roy Hobbes’s son can go and have a catch together and never besmirch baseball again.

Also, Shoeless Joe did it.

Macha set to piss people off?

There will likely be another player move today after the game against Cleveland and Macha said it could be the kind that upsets a player.

“There’s probably going to be a lot of people not happy with me,” Macha said.

Jeff Suppan named a started and Villanueva sent to AAA?

The answer came in relation to talks that Schoenweiss is pissed that he got cut, so maybe Ken meant a player is going to be pissed?

Stay tuned post-game I suppose.

Marc Hulet Solves Rotation Problem

Gallardo

Wolf

Davis

Bush

Those four, I would think, are locks. I came across an interesting solution over at fangraphs to that fifth spot where the Brewers are trying to figure out how to make lemonade out of dog shit.

It seems to be clear that Melvin is mostly unwilling to jettison Suppan. It would be expensive in dollars and whatever currency one uses to measure ego, Freud's mayhap? Melvin is not about to willing give up either it seems, despite the very real benefit to the ball club. Admitting failure is never easy (Kirstie Ally's new reality show, and wardrobe consultant, can attest to that). So let's assume we're stuck with Soup. How can we mitigate his damage while still trying to get some innings out of him? Marc Hulet has an idea:

As we saw yesterday in my introductory post, there is really is no point in wasting time and resources trying to enter the season with five starters earmarked for 25+ starts. No. 5 starters, in the traditional sense, just don’t exist. The best bet is to focus on securing four starters that can make 24 starts or more. In the fifth spot in the rotation, a three-man job-share could then be developed and it would break down like this:

1. A long reliever who would serve as the seventh arm in the ‘pen and be expected to make eight to 10 starts on the year. Ideally, this would be a proven veteran who could stick at the MLB level all season.

2. A pitching prospect that projects to be a fringe No. 3 or 4 with two or three minor league options remaining. He would be introduced to the Majors in this low-pressure role over the next two to three seasons before officially (hopefully) graduating to the role of a reliable third or fourth starter. In this role, the pitcher would need to make about 10 starts at the MLB level each season.

3. A minor league “veteran” pitcher (somewhere in the 25-30 year old range) who has been unable to stick in the Majors – and still has at least one minor league option left – and can be relied on to make at least five starts on the season.

I like the idea because the Brewers currently are tailor made to make this work with a number of individuals. Suppan, Vargas, Parra and Villanueva all have considerable starting/long man experience and each offers a much different repertoire. Throw Chris Narverson into the mix and that is a veritable cornucopia of inconsistent potential to throw a few quality innings.

Now the cruz of Hulet's argument rests on injury prevention, talent training and cost efficiency. Obviously there is nothing the Brewers can do to make Jeff Suppan's contract more efficient.

They can however make Parra a "starter" with none of the pressure that entails and have a solid stable from which to choose when selecting a starter. Pick out of this rotisserie the best match-up and let him start.

There would have to be a few changes in the bullpen to make it work if the Brewers wanted to keep Parra and Nerveson. Namely lefty specialist Mitch Stetter is out. Parra/Narveson will have to assume limited LOOGY roles. Villanueva has also been able to use that change-up effectively against left handed power. Dave Riske also hits the road. He was not good in 2008 and didn't play last year. With Coffey, Hawkins and Villanueva he has no role anyway.

What that gives you is a 4 man rotation, a fifth starter rotisserie and two lefty bullpen arms instead of one, and still only a 12 man pitching staff. The Brewers also maintain control of Parra, Bush and Narveson.

Record wise, the last rotation spot is not going to make or break the Brewers in 2010. However, giving up talented arms just to not pay Suppan another $2 million could have long term ramifications for the ball club. This proposal may not win the Brewers any more games, but it does help them hold on to more pitching potential.

Google Chrome is Your New Browser

I love technology.

The coolest search tool ever created specifically for baseball geeks. Player Search lets you query any one of the top baseball stats sites, or several at once. Incredibly useful if you're doing research, a fantasy draft, or arguing with your friends about which guy is better.   This extension searches top sabermetrics sites, including: Baseball Reference, FanGraphs, Baseball Prospectus, Stat Corner, First Inning, Cot's Baseball Contracts, and Minor League Splits.  Feedback is welcome, and if we haven't included your favorite site, speak up and leave a comment.

No, it is NOT a $14.5 Million question

Tom Haudricourt's JS Blog this morning he states the following about Jeff Suppan:

"If Suppan continues to struggle during spring training, you have to wonder if the Brewers will try to find some way to part with him despite his $12.5 million salary and a $2 million buyout of an option for 2011. Without question, the Brewers would like to get something productive for that money but would they do it at the cost of losing another candidate for the rotation who has pitched better?

"That is the $14.5 million question."

This absolute lack of understanding as to the value of Jeff Suppan us infuriating. Jeff Suppan is not worth $14.5 million just because that's what the Brewers are paying him ($12.5 million in salary and a $2 million buyout for next season). That $14.5 million is GONE. IT IS GONE. It's a Sunk Cost. No more. It has nothing to do with the future of the Brewers' rotation. The Brewers need to think about who the best pitchers on their roster are, which easily leaves Suppan out of the rotation and off the team. But they also have to think of prospective costs. Unlike sunk costs, prospective costs matter in your decision making. Deciding whether or not Suppan makes the Brewers' rotation is not a $14.5 million question, it's a control-over-Chris-Narveson-or-Dave-Bush-dollar question. And it has a really really simple and obvious answer.

Gamel is afraid of rationing

clearly wants top tier medical treatment while it is still available:

Brewers 3B Mat Gamel out 6 weeks with latissimus dorsi tear in right shoulder (via Haudricourt's Twitter)

March Madness

It's truly a great day (provided no urgent work pops up of course). I don't have much to say, but feel free to drop any thoughts in the comments. Real quick:

Wisconsin - I like Wisconsin to go far with 3 caveats:

1. Cornell is a perimeter and Wisconsin has poor perimeter defense (really their only weakness). I'd rather face Temple in round 2.

2. Wisconsin sometimes goes ice cold. How far they go will largely be a result of how long they can not have this happen.

3. For Wisconsin, I think officiating is a huge deal. I don't mean to suggest that refs treat Wisconsin unfairly, but Wisconsin plays a "physical without fouling" style. If they run into a conservative official, it will hurt them.

Marquette - They're short, but that's nothing new.

I'm counting on the general shittiness of the Pac-10 to get Marquette into round two, but this seems like a tough matchup to me. If they can get out of the weekend they can do serious damage, as you know West Virginia wants no part of the Golden Eagles after their narrow 1-point victory over Marquette in WV earlier this year.

That's all I got.