Moneyball: Does this mean they'll make a hockey movie about the trap?

2011-09-29T23:39:00.000-07:00

So I went and saw Moneyball on Tuesday. Full disclosure: baseball bores the piss out of me. Now, don't start: I get it. It's one guy doing battle against nine, against the odds -- a team sport that is also a compelling narrative about individualism and a man's struggle against the world. I can see why Americans in particular are taken with it. But I'm much more of a socialist. Also, it's just a whole lot of standing around. But anyway, I went because a good friend wanted to go, and we hadn't hung out in a while, and also, I'd heard good things, so I was prepared to take a chance. And I was pleasantly surprised. It is an excellent movie. I had one minor quibble, but otherwise, it was fantastic. So that's a recommendation for a baseball movie from a guy with no interest in baseball. Y'know, for whatever that's worth.

My quibble contains a bit of a spoiler, I guess, though, if you know about the season in question, you already know what happened. I think I've warned you adequately.

The Kansas City game portion went on way too long. Way, way too long. And I know what you're thinking: "Sure, the guy who doesn't like baseball is going to be bored by the one point in the movie where there's actually some baseball!" but that's not it at all. They just built up all this drama, and initially, it was dramatic. The game itself is an epic story. But it just went on and on and on. And it wasn't even good baseball action to watch -- they just played a painful blooper reel for what felt like twenty minutes. If they were trying to capture what it felt like that night for the fans, job well done, I guess, but I was bored. And I was bored because it didn't really matter. I felt vindicated to have the main character say as much a few minutes later: a streak is great and all, but at the end of the day, a streak is just a bunch of wins. It's not a championship. It's honestly not that important. But other than that: yeah. Great movie.

It did get me thinking though, about doing something similar with a hockey movie, because the obvious parallel to Billy Beane (at least as he was portrayed -- I'd never heard of the guy) is Jacques Lemaire: a guy with an unorthodox system that changed the game and put the wealthy, star-laden teams on the back foot (while making the game much less entertaining to watch -- Moneyball never really addressed this, but if your whole system is to get guys on base and then try to walk them home, that's got to be a lot less fun as a spectator). I'm not actually suggesting that this would happen -- hockey's not that big a draw in the States, so it's not likely to be financially compelling, and since Moneyball is already kicking ass, a hockey version would feel pretty derivative (not that that's ever dissuaded the movie industry, but still).

Anyway, it was fun to think about. David Morse might even make a good Lemaire, if he could pull off the accent.

If you call yourself agnostic, but don't know what a gnostic is...

2011-09-14T19:45:00.000-07:00

...you're probably using the word incorrectly.

I admit it. I called myself an agnostic for years, when I fell into the trap of a) not knowing what the word actually meant and b) not wanting to label myself with something confrontational. I eventually decided, "fuck it. I am an atheist, and if people find that unnerving or upsetting, that's their own damn fault."

This post by Camels with Hammers addresses several of the issues I have with the term "agnostic" (which I now regard as largely useless).

I still feel he's a little soft of deism, though:

...one can be a gnostic atheist who even is open to the possibility of various impersonal “god” concepts more properly called deistic than theistic.

This echoes an argument he made earlier, where he argues that while he can know that there are no personal gods, he can't know whether there are any impersonal ones. I disagree. Deism is pretty much on a level with theism when we're speaking of reality. Sure, in terms of evidence against, deism is on stronger footing than any definition I've heard for a personal god, but if there's no evidence for, why bother? We may as well argue about Russell's teapot. I'm as comfortable saying that I know there are no impersonal gods as I am saying that I know there are no personal ones.

Arnold Jamtart

Moneyball: Does this mean they'll make a hockey movie about the trap?

If you call yourself agnostic, but don't know what a gnostic is...