→ November 21, 2018
→ By

Indian Summer app.

Game designer Uwe Rosenberg has managed to make a reputation for himself with two very distinct genres of board games – very complex, low-randomness games of worker placement and resource collection, often with rulebooks running twenty pages long; and light puzzle games that ask you to fill out your personal board with Tetris-like pieces while achieving certain side goals. I’m not a huge fan of the former, other than his original Agricola, but I like the latter quite a bit, including the first one, the two-player Patchwork. He’s followed that up with the “puzzle trilogy” of Cottage Garden, Indian Summer, and this year’s Spring Meadow. The first two now have app versions – I presume the third is in development – and, since I have the physical version of Cottage Garden, I decided to start with the app version of Indian Summer (android • iOS), and report that it’s pretty good across the board.

The basic move in Indian Summer is to place one of five tiles in your personal queue on to your 8×9 board, which is divided into six segments. The tiles can cover three, four, or five spaces at once, and every tile has a single ‘hole’ in it that allows anything printed on the board to peek through after you’ve placed the tile. When you place tiles to cover an entire segment (12 spaces), you then gain any treasures that appear through the holes in those tiles – berries, nuts, mushrooms, and feathers, each of which grants you some special ability. When one player fills out his/her entire board, that becomes the final round, after which players will get one more chance to play their nuts (#phrasing) before the scoring. You get one point for every space covered, up to 72, and then one bonus point for every nut you have left over.

The treasures are the key to the game, of course. Playing a feather lets you place an additional tile on the same turn. Playing a mushroom lets you place the first tiles in the queues of any two opponents. Playing a nut lets you place a squirrel tile, covering a single space, anywhere on the board. Playing a berry lets you refill your queue from the main supply before the automatic refill that occurs when your queue is empty. You can also trade up that chain at a 2:1 ratio, such as two berries for one nut, or down at a 1:1 ratio, such as one feather for one mushroom.

If you create certain three- or four-hole patterns with the tiles you place, you can place a bonus animal tile that matches that pattern and then score the treasures a second time. Since every board has just one feather on it, this is the obvious way to score a second feather – place tiles in a way that the feather is visible and part of a pattern matching an animal tile. There are even four animal tiles that come with a treasure of their own, one of each type, of course.

The app has run extremely well for me so far and provided sufficient challenge with the AI players to keep me playing. The tutorial could be better – it’s goofy, but didn’t make all the rules clear, especially not with the animal tiles – but I figured out the rules with some trial and error as well as one check in the online rulebook. The colors are fantastic, and using the app to move and rotate or flip pieces is intuitive. You can also easily click to see opponents’ boards, but the app is smart enough to give you a tiny thumbnail so you can see at a glance how close each opponent is to covering all 72 spaces.

The AI skill levels seem to vary by the amount of time the app gives itself to decide on its next move; the hard AI players can easily take ten seconds to decide on a move, which is weird but actually reassuring in a way, as (I assume) the AI player is running through a huge list of potential moves before settling on one. I can beat the hard AI players about half the time, but the main challenge is finishing the board first because the AI players clearly favor that goal, with adding animal tiles their second criterion. It’s easy to get the shaft because an AI player filled out its board and triggered end-game, especially if you were the first player to go, since then you don’t get to place any other pieces beyond the one-space squirrels. I’ve noticed more than one instance where an AI player could have ended the game (I think) but chose not to do so, which seemed suboptimal when it happened – not for me, though, as I appreciated the extra turn.

The app has a great undo function that rolls everything back to the start of your turn, which is great for trying different scenarios out to see what has the best outcome. It seems to follow strict and not entirely necessary rules about using those optional actions; for example, if you’ve played a berry to add tiles to your track, you can’t then decide to play a feather to place two tiles on this turn, which doesn’t make much sense to me. That also means you can’t place a tile, play a berry, then place another tile.

I think I still prefer Patchwork as a game for its simplicity and the pure two-player experience – Indian Summer plays two to four – but this is very solid, and it’s a bit simpler than Cottage Garden too. My lone complaint with the game, rather than the app, is that the scoring is so tight that it does feel like the winner is often determined by the randomness of the draws, both what board you get and what tiles appear when. Since you can’t win if you don’t fill out your board, it’s a bit of a race as well. I’ll keep playing this one but I don’t think it’ll replace Patchwork for me any time soon. It does mean I need to pick up Cottage Garden’s app, though.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,
→ November 20, 2018
→ By

Widows.

Steve McQueen’s new film Widows, his first since his Oscar-winning 12 Years a Slave in 2013, is an adaptation of a 1980s British TV series of the same name, a series McQueen says he wanted to adapt for some time. He’s maintained much of the framework of the series’ six-episode first season, which spawned a second season (Widows 2: Electric Boogaloo) and later a sequel series, but added some new elements and rewritten the resolution completely. It’s a dense, layered, frenetic heist film that packs a ton of backstory into the first two-thirds of the film – too much, really – before a tremendous finish worthy of the genre.

Harry Rawlings (Liam Neeson) is the leader of a four-man crew that we see trying to escape from a robbery at the start of the film, only to have them die in a police shootout and explosion, which leaves their four wives as the widows of the film’s title. Veronica Rawlings (Viola Davis, who’s going to get an Oscar nomination for this) finds out that Harry stole from would-be city alderman Jamal Manning (Brian Tyree Henry), who wants his $2 million back and gives her a month to find it any way she can. Harry left behind a notebook with details on his next job, with a potential $5 million prize, so Veronica decides to contact the other widows – whom she’s never met – to assemble a crew and pull off the heist themselves so she can pay off Jamal and set the widows up financially.

The effort by the widows to become a team and pull off this heist is the main plot in the film, but there’s so much more layered on top of it that many scenes end too quickly, so the tension doesn’t always build enough and we don’t always get enough exposition on the characters. Jamal is running against Jack Mulligan (Colin Farrell), who’s trying to win the seat long held by his father (Robert Duvall as a pretty obvious Trump surrogate), but it turns out that Jack has a connection to Harry, and also ends up with other connections to the widows. Alice (Elizabeth Debicki), another of the widows, was abused by her husband and by her mother (Jacki Weaver, underutilized here), and ends up trying to be a high-end escort to make ends meet, but really comes into her own by working with these other women and taking care of herself for the first time. The third widow in the crew, Melinda (Michelle Rodriguez), is the least interesting character by far, with the most cursory backstory, a role that certainly does the actress playing it no favors and ultimately ends up overshadowed by the other members of the group, including the woman they bring on as the driver, Belle (Cynthia Erivo).

There is a lot of extra material in this movie, which feels at least like McQueen might have tried to pack in all the backstories from the TV series into one two-hour film. There’s a strand around Veronica’s son, deceased before the movie begins, that has no relevance to anything else in the movie and feels like it’s been tacked on to make a political point (a valid one, but not germane to this film). The political campaign is overstuffed for a subplot, and includes its own threads that never get resolved – the black preacher whose support is with the white candidate gives us a dynamic sermon and then seems to serve no other purpose in the film. Jamal’s story is vague – possibly by design – and his arc has no real ending. The salon is where we first meet Belle, but nothing else about the salon is interesting; it reappears later in another scene that tries to make a political point, this one less effective than the one about Veronica’s son. Even Frumpy Carrie Coon is just a prop here, which is a waste of a terrific (and beautiful) actress.
The real strength of Widows isn’t its story, but its cast, which looks like someone drafted a fantasy team of actors in a league with only four players. Davis is excellent, as she always is, although I think her character doesn’t become three-dimensional enough until the film is well underway. Erivo doesn’t even arrive until halfway through but she is an immediate force, with an epic scene when Belle first meets Veronica. Debicki – who towers over the other women, even though her character starts as a shrinking violet with no strength to defend herself – has the strongest arc of the women in the crew and delivers an outstanding performance to make that character growth credible, discovering that she’s capable of doing more than she imagined while also learning to stand up for herself. (Her character’s scenes as an escort, with a very short-looking and oddly coiffed Lukas “The Pin” Haas, give the film its best side quest.) Daniel Kaluuya plays Jamal’s brother and is utterly terrifying as a sociopathic killer. Farrell’s role could easily have been a caricature of a crooked Chicago political scion, but he turns on the Farrell charm – not to mention a passable Chicago accent – and gives the character some emotional depth and enough different faces to avoid that trap.

There’s a pervasive sense in Widows that McQueen is telling the story of women pushed into bad situations by the men they trusted, then finding their own power and agency in the wake of the botched heist, only to have even more men threaten them, push them around, or just ignore them. We can see Alice develop that sense of confidence and empowerment explicitly, like when she asks Melinda for the building plans and manages to figure out where the target is (with one convenient little coincidence). Belle hustles to make money to support her daughter, but is held back by a lack of economic opportunity or a reliable support structure. Veronica had the strongest career prior to their husbands’ deaths, but is also pushed into unexplored territory, the extent of which isn’t clear until the final scene of the film.

Where McQueen goes astray is in piling so much other thematic material on top of this. There’s a statement about politics, how so many of the people who want to represent us offer both good and bad sides, that issues are frequently not as clearcut as we’d like … and then there’s Tom Mulligan speaking like President Trump about minorities and immigrants. There’s a subplot about white police shooting unarmed black citizens that has nothing to do with the rest of the story – and much of the content here that touches on issues of race just doesn’t work, even as it sits alongside discussions of gender that do. Economic inequality pops up. All of these are themes worth covering, but the total puts a weight on Widows that no two-hour film that is also busy telling a ripping heist story could support.

There is far too much good in Widows for all of these quibbles to bring the film down too far; it’s still a lot of fun and very sharp, never talking down to the audience except for the police brutality thread, and with some details in the heist sequence itself that aren’t properly resolved. There’s a ton to unpack from this movie, and five performances that are at least worthy of consideration for awards – Davis seems like a lock for a Best Actress nomination, while Debicki, Erivo, Kaluuya, and Farrell are each outstanding in supporting roles. If you can hang with all the prologue and the terse editing, the payoff here is enormous.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ November 19, 2018
→ By

Burning.

Burning, Korea’s submission for this year’s Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, is based loosely on a 1992 short story by Haruki Murakami called “Barn Burning.” It takes that very brief framework and builds a dreamlike, post-noir feature film, running nearly two and a half hours, that entraps viewers in its layered mysteries early and then increases the tension like a vice as it approaches its shocking resolution. (The Murakami story appears in The Elephant Vanishes, and is also in the online archives of the New Yorker.)

Lee Jong-su* is an unemployed, would-be writer who bumps into an old classmate, Shin Hae-mi, whom he doesn’t recognize because she’s had plastic surgery. She spots him, and makes it clear that she has some interest in him, eventually bringing him back to her tiny apartment and sleeping with him. She also asks him to feed and clean up after her cat while she takes a two-week trip to Africa, which he agrees to do even though it’s a long drive from his father’s farm in the country. When Jong-su goes to pick Hae-mi up on her return, she’s with a new guy, Ben, who is rich, condescending, and possibly her boyfriend. Jong-su seems resigned to the loss of Hae-mi to Ben, but those two keep inviting him out with them, stringing him along, until one day Ben confesses to Jong-su that he has a hobby of burning greenhouses, burning one every two months or so because it’s the ‘right pace’ for him. Later that night, Jong-su makes a cutting remark to Hae-mi, after which she vanishes, leaving Jong-su to try to figure out what’s going on. From there, the story turns darker as Jong-su follows – or stalks – Ben in search of the girl.

* Korean names are written with the family name first; I’ve held to that convention in this review.

At one point in the film, Ben says to Hae-mi, “it’s a metaphor,” after which she asks what a metaphor is, and Ben says Jong-su should answer, since he’s a writer. This entire film is a metaphor wrapped around a set of smaller metaphors. There’s a strong subtext of the pervasive nature of class distinctions in Korean society, and how the upper class may view the lower classes as not just inferior but expendable. Ben represents the idle, entitled rich, while Jong-su and Hae-mi both come from the lower classes. Jong-su lives on a farm while his father is in jail for assaulting a government official, and has very little spare cash; his estranged mother reappears at one point, complaining of how rich Koreans treat her in her menial job and saying how she needs money, which Jong-su promises to provide despite lacking means. Hae-mi, we learn, is broke, with outstanding debts she can’t pay, working just occasionally as a model/dancer outside shops that hire girls like her to try to drum up business. Ben drives a Porsche, lives in a gorgeous apartment, thinks nothing of spending money on food or drink, and appears to have little regard for people he views as beneath him, as do the friends of his who appear in the film – totally ignoring Jong-su while he’s at their parties while treating Hae-mi and Ben’s next girlfriend as if they’re some sort of entertainment, not actual people.

Throughout the film are smaller metaphors, not least of them the actual burning and references to it. There are cigarettes everywhere (and the occasional joint), fires in the background of shots, the burning color of the sun at sunset, and hints of the world burning around our characters with Donald Trump appearing on a TV lying about immigration and with North Korean propaganda audible outside Jong-su’s house. Birds make several appearances; there’s a postcard drawing of a bird in Hae-mi’s apartment, but it’s gone after she vanishes. Hae-mi tells a story about a well that might also have been a metaphor, but discussing its implications would reveal too much.

The main criticism of Murakami’s writing has long been that he doesn’t write compelling women, and the woman in “Barn Burning” is nothing but a prop, so the screenwriters here had a blank canvas … and didn’t do a ton with it. Hae-mi, played by Jeon Jong-seo in her first film role (where she really reminds me of Lily James), is a Boolean character – she has two modes, the flirtatious and perhaps overly sexual coquette as well as the stark depressive who seems to lack a will to live. All her edges are extremely sharp, while Jong-su in particular is drawn with far more nuance to just about every aspect of his character. Jeon does what she can with a character that verges on the ridiculous, at times appearing more like the object of male fantasy than like a fully realized woman, but the writing limits what she can do.

The two male leads deliver outstanding performances. Yoo Ah-in plays Jong-su as a sort of slack-jawed stoner – seriously, his mouth is constantly open – whose expressions and slow reactions would imply that he’s not very bright, but there’s more intelligence beneath the surface here, and Yoo gives him some emotional depth that I wasn’t expecting given how the film first introduces the character. Stephen Yeun is totally magnetic as Ben, smarmy and confident and charismatic, the character Jong-su wants to dislike but can’t quite come around to doing so because Yeun gives him that extra layer of amiability on top of what appears to be a rather unpleasant core.

The original story has Jong-su’s character comparing Ben’s to Jay Gatsby, a line that also appears in the film, while William Faulkner comes up twice during the movie as well. (I had a book with me to read while I waited for the film to start, and in a pure coincidence, it was Faulkner’s The Unvanquished.) The Faulkner connection is fascinating as his writing was frequently opaque, full of symbol and metaphor, and covered themes like racial prejudice and the moral decay that can accompany rising financial status. Ben’s skin is substantially lighter than those of the other main characters, as are his friends’, and the question of his morality and motivations, and even how he acquired such wealth, hangs over the last half of the film.

Murakami’s story doesn’t make the ending clear, but the film makes it much more evident what’s happening with these characters – at least, I think it does, although director Lee Chang-dong ensures that we never get explicit proof that our suspicions are correct. There’s sufficient misdirection here to keep viewers thinking about this film for days afterwards, as I have been. It’s well-written, extremely well-acted, features some stunning and memorable shots, and is just tortuous enough to keep you off balance right through the final scene. It’s one of the best films I’ve seen so far this year.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,
→ November 18, 2018
→ By

The Wife.

The Wife, based on novel of the same name by Meg Wolitzer, has received early acclaim primarily for the performance of Glenn Close as the wife of the movie’s title. She delivers a solid performance, as you might expect, but the movie is dreck, the cinematic equivalent of painting by numbers, with moments so big and predictable that I actually walked to the back of the theater at one point to message a friend about how bad the movie was.

Close plays Joan Castleman, the wife of author Joseph Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, as the film opens, wins the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1993; the story takes us with Joan and Joe to Stockholm for the ceremony while giving us flashbacks to when they met and through the development of his career and their marriage. Joan was a student in Joe’s writing class at Smith, with Close’s daughter Annie Starke playing young Joan and Harry Lloyd hamming it up as young Joe, and they start an affair even though Joe is married and the two are teacher and student. Their romantic relationship also involves a professional partnership, as Joan is a gifted writer in her own right, but subverts her talents because she believes there is no market for a female novelist, while she can help Joe turn his writing into something that can succeed critically and commercially. Back in Stockholm, Nate (Christian Slater) is hounding the family so he can write a biography of Joe, while their adult son David (Max Irons) is there to sulk, smoke pot, and yell at his father. Of course, the tensions build over the course of the film to a melodramatic climax where we learn the truth about Joe’s work while Joan makes some major decisions about the rest of her life.

The hackneyed story runs through a series of coincidences, clichés, and outright groaners that destroy any suspension of disbelief because you can’t possibly accept anything this stupid as remotely realistic. Joe’s about to kiss the stunning young photographer who’s been assigned by his publisher to take pictures of him in Stockholm when the alarm Joan set on his watch to remind him to take his heart medication happens to go off at that precise moment. The winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics is supposed to be there for comic relief but is just an unfunny caricature of the overbearing, bragging parent, and of course we later find out that his kids are messed up. Nate is an even worse caricature of a mercenary writer, unctuous enough to soak the audience in grease, even dressed to depress with a cheap leather jacket and jeans while everyone else is attired for the occasion. David is the brooding young author and his fractured relationship with his father is overwrought and undersold. The scene with the walnut in the hotel room is insultingly trite. And if you can’t see the ending coming with all the clues the film positively throws at you from the beginning, the little plastic castle must be a surprise to you every time.

Close’s performance in The Wife has garnered substantial praise and she’s considered very likely to earn a Best Actress nomination, both for her performance and because the subject matter is clearly Oscar bait. Close is … fine. She gives a good performance in a role that is just not all that interesting – Joan’s character is just not that remarkable and the confines of the script do not give Close all that much room to stretch out. Joan says she doesn’t want to be seen as the long-suffering wife, but that’s just what she is, and we’ve seen this character a thousand times before. Close does what she can, but there’s no new thing under this sun.

Pryce is a scene-chewer by nature, although he deserves credit for how spot-on his Brooklyn Jewish accent is; he gives Joe a little charisma so you can see how women might still be interested in him despite his gruff manner and bombast. Irons scowls his way through the film, although the script gives him little else to do, and Elizabeth McGovern, whose bizarre diction was a constant distraction on Downton Abbey, tries to deliver some sort of weird 1950s dame voice to match an overblown speech that alters the course of Joan’s life.

The groupthink around this film just flabbergasts me – this is a badly written story with two competent performances at its heart, neither of which can elevate this movie beyond the level of dreadful. Even the few laughs are forced and the jokes frequently obvious. If Close gets a nomination over Rosamund Pike (for A Private War) or Melissa McCarthy (for Can You Ever Forgive Me?), it might be more a career achievement honor than a reflection of their respective performances.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ November 18, 2018
→ By

A Private War.

Marie Colvin was a highly decorated war correspondent for The Sunday Times, a British newspaper, for more than 25 years, scoring interviews with major anti-American figures like Muammar Gaddhafi and Yasir Arafat while reporting from war zones in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor, and Sri Lanka, where she lost sight in her left eye during a grenade attack. She’s been credited with saving the lives of over 1500 women and children in what is now Timor-Leste from an attack by Indonesian-backed forces, and later revealed the existence of a mass grave in Iraq that had the remains of 600 Kuwaiti prisoners. She continued to dive into dangerous situations to report from Libya and then Syria, where she was eventually killed by Syrian artillery fire during the siege on Homs in 2012.

A Private War attempts to tell the story of this fascinating, complicated woman in under two hours, a near-impossible task, but one that this film comes close to approaching by limiting the scope of its chronology to the last thirteen years of her life. This narrow focus gives the film more time to spend with Colvin, played here superbly by Rosamund Pike, in those conflict zones, giving us gripping sequences to highlight her bravery while also showing the violence to which she was regularly exposed. That last point is crucial to the film’s primary theme – that Colvin herself battled post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of her dedication to reporting from conflicts, and engaged in some self-destructive behavior as a result. That “private war” of the film’s title is not sufficiently resolved in this film, but Pike does a remarkable job inhabiting this character and all her complexities, enough that we can get a picture of Colvin as a hero who was still very human.

The film thrives on Pike’s performance, which feels note-perfect throughout – she has Colvin’s voice and diction down pat, and shifts comfortably from the confidence, bordering on arrogance, of Colvin at work and in the field to the damaged side of someone suffering from PTSD and, for the first half of the film, refusing to acknowledge it. Colvin sought treatment, depicted in the film, but continued to drink heavily to try to mask it, telling friends she was “in the hole” when the flashbacks and night terrors became so overwhelming she would isolate herself for days. Pike’s Colvin drinks and especially smokes not just to forget but as a reflexive reaction to trauma, both first exposure and its return via flashbacks, yet she’s also compelled to return to the field and even to move further into danger. In the character’s own words, it’s because someone had to tell these civilian war victims’ stories, and if it wasn’t her, no one else would. The film is removed enough from her character to make her motivations ambiguous; her empathy for victims seems real enough, but she appears to be driven by something more, whether it’s adrenaline, ambition, or a need to prove herself.

A Private War plays a little loose with some key points in Colvin’s story, notably that her husband, Juan Carlos Gumucio, killed himself in 2002, within the timeframe of the film – he’s never mentioned at all. The scene outside of Fallujah where Colvin, her longtime photographer Paul Conroy, and a local crew uncovered the mass grave is depicted as the discovery of Iraqi bodies, but the story Colvin wrote on the uncovering identifies them as Kuwaiti prisoners executed and dumped by Saddam Hussein’s forces. Colvin entered Syria for the last time on a motocross bike to get over the border despite a ban on journalists, a scene that isn’t in the film but seems like it would have been tailor-made for Hollywood. The eleven-year-old Palestinian girl whose shooting death the movie version of Colvin describes seeing appears to have been a 22-year-old in real life, which may tie into a regular flashback we see Colvin experiencing throughout the film. And the movie version of Colvin tells a different, over-dramatized story of her childhood and her relationships with her parents, at least compared to the version she gave in real life.

(The film is based on a Vanity Fair article from shortly after Colvin’s death, titled “Marie Colvin’s Private War,” which I’ve used extensively here in this review. One fact in that article that I find fascinating is that she took a class from John Hersey where she read his New Yorker story “Hiroshima,” which still stands today as one of the greatest works of journalism to date. I can’t believe reading that had no effect on her choice of careers.)

If A Private War is flawed, it’s that no film of 110 minutes could give a complete picture of someone like Marie Colvin, who lived a life of enormous achievements, left a tremendous legacy of work and dedication, and was still a three-dimensional human with emotional problems, messy relationships, and demons she acquired through her work. Pike delivers an incredible performance, although it seems like there may be no room at the Oscar inn for her; I’ve only seen two of the five probable nominees for Best Actress but would rank Pike’s performance here over Melissa McCarthy’s in Can You Ever Forgive Me? It’s a more nuanced biopic than most are, and tells a story more people should hear – including me, since I was unfamiliar with her work or legacy before seeing this.

(One warning, however: the film has some harrowing scenes of flashbacks and nightmares to depict Colvin’s PTSD, which seems to me like a probable trigger for audience members with the same disorder, especially if it’s caused by exposure to violence.)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
→ November 17, 2018
→ By

Stick to baseball, 11/17/18.

My one piece for ESPN+ subscribers this week looked at some major names on the trade market this offseason. I also held a Klawchat on Friday.

I appeared on the Pros and Prose podcast to talk about Smart Baseball and other topics related to the book and reading/writing in general.

I’m back to sending out my free email newsletter every week to ten days or so, as the spirits move me. The spirits usually include rum, of course.

And now, the links…

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
→ November 16, 2018
→ By

Klawchat 11/16/18.

Keith Law: Hate if you want to hate. It’s Klawchat.

Bruce: Does Corbin Burnes project as a top of the rotation starter or more of a mid? Should I be optimistic about the Brewers young starting pitching with Burnes, Woodruff and Peralta?
Keith Law: I think he’s more of a #2 starter, above league average, not someone who’s top 15 in MLB. I think Woodruff is a mid-rotation guy. Never a big Peralta fan – he’s too dependent on one pitch and the deception it generates.

Ken (Cleveland): I can’t decide what Corbin is. Assuming my Yankees (like I own them I know) sign him to a 4/110 or 5/130 type contract. what is he for the next 3-4 years. Is he a 4.5 WAR #2 or a 3.5 WAR #3?
Keith Law: There is no way anyone, especially not I, could pretend to offer that kind of precision in a forecast.

addoeh: Will you do your traditional Periscope chat while you spatchcock a turkey this year, even if you aren’t hosting? Maybe you can do the chat while making GBC!
Keith Law: Depends on what else I have scheduled for Tuesday. Hitting the road Wednesday, so that’s out.

Moe Mentum: I think you would make an ideal host for Jeopardy! when Alex Trebek retires (soon). Or at least a contestant. Any interest in auditioning?
Keith Law: I feel like they want someone with a very neutral personality to host that show. That’s … not me.

Bruce: Does Scott Kingery stick long term at SS? Do you expect to see more productivity from him at the plate this year?
Keith Law: Not a shortstop.

JP: what’s your evaluation of Michael King? the stat-line scouts think he’s a valuable piece, but seems more like an up-and-down reliever.
Keith Law: Reliever. You seemed to anticipate my response that you shouldn’t scout the stat line.

Moe Mentum: Hall of Fame question. As the list of enshrinees continually grows, would you endorse the establishment of a “tiering” system to rank the members based on (revisionist) merit? Or perhaps purging some less deserving members from membership? Or do you favor just leaving things alone?
Keith Law: Just leave things alone. But expand the ballot to at least 12 spots.

PhilliePhanDan: I know Kingery needs some more time, but do you have any thoughts on some other former Phillies prospects who seem to have not met expectations? ie, JP Crawford, Nick Pivetta, Roman Quinn, Dylan Cozens,
Keith Law: Crawford has a lot of untapped upside, and I think it’s up to him to decide what kind of player he wants to be. Pivetta has reached his ceiling. I was never a big Cozens fan and think he’s an extra guy at most. Quinn’s issue is staying on the field. He could sneak into a regular role if he stayed healthy.

Nate: What kind of return could the D-Backs reasonably expect for Greinke? True prospects, or just a salary dump.
Keith Law: True prospects. He’s good.

Ryan: I am sure someone is going to pay Bryce Harper $300M+, but is that really money well spent? Will he be able to live up to that contract? He has had 1 great year, 3 good years, and 3 bad years. If you pay that amount of money, are you getting the guy with a 10 WAR or the guy that has a sub 2 WAR two out of the last three years?
Keith Law: One of those sub 2 WAR years was due to playing through an injury, not lack of ability. I think he and Machado are worth that.

Bruce: How do you decide what books to read next? How come theres no website with an algorithm that tells you what you mike like based on what you have read.
Keith Law: I mostly read books in the order in which I bought or acquired them, since that’s how I put them on my shelf. As for how I choose what to buy, it’s a combination of things – authors I like, book lists/rankings I decide to work through, reader & friend recommendations, sometimes just browsing a bookstore and having a spine or cover catch my eye.

Brint: Assuming good health and ignoring service time, is Sixto good enough right now to help the MLB team? Anything he still needs to work on?
Keith Law: Yeah, kind of everything except throwing hard. Not MLB ready.

Bmosc: Time for Wilbon to step away from the mic: He argues that “winning the damn game” is more important than ERA in determining the Cy Young award. Such an antiquated way of thinking.
Keith Law: Yes. I don’t know what his knowledge is like on other sports, but when Wilbon talks baseball, he reflects a philosophy that is 20 years behind even the laggards inside the sport itself.

addoeh: Now that the election is over, do you know if Soros will continue to compensate us for protests until 2020 or will I have to find a real job in the meantime?
Keith Law: I haven’t gotten a check from him in years.

Rick Sanchez: There are 5600 members of the National Guard doing nothing in a desert right now with no AC who are going to miss Thanksgiving with their families, all so that Trump could squeeze a few more votes for the midterms from those willing to buy his BS. It’s also worth noting there hasn’t been a peep about the caravan post-midterms, after touting it as the effing apocalypse beforehand.
Keith Law: Yep. Support are troops (sic).

Ben: Reaction to Betsy DeVos’ proposal which makes it easier for sexual predators to get away with their crimes? What planet does she reside on?
Keith Law: I thought the swamp was drained!

Nate (Seattle): What’s your thoughts about Orlando Arcia’s bat? Is there still hope of him being an above average regular?
Keith Law: I’m still a buyer. I see an above average regular.

Dave: I’ve seen you say you don’t read popular fiction but you do read a lot of modern literature. For lay people, what is the line between the two? How is it determined what counts as ‘literature’ and what doesn’t?
Keith Law: Does it matter? That’s a serious question, not a flippant response. I don’t see where the distinction matters to anyone but the person reading the books.

Rob: I’m in new oreleans for a conference. Heard/been to any places you would recommend to eat?
Keith Law: Cochon/Cochon Butcher.

Ryan: what can the twins do to help rebuild?
Keith Law: Their system is very strong. I suppose they could trade from it to speed things up, but I’d recommend staying the course.

Rob: Any thoughts on the Orioles hire at GM?
Keith Law: Really strong choice, especially with Mejdal coming along to build their analytics department (which I think had nobody left?).

Brandon J: Good day sir. I was wondering if you’ve had a chance to see Jordan sheffield this fall? Looks like he’s working only in relief
Keith Law: I did. Not great. Arm strength, that was it.

Joe: Have the Braves started to fill out their International Scouting Department yet?
Keith Law: No since they can’t really spend for another year.

Mike: did you see Pearson pitch in AZL? he seemed to progress, do you see him as a starter or reliever?
Keith Law: AFL (not AZL, I know what you meant). Was awful for me, awful the next outing, gradually improved as the fall went on. Arm strength is absurd, looks like a starter. Reports I got from scouts who saw him late were good, still a top 100 guy, and third in that system for me.

Gumby: What are your thoughts on Yordan Alvarez’s ability to play the outfield, and his 2018 as a whole?
Keith Law: Zero chance that giant plays the outfield without someone getting hurt.

Dave: Would Harper be a fit at 1B for NY both positionally and as a lefty bat to level out the lineup? And is there really a “bad” contract you could give to either him or Machado? Two 26 year old future HoFers reaching UFA seems pretty unprecedented.
Keith Law: Waste of his athleticism.

Jill: What do Harvard College alumni, past and present, think of Harvard Extension School?
Keith Law: I can’t say I know enough to have an opinion.

Zach: The Reds pursuing top-line pitching in the middle of an unfinished rebuild feels like when I pull the Thanksgiving turkey two hours early because the cook time is done even though the bird’s not ready. No reason to empty the farm to gain 5 wins on a 70 win team. Agreed?
Keith Law: Agreed. Not sure they get it, though.

Joe: I understand if a voter refuses to vote for pitchers for MVP because he sees it as a position player’s award. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. But it really doesn’t make sense when a writer gives de Grom a 5th place vote. If you see him as eligible, how can you possibly justify having him 5th on the ballot?
Keith Law: I agree with your second point, but as for the first one, it is definitively NOT a position player’s award. If you refuse to consider pitchers, that is your right … but DON’T FUCKING VOTE. Give the ballot to someone who will follow the actual guidelines.

Adam: If Thor is traded to SDP, realistically, what top prospect should they target? Gore? Baez?
Keith Law: Worth remembering that the Padres tend to show interest in everybody good – Preller is super aggressive and always exploring options. I would guess they’ll be linked to a lot of trade targets this winter. If I’m the Mets, I insist on Tatis. If I’m Preller, there is no way I give up Tatis. (shrug)

Mac: Where do you think the Sox will move Yoan Moncada? I can’t see a move to 3B or CF working out. He has ability but very little desire to be a good defensive player. They should just plop him in LF and let him concentrate on hitting the baseball.
Keith Law: I don’t know anything about his desire to be a good defensive player or lack thereof. I do know the infield is kind of tough for him given how he fields, but I thought CF would work with his speed and how fast he goes from 0 to whoa.

Guest: First, love your food reviews. My two friends and I relied on your Arizona Eats restaurant guide for our trip to the AFL and you were spot on. One highlight was Ocotillo, where I got the baked lumache pasta I’m still thinking about, five weeks later. Speaking of AFL, we were there in the first week and I was hoping to see some exciting play out of Estevan Florial but wasn’t impressed in the couple games I saw (small sample size and untrained scouting eyes acknowledged). His performance (at least in his stat line) doesn’t seem to have improved since. What do you see in him these days?
Keith Law: Same as last year – the guy doesn’t recognize pitch types well at all, chases too often, swings and misses way too often. Huge tools but no sign he’s converting that into the skills he’ll need to be even an average regular.

Rob: I asked back in June your Metal album of the year and you went with Tribulation. Still the case? FWIW I’m goo
Keith Law: I’d have to think about that one … the Riverside album was great, Toundra was great, solid but uneven records from Horrendous, Omnium Gatherum (maybe not uneven so much as lacking any standout tracks), Voivod, High on Fire.

D: Are there any non-baseball sporting events that you regularly watch?
Keith Law: Nope.

Mike: The starting 3B, SS, 2B for 2019 Chicago Cubs are___,____,_____
Keith Law: Bryant, Baez, TBD. I would still like to think they turn the page on Russell, with Baez emerging as a good shortstop who’s far more productive with the bat.

Chad: Do you think Max Fried has shown enough to be an impact starter? Or is he more of a back-end rotation and bullpen piece now?
Keith Law: I would absolutely start him now to see. He has the CB and CH to be an impact starter. The FB plays a little down from its velocity, so I think he’ll have to either have better command or, more likely, pitch more with his secondary stuff to get to that level.

Chan: Thoughts on the Marlins rebrand so far?
Keith Law: The what by the who?

Denji: Will the story on what’s going on behind the scenes in the Astros front office ever come out? I understand that sources might not want to go on record and the situation is still fluid, but there have been so many vague “yeah, there’s a lot going on” statements from writers that it gets a bit frustrating.
Keith Law: I actually don’t know what you’re referring to here. Just all the departures?

Jay: If you were running the Nats and the Lerner family said you can only sign one to a large, long term deal, would you choose Rendon or Harper?
Keith Law: Rendon, because they have Robles/Soto as Harper replacements but nobody behind Rendon.

Rob: It was fun as a Mets fan this week watching the Orioles (!) school the Wilpons on how a new FO is assembled. Ugh.
Keith Law: I had that thought too – the Orioles have so long been the punch line for ownership jokes, but they hired one of the best candidates and interviewed at least two more very good candidates (even with some folks declining interviews), while the Mets did something I can’t really justify.

Frank : What do you think the ceiling for Alex Lange is? Could he be a bottom or mid rotation guy for the cubs? Thanks.
Keith Law: Always been a reliever for me.

Josh: Lucas Giolito is only 24 but its feeling like he’s at a real crossroads. What does he need to do to be a useful ML pitcher?
Keith Law: I had him as a breakout candidate this year, only to see his mechanics fall apart right out of spring training, but I’m going to double down on it for 2019. It’s really about mechanics and staying healthy this year.

Ryan: Is Joe Mauer a Hall of Famer in your eyes?
Keith Law: He’s very borderline for me. I think he’ll have a hard time getting in, though.

Jennyfer: I read a lot, not as much as you. Do you finish everything you start? I get books based off recommendations, but if after 25-30 pages it doesn’t grip me, I’m out.
Keith Law: I bail on books too – not that often, but I do. I’ve quit books after a page or two if the prose really bothers me, or if there’s something early in the book that I find really distasteful.

Nolan: As a Padre fan who hated the Hosmer signing, how worried should I be about a deal for Thor? He’s better than Hosmer, obviously, but do you see any way the prospect cost would be worth it for a team in SDs position?
Keith Law: Probably not. I don’t see the point in such a deal right now, but maybe ownership is demanding more wins in 2019.

Dan: I know you’re not the biggest Gimenez fan, but say the Indians value him as a top 35/40 prospect, does Gimenez, Justin Dunn/Peterson, Matz and Dom Smith make some sense as a Kluber package for both teams ?
Keith Law: No.
Keith Law: I mean, he’s not a top 35/40 prospect for anyone. I’m not sure how to just assign the guy value he doesn’t have.

Alex: Hi Keith, seeing as though the Mets probably won’t sign Manny where do they go for impact bat? I don’t think trading Thor is the answer as I think his best days are still ahead of him. Do you think wheeler could get a good bat or maybe a buy low guy? Missing out on cain for leadoff and CF last year was a huge mistake. Also do you see new GM considering such things as I don’t know, defense being important?
Keith Law: If BVW has the same payroll restrictions Alderson has, then he’s better off trying to build from within. The system is in good shape; a deGrom trade would help that tremendously. But the free agent market would just be a waste of money for them, since they’ll be playing in the dangerous middle tier, not the top.

Raphael: Your take on the Mariners/Lorena Martin situation?
Keith Law: I know absolutely nothing beyond what’s been published and don’t feel qualified to comment.

Joe: Keith, thanks for the awesome insights. Interested in your take on a “change of scenery” swap of 2 underperforning young pitchers with some past health issues and equal number of years of control left…Dylan Bundy for Vince Velasquez. Fair deal for both sides?
Keith Law: Bundy’s health issues don’t seem “past” to me. I wouldn’t do that if I were the Phillies.

TK: Did you see Will Craig in the AFL? What do you think his floor/ceiling are?
Keith Law: I did, and saw him in August too. I think below-average or fringe regular.

Joe: Did we see enough of Julio Urias at the end of the season to better gauge his chances of being a starter again?
Keith Law: I didn’t. Besides, it’s a medical question, not so much a baseball one.

addoeh: Regarding the Braves not having an intl scouting department because they currently can’t sign anyone, would make any sense to have a few just to provide some evaluation baselines for players they could to trade for in the coming years?
Keith Law: Probably not worth the expense, although at some point they have to ramp up because there are already July 2nd, 2021 players getting locked up by teams.

Kevin: What’s the appropriate amount for a HS kid to pay for a weekend showcase ?
Keith Law: Nothing. Don’t pay for showcases.

JP: Vlad Jr and Robles the clear favorites for 2019 ROYs?
Keith Law: Vlad Jr. yes. Tatis vs Robles would be a fun debate; Robles has the job, clearly, while Tatis is the better player but may not be up until June.

Dave: Some Pirate fans seem to be overvaluing Tucker and Craig based on their AFL performance. Despite all the evidence this couple weeks doesn’t matter, do they have anything else to hang their hats on?
Keith Law: Both fringe prospects. AFL performance is really not reliable.

M: What is the market for Nelson Cruz. Seems like it’s bottoming out for aging players of this type even though he’s been successful
Keith Law: Very limited – what contenders have a full time DH spot open?

Kacey: I coach high school soccer. It’s not apples to apples with baseball of course as it’s more of a team game, but we have so many different personalities, effort levels and a ton of kids with emotional development issues. Do you find it hard to scout high school players because other than asking around (and if a scout asked me, I’d probably tell her most of my kids are great in order to support the kids) it’s hard to find out their true make up or know what it’s going to be? The difference of our kids who come back after one year of college is incredible.
Keith Law: I think that’s one of the hardest and most important parts of an area scout’s job, and something teams like the Astros, who have virtually eliminated area scouts, will miss on badly in the draft.

John: If the Braves trade Pache will they regret it? Why?
Keith Law: Yes, because he’s going to be really good?

Dee: Do you think Steven Avery did it?
Keith Law: The Atlanta lefty did something?

Adam Trask: When do you think the Padres profile as contenders? And how should that guide them this offseason?
Keith Law: That’s my objection – not this year, not with the Dodgers and Rockies still good and the Padres’ talent just starting to reach the majors, and a dead spot at first base and not much value from Myers. They’re not ready to make that big splash.

Tom: I’m not buying the Cubs not having the money to make a run at Harper/Machado. Everyone keeps saying they are at the top of budget but anyone who sees the organization knows they’re swimming in money especially with a TV deal a year away. Do you really think Theo doesn’t have the means to go after Harper or is it smokescreen?
Keith Law: Of course they have the money. Probably 28 teams have the money. It’s about willingness to spend it.

Randall: Cochon in NOLA is always a must for us. Any change to your opinion on Nico after strong AFL season? At Wrigley by 2020?
Keith Law: No change – didn’t see good contact from him, smart player, limited ceiling, moves fast but don’t see over a regular.

Zac: Where would you start Casey Mize this year and would you be surprised if he reached the majors this year?
Keith Law: Start in AA. Comes to the majors when he’s ready, which is probably this year.

John: How do you feel about Eminem as a rapper? I’d presume you have no time for him, given his history of um, problematic lyrical content – but wondered if you had a favorable opinion of his skills independent of the awful stuff he says.
Keith Law: His peak output – Slim Shady, Marshall Mathers, Eminem Show – established him as one of the best MCs of all time both for technical skill and lyrical ingenuity. I find a lot of his views to be trash, though, and never listen to him myself. From Encore on, I’ve had no use for him, because I think he’s also lost his fastball and still says the same hateful shit.

Mike: Is the AFL good for player evaluations, or too small of a sample? I’m trying to be encouraged with the hitting of Cole Tucker, but I’m not sure if its just SSS. Still not showing much power though
Keith Law: Great for scouting, bad for stat-line reading.

EG: Do you support the electoral college for presidential elections or would you prefer a true popular vote?
Keith Law: True popular vote. The Framers didn’t trust the voters to make choices of which the Framers would approve. Instead they created a system you can game.

JP: Yankees Twitter seems to think Florial is a 5-tool stud, while ignoring that the Hit Tool requires striking out in less than 35% of ABs. What’s a realistic projection for him? Outfielder Moncada?
Keith Law: Yeah, four tools, but the fifth one is a big deal. Moncada was better at the same age, though.

Ryan: Do you buy the Cubs actually are shopping Kris Bryant? I really like Buster Olney but that article screemed click bait and seemed to take what Theo said out of context.
Keith Law: They’re not shopping Bryant. I’m sure of it.

Denji: Yeah, I’m referring to the departures. Some people left before they had new jobs, and it seems like Fast made what reads as a lateral move (though I might be wrong). Yesterday in Kiley McDaniel’s chat when he was asked if there was a mass exodus or it was just a coincidence, said, “Lets just say there’s a lot going on there.”
Keith Law: Fast and Mejdal reached the end of their contracts and chose to go elsewhere. I don’t know what Kiley was referring to.

John: We have several of the board games you recommend each year and it’s become a Christmas tradition to buy two from Santa for the family. Recommend a game or two that came out this year?
Keith Law: Everdell, Charterstone, Reef, Forbidden Sky all come to mind. Probably forgetting some. I updated my top 100 all-time list this week.

Kacey: I was looking at Joe Mauer’s draft year. Not only were there only 3 All Stars from the first round (Mauer, Prior and Texiera), but the next best player drafter was probably Gavin Floyd and most players didn’t make the majors. Plenty of great players in other rounds. It seems the last 5-7 years or so first round picks make a quicker impact. Has scouting gotten that much better?
Keith Law: I think teams have gotten better in two major ways – they’ve incorporated more analytics into the process, from using traditional stats to now working with Trackman data, and they’ve started to value high school pitching differently, both drafting it later and treating those pitchers more carefully after they sign.

Steve: Should I be excited about any of the players the Pirates received in return for Moroff and Luplow?
Keith Law: Tahnaj Thomas is the sleeper. Least known of the three but an upside play. Chance for plus FB/CB combo, good body. The Bahamas are starting to churn out some serious dudes.

T: Joel Sherman seems to be super against signing Manny Machado because of hustle concerns. This whole thing is overblown, right?
Keith Law: Yeah, totally overblown for me.

Mike: Can you name names of anyone in the industry – player or office- who you walked away disappointed after meeting them? Either they’re a jerk or just overall not impressive person.
Keith Law: I could, but I’m certainly not going to name them publicly.

Damon: Donaldson a good option for the Mets? Obvious injury risk but could provide best production for someone who won’t cost Machado/harper money since the Wilpons won’t spend that much
Keith Law: Yes. If I’m Donaldson’s agent, I’m trying to sign the best one-year deal I can, hoping he gets healthy and posts a pre-injury stat line again.

Jared: For teams looking to rebuild, what allowed the Brewers do it so quickly? I know they had Gomez and Lucroy to deal, but still seems way faster than most.
Keith Law: They’ve hit on a lot of gambles, like the Chacin deal. That’s to their credit.

Brian: You’ve discussed the Jays system as obviously strong at the top but not as deep as other outlets seem to think. Given how 2018 turned out, what do you think is a realistic team outcome for 2019? And is true contention anywhere on the horizon?
Keith Law: I don’t see the pitching in that system to make them contenders any time soon; they’ll have to add it from outside, most likely.

Jared: I know Hiura didn’t hit for you while at the AFL, but do you think he is a future star with the bat?
Keith Law: Yeah, I am not really worried about it. Every scout I’ve ever asked about him has said they believe he’ll hit.

JG: BA didn’t have Nick Gordon in the top 10 Twins prospects? Has he fallen that much in your eyes?
Keith Law: He was atrocious in AAA – like he was swinging a wet newspaper. Hard to overlook that, and like I said earlier, that’s a really strong system.

Aaron: Who says no?
Keith Law: I do. Like, all the time.

Mike: I like board games but usually don’t have others to play with. Do you play with family? Friends? Groups?
Keith Law: Yep. All of the above.

Shaun: Would Manny Machado’s comments about hustling give you any pause about committing to him longterm?
Keith Law: Not a moment’s hesitation.

Steve: I’m a middle school baseball coach, and my varsity head coach loves the bunt a little too much for my taste. Is there a good way to approach this without damaging a very good working relationship? Or at lower levels of competition, does the relative lack of defensive skill and (at times) talent discrepancy make bunting a more valid strategy?
Keith Law: I know this book you could buy for him that covers bunting … but you are correct in that the sac bunt becomes a better percentage play the further down the ladder you go. Then the question is whether you are actually doing your job of teaching the kids to be better players, or simply taking advantage of children learning to play defense so you can win a few extra games.

Chris: Not sure if you heard about the SD guy who didnt vote for deGrom then hung up 10 seconds into a NY radio hit about his vote. Turns out he’s been covering HS sports in the SD area for some time. How can we purge these relics who arent even covering the sport anymore and still think pitcher Ws mean jack?
Keith Law: He hung up because the NY radio host attacked his integrity. That writer gave some of his free time to appear on that station without compensation. It was bullshit and I have no problem with him hanging up.

Greg: If he does come all the way back from Tommy John (no guarantee, of course), what is the role for Julian Merryweather? Is he a pure reliever or is there back of the rotation ability as well?
Keith Law: Sixth starter type for me.

Mike: i hear the comments that Boras made about teams not spending and then question why the BlueJays would not spend to compete. They have the Canadian market and huge TV numbers when the team is good. Did you hear Boras’ rant? i assume you agree with him
Keith Law: I do. He’s right.

Ted: When do your top prospect reports come out? I look forward to them every winter.
Keith Law: At some point in late january. I don’t know the dates just yet.

Tom: Were Robles and Soto top-tier international free agents? Product of scouting, or luck? To be in the position to lose Harper and fill in with that kind of talent is exceptional.
Keith Law: Soto was – he signed for $1.5 million. Robles signed for $225,000, so he wasn’t top-tier but not just signed to fill out rosters. They’ve done a good job on the international front.

Bruce: Do you see Josh James as a difference maker out of the bullpen? Could he be a starter?
Keith Law: Bullpen for sure. Maybe a starter. But the floor is high.

Aiden Elash: Have you much of Eric Pardinho?
Keith Law: I have not seen him live.

Ted: This might be weird, but have you ever thought about auctioning off your time for charity? I would love to sit down and pick your brain about baseball for a few hours.
Keith Law: I have done this at least twice before, attending games with readers who donated to a charity that approached me to ask if I’d do so. Obviously it would have to be a charity I would support myself, but yes, I’m up for it.
Keith Law: Sorry, had to take the banana bread out of the oven.

Chris: Did you see the Haren smackdown of Mulder on the twitter last night? Inject that into my veins.
Keith Law: Yes, I did, and yes, please to have more of that. Mark’s tweet was privilege exemplified.

Don: You are Mike Elias – you have a rebuild in front of you. Where do you start other than the first pick in the draft in June?
Keith Law: Elias’ first order of business is going to be rebuilding the organization’s staff. Player development has been bad for years. They’ve barely done anything internationally for a decade. The amateur side has fared better, but they’ve also lost a lot of staff in the turnover, even firing some guys within the last two weeks, which I think is totally bizarre (at that point, just wait for the new GM to come in). And they need a manager. Those decisions will have as much or more of a lasting impact on the future of the franchise as any trade Elias might make this winter.

Ted: Are you a believer in Corey Ray still? His hit tool was awful, but his other tools seemed to bounce back last year.
Keith Law: I didn’t see him in 2018 (I saw him a few times in 2017), but scouts who did told me he was selling out for power, so the K rate was high but he posted the high HR total. That’s not a great formula for long-term success and also not the hitter I thought he’d become.

Chris: Is Albert Almora an everyday center fielder for a contending club or just a platoon bat/defensive replacement? His 2nd half was seemingly nothing but weak contact left and right.
Keith Law: I think he’s a 50 – a solid regular in CF. Plus defense, contact without power.

Andrew: What are your thoughts on books on tape? I feel like I am cheating but at home I am chasing a 3 and 1 year old around and my 1 hour commute is a perfect time to “read”
Keith Law: I go through maybe a dozen audiobooks a year. Sometimes it’s actually better than paper, sometimes it’s worse.

Bill: Do you think young baseball fans would actually become more educated about the game if they were broadcast with no announcers?
Keith Law: I mean, it’d be nice if we didn’t have playoff game broadcasters talking about how bad the sport has become.

Ryan : Enjoying a snow day with the kids here in Siberia, err, Syracuse. My 5 year old loves playing baseball in the backyard and basement, but I have reservations about T-ball this spring. In so many ways it doesn’t even resemble baseball! Am I overthinking this one? As long as he’s having fun, right?
Keith Law: If he’s having fun, that’s all that matters.
Keith Law: Well, having fun, and isn’t at risk of getting hurt, but I don’t think T-ball poses much chance of that.

Bruce: Do you see Stephen Gonsalves as a mid rotation starter or could he be more?
Keith Law: Less.

Aiden Elash: Earlier you mentioned that Nate Pearson is 3rd in the blue jays system in your opinion. Where do you then place Danny Jansen who seems to be 3rd on most other lists? Does this mean you are lower on Jansen than others or higher on Pearson?
Keith Law: I don’t know or particularly care where others rank players. Pearson is over Jansen on my list; Pearson has huge upside Jansen lacks, and Jansen is probably below-average on defense.

Luke: What age did your daughter start playing board games with you (and what were some of the first ones you introduced her to?)
Keith Law: She started asking to play around age 4. At that point we would simply games so she could play along but we wouldn’t really keep score. Carcassonne was an early favorite because she loved the app – it’s like a matching game at that point.

Tim: Smith or Alonso for you? What should the Mets do with the other one?
Keith Law: Smith for me, but I think Alonso for them, and ultimately that’s the opinion that matters, not mine.
Keith Law: OK, I have some phone calls scheduled so I need to wrap. Thanks so much for joining me this week. There will be no chat next week for obvious reasons. Have a safe and flavorful Thanksgiving, everyone!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:
→ November 16, 2018
→ By

They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead.

No story has a happy ending unless you stop telling it before it’s over. — Orson Welles

Orson Welles’ spent about a decade on his last film project, The Other Side of the Wind, but never completed it before his death in 1985, having shot the film for over five years and spent several more editing it, or simply tinkering with it, before he lost the rights to the footage in a legal dispute. Netflix has commissioned a completion of the film with what was shot, in line with what’s known of Welles’ plans, as well as a companion documentary about the making of the original project called They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead. The former film holds little interest to me, for many reasons, but the documentary is one of the most purely entertaining things I’ve seen all year. Morgan Neville, who also had a hit this year with Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, spoke to just about everyone involved in the making of The Other Side of the Wind who is still alive, used archival footage from others, footage from the movie itself, plus recorded interviews with Welles and bits of his other films to create an informative and fast-paced look at a slow-moving cinematic disaster.

The documentary covers the period from when he began the project on The Other Side of the Wind in 1970 through the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which, for reasons explained in the documentary, cost Welles control of his project, with a quick run through the last few years of Welles’ life and some of the other projects he left unfinished. Welles appears to have had a general vision for the movie, which was itself a film-within-a-film and had a clearly autobiographical bent that he repeatedly denied, but the script and that vision kept changing, while Welles, strapped for cash, kept improvising on matters of location, crew, and even cast. He tried to use impressionist Rich Little in the film, and later cast a local waitress with no acting experience (or, it would appear, talent) in an important supporting role. He tried to work with a skeleton crew of people especially loyal to him, but the set is described by surviving members as “a circus” where it was often unclear why Welles was doing what he was doing, or if he even knew.

Welles comes off as a narcissist and megalomaniac who openly lies to his cast and crew to avoid any admission that things weren’t going well. He was also a perfectionist, in the worst way that can be, in that he couldn’t bear to let films go, leaving at least four projects unfinished at his death — this one, The Deep (an adaptation of the novel Dead Calm), The Dreamers, and Welles’ adaptation of Don Quixote. The perfectionism meant that scenes were reshot and rewritten many times, often on the fly, while the editing process also took years as Welles, in the retelling of people who worked with him, altered his vision for the film as he edited it – while doing so as a squatter in the house of director Peter Bogdanovich, Welles’ friend and one of the stars of the film.

The documentary doesn’t so much address the question of why the movie wasn’t finished – that’s straightforward – or what Welles hoped to accomplish with the movie beyond making his magnum opus, which is unanswerable. It seems more a study of Welles the character, a man undone by a massive early success in Citizen Kane, subsequent betrayals by Hollywood, a lack of contemporary acclaim for later works – many now seen as great films, as his entire legacy has undergone a total reassessment since his death – and strained personal relationships. There’s even a hint at the end of They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead that Welles’ upbringing played a substantial part in his perfectionism and constant need for approbation, although it’s underexplored, likely because there was no one to interview on camera about it. Instead, Neville seems to ask this question about The Other Side of the Wind: Did Welles ruin his own movie or did the movie ruin him?

The film also includes vignettes from Welles’ personal life in the 1970s and early 1980s that both flesh out (no pun intended) his character while further explaining, or trying to explain, the endless story of the making of his movie. That includes the story of Welles’ friendship with Bogdanovich, which ended, per Bogdanovich’s telling, when Welles and Burt Reynolds mocked him during a television appearances; his longstanding affair with Oja Kador, a Croatian artist and actress who also starred in his film; and his extensive working relationship with cameraman Gary Graver, which crossed into the abusive. Those three relationships were essential both to the making of The Other Side of the Wind and its unmaking as well, as there is no way Welles would have fallen so far down this rabbit hole were it not for the devotion he inspired in his friends and colleagues.

Neville uses some quirky devices to keep the pacing brisk, especially at the beginning, such as using clips of Welles from his films to create a false dialogue with the narrator, Alan Cummings, something that I found amusing but is certainly atypical for serious documentaries. There’s also a clip of his wonderful appearance in The Muppet Movie, likely the first appearance of Welles I ever saw, which forever cemented his image for me as a hefty, silver-bearded man with a deep voice and great charisma on the screen. As it turns out, Welles had a spectacular sense of humor as well, which comes across as a side effect in They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead; he had a huge laugh and a quick, dry wit, never evident in his films but very much a part of his persona and likely a reason people in his orbit were so willing to throw their lives into chaos when he called. I can’t say anything here made me more interested in seeing The Other Side of the Wind, but it did remind me of how much I enjoyed his work behind the camera (The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil) and in front of it – especially The Third Man, a film so good that for years I assumed he directed it.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
→ November 15, 2018
→ By

Hardback app.

The game Hardback, now available as an app for iOS and Android, is a quirky combination of Scrabble (or perhaps Boggle) and deckbuilders like Dominion, where players draw hands of five letter cards, play them to form the most valuable word they can, and use the coin values on their cards to buy more powerful letter cards from the table. It’s probably much better as an in-person experience, because playing the AI means you’re going up against a dictionary, but I will say even thinking of it as a solo game, since there’s little interaction between players, makes for a fun puzzle to try to maximize your score by building the best deck possible. (Hardback is a prequel to another game, Paperback, that I haven’t played or seen.)

The game is almost as simple as what I described above. Basic cards grant you either one point or one coin. You use coins to buy better cards from the scrolling market; such cards cost 2 to 9 coins, and grant you more coins and/or points as well as all kind of special abilities, some of which are only triggered if you have two cards of the same “theme” (color) in your word. These can include more coin/point bonuses, doubling the value of an adjacent card, “jailing” a card from the market for you to buy later, trashing a card from your hand for an immediate payment of one or two coins, and more. Thus building a deck requires some planning so that you concentrate your purchases in maybe two colors.

You can also flip any card over to its other side and use it as a wild card, representing any letter you want. You get no return for the card (unless you have an adjacent special card that lets you gain a card’s bonus even when it’s wild), but you’re going to do this often so you can complete words, and often make longer ones. You can use coins to buy ink, which lets you draw one card per ink unit – but the catch is that you have to use drawn cards in your word without flipping them unless you happen to gain ink remover from green special cards. So there’s some risk to drawing cards, although the app lets you peek at what’s in your deck, just not the order. Since your deck will tend to be small, you can play the odds a little.

The app is good with a few issues. One is that the hard AI player is just too good, because it’s using obsolete, archaic, and sometimes questionable words (I’ve seen a proper noun or two slip by). There are also many things in the game that should have an undo option – for example, if you buy one ink, then realize you’d rather buy a card, there’s no way to back up in that phase – but I can’t see an undo option for anything. Some actions shouldn’t have it, but some clearly can because revoking them doesn’t affect the game state or subsequent options. Also, once you hit Submit, if the word is invalid the app won’t accept it, but if it is valid, you’re stuck with it, so there is no testing to see if a word is valid or not, even against the AI.

I have beaten the hard AI players a few times, but generally lose while they play words I’ve never seen before. I don’t mind as much, however, since you barely know the other players are there until the final scoring – there is just one quirky ability, called Timeless cards, that lets you interfere a little with other players’ strategies, and it’s very small – so I’ve found it’s easier to think of it as a solo challenge where I’m just trying to build the best deck I can by anagramming the best words and making good buys. I’m at least intrigued enough by the app to check out the physical game at some point now.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
→ November 14, 2018
→ By

An Economist Gets Lunch.

EDIT: As of March 2020, when Cowen argued that elite universities shouldn’t worry about paying their service workers, I can no longer recommend Cowen’s book for any reason whatsoever.

One of you was kind enough to give me a copy of Tyler Cowen’s book An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies earlier this year, buying a copy for me at Politics & Prose for me to pick up when I spoke there at a book signing in June. The book was very much up my alley, combining my passion food with my newfound interest in behavioral economics, as Cowen offers a breezy look at why we eat the way we do, and how someone who wants better food can use a little rational thinking to try to identify new places to eat. It’s a quick read, and maybe a little too nonchalant in spots when Cowen talks about foreign food cultures, with more than enough information on our modern food culture and economy to satisfy me (especially since I didn’t pay for it – thanks again, Haris!).

Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University who tends to favor a more libertarian, free-market approach to domestic policy, and that philosophy is very apparent throughout this book, as the focus is very much on taste rather than other modern foodie concerns like sourcing, environmental impact, or fair labor practices. Cowen’s survey of the modern food scene explains why, for example, chain restaurants will nearly always provide inferior food (they have to aim for the largest possible market, which means standardizing flavors and avoiding anything near or at the extremes that might alienate a large share of customers), or why so many highly-rated restaurants lose their edge within the first year after opening. I’d say I probably already knew much of this, just because of my years of exploring the food scenes in American cities and my conversations with so many people working in the industry, but would also guess that most American diners haven’t thought about these questions to the same extent because they don’t eat out as often as I might (due to travel) or Cowen does (because I think he just loves to eat out).

The early parts of the book cover things like the above-mentioned “how American food got bad” or how the typical supermarket has helped ruin our diets. Cowen mentions visiting Asian supermarkets around him that offer better and less typical produce at lower costs – but, more importantly, are organized entirely differently than the U.S. groceries are, with more square footage devoted to produce, meat, or fish, and less on packaged goods … and, I suppose not shockingly, to cheese, since lactose intolerance is higher in Asian populations. To some extent, his suggestions of visiting multiple stores to prepare meals is a manifestation of privilege – I work at home, so it’s nothing for me to split my weekly food shopping between Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and a local farm stand, but I also recognize I have the flexibility in my schedule to do so where many other people don’t.

One particularly interesting if specific chapter delves into American barbecue, explaining why regional variations in the cuisine arose and how developments like mechanical pits have changed barbecue (I’d argue for the worse). The chapter opens up some gaps in Cowen’s knowledge of culinary history, however, as he gives short shrift to the cooking method’s roots in Africa, something that comes up a few times as the book progresses – his lens on cuisines is very much that of an American, and the concluding chapters on what foods to hunt when traveling in various foreign cities read like the words of a tourist, not a native or an expat who’s lived in those places.

Cowen doesn’t ignore other topics than the search for better food at a cheaper price – there’s a chapter that touches on environmental concerns, called “Eating Your Way to a Greener Planet,” although the complexity of ethical eating is enough to fill a book or two – but that’s very much his core philosophy. It’ll work for a lot of readers: Often that is just what we’re trying to do – cook better food for less. I’ve at least changed my own eating patterns, in part because I have the time and means to do so, to try to make better choices for the planet and the people involved in growing, preparing, and selling me the food I eat. That made Cowen’s book an interesting read for me, but perhaps more of a novelty than a work that changed my outlook on food.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,