The Case For Munenori Kawasaki

 I love Munenori Kawasaki, I will not even try to hide or deny that fact. Sometimes I can be biased in my opinion of Kawasaki, although I do believe he's a better player than other people give him credit for. Before last season, most people outside of Seattle didn't know who Munenori Kawasaki was. The people of Toronto quickly learned to love Kawasaki once he was called up to replace the injured Jose Reyes 10 games into the season. His energy and enthusiasm quickly made him a fan favourite, but it was an infamous post game interview (see link below) that grew his legend, and caused his detractors to label him as nothing more than a team mascot.

The Birth of a Legend 

 Kawasaki's detractors use his "I am Japaneeeeeese!" speech to fuel the fire for their argument that he's nothing more than a team mascot. They also like to point out that Kawasaki doesn't hit for average and has very little to almost no power. But is Kawasaki really THAT MUCH worse than Maicer Izturis, the man who's going to beat out Kawasaki for the middle infielder bench role? If you look at the offensive numbers, they're really not much different. Izturis had a slightly better batting average than Kawasaki, but Kawasaki had a MUCH better on base percentage than Izturis. As far as power goes, Izturis didn't deliver that much more power than Kawasaki, with Izturis slightly edging out Mune in slugging percentage .310 to .308. Let's take a look at how the rest of their standard offensive numbers break down.

Kawasaki: .229 Average / .326 OBP / .308 Slugging / .634 OPS / 1 home run / 24 RBI / 7 stolen bases in 8 attempts for a success rate of 87.5%

Izturis: .236 Average / .288 OBP / .310 Slugging / .597 OPS / 5 home runs / 32 RBI / 1 stolen base in 6 attempts for a success rate of 16.7%

 So as you can see, their offensive numbers are pretty similar, with Izturis having the advantage in games played 107-96. Kawasaki clearly has an advantage over Izturis in 2 areas, stolen bases and on base percentage. I don't know if Kawasaki is actually that much faster than Izturis, or if he just picked his spots better, but he clearly helps the Jays out by getting on base and moving into scoring position better than Izturis does.

 Another comment often made by Kawasaki's detractors is he's not a great fielder; he's ok, but not great. Well, if you look at the numbers, Izturis was just ok in 2013 as well. In the mind of a fan, it is often very easy to blow things out of proportion and make it seem like certain players make more errors than they actually do. A player is rarely as bad as you actually think he is over the course of the season. This is the case with Izturis, as it seemed like he was constantly making errors, when in reality he was probably average. Let's take a look at the defensive numbers for Kawasaki and Izturis.

Kawasaki: .979 fielding percentage / 6 errors / 45 double plays turned / 596.2 innings played / error ratio of 1 error made for every 99 innings played.

Izturis: .971 fielding percentage / 10 errors / 39 double plays turned / 879 innings played / error ratio of 1 error made for every 87.9 (let's round it to 88) innings played.

 Looking at these numbers we can see that, while both are ok/average middle infielders, Kawasaki has a slight edge on Izturis. Kawasaki will go longer than Izturis will without making an error, and he turns more double plays than Izturis. The stat that got me was double plays turned; keep in mind that Kawasaki played 282.1 LESS innings than Izturis, yet still managed to turn 6 more double plays. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the number of double play chances each had, so I was unable to break it down into who had a more successful percentage. Having said that though, it's still impressive that Kawasaki turned more double plays with so much fewer innings played.

 Because both players were relatively similar in offensive numbers, I wanted to look at some of the advanced stats to try and see if anything set them apart in a huge way. Obviously Kawasaki got on base more, but what was he doing when he wasn't getting on base? How effective were either player at advancing base runners? Kawasaki was clearly taking more walks, but who was striking out more? It always seemed like Kawasaki was taking a lot of pitches during his at bats, but who was really the more patient hitter? Here are a few of the advanced stats on both.

Kawasaki: Kawaski had a 5.9 AB/K ratio, struck out 14.2% of the time, walked 11.1% of the time, grounded into double plays 9% of the time, made contact on 88.1% of his swings, saw 4.18 pitches per at bat, and was 10 for 15 in sac bunt attempts (66.7% success).

Izturis: Isturis had a 9.6 AB/K ratio, struck out just 9.5% of the time, walked only 6.8% of the time, grounded into double plays 18% of the time, made contact on 87.6% of his swings, saw 3.50 pitches per at bat, and was 3 for 4 in sac bunt attempts (75% success).

Major League Average : 4.5 AB/K ratio, struck out 19.9% of the time, walked 8.1% of the time, grounded into double plays 11% of the time, made contact on 77.8% swings, saw 3.86 pitches per at bat, and 65% success rate on sac bunts.

 So as you can see, both Izturis and Kawasaki were once again fairly similar in offensive advanced stats categories; and both were - for the most part - above league average in every category. The areas of concern for Izturis would be his low number of walks and his above average percentage of hitting into double plays. From the numbers, it is also clear to see that Kawasaki was the more patient hitter at the plate - which is probably what attributed to his higher on base percentage. What all that means is simply this; if you're trying to choose between bench players late in the game, who are going to give you a better chance at winning, Kawasaki - based on stats - is the better choice.

 As I was looking up all of these numbers, I found another interesting stat that shows that Kawasaki would most likely be the better choice to come off the bench as a replacement late in the game. The following are the slash-lines for Kawasaki and Izturis late in games (innings 7-9).

Kawasaki: .247 average / .326 OBP / .370 Slugging / .696 OPS

Izturis: .244 average / .289 OBP / .291 Slugging / .580 OPS

 What this shows is that Kawasaki clearly gives you a better chance to win late in the game, with a better chance to get an extra base hit and get in scoring position. One final stat I found interesting is that Kawasaki had a productive out rate of 55% compared to Izturis who was at 41%. What this stat represents is how often a batter successfully moves a runner over if they happen to be recorded as out in the process. That means that Kawasaki is much better at advancing runners, which is key if you're trying to add some extra runs late in the game.

 In summation, those who try to undermine Kawasaki's abilities as a baseball player and label him as nothing more than a mascot, are wrong. Although not a likely candidate as an everyday starter, Kawasaki is better than his detractors give him credit for, and a better option than someone like Izturis if you need a replacement late in the game or - god forbid - because of an injury. Mune is MUCH more than a mascot; he is a major league capable ball player who, while he won't hit for power, can play small ball and have good plate approaches that you'd like to see from a bottom of the order guy. He's somebody who can get on base, can move himself into scoring position, can wear down a pitcher in an at bat, and can be productive when he gets out as well. To the detractors all I can say is, let the legend live on!



















 There is one final piece of information I feel I must share and rub in the detractors faces. Ultimately, baseball is about winning games, and you want the players who give you the best chance to win. Well, here is a graph by fellow blogger Sober Jays Fan (follow him on twitter @SoberJaysFan and read his blog here), which shows the Jays winning percentage based on who played in the games; and leading the way - surprise! - was Munenori Kawasaki! The Jays won 49% of the games Kawasaki played in.

Frozen

 So. Many. FEELS! I've been wanting to see Frozen since it was first released back in November, unfortunately I never had the time during the peak of it's popularity in theatres; and the fact that it was playing in 3D added to its enchantment. Fortunately, I recently did find time to see it, and even more fortunately it was still playing in a theatre near me. I had heard many good things about Frozen - not to mention it won the Oscar for best animated feature - and the film did not disappoint. 

 The film starts comically with Anna childishly harassing her older sister Elsa to play with her. Elsa has a magical ability to create snow and ice, an ability which she hasn't learned how to control. As Elsa and Anna are playing, Elsa accidentally unleashes her ability and hits her sister in the head, causing Anna to go unconscious. The King and Queen find out and rush Anna to a Forrest with trolls who help to cure Anna; however, in the process of curing Anna, they must also wipe out her memory of the incident and her memories of Elsa's powers. After the incident the girls, who were once very close, are separated as their parents force Elsa to grow up in isolation.

 I won't give away the rest of the movie, but it is full of the Disney magic audiences have come to expect and love in a fairy tale movie. This movie also brings back the Disney musical which has seemingly been missing in recent times. Don't get me wrong, Disney's movies are always full of wonderful music - I absolutely loved the music in Brave - but it has been a while since a Disney film has been based around many musical numbers performed by the characters; rather than music set to fit the film, as was the case in Brave. The much loved - and Oscar winning - song in Frozen is Let It Go, though for my money, Do You Want To Build A Snowman was a much better song. Anytime you can sing the phrase, "ok bye," you have a song full of awesome. Links to both songs below.

Let It Go

Do You Want To Build A Snowman

 Is Frozen predictable? Of course it is, it's a Disney fairy tail. Is it a fun movie? Yes! You are going to love this movie, it's music, and it's characters. Frozen will go down as another Disney Classic, and it's definitely one that you should add to your collection. Frozen is currently available on DVD, as well as a combo pack which includes the DVD, Blu Ray, and Digital Copy. Links for both below, I highly HIGHLY recommend picking up this amazing film.

Frozen DVD


Frozen Combo Pack

How I would Have Ended Dexter

  Before I begin, let me just say that I DO realize that the series finale to Dexter was almost 6 months ago (as of the writing of this). That being said, however, I have had a few people ask me what I thought of the series finale. For those of you reading this who have not yet seen the last season/episode of Dexter, there will be a few spoilers here, but I'll try not to give away too much.

 Let me also preface my thoughts by saying that I didn't start watching Dexter until about three seasons in. I had been hearing a lot of people saying how good of a show that it was, so I decided to get more information on it and find out what it was about. When I first learned that essentially Dexter was a serial killer who only killed bad people, my immediate reaction - not knowing that Dexter was based on a book series - was, 'well, this sounds pretty similar to the premise of The Boondock Saints.' Being a fan of the Boondock Saints, I decided to check out Dexter, and went out and bought the first season on DVD. I enjoyed the first season and got hooked on the show, but the nerd in me hoped that at some point there would be a Dexter vs. The Boondock Saints scenario set up.

  

                                   

 As I look back at how Dexter actually ended, in retrospect, there was one thing that could have saved it in my opinion. In the second last episode of Dexter, the ghost of Harry ends up leaving because of the fact that Dexter didn't feel the need to kill anymore; Dexter felt he could be a family man with Hannah and Harrison, and live out a normal life. In the series finale though, Dexter reaches the conclusion that he CANNOT live a normal life and that he is destined to always be a killer, and always destined to hurt the people he cares about the most; which is why eventually he decides to abandon Hannah with Harrison and live as a recluse. The final shot of the show we see Dexter as a lumberjack, sitting alone in a cabin as he just silently stares into the camera as the show comes to an end. For me, what would have made this better, instead of just ending it with Dexter staring into the camera, would have been to pan up to Dexter staring the way he was and then cut to the ghost of Harry staring right back at him. Seeing as how Harry was not in the final episode AT ALL, this would have been a more satisfying ending in my view; it would indicate that Dexter truly can't escape who he is as a serial killer, and that his Dark Passenger would always be with him.

                                     

 As far as my inner nerd goes, I would have loved to have seen some kind of showdown between Dexter and the Boondock Saints; and, with Sean Patrick Flanery guest starring during the final season, there would have been a perfect opportunity for it. In this final season SPF played a private detective - Jacob Elway - in search of Dexter's serial killer girlfriend, Hannah McKay. In the final episode he finally catches up to her on a bus to Daytona, as she's trying to flee Miami with Dexter's son Harrison; however, Hannah manages to find her way out of this sticky situation and escape with Harrison. Elway's plan was to arrest Hannah when they got off the bus, and then hand her off to local authorities.

  In my fantasy ending, when the bus reached it's destination in Daytona, Elway would have handed Harrison over to child services and then pulled Hannah aside to talk to her. Elway would have then completely broken character and started talking to Hannah in an Irish accent, explaining to her that his real name Connor MacManus and that him being a private investigator was just a cover. He would go on to explain that he and his brother - who hadn't been noticed by anybody - have covertly been tracking Hannah to serve her justice for the serial murders which she had committed. He would then explain that thanks to her, they also happened to discover the truth about Dexter as well.

  Cut to the scene where Dexter is carrying Deb's body out of the hospital to his boat. As he finishes placing Deb into his boat he hears a voice call his name; he stands up and turns around to see Norman Reedus - as Murphy MacManus - standing behind him. Murphy essentially explains to Dexter the same thing that Elway/Connor had just explained to Hanna. Cut to a split screen with Murphy pointing a gun at Dexter while Connor has one pointed at Hannah. The Saint's Prayer is then read:

"And shepherds we shall be.
For Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand.
That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to Thee.
And Teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti."

And Shepherds we shall be For thee, my Lord, for thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti. - See more at: http://www.prayers-for-special-help.com/boondock-saints-prayer.html#sthash.9hpSKrHk.dpuf

 Finally, cut to the screen going black. After a few seconds of silence, we hear two shots fired followed by the credits. I know many people will probably think this ending is stupid, but like I said, it would satisfy my inner nerd that's wanted to see Dexter vs. The Boondock Saints since I first started watching the show.

And Shepherds we shall be For thee, my Lord, for thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti. - See more at: http://www.prayers-for-special-help.com/boondock-saints-prayer.html#sthash.9hpSKrHk.dpuf

And Shepherds we shall be For thee, my Lord, for thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand Our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti. - See more at: http://www.prayers-for-special-help.com/boondock-saints-prayer.html#sthash.9hpSKrHk.dpuf

A Pitch For Bob

 The good doctor is FINALLY back in! After over seven and a half years since the release of The Bob Newhart Show season 4, Shout Factory is finally releasing the complete series. Unfortunately when I say the complete series, I mean exactly that; Shout Factory is releasing a box set of all 6 seasons, however there is no release date scheduled as of right now for seasons 5 and 6 on their own. I, like so many fans of the show who have already bought seasons 1-4, was disappointed when I first heard that there was no scheduled release for the final 2 seasons on their own. As time passed from the initial announcement, however, I decided that I was still going to buy the complete series. My reasoning for buying the complete series when I already have the first 4 is simple; the complete box set is probably going to be more compact and cut down on storage space, and I can always pass off or sell seasons 1-4.

 For those of you who have never seen the Bob Newhart Show, I cannot recommend it enough. Running from 1972-1978, it starred Bob Newhart as Chicago psychologist, Bob Hartley. Bob lives in an apartment with his wife Emily (played by Suzanne Pleshette), and their eccentric air navigator neighbour, Howard (played by Bill Daily). Bob's best friend is Jerry Robinson (played by Peter Bonerz), an orthodontist who works in the same medical building - and right across the hall - as Bob. The show is filled with other great cast members, such as Bob and Jerry's secretary Carol Kester (played by Marcia Wallace), and Bob's most neurotic patient Mr. Elliot Carlin (played by Jack Riley).

 One of my favourite episodes came from season 4, entitled "Over The river and Through the Woods." In the episode, Emily goes out of town - I believe the premise was that she was going to Seattle to spend Thanksgiving with her family, but Bob didn't want to go. With no Emily, Bob decides to invite Jerry and Mr. Carlin over, seeing as how neither of them have anybody to spend thanksgiving with either; Howard also ends up coming over when the plans that he had had get cancelled, leaving him alone on Thanksgiving too. Hilarity ensues as the guys get drunk from watching football games and order a bunch of Chinese food (mostly Moo Goo Gai Pan).

 I cannot say enough good things about this classic comedy show, which should be in all TV lover's collections. I definitely recommend ordering it, but I would act fast! It gets released on May 27, and the initial price for it on Amazon was $78.60; however, as of writing this, it has gone up to $93.79 - which is roughly $15.65 a season. I would absolutely act fast and order it before it goes up again. I will provide a link for amazon below, for those who are interested.


Bob NewHart Show Complete Series

Pompeii Movie Review

 For as long as I can remember, I have been fascinated by ancient civilizations. I could sit for hours on end and watch documentaries on ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc. One ancient story which has always stuck out for me is the story of Pompeii. Pompeii is unique in that it's society was lost in an instant, yet preserved forever. I have heard Pompeii referred to as "the city frozen in time" and that may be the best way to describe it. When Mount Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD, it rained down - quite literally - a fiery death for all those living in this ancient Roman city. Many centuries later, Pompeii would be rediscovered, and it's lost citizens would be preserved using plaster.

 When I heard that there was going to be a movie made about Pompeii, I was excited.. My excitement soon left me, however, after I saw the movie trailer for Pompeii. From watching the trailer, I could tell that they were going to try and make a love story out of Pompeii; this was a revelation which should not have surprised me. My excitement for the movie quickly turned into disappointment, and I no longer had the desire to see the film. On a spur of the moment decision, and with really nothing better to do, I recently decided to watch it and give it a shot. I went in to the movie with low expectations, so as to not be disappointed by a terrible love story intertwined with an extremely interesting historical event.

 Much to my surprise, I enjoyed Pompeii more than I was expecting to. The terribly predictable love story was there, but it was also a really great action movie. When Pompeii relied on the action sequences, they were done extremely well; when the film relied on actually telling a story, it was hit and miss. I thought the casting of the movie was well done, and all of the actors did a tremendous job - except one. Kiefer Sutherland was HORRIBLY miscast in this movie, and it wouldn't have been bad if he had only had a minor role. Unfortunately for the audience, Kiefer was cast as the main villain, Corvus; which meant he got A LOT more screen time than he should have.

 Like I said previously, the story in this movie was hit and miss throughout the entire film. It was part Gladiator, part 2012 (or similar type disaster movies), and a little Horse Whisperer thrown in - seemingly for the hell of it. I'm trying not to give too much about the movie away, but it's an hour and 45 minutes long, and the Volcano erupts about an hour into the movie. So basically, for about the final 45 minutes of the movie, you have the storyline of the Mount Vesuvius erupting and the citizens of Pompeii trying to escape - all while the movie still tries to maintain the love story aspect. In the end, the storyline of this film was pretty much what I expected, but the action scenes elevated the movie to a higher level of enjoyment than I thought I would get out of it.

 If the filmmakers had made this strictly an action movie instead of trying to add romance, I would have no problem recommending people to go see this film in theatres. In the end though, I would suggest you wait until this movie comes on Netflix, or becomes cheaply available on DVD/Blu Ray before watching it.

Should Jackie and Tom Get Banners?

 

 A question I have wondered to myself since the Toronto Blue Jays decided to retire their first jersey number is, should they now officially retire Jackie Robinson's number in the same fashion? By that, I mean should they honour Jackie with a number 42 banner, like they did for Alomar and his number 12? Recently, however, I have also been thinking, should the Jays have a banner for Tom Cheek as well?' Let me make my cases  for both.                                                                                        

First, the argument for Jackie Robinson:

 When Jackie Robinson's 42 was universally retired by Major League Baseball in 1997, the Blue Jays did not have a system in place for retiring jersey numbers. Instead, the Blue Jays had their Level of Excellence, on which were the names and numbers of former great Toronto Blue Jays; however, none of the players on the Level of Excellence had had their jersey numbers retired by the organization. Because of the fact that the Blue jays did not have a club policy on retiring jersey numbers, Jackie Robinson got the Level of Excellence treatment - with his number 42 beside his name.  

 

                                           

 With Roberto Alomar being elected as the first Blue Jay into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2011, the Blue Jays came up with a new policy regarding player jersey retirements. Any player who entered the Hall of Fame as a Blue Jay would be deemed worthy of having their jersey number officially retired by the team; and they set a precedent with Alomar that jersey retirements would receive a banner with the jersey number on it hanging from the Roger's Centre rafters. Now I realize that Jackie did not enter the Hall of Fame as a Blue Jay (obviously), however, his number IS retired universally by MLB and the Jays FINALLY have a way to honour retired jerseys. So, with that in mind, I think the proper thing to do is for the Jays to hang a 42 banner from the rafters, officially recognizing their retirement of that number in honour of Jackie.

The argument for Tom Cheek:

                                             
                                             

 Tom Cheek, like Jackie Robinson, has his name on the Blue Jays Level of Excellence. In front of Tom's name is the number 4306, which - for those who don't know - represents the number of consecutive games Tom called as the Blue Jays radio play by play announcer. In 2012 Tom was awarded with the highest honour a broadcaster can get from Cooperstown, he was awarded with the Ford C Frick award. Now, even though Frick Award winners aren't officially classified as Hall of Fame inductees, they are represented in the Hall of Fame with a plaque - for the record, that makes them Hall of Fame inductees in my opinion. With Tom Cheek being in the Hall of Fame - as a representative of the Blue Jays - doesn't he deserve a banner of recognition?

 You may be thinking, well you don't want to get crazy and give EVERYBODY a banner. While that is true, the Blue Jays DID hang a banner in recognition of Pat Gillick's election into the Hall; and, in fairness to Tom Cheek, Gillick did not go in representing solely one team. I know Gillick said in interviews that if he had a choice, he would have gone into the Hall representing the Blue Jays. Unfortunately, as already stated, Gillick IS NOT in there representing the Blue Jays, however Tom Cheek IS. In my opinion, that qualifies Tom to be honoured with a banner at the Roger's Centre.