Trouble with “Trouble with the Curve”

52 Comments

I haven’t seen the new Clint Eastwood baseball flick, “Trouble with the Curve,” but the reviews from people whose opinions on such matters I respect are starting to come in and it’s sounding dire.

First was Grant Brisbee, who gives a very detailed review, complete with spoiling plot points, so be warned. To be fair, he does explicitly say that his review is precisely so you don’t have to see it. And he really recommends that you don’t see it.

The second one comes from Emma Span. Who, you should know, spends one night a week intentionally watching awful movies and (from what I can tell anyway) enjoying them unironically, even if, as I suspect, the habit began out of an ironic impulse.  She will sit and tell you about how good movies like “Sharktopus” are, for crying out loud.

Like Grant, Emma pans “Trouble with the Curve” on its baseball merits (Grant goes on about how lame the larger, non-basebally elements are too).  The upshot: its portrayal of the baseball world is just terrible. The bad guy — the Billy Zabka character, really — is a paper thin caricature of a stats-oriented analyst. And indeed, would have been the straw-i-est strawman in history even if the movie was written in 2002 by a person who prayed to an altar of Billy Beane made out of TI-85 calculators.

The line from the anti-Eastwood that sums it all up:

“I don’t need to see him play! I’ve got it right here on my computer.”

Even RoboSaberGM would fire that guy on the spot for saying such a thing.

But hey, “Titanic” made a billion dollars even though its villain all but twirled his mustache while tying a maiden to the train tracks, so I suppose “Trouble with the Curve” will be OK.

For my part, I’m off to watch “Unforgiven” instead.

MLB rejected Players’ 114-game season proposal, will not send a counter

Rob Manfred
Getty Images
Leave a comment

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports that Major League Baseball has rejected the MLBPA’s proposal for a 114-game season and said it would not send a counter offer. The league said it has started talks with owners “about playing a shorter season without fans, and that it is ready to discuss additional ideas with the union.”

This should be understood as a game of chicken.

The background here is that the the owners are pretty much locked into the idea of paying players a prorated share of their regular salaries based on number of games played. The players, meanwhile, are pretty much locked in to the idea that the owners can set the length of the season that is played. Each side is trying to leverage their power in this regard.

The players proposed a probably unworkable number of games — 114 — as a means of setting the bidding high on a schedule that will work out well for them financially. Say, a settled agreement at about 80 games or so. The owners were rumored to be considering a counteroffer of a low number of games — say, 50 — as a means of still getting a significant pay cut from the players even if they’re being paid prorata. What Rosenthal is now reporting is that they won’t even counter with that.

Which is to say that the owners are trying to get the players to come off of their prorated salary rights under the threat of a very short schedule that would end up paying them very little. They won’t formally offer that short schedule, however, likely because (a) they believe that the threat of uncertain action is more formidable; and (b) they don’t want to be in the position of publicly demanding fewer baseball games, which doesn’t look very good to fans. They’d rather be in the position of saying “welp, the players wouldn’t talk to us about money so we have no choice, they forced us into 50 games.”

In other news, the NBA seems very close to getting its season resumed.