MLB 2010, Part Two, MLB From A-Z

Baseball season is almost upon us once again. To celebrate, let's run through the 2010 Major League Baseball season from A-Z. Apologies up front for the different fonts and sizes, the computer is not cooperating tonight.

A is for Atlanta, who will make it back to the playoffs this season for the first time since 2005. They may not have the horses to win the whole thing, but one last hurrah from Chipper, the emergence of Jason Heyward and bounce back years from Nate McLouth and Derek Lowe will offset the loss of Javier Vazquez and the likely regression coming from Jair Jurrjens and Tommy Hanson. And though they sort of botched the Rafael Soriano situation, the front line of their bullpen - if healthy - should still be more than solid.

B is for Borbon, as in Julio Borbon. Called up to the Majors last June, and for good last August, Borbon hit leadoff for the Rangers in 36 of their last 53 games. In most of those games, however, he either played left field or DH. Now, with Marlon Byrd off to Chicago, Borbon will be asked to hit lead off and play center. His ability to do that will go a long way towards determining how successful the Rangers are in 2010.

C is for Crisi-tunity! Homer Simpson coined this phrase when his daughter Lisa explained to her father that the Chinese believe use the same word for both crisis and opportunity. Major League Baseball seemingly has a crisis on their hands in the franchises of Kansas City and Pittsburgh. The Royals haven't made the playoffs since 1985 and the Pirates since 1992. The league has taken to exploring options this offseason to change competitive balance, but in my opinion, they are missing the boat. For far too long, teams like KC, Pittsburgh, Minnesota and Florida, among others, have treaded water because financially they knew that MLB's revenue sharing system would be the life preserver that would help them safely reach shore. The Pirates payroll has not been over $50 million since 2003, and KC didn't top $50 million for the first time until 2007. What's more, when KC does spend money, they're not spending it on the right players (see Guillen, Jose). I for one would like to see what would happen if that revenue sharing life preserver was ripped from their clutches. Without revenue sharing, these clubs would have to make a more honest effort to win or risk losing their fans forever. We know Pittsburgh will support a winner, and the Pirates used to have a tradition of excellence. I believe in the Royals and the fans of Kansas City as well, but the Royals tradition is not as storied as the Pirates or other long-standing teams. Yes, the boys in powder blue won the World Series in '85, but they have only been in KC since 1969, and they have only made the playoffs seven times in that time span. Perhaps another city would do a better job with the Royals than would KC. But no matter what the answers are, it's clear that MLB should start asking more questions.

D is for DeRosa, as in Mark DeRosa. He was the Giants' big offseason acquisition...and therein lies the problem. The Giants are still going to struggle to score runs. They just can't get out of their own way. They man who finished second on their team in OBP, Fred Lewis, is somehow no better than third at any spot on their depth chart, and they are going to play the human garbage disposal, aka Bengie Molina, instead of Buster Posey. I have them dropping from 8th overall in MLB last year to 14th this year.

E is for Evan, as in Evan Longoria. How many players are All-Stars and get MVP votes each of their first two years in the Majors? Not many. Longoria whacked 30+ homers for the first time in his career last year, and added his first Gold Glove and Silver Slugger awards, and I'm sure they both look nice next to his Rookie of the Year trophy. With Carl Crawford potentially leaving after this season, and rumors about the Rays drastically cutting payroll next year as well, the pressure is on Longoria to put the Rays back in the playoffs in the hyper-competitive AL East.

F is for Fat Guys. The game is just a lot more fun with fat guys in it. Guys like Carlos Lee, Prince Fielder, Molina and Pablo Sandoval remind us all of a simpler time, when players didn't train year round and pizza and gummi bears were still plentiful in the clubhouse. Nowadays, agents have their own training facilities and everyone has their own specialized diets. God bless you, fat men (even if, like Molina, you suck). Who's your favorite fat guy?

G is for Gonzalez. Whether it's Adrian, Alex, Carlos, Gio or Mike, it seems like Gonzalez's are everywhere these days. We have Gonzalez's who manage (Fredi) and even with two of the most famous Gonzalez's (Juan and Luis) retired, there are still so many Gonzalez's that we are now importing them to Japan (i.e. Edgar)! As the Latinification of the game continues unabated, names like "Gonzalez," "Martinez" and "Rodriguez" are becoming just as prevalent as "Smith" and "Jones." And frankly, it's a beautiful thing.

H is for Hanley, as in Hanley Ramirez, the most under appreciated player in the game. Not many players can put up a 20-20 (homers and steals) season and hit .300, all while playing the toughest position on the field in shortstop. But Ramirez has done it three seasons in a row, and one of them was actually a 30-30 season. The knock on Ramirez used to be his defense, but he has improved dramatically there as well. In 2007, his UZR was -19.2, but in 'o8 he posted a basically even mark of -0.7, and followed that up last year with a -0.3. He may never be Ozzie Smith with the glove, but he has done enough to quell rumors of a position switch. When MVP voters once again get bored with voting for Albert Pujols, let's hope they turn to Hanley.

I is for Igloo, which is what the new Target Field in Minnesota might end up being nicknamed. Minneapolis is now the northernmost city (by latitude) to have an open-air-only ballpark. Their average April temperatures range from a low of 36 degrees to a high of 57, which is remarkably similar to Denver's April averages of 34 and 60. And while the Rockies definitely have to be creative to bring the crowds out in April, at least Rockies fans, and Colorado sports fans in general, are used to games outdoors. In Minnesota, everything is played indoors, and the Twins could be in for a rude awakening. For their sake, let's hope I'm wrong.

J is for Jeff, as in Jeff Moorad, who has to be one of the most fascinating men in the game today. He went from being a super-agent that negotiated $100 million-plus deals for the likes of Manny Ramirez, to the opposite side of the table as part-owner of the Diamondbacks, and now he has hopped teams within the team to the San Diego Padres. We need to know more about how this was possible.

K is for Kemp, as in Matt Kemp. With Manny Ramirez seemingly in decline, guys like Andre Ethier, James Loney, Russell Martin and Chad Billinglsey seemingly already hitting or at their peaks, and a future leader in Clayton Kershaw maybe not ready to be "the guy," the onus on the Dodgers now falls squarely on Kemp. Unfortunately for Dodgers fans, Kemp probably isn't up to that challenge. If you could date Rihanna, you probably wouldn't be up for it either...

L is for Lackey, as in John Lackey, the Red Sox's newest toy. Will he butt heads with fellow Texan Josh Beckett, or will they get along like the Texas tough boys that they are? And is Lackey enough to make Boston's new pitching and defense plan succeed? Probably, as long as he stays on the field.

M is for Mets, the one team that makes the Giants look like a bunch of Mensa scholars. This is a team, who even with Johan Santana and Frankie Rodriguez, managed to only have the 21st best ERA in the Majors last year, yet decided that heading into this season the only pitcher they needed to acquire was Fernando Nieve. Just...wow.

N is for Nyjer, as in Nyjer Morgan. In the past three seasons, the Nats center fielder of the "future" went from being Lastings Milledge, to Elijah Dukes, to Morgan. How long can Morgan hold the mantle before the Nats find another "solution?" Only time will tell. In the interim, Morgan figures to steal a boatload of bases.

O is for One hundred and two, which will be the number of seasons since the Cubs have won a World Series when they fail to do so once again this year. Hitler was right, the Cubs have quite the history of sucking!

P is for Prospects, of whom there will be many this season. Aside from Heyward and Stephen Strasburg, I am looking forward to seeing how Neftali Feliz and Justin Smoak can contribute to the Rangers chase, how Brian Matusz and Wade Davis handle the AL Beast. I am looking forward to guys like Junichi Tazawa and Eric Young, Jr. vying for permanent roles in the Majors, and to see if Austin Jackson can prove the Yankees wrong, if Andrew McCutchen is really the savior that Pittsburgh needs and if Mat Latos can be San Diego's replacement for Jake Peavy. And I'm just as excited to see what year two brings for guys like David Price (well, his second full year), Matt Wieters and Gordon Beckham. But most importantly, I'm looking forward to the next great unknown, the next big surprise, the next guy who gets called up as an injury replacement and never looks back. That's what makes baseball so great.

Q is for Quentin, as in Carlos Quentin. Two years ago, Quentin was busy mashing. He knocked 36 homers, and he wasn't a US Cellular mirage, as his .950 road OPS was more than comparable to his .979 home OPS in the cozy confines of the Cell. His performance paced the White Sox into the postseason, and he finished 5th in the MVP vote. Last year was essentially a lost year for Quentin, as injuries held him to 99 games and a disappointing .456 SLG. Unsurprisingly, the White Sox struggled to replace his bat in the lineup. Entering his age 27 season, this will be Quentin's defining season. Can he finally shake the whispers that he's too fragile, or will he succumb to injury once again (he has never played more than 130 games in any of his four big-league seasons)? South Siders are hoping for the former.

R is for Roy, as in Roy Halladay. If a pitcher can put a 3.19 ERA or better in four of the last five seasons in the American Beast, then what is he capable of in the National League? Unfortunately, it seems difficult to imagine that he could do that much better, and the projections bear that out. In fact, when one considers how dominating Cliff Lee was last year for Philly, Halladay will be hard pressed to anything other than equal that production. If he does so, the Phils will get a boost, as Halladay could make close to three times the number of starts for Philly than Lee did last season. But that boost will likely be less than Philly fans are anticipating.

S is for Seattle. The Mariners have been getting tons of hype heading into this season, but I'm not totally buying it. While some may say their Phthagorean W-L of 75-87 is an outlier because of their outstanding defense, it still shows how much trouble the M's had scoring runs last season. And despite the additions of Chone Figgins and Milton Bradley, they will struggle once again. Certainly, it would be hard to post worse offensive numbers than Wladimir Balentien and Yuniesky Betancourt, two guys who seemingly posted one point of OPS for each letter in their names. But then again, Jack Wilson is not a paragon of offensive production, swapping out Russell Branyan for Casey Kotchman is an offensive downgrade and this team is still going to hand a lot of important AB's to Ken Griffey, Jr. Also, Bradley hasn't played 130 or more games since 2004. Figgins should definitely help by setting the table, but the Mariners may struggle to drive him in once he gets there.

T is for Tulowitzki, as in Troy Tulowitzki. Tulowitzki is one big question away from superduper-stardom - can he get out of the gate strong? He is yet to have even a marginally good April, as his April OPS of .617 is more than 100 points lower than his OPS in any other month, and is more than 200 points lower than his career OPS. His idol, Derek Jeter, is so consistent, that his monthly OPS marks fall into a 62-point range. Tulowitzki's fall into a 312 point range. If he can change that, he'll pick up some more MVP votes, and will certainly make the Rockies a World Series contender.

U is for Upton's, as in B.J. and Justin. They are two of the most dynamic players in the game, although little brother seems as though he's well on his way to upstaging his big brother. Three of Justin's similar batters through age 21 are Hall of Famers - Hank Aaron, Sam Crawford and Willie Mays - and three others either should be or may be some day, in Miguel Cabrera, Juan Gonzalez and Ron Santo. Expect big things in his age 22 season. Meanwhile, B.J. is simply trying to get his career on track, finally. He has had two down years after his seeming-breakout of 2007, and to date, the only category in which he has led the league is caught stealing. Hopefully that will change.

V is for Votto, as in Joey Votto. Votto may not be the absolute key to the Reds success, as they have so many talented young players, but he is certainly one of their vital cogs. Votto had some personal issues last season, and it would be nice to see him overcome those this season.

W is for Wood, as in Brandon Wood. Like BJ Upton, Wood was once an uber-hyped prospect. Unlike Upton, Wood has never been given an extended chance at flashing that potential...until now. The Angels are banking that Wood can effectively replace Chone Figgins in the lineup, albeit in a different fashion. If Wood is able to replace him both offensively and defensively, it will go a long way towards keeping the Halo's in contention in 2010.

X is for X marks the spot. Here are my regular season predictions for 2010. I am going to refrain from making postseason predictions, because not only are they pointless, but they detract from my enjoyment of the season., as I root to be right rather than just enjoying the ride. When making these predictions, I like to look at league strength. After posting an average record of 82.6-79.4 in 2008, the American League dropped down more than one-half win to 81.9-80.1 last season. I continued that downward trend, giving AL teams an average record of 81.5-80.5, with the NL average being almost exactly opposite at 80.6-81.4.

Rank...Team...Record

1. NYY...97-65 - AL East champion
   
2. BOS...96-66 - AL Wild Card
   
3. PHI...95-67 - NL East champion
   
4. COL...94-68 - NL West champion
   
5. STL...92-70 - NL Central champion
   
6. TB...91-71
7. TEX...89-73 - AL West champion
   
8. ATL...88-74 - NL Wild Card
   
9. MIN...88-74 - AL Central champion
   
10. LAD...87-75
11. LAA...87-75
12. SEA...85-77
13. FLO...85-77
14. SF...84-78
15. CIN...82-80
16. OAK...81-81
17. ARI...80-82
18. MIL...79-83
19. CHC...79-83
20. CHW...78-84
21. DET...75-87
22. NYM...75-87
23. BAL...73-89
24. HOU...71-91
25. CLE...70-92
26. TOR...69-93
27. SD...69-93
28. PIT...65-97
29. WAS...64-98
30. KC...62-100

Just for fun, here are my awards picks (these are much less scientific):
AL MVP - Evan Longoria
NL MVP - Hanley Ramirez
AL Cy Young - Jon Lester
NL Cy Young - Tim Lincecum

I can't think of a good AL Rookie of the Year, but I'll take Heyward in the NL.

Y is for YOUUUUUUKKKKKKK (sorry, had to), and for the Yankees. Once again, the Yankees enter the season as the favorite. And once again, their lineup is balanced, and they have depth on the bench and in the 'pen. Brian Cashman has really done a fantastic job of building his roster 1-25 this year and last. Last year was the first time the Yanks outperformed their Pythagorean record by 5 or more games since '05, and it was because they finally got back to doing those typical "Yankee" things. Hopefully they revert to their '06-'08 ways this season, but I'm not holding my breath.

Z is for Zanadu (I know, I'm cheating a little, it's usually spelled with an X. Deal with it, it's late), which is where I feel I am now that it's baseball season. The best day all year (other than my wedding anniversary, and soon, my newborn's birthday) is Opening Day. Bud Selig's most eloquent phrase ever, and granted it's a short list, is that each season offers the "hope and faith" that your team can win. And that begins on Opening Day. Hot dogs. Beer. Baseball. Let's get it on.

MLB 2010, Part One

Before the start of each season, I like to look back at my projections and see how I did. In 2007, I had a pretty damn good year, picking 17 of the 30 teams within 5 games of their actual record, and finishing an average of only 6 games off for all teams. 2008? Not so much. It was a much worse season. So how did I do in 2009? In between, of course:

# Gms Off.....2007.....2008.....2009
0..................3...........2............3
1-5...............14..........6...........9
6-10.............7...........10.........9
11-15...........5............6...........5
16+..............1............6...........4
Avg Off........6.10.......9.93......8.07

On the positive end of the spectrum, I perfectly nailed my predictions for Boston (95 wins), Milwaukee (80) and Philadelphia (93). On the negative end, I completely blew predictions for Kansas City (81 wins projected, they actually won 65), Detroit (65-86), Cleveland (87-65) and the New York Mets (94-70). While I can fall back on the old injury excuse with the Mets, I did a very poor job of reading the AL Central last year. In fact, the AL Central has proven to be my most challenging division:

Avg # Games Off, 2007-2009
AL East...6.53
NL Cent...7.13
AL West...7.67
NL West...8.33
NL East...8.73
AL Cent...9.80

My AL Central predictions have been more than a game worse than any other division. What makes that figure even worse is the fact that 2 of my 8 perfect predictions were the Royals in 2007 and 2008.

But individually, the team I have had the least luck predicting is the Seattle Mariners. It is the only team with which I have been off by 16 or more games more than once in the past three seasons.

I am currently working on my 2010 predictions, and will try to have them up before the season starts. As an aside, I was going to work on a post about my fantasy draft last week, but I am flying home for my long-standing fantasy league this weekend, and I need to get my season predictions in order as well, so that post will have to be moved to the back-burner.

The Oscar's

My wife and I went over to a friend's house Sunday night to watch the 82nd Academy Awards. It was the first time we had planned an evening around watching the Oscar's, or any other awards show for that matter. I guess that means we're getting old. As is custom with these sorts of things, we all filled out ballots to see how many of the categories we could predict correctly. But I'll get to that later. Here are some notes I took down during the telecast:

- I felt particularly prepared for this Oscar telecast. Not only had we seen all 10 movies nominated for Best Picture (see my brief thoughts on them here), but we had seen many of the other movies that were nominated for Academy Awards, including Julie & Julia, Coraline (which we actually watched just a couple of hours before leaving for my friends house), Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince, Star Trek & Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. But there were still a few we missed that I was putting in my mental queue throughout the night: The Messenger, Crazy Heart, In The Loop, A Single Man, The Secret of the Kells and The Princess & The Frog.

- Speaking of those last two animated movies, I want to see them chiefly to see how it is possible that those two movies were nominated over Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, which I thought was phenomenal. The other real big snub to me was Sam Rockwell being left off Best Actor in favor of Morgan Freeman. I didn't see Invictus, but by all accounts it was a) not a good movie and b) Freeman's role wasn't a dominant one. Certainly, it had to have been less dominant than Rockwell's in Moon.

- Carey Mulligan: shoulder-length brown hair > short blond hair, but she's still a stunner either way. And in a bit of an upset, she was at least as attractive, if not more, than Zoe Saldana. Although I think a lot of that had to due with Saldana's dress, which was sort of strange.

- When I first saw Neil Patrick Harris come out on stage, I was thinking, 'Really? Him again?' But he actually did a marvelous job.

- I didn't get the Meryl Streep Hitler memorabilia joke, but I'd like to. Someone help me out with that.

- I thought it was funny how they made deliberate attempts to keep young people invested in the show, both with the jokes in the opening comedy routine from Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, and then later with the horror montage and by having Taylor Lautner present an award. The funnies Lautner moment though was when they showed him during the touching John Hughes tribute, and he had that "Who the hell is John Hughes?" look on his face. Ah, youth.

- I loved the fact that the guys from Up were wearing the grape soda pins. It's the little things like that that keep Pixar on top year after year.

- I still don't understand why Joe Montana is endorsing Skechers.

- For all the talk of shortening the program, the night was an epic fail from ABC in terms of keeping it in the allotted time. 57 minutes into the telecast only four awards had been handed out. At that point, they rattled off a number of the less popular awards, but it really shouldn't have taken 57 minutes to do four awards. And while steps like adding a backstage cam for extra thank yous and eliminating the best original song performances were a nice idea, they seemed to make up for it with the extra musical number by NPH, the interpretative dance, the extra opening joke time for Martin & Baldwin (I can't call it a monologue because there was two of them. What do you call that?), the Paranormal Activity skit and the horror montage. Some of that was fun to watch, particularly the opening bits, but, I mean don't they have rehearsals for these things? It's unfathomable to me that you could run 32 minutes over by accident. And while maybe that wouldn't have been a big deal a few years back, we now live in the DVR world. At my friend's house, we had to stop watching on two separate occasions in order to go live and tape the next program so that we didn't miss anything that was happening. Not only was that annoying but we also messed up and had one of the awards spoiled for us. Thanks, ABC.

- I can't tell what delighted me more, that women interrupting during the Music From Prudence acceptance speech, or the fact that "Kanye'd" is now part of our lexicon. I think the latter, mainly because I feel bad for the director after reading a little about why that happened, but I still like saying "Kanye'd."

- Charlize Theron could have easily played the "huge b*tch" role in Deuce Bigalow. She's just so tall. And the massive bulls eyes on her boobies weren't helping the matter. (And yes, in case you're wondering, I did just work in a Deuce Bigalow reference into my Oscar post. Boo yah!)

- My friend was very impressed with Demi Moore's outfit until they panned to her feet, and she decried Moore's "stripper shoes." I felt like that had to be mentioned.

- Can we stop pretending that Kristen Stewart is attractive? Because she's definitely not.

- There is a little known rule that whenever dancers are present at an awards show Jennifer Lopez has to be there to either present them or be shown in the crowd during their performance.

- I thought it was interesting that they had Gerard Butler and Bradley Cooper present the award for Best Visual Effects. The Academy knew they had to find a way to keep women invested during the geeky Best Visual Effects award, and they scored big time with that presenting duo. Both my wife and our friend (who's a girl) thoroughly approved. As did I (wink)!

- It was kind of cool that they had people related to the director or lead actor in some way presenting the clips for Best Picture. Right up until they had Jason Bateman present for Up In The Air. Then it was no longer clever, since he was actually in that movie. They couldn't find Jennifer Garner, Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Katie Holmes, J.K. Simmons, Aaron Eckhart or one of Jason Reitman's other previous stars do that clip? Or someone tangential to Clooney, like Brad Pitt or Matt Damon? That just seemed weird that they would go to all that trouble with the other nine movies, and then not with Up In The Air.

- The funniest line of the night outside of the opening comedy routine had to be when Juan Jose Campanella, the director of El Secreto de Sus Ojos quipped, "I'm just glad they didn't consider Na'vi a foreign language."

- Julianne Moore is underrated. Morgan Freeman looked drunk.

- What a ride for Gabourey Sidibe, nominated for Best Actress in her first-ever role, and at the Oscar's she was introduced by Oprah Winfrey, who also was nominated for an Oscar in her first-ever role (though it was for Best Supporting Actress).

- The Best Speech of the night came down to three people - Mo'Nique, Michael Giacchino (who won for Best Original Score in Up) and Sandra Bullock. It was almost a tie between the latter two, and only because they chose different directions with their speech. Both were very touching, but for different reasons. Bullock went the traditional route, thanking those close to her, including her mom. Meanwhile, Giacchino's message to young people that they pursue their dreams no matter what anyone says was very uplifting as well. But Bullock's speech also had lesbian jokes, so she wins.

- You knew that Kathryn Bigelow had won Best Director the moment Barbara Streisand's name was announced. There was literally no other reason for her to be there. She hasn't appeared in a movie since Meet The Fockers in 2004.

- I think that I have a hard time getting worked up over the incredibly political decisions that the Academy makes these days. They're pretty predictable. On the one hand, you have a movie that literally made a billion dollars, and has already been so influential that at least two movies that were slated to be released less than six months after it were converted to 3D in post-production (Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans). Avatar is literally a movie that may wind up saving the movie business and boosting television sales as well. On the other hand, you have a movie that does a very nice job of attacking the war on Iraq and how terrifying it is to be a soldier in today's military, and to boot the movie was directed by a woman. The Hurt Locker was going to get picked ten times out of ten. The sad thing is that this is exactly what the Academy claimed they were trying to avoid when they bumped to ten Best Picture nominees. All I know is that in 30 years - hell, in 15 years - no one is going to remember 2009 as the year of The Hurt Locker, they will remember it as the year of Avatar. And all other things being equal, that should count for something. In years where there isn't a standout either critically or at the box office, all bets are off. But that's not what we had here. But is it worth getting worked up over? No, not really.

- Finally, let's take a look at my predictions. There are 24 categories in all, and I correctly picked the winner in 13 of the 24 categories. But five of them are not dedicated to American, full-length theatrical releases - Best Foreign Film, Best Documentary Feature, Best Documentary (short subject), Best Short Film (Animated) and Best Short Film (Live Action). There were two others categories where I hadn't seen any of the nominated films - Best Costume Design and Best Original Song. And while I certainly offered a prediction on those seven categories (I even nailed Best Documentary Feature, as I had heard of The Cove), it was in the other 17 that I felt qualified to offer an opinion. And I correctly predicted 12 of these 17. On my Twitter feed, I correctly nailed six of the seven biggies before the telecast - Picture, Director, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress and Animated feature. The only one I missed was Best Actor, and perhaps my opinion would be different had I seen Crazy Heart. In the other 10 categories, I suppose you'll have to take my word for it, but I nailed six. However, my strategy with these 10 categories was fairly simple - vote for Avatar. I voted for Avatar in six of these 10 categories. In fact, three of the four that I predicted incorrectly were categories in which I voted for Avatar, but in which The Hurt Locker took home the statue. In the fourth, Best Original Screenplay, I had voted for Inglorious Basterds. Nevertheless, I feel pretty good about my showing, not a bad job by me. I'll try to do better next year.

Best Picture 2009

Last night, the Mrs. and myself took in Precious. Today, we took in A Serious Man, The Hurt Locker and An Education. With these four movies, we have seen all 10 Best Picture nominees for 2009. As promised, here is my ranking of them, in order of enjoyment:

1. Avatar
2. Up
3. Up In The Air
4. Inglorious Basterds
5. An Education
6t. District 9
6t. Precious
8. A Serious Man
9. The Hurt Locker
10. The Blind Side

For the record, my wife's top three were Up, Inglorious Basterds and An Education.

I suppose the surprise here is that my enjoyment of The Hurt Locker doesn't seem to match up with critics. To me, the movie could have been much shorter. To me, the lessons we learned in the end, that Sanborn wanted a child and that James just wanted to keep diffusing bombs, could have been dropped on us much sooner, and we would have enjoyed the movie just the same. And the third main character, Eldridge, is the same character the entire movie. We never learn anything about him other than that he doesn't want to die, which is such an unique character in a military movie. I can't imagine how they thought that up! Also, for a movie where the objectives are to diffuse bombs, I wasn't really on the edge of my seat for any of it. James may have appeared psychotic to his two subordinates, but he also always seemed to know what he was doing. When he tells the superior officer that he had successfully diffused 873 bombs, it seemed that from that point on there was little to no danger of him dying. Odds are if you were going to die from a bomb going off, it would have happened before the 873rd time. Crazy, I know. In any case, it's a good movie, but I didn't enjoy it as much as the others.

This weekend we also took in Precious. On the surface, Precious and District 9 are incredibly different movies, but for me they share a couple of similarities. Like District 9, Precious is likely a movie that will continually be on the cusp of my favorite 100 movies of all-time. Like District 9, it will likely always be on the outside of that list due to it's lack of rewatchability. Precious was a thoroughly moving piece of cinema, and I think that people that focus on the fact that pictures move or that the dream sequences weren't believable - side note, duh, that's why they're called "dreams" - are missing the point. The movie's central strength was its heart, and no amount of camera tricks or flashiness should be able to confuse that point.

A cautionary tale where things turn out mostly all right in the end, An Education struck just the right chord. As a viewer, you are initially hesitant of David, but as time goes by he becomes more and more convincing, and when he asks Jenny to marry him, you think to yourself, 'Well, this is it. He's going to do right by her now.' And when he still turns out to be a bad guy, it's a bit of a punch in the stomach. The blow is dulled only by the fact that she is so young and that she still has her future in front of her if he she wants to fight for it. I initially had this one ranked seventh, but the more I think about it the more I like it. It moved briskly, and it was a rare romantic movie that you wouldn't call a "chick flick."

A Serious Man was in the Coen Brothers signature to be sure. And while it was slow in parts, that agonizing for Larry is what makes the film great. You have to simmer and stew along with him as he slowly loses his mind, house and family, and I think many of us can relate to feeling more decisive in our dreams or in our imagination than we are in real life. In the end though, I can't shake the feeling that Larry was a little too helpless. I mean, no one can be a door mat like that at home and be an almost-tenured professor at the same time, right? I don't know, maybe they can. In any case, I think I'll enjoy A Serious Man more upon repeated viewings, and I feel like The Hurt Locker and The Blind Side will annoy me more on repeated viewings, so that's why I ranked A Serious Man where I did.

Now, please don't mistake my preferences for what I think will happen tomorrow. It seems as though there are only two movies with a chance of winning - Avatar and The Hurt Locker - and as much as I enjoyed Avatar, I really don't see it winning Best Picture. Which leaves The Hurt Locker. It certainly wouldn't be the worst Best Picture winner ever, but I don't think it would get my vote if I voted for such things. In the end though, the real winner is the Academy. I can say without a doubt that I would not have bothered to see all ten of these movies if they weren't nominated, and I think that probably is true, if not more true, for a lot of people. The question then becomes, will diluting the prestige of being a Best Picture nominee be balanced by the potential for greater box office receipts be worth it? I don't think it's a question that can be answered this year, but it's certainly something to ponder.