A Million Ways to Die in the West: 4/10

Seth MacFarlane is the equivalent of the college student that has all the potential of breezing through his years with straight As and honors in everything imaginable----but settles for the easier, calmer Bs and Cs. The man is notoriously smart, notoriously gifted, and it makes all the more frustrating when Family Guy dips itself to crass and gross-out humor when we know that MacFarlane has the ability to make a show to the creative geeky levels of a Community or a 30 Rock.

A Million Ways to Die in the West falls straight into the woulda, coulda, shoulda category.

This comedic western (extremely rare genre with very few success stories) is a jumbled mess that unveils the wasted talent (Neil Patrick Harris and Sarah Silverman being the best examples) and the infinite level of potential. The plot was forgettable, the jokes and one-liners are all throwaways, and there was nothing really outstanding about the production aside from the cinematography. It was even lacking the classic Western tension that makes the genre stand out on its own.

MacFarlane tried to throw everything at the movie, from shifts in tone to the shifts in humor. And you thought Lone Ranger had a clunky tone, wait until you get a kick out of this one. There's a clever monologue about how bad life really was in the West, but then we get tons of toilet humor mixed in. Adding to the mayhem is a sentimental story, random violent sequences, even more random musical sequences, and unexpected but unnecessary cameos. It all felt very random and although it may work in a short film format (Robot Chicken), this style flounders severely if it becomes a two-hour affair.

There will be laughs; there will be some jokes that hit. But similar to the latter seasons of Family Guy, the amount of missed jokes subtracts from the overall enjoyment. And it hits the gut harder since this is a very smart, sophisticated, and well-rounded individual with tons of writing and singing experience behind the wheel. This is Seth MacFarlane we are talking about, not Adam Sandler. And the cast is full of Oscar and Emmy talent, not a bunch of duds (Like most of Adam Sandler's friends).

Seth, I know you are capable of much better. Step up to the plate and actually deliver it.

The 2014 Tampa Bay Rays and their Devil Rays-esque Start

This season sucks.



Yes, Major League Baseball’s 2014 season has been interesting to say the least, with surprise contenders like the Colorado Rockies, Milwaukee Brewers and Miami Marlins (yes, I know) competing in tough divisions like the NL East, NL West, AL West, and even the AL Central. We have had some exciting rookies like Jose Abreu as well as phenomenal pitching from Caribbean gems Johnny Cueto and Jose Fernandez. We have seen intriguing storylines left and right, just like every baseball season. Best of all, the playing field remains pretty even as we inch closer towards June, which gives everyone hope….unless you are a Cubs fan.

However being a Tampa Bay Rays fan has been frustrating to say the least. Very, very frustrating. We are currently dead last in the surprisingly-weak AL East, we have injuries left and right, David Price and the pitching staff has not been to their usual standards, and Joe Maddon has been spending the past month having to do damage control. After signing practically the entire infield for the next several seasons, they have failed to deliver on the promise of a good consistency. And don’t get me started on Jose Molina’s offensive numbers.

What stings a bit more was that the expectations had been raised to a level the franchise had never before witnessed. And yes, I had written about the “It Was Supposed to Be Our Year” syndrome that surrounded the 2012 Rays, but this time we had all the analysts saying that the window of opportunity was there. The Rays increased their payroll to the highest the franchise has ever seen, the stadium received renovations, and surely enough more eyes were placed on us—especially after biting the financial bullet and signed a player that has all but guaranteed to be leaving us in 2015 in David Price.

P.S. David Price, that 4-4 record and 4.00+ ERA is not helping you. Not for trade bait, and not for that mega contract you will soon be seeking.

So what is going wrong? Well, the starters have had to pick up the slack for the temporary disappearances of Matt Moore, Jeremy Hellickson, and Alex Cobb—as well as the underrated missing arm of Alex Torres. And the new crop of starters are barely lasting, which is leading to a bullpen put on the brink of destruction as we have aging veterans like Joel Peralta, Heath Bell (Now gone), and Grant Balfour having to do extra work. This pretty much ruins the good news about our ho-hum offense, which still needs more production from the bottom half of the lineup---I hope you are reading this Jose Molina.

The other fact is that guess what, every franchise has their bad season this millennium—except for the freakin’ St. Louis Cardinals. The Yankees had 2013, the Red Sox had 2012, the Orioles had every season between 1999-2012, and the Blue Jays had the recent 2012-2013 stretch of disappointment--and that's just the AL East examples. Remember once upon a time the Detroit Tigers really, really sucked before getting their stuff straight.

As for us, when we were the Devil Rays, it was expected to suck. Maybe this is the year where the wheels just won’t turn in our favor, despite the entourage of good pieces. We still have one of the best managers in baseball willing to make the tough calls, the controversial decisions, and ultimately maintain the spirits high against the circumstances.

And we can sit here and talk about how the pitching needs lots of work, our starters need to survive at least 7 far more often then what has been going on this year, the hitting while improved needs to be more clutch and a bit more consistent, the defense needs to not overthink the plays in motion so much, and lastly we need to get into the heavier habit of small ball baseball which includes sacrifice bunts/flies, stolen bases, and timely hitting. We can blurt out all this but here is the other thing the franchise needs to stop doing: stop gambling our chips so much. Start clinging to the chips a bit longer.

2014 will mark the year when Tampa stepped up on its game and signed a variety of players to elongated contracts, ranging from Chris Archer to James Loney. But what about all the good and popular pieces that has fallen through the crack? I miss Sam Fuld’s defense and energetic prowl. I miss Jose Lobaton’s clutch hitting. I miss Alex Torres spitting great bullpen numbers. And to go a little further back, I miss Wade Davis’ great bullpen/starter abilities, as well as Rafael Soriano’s consistency (185 saves, 2.76 ERA makes for a good career). And I really miss Carl Crawford (I know, no way we could afford him, but if only we Longoria-d him with a lengthy contract) and his mix of hitting, speed and defense (.297 average, 450+ stolen bases). Most of the time we do manage to take deals that seem like dirt and turn them to diamonds (Ben Zobrist being probably your best example) but sometimes when the struggles persist, it’s hard to not look back and ponder what if we had made more of an effort to keep some of the chips we sacrificed.

And the funny thing, I hope this article becomes irrelevant when August rolls around and the Rays are full blast in the thick of the playoff race. But with the worst start since the Devil Rays became the Rays, it’s hard to not become pessimistic.



But it’s the Tampa Bay Rays. With them, you never know…

100: The Number That Can Improve Major League Baseball

Sometime in Summer of 2013, I took my best friend to his very first MLB game. It wound up being a very close game between the Toronto Blue Jays and my Tampa Bay Rays. Omar got to see it all: great plays, clutch hitting, tense moments, and a game-winning home run from Jose Lobaton (Miss you by the way). So he decided to give baseball a chance for 2014.

Late April 2014, I visited his place and he pointed out that the Rays were losing a lot. I told him that its baseball, it’s 162 games and expect even the great teams to lose at least 60 games. He hits me with a statement that as a diehard baseball fan stung, but still had a good point:


“Oh, so the first couple of months is pointless then, right?”


I wanted to refute this point. I wanted to argue it. I wanted to debate it. But what on earth could I say? Every game is important? All 162 games? Is it humanely possible for a person to keep track of so many games while still trying to learn the deep beauty of the sport itself? And this is where baseball’s potentially biggest problem lies: it is a tough sport to randomly recruit fans into its crazy world simply because of its rather intimidating schedule. 162 games, and they play all over the place in the calendar. Instead of NFL’s usual Sunday schedule (Even though they are slowly screwing that up with the Thursday games), baseball teams generally play 25-30 games a month to reach the number that has existed for a couple generations now.

But should it be time for a change? Isn’t it time to start a new era of baseball and an era that is more accessible to a technology-driven world that is a heck of a lot faster when compared to the 1920s, the 1950s, and even the 1990s? Isn’t it time to shorten a season so we can add value to each ballgame, add value to each moment of the baseball season?

What makes the NFL work is that each of the 16 games are extremely important, since you have much fewer chances to win throughout the season. Lose 3 or 4 in a row and your season already looks disastrous. The desperation doesn’t go away unless you are in a terrible division. With baseball however, you can absolutely blow it the first three months but still have a shot at winning the entire thing. The magical run of the 2003 Florida Marlins started out horrifically slow, 16-22 record and winding up dead last in their division around May. At the end of the day however they shocked the Yankees and won the World Series.

So can you imagine a baseball season in which instead of catching the details of 162 games, we reduce the season to a mere 100 games? Just 20 games per month from late March through August, with the playoffs starting in August and the World Series starting in early September? Can you imagine guaranteeing baseball on 5 specific days of the week to better keep track? Can you imagine a double-header each week so that everyone has a legitimate shot of going to the game on a Saturday or a Sunday?

This is how I would fix the scheduling of baseball: 100 games, period. It may not be 16 games, but in baseball anybody can beat anybody on any given day so you still need a good number of games to separate the good teams from the bad. 100 games is definitely a good-enough sample size.

The way it shall work: Each team plays their division rivals a total of 40 times—10 games per team in the 5-team division. And for the remaining 10 teams in your league (American or National)? Just 6 games, 3 at home and 3 away. That makes it 60. Add the 40 and the 60 and you have exactly 100 games, excluding interleague---which should be eliminated because its luster is diminishing and it would add more value to the All-Star Game.

This is the point of the schedule change, increasing value. Removing interleague allows for the All-Star Game matchups to be more entertaining, as opposed to a been-there-done-that since the AL plays the NL throughout the season. With the 100 game schedule it makes room for many more breaks, many more days off, and removes the pressure of having to do interleague games since each league has an odd number of teams.

Making it 100 games makes it a nice wholesome number that’s easier to follow for the new fans, the developing fans, and even fans that have trouble devoting time to their team and the league. 100 games gives it a resounding countdown (“Game 75, 25 games until playoffs”). Each game is far more important, especially the interdivisional ones. Instead of the Yankees playing the Red Sox 19 or 20 times a year, you reduce it to a mere 10, giving the rivalry added oomph per game.

100 games allow for the playoffs to hit in August, right as the NFL is starting. In terms of rivalry amongst the sports, it’s an excellent way to remove some of the excitement from football as baseball playoffs provide more unpredictable moments and memorable games than any other professional sport, bar none. September would belong to the World Series, which would arrive right around the time the NFL is just starting, and the NHL and NBA have yet to truly begin. It would also decrease the chances of bad late fall/early winter weather hampering with the Fall Classic.

100 games will reduce the amount of injuries amongst the battered and bruised players, increasing the quality of each game. We will see stronger, more stable pitching rotations; we will see healthier players as they can take advantage of the extra rest the reduced schedule can deliver. And some will argue why make it easier for the millionaires, and my response is simple: if I am paying $100+ for cable a month to watch sports, and paying at least $100 per ballgame I personally attend, I better get the full complete package of talented players—as opposed to incomplete lineups because some of the stars have to take time off to heal. Reducing the amount of games enhances my chances of getting my money's worth.

I know baseball does not like change, I know baseball likes to remain consistent because of its love for the numbers and the records attached to them (61, .400, 56, *73, 262) but let’s be honest: the career numbers are where it’s at and we’ve reached a point in which single-season records may never ever be beaten. Is anyone really going to challenge the single-season records for wins (59), shutouts (16), RBIs (191), runs scored (198) or even stolen bases (138)? Just not going to happen in today’s MLB. The competition is too strong, too tight. So why not begin a new era and just focus on improving the quality of the game?



Even though I can handle 162 games, there is truth to having too much of a good thing.



100 games is just right.