A friend of mine recently asked me about David Ortiz, and I have to admit that I’m so saddened by his horrible performance that I don’t even like to talk about it. My friend asked me whether I thought Ortiz had simply stopped using steroids, and I shrugged.
As I said, I don’t like talking about it.
But then I mentioned a new theory — that David Ortiz is several years older than we think he is. (Bill Simmons devoted a whole column to this topic, which you can find here.) I think this theory has some merit — that it’s entirely possible that Ortiz is 38 or 39, rather than 33. Other Dominican ballplayers have lied about their age, and I wouldn’t be shocked to discover that Ortiz has, too.
What’s interesting is that the famously angry Red Sox fans refuse to turn on Ortiz. Apparently, we just love him, unconditionally, even if he’s batting under .200. So we’re directing our rage at Manny — a World Series MVP in 2004, and once the toast of the town — and the ever-maddening Dice-K, instead. Dice-K actually won on Tuesday, and we’re still angry at him. “Matsuzaka Makes it Look Difficult,” proclaimed the fan site Boston Dirt Dogs, which you can find here. “If I ever needed someone to pitch a winner-take-all game in the World Baseball Classic, he’d be my guy,” wrote the Boston Globe’s Chad Finn, in a post that you can find here.
So don’t worry. There are plenty of things for Red Sox fans to be angry about, besides David Ortiz.
DOES THIS MAKE ME OLD?
I was shocked to read that Tetris, my favorite Nintendo game and one of my favorite games ever, is celebrating its 25th anniversary. (Click here for an Associated Press article on this milestone.) I still own Tetris and, like the adults quoted in the AP article, continued to play it long into adulthood, although I haven’t actually played it since I bought my flat-screen TV. For me, playing Tetris can actually be therapeautic — it helps me relax after a trying day, and calms me down if my nerves are a bit frayed. Hmmmm. Maybe I should try to figure out how to hook up my Nintendo, after all.
RUNNING UP SCORES
Uh, no, I don’t care if Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose had a grade changed on his high school transcript or had another student take his SAT for him, as he’s been accused of doing. I keep reading that this is going to tarnish Rose’s reputation, and maybe it will, but I really don’t understand why we should blame Rose for the corruption of the NCAA and the NBA’s stupid minimum age requirement.
The whole idea of collegiate scholar-athletes has long ceased to have any meaning, with schools such as the University of Memphis reaping millions from basketball programs that exploit young, often poor kids desperate for a chance to play in the NBA. And don’t get me started on the minimum age requirement, which was implemented to counter the unfortunate racial stereotypes of the largely black league, not because it ever made any sense. I pretty much agree with sports columnist Dan Wetzel, who wonders why Rose had to take the SATs in the first place. (You can read that column here.) It will never happen, but I’m actually a proponent of getting rid of college sports, and setting up minor league or club teams where athletes can hone their skills before becoming pro or giving up and doing something else. That way, our institutions of higher learning could focus on ... learning.
MOVIES NOT TO WATCH AGAIN
My friend Adam suggested I write a blog about movies that seemed great when you watched them, but now that you’re older seem kind of dumb. He had recently watched “High Fidelity,” in which John Cusack stars as a music-obsessed record shop owner who loves to make mix tapes for his girlfriends.
I actually saw this movie with Adam in 2000, and at the time it really spoke to him. But now he’s married, and has two kids, and just doesn’t relate to the John Cusack character anymore. I hardly ever re-watch movies — doing so would make it more difficult for me to fulfill my goal of seeing every movie ever made — but there are a couple of films that no longer seem as awesome as they did the first time I saw them.
For instance, I recently re-watched “Clerks,” and, believe it or not, I noticed some flaws. I think you have to watch “Clerks” when you’re 19 to love it — otherwise, you’ll think it’s vulgar, pointless and amateurish. And a friend of mine has warned me never to watch the 1986 movie “Labyrinth,” which I loved as a kid, as an adult. “Keep it as a happy childhood memory,” she said, and thus far, I’ve managed to follow her advice. Got any other films that don’t quite stand the test of time? Let me know.
LOOKING FORWARD
Oh, yeah. Here’s my NBA finals prediction. Lakers in six. Preference: Magic in a sweep.
Got a comment? A prediction? Add your thoughts below or e-mail me at sfoss@dailygazette.net.
