Jul 25, 2007 18:55
Drew Carey and The Price Is Right
As a fan of The Price Is Right as long as I can remember, I was more than interested in who would be Bob Barker's successor. I had my preferences in game show veterans Todd Newton and Tom Bergeron (even though I'm not sure the latter was even a candidate), my hope-beyond-hope rejections with Rosie O'Donnell (annoying beyond belief) and Ricki Lake (who hosted Gameshow Marathon which included TPIR; her voice is grating even if she would have eventually become a competent host), and those I hoped wouldn't get the job because of future continuity (John O'Hurley and George Hamilton may have had CBS starting another search within a decade).
Frankly, I didn't realize Drew Carey was even considered until I finally learned he got the job. I like Drew Carey. He's funny and someone that can relate to the everyday person, two great qualities for a host. Of course, that's probably why he was tapped for Whose Line Is It Anyway?. But hosting improv is one thing; game shows are another. I have seen clips from the new show The Power of 10, and he looks pretty good there. That, however, is a new show; The Price Is Right, frankly, is an institution. I don't doubt that Carey knows what hosting TPIR means, nor do I doubt that CBS saw something in him during auditions that made him their choice. I just have some concerns that can only be allayed once I see him host.
First of all, Bob Barker and Drew Carey have seemingly different personalities, which means that the timing and the flow of the show will be quite different. Different isn't necessarily bad; Ray Combs was a good replacement for Richard Dawson on Family Feud. (Actually, too bad Combs went through all those personal problems that caused him to commit suicide after he was let go from FF, because he wouldn't have been a bad candidate, either.) What might be the hardest thing for me and presumably other long-time TPIR fans to come to terms with is that it could be a different show from this point on. I can't say for sure, but I believe that's the problem any non-Monty Hall Let's Make A Deal revival had; the show just wasn't the same without him, though I'll continue to insist that Mark L. Walberg of Temptation Island and the underrated Russian Roulette -- and apparently was also considered for TPIR -- would be damn good as a new Big Dealer.
Branching from that, Carey's comedic style, while fitting or modifiable to many shows, doesn't quite seem to be the type to work on TPIR, at least not to me. It's a bit unchecked, especially if he can do things his way. Can he tune that down? Probably. But what happens when someone (especially if it's a young, gorgeous woman) with a creative t-shirt appears in Contestants' Row? That could be quite interesting, to say the least.
Another concern I have is almost the opposite of the first, namely that since I'm getting Drew Carey as the new host, I don't want Drew Carey's version or interpretation of Bob Barker. And I think this is where my conflict with the choice of Carey is its greatest; given everything that I've seen of his, I know he can be a good if not great host, but I'm not sure if he can be a great host of The Price Is Right. I want him to be, because, as I said before, I do like him. I guess I'll just have to wait until Fall, watch the show and see what happens.
Michael Vick
I was asked by a co-worker of mine what I thought of the dogfighting scandal, and, as she is an animal lover just on the sane side of PETA (though she has proudly shown me a couple of PETA materials she's received), I told her that while I don't condone what Vick did or allowed to happen on his property, I won't form a full opinion until I hear more. That's true. Here's my full opinion.
I don't particularly care. Again, I can't state this clearly enough (especially to the bleeding hearts out there, who seem to lose the little sense of reason they have when they face an emotional subject), I in no way, shape or form support dogfighting. I would never watch it, and I have avoided looking at pictures of the dogs involved, because I am repulsed by the images. But take from it what you will, animal welfare is not terribly high on my list of worldly concerns. Animals strike me much the same way as humans do: a few have personalities that I like, some can be entertaining, and some can serve other uses in my life (though I guess in the case of humans, they make the things I like and animals, well, are featured in a few of the things I like), but most I'll gladly live without.
All that said, if Vick ends up being guilty and the prosecutors decide to throw the book at him, I'll have no problem with that at all.
Barry Bonds
Barry Bonds is all but guaranteed to be the new home run king. Barry Bonds has also been convicted, at least in the almighty Court of Public Opinion, of being a cheater. Barry Bonds also, in more verifiable ways, is convicted of being a jerk.
I can't help to think that Bonds' attitude has a bit to do with the vitriol against him. Yes, people turned against Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and the other purported and verified enhancement drug users just the same as they did with Bonds. Now, of that group, only Bonds is going to break Hank Aaron's record, a record not only considered clean by all, but a record broken by whom almost everyone sees as a man of dignity, especially given the racist idiocy he had to endure during his run. But it just seems to me that if Bonds was somewhat personable throughout his career, more people would give him the benefit of a doubt. Anyway, it probably comes as no surprise that I don't care if Bonds is a jerk to most people. I've never met him, so I don't know if he'd be a jerk to me, and that's all I'll base any conclusive opinion of his personality on.
As far as the "Cream" and the "Clear" he supposedly took, if you forced me to answer, I'd agree that he likely used something. However, I have much less of a problem with this than most other baseball fans do, for a number of reasons, some of which are below.
In 1998, the aforementioned McGwire and Sosa took aim at the Roger Maris' single-season home run record. Anyone who saw McGwire when he broke with Oakland or Sosa when he arrived in the Bigs with Texas knows that something changed. However, given that baseball four years prior cancelled the World Series (which doomed the Montreal Expos, as a complete aside), they needed a story to bring fans back, and McGwire and Sosa provided it. I can't say baseball turned the other way for sure, but I can say they certainly weren't going to look for steroids, HGH and the like then. I think it's curious now, that it serves their purpose to rail against performance-enhancing drugs, Bud Selig is on full bore against them.
In 1968, Bob Gibson of the (ugh) St. Louis Cardinals had an ERA of 1.12. In 1969, the pitcher's mound was lowered, greatly reducing one of the major advantages pitchers had.
In 1961, 1962, 1977, 1993 and 1998, Major League Baseball expanded, arguably diluting the talent pool.
In 1961 in the American League, then the following year in the National League, the schedule expanded by eight games, or to think of it another way, at least 24 at-bats.
Until the late 1940's and early 1950's, some of the best baseball talent was unable to play in the Major Leagues due to being the "wrong" race. Whether or not the Negro Leagues as a whole was the equivalent of the Major Leagues doesn't matter; the fact that some players were of the same caliber does.
For many players until the advent of free agency, baseball was a warm-weather job and they had other vocations from October or November to February. Hence, spring training was just that -- time for the players to get back in shape to face the rigors of a baseball season. Now many players work out during the offseason as well.
Along those same lines, medicine has constantly advanced. Injuries didn't stop Mickey Mantle, for example, from having a Hall-Of-Fame career, but the ailments he had would have been much more easily and/or completely cured just thirty years later, let alone now.
Amphetamines, or "Greenies" as they were known, were admittedly in use by baseball players well before the onset of steroids, and are also technically performance enhancers.
Does any of this exonerate any player that used drugs to boost their performance? No. But some are reasons why Barry Bonds has been as prolific as he has, some are why batters generally might have been more productive than their historical counterparts overall, and others show how players of various eras might have had "advantages", unfair or not, during different points in baseball history. (The first shows that McGwire and Sosa had the "advantage" of being part of a feel-good story.)
Wiping statistics in sports is a knee-jerk, boneheaded reaction. If you eliminate Bonds from the record books, do you eliminate the effect his homers, hits, walks, and so on from the Pirates and Giants team stats? What about the pitchers he faced? What about the scores of the games he played?
So save the asterisks. For better or worse, Barry Bonds will break the home run record. But if you're really upset about it, just bide your time and say to yourself: A-Rod. A-Rod. A-Rod.
commentary