Entertainment desk
< November 24	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 25

Wild CArd MLB

Let say that in the American League, the wild card title was won by Toronto Blue Jays and new york yankees won the east division title. I want to know is that does the MLB make the decision whether the wild card blue jays face the central division winners or west division winner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.220 (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wildcard team ALWAYS plays the division winner with the best overall record, UNLESS it is in the same division as the team with the best overall record, in which case, it would then play the second best team. So, lets look at these scenarios:

Scenario 1)

New York Yankees (AL East winner): 100-62
Toronto Blue Jays (AL East, Wild Card winner) 90-72
Cleveland Indians (Al Central winner): 102-60
Oakland A's (AL West winner): 82-80

In this scenarion, New York plays Oakland and Toronto plays Cleveland (#1 division winner plays WC, #2 plays #3). In this case, New York and Cleveland would both have home field advantage (the teams with the better record)

Scenario 2)

New York Yankees (AL East winner): 100-62
Toronto Blue Jays (AL East, Wild Card winner) 90-72
Cleveland Indians (Al Central winner): 88-74
Oakland A's (AL West winner): 82-80

In this scenario, because two teams from the same division CANNOT meet in the first round, New York plays Oakland, and Toronto plays Cleveland. In this case, New York and Cleveland STILL have home field advantage, because the division winner always gets home field advantage even when they have a worse record than the wildcard team.

Hope this makes sense. --Jayron32 04:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, more simply, the wild card team plays whichever of the winners of the other two divisions has the best record. Fine, but what if those two teams had identical win-loss records?

Scenario 3)

New York Yankees (AL East winner): 100-62
Toronto Blue Jays (AL East, Wild Card winner) 90-72
Cleveland Indians (Al Central winner): 88-74
Oakland A's (AL West winner): 88-74

I know that a playoff game is used if two teams contending for a particular postseason berth have identical records, but would Cleveland and Oakland have to schedule a playoff game just to determine which one played against Toronto? Or is there a tie-breaking criterion, or do they assign them randomly? --Anonymous, 05:00 UTC, November 26, 2010.

There's probably a tie-breaking criterion; I am not sure specifically how it would be broken down here, but based on other sports tie-breaking criteria, they could use things like head-to-head record between the tied teams, runs scored, run differential, league wins (throwing out interleague games), wins against common opponents. It is quite unlikely that they would run out of metrics to judge which team was slightly better. In the NFL, this is much more common because they only play 16 games. In baseball, where they play 162, the chances of teams having identical records, down to the number of runs scored and allowed, is, if not impossible, is improbable enough not to worry about. So, in short, they will have some pre-agreed upon way to break ties, on paper, between the Indians and the A's, and whichever team comes out on top via the tiebreaking procedure, the Blue Jays will play them. --Jayron32 15:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I was hoping for an answer from someone who does know. --Anonymous, 01:32 UTC, November 26, 2010.

You don't have to go too far back to see a practical example - the 2004 National League.[1] The Cardinals had the best record and their divisional rivals, the Astros, had the lowest record of the four qualifiers, so the Astros had to play the Braves in the first round instead of the Cardinals. Cardinals beat Dodgers, Astros beat Braves; Cardinals beat Astros to win the league championship; Red Sox beat Cardinals to win the "world championship", i.e. the World Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The website "Baseball Reference" has a complete listing of tiebreaking rules, taken from the official baseball rules. In the situation you cite, in which the division winners are tied and you need to determine which one playes the wild card, it says:

If one of the Division winners tied for the highest winning percentage is from the same Division as the Wild Card:

The Division winner from the same Division as the Wild Card cannot play the Wild Card in the Division Series. The other Division winner tied for the highest winning percentage plays the Wild Card.

If neither Division winner tied for the highest winning percentage is from the same Division as the Wild Card:

A tiebreaker system will be used to determine which Division winner with the best record plays the Wild Card.

The first tiebreaker will be head-to-head competition between the two Clubs during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Clubs with the higher winning percentage in intradivision games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in intraleague games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in the last half of intraleague games during the championship season. If the Clubs remain tied, then the tied Club with the higher winning percentage in the last half plus one of intraleague games during the championship season. This process will be followed game-by-game until the tie is broken.

Does that help? — Michael J 19:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What recordings did Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau make in Hebrew and Hungarian?

Such recordings are mentioned in the third paragraph of the Wikipedia article on him, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Fischer-Dieskau. I have not been able to find references to this elsewhere on the web, except through quotes from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.154.85 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer-Dieskau's DG recording of Bartók's Bluebeard's Castle conducted by Wolfgang Sawallisch is sung in Hungarian. He made an earlier recording of the work, conducted by Ferenc Fricsay, but that one was sung in German. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Hebrew, while I have not heard the recording to verify that it's sung in the original language, the reference is presumably to Stravinsky's cantata Abraham and Isaac, recorded by Fischer-Dieskau on the Orfeo label, in a performance conducted by Gary Bertini. ReverendWayne (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nikolai Borisovich Galitsin

I am searching for a portrait of prince Galitsin, who commisioned Beethoven to write his last string quartets (opp 127-135) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.136.148.208 (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask the Golitsyn Museum[2]. However, there were an awful lot (520) of princes Galitsin![3] Alansplodge (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alansplodge: I did ask the Hermitage Museum. No answer. And yes, there were many princes Galitsin, but only one Nikolai Borisovich. I am amazed there is no portrait to be found of this man, having commisioned the most incredibe pieces of music. Our western civilisation is deeply indebted to him. But then, with that legacy who needs a portrait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.249.26 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ocean's 12" and "Clair de Lune"

Is "Ocean's 12" the only movie in the "Ocean's" series to not feature "Clair de Lune"? I thought I remembered at least a partial rendering of it in all the "Ocean's" but it is only on the soundtrack of 11 and 13. If it is in 12, might it not be on the soundtrack due to the brevity or perhaps obsecureness of it in the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.63.39 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack albums often leave things out, in order to prevent the album from being 2 hours long. If you have a video of 12, you could watch it again and see if you catch it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

itsreal.com

There is a website called itsreal.com and I want to know who are the female models for this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.226 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The models (male and female) are people just like you and me, only they've been heavily photoshopped. Despite the name, none of that is real :) TomorrowTime (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Love

Where can I find more bio of this model: Mona Love and her filmography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.19.226 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent acclaimed sci-fi films

Which recent sci-fi movies (of 2000s) received generally positive reviews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.158.172 (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon (film). To some extent Solaris (2002 film). You might want to browse through Category:2000s science fiction films. --Viennese Waltz 21:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why an animated film can't also be a sci-fi film. WALL-E. --Viennese Waltz 21:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About three years ago Rotten Tomatoes compiled a list of the top 100 SF films of all time, based on their user ratings. It's discussed at Uncertain Principles, which you'll find easier to access than the list on Rotten Tomatoes itself. IMDb have a thoroughly up to date chart here. Of films made in the last ten years Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Minority Report, Children of Men, The Host, Inception, and WALL-E all figure in the top 10 of one list or the other, or, in the case of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, both. Antiquary (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Box (2009), based on a Matheson story, had mixed reviews, but Ebert liked it. It certainly held my interest. Pepso2 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't forget District 9. Awesome film (and did very well, both critically, and at the box office). More mainstream, the three latest Star Wars films have received mixed to positive reviews, and have all done very well at the box office. Recently, the Star Trek film was both a critical and box office success, as was Avatar. Buddy431 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Stargate Continuum, V for Vendetta, Lord of the Rings trilogy and Serenity. StuRat (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Lord of the Rings trilogy are not science fiction. --Viennese Waltz 08:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sole distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is whether or not the magic is explained away by psuedo-scientific-sounding explanations or not. See Clarke's third law. --Jayron32 16:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other then what's already been said and presuming you mean greater positive then negative, Matrix Reloaded [4] (but not Matrix Revolutions [5]), Terminator 3 [6] (but not Terminator Salvation [7]) and I, Robot (film) [8]. Are you including direct to DVD and the like? If so perhaps Stargate: The Ark of Truth [9] (although with only 4 total). I would guess take a look at Category:2000s science fiction films and perhaps 25% would have greater positive then negative. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]