I compare players to movies. I don’t know why.
Being blessed with the Thursday as one of my writing days, I end up needing to come up with content on a lot of off-days. And off-days are for water cooler discussion. This is not a day for serious analysis. So today, I’m giving Players as Movies.
What does that mean? It’s what it sounds like. I go through the Cardinals roster and give them the closest movie analogue that I can. This is, as you can imagine, not going to be a rigorous scientific process. I try to find a movie that I can describe in vague enough terms that I could also be describing a certain baseball player. That’s the game. You’ll see what I mean soon enough.
Lars Nootbaar
Description: Well-rounded with no apparent flaws that you can figure out, but the end product is not quite as good as you think it should be.
I have a lot to work with here. Think of a movie that you enjoyed and any flaws you found in it were very minor, but there’s something holding you back from calling it great. That’s Lars Nootbaar. In the year 2025, it must be said. All of my movie comparisons are applying to the player they are now. But you may reevaluate movies later and find they are actually great. So it could still work!
Movie: The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson is the king of this category for me. I love Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, and I still have trouble with one particular thing in Magnolia but otherwise high praise. I don’t know if it’s expectations or what, but since then I’m not on his wavelength. And there’s nothing really wrong with his movies that I can blame. I haven’t seen The Master since close to when it came out, but it’s probably the perfect example of “I know this is good, I don’t know why I don’t like it more.”
Masyn Winn
Description: Whatever you like about (movies/baseball), it doesn’t matter because this will provide you with whatever your favorite thing about (movies/baseball) is.
My prompt was that I had to have a description that I could also use to describe the movie, but really my initial instinct was “Too early to call a classic, but a classic.” So that’s the “true” description to match for Winn. What I did was thought of the movie I wanted to pick and then retrofitted the description.
Movie: Everything Everywhere All at Once
Kind of fits for an elite defender though right? And a fast guy. And a guy who covers a lot of the zone and is hard to strike out. I know not everyone agrees this movie is a classic and that’s fine. I kind of get it. But I was on this movie’s wavelength and whatever it did worked on me.
Brendan Donovan
Description: I expected this to be good, but it was good in a completely different way than I expected.
Donovan technically came from nowhere, but I had him pegged as a future Matt Carpenter type when he was in the minors. And he had a similar rookie season to how Carpenter first adjusted to the major leagues. But what Donovan is now – and I don’t mean how good he is – is a different hitter than I was expected. He’s a contact-oriented hitter who seems to sacrifice walks instead of strikeouts for a little bit more power.
Movie: The Handmaiden (2017)
This really applies to any movie with a twist, or maybe you entered thinking you were watching one genre and it was really a different genre. I watched this movie last week, and I could not think of a better example of this. I wanted to pick a more well-known movie (in America anyway), but this just too well. This was the same director as Old Boy so it’s both foreign language and has some messed up stuff in it.
Willson Contreras/Ivan Herrera
Description: Just sit back and enjoy, because you are going to see some action and you are going to have a good time watching them.
These guys are way too similar for me to think of two separate movies for them. A mashing ex-catcher and a future ex-catcher (at some point even if not next season), I thought an action movie was appropriate for them.
Movie: The Nice Guys
Of course I had to go with a buddy cop movie with one older partner and one younger one. And yes, I know this isn’t a cop movie, but if you were to describe this as a buddy cop movie, you should know exactly what to expect. And it’s great.
Nolan Arenado
Description: Relies a lot on one element of his profession, but he does that one thing so well that it comes out better than it should.
For some reason, the first type of movie I thought of were gimmicky movies that are somehow still good. I don’t think Arenado’s defense is a gimmick, but I’m equating the elite defense as a movie leaning on a gimmick. If you accept the comparison, I think I picked a pretty spot on movie.
Movie: 1917
I do not mean this as a knock on this movie. I saw it in theaters and it was a great experience. The “gimmick” if you will worked on me. It was a better movie than it should have been because of execution. Much like how Nolan Arenado is a better player than he should be because of defense.
Alec Burleson
Description: Very one note and maybe not actually good, but as long as you know what you’re getting, enjoyable nonetheless.
Alec Burleson is 100 percent a dumb action movie. If your feelings on Burleson are positive, it’s a dumb action movie you enjoy. If they are negative, it’s a dumb action movie that you are annoyed you like parts of. There is no debate about this one.
Movie: Con Air
Nobody is ever going to convince me this is actually a good movie. And it’s very, very dumb. But dammit, I enjoy the hell out of it. And I already know there will be people who take issue with me saying it’s not a good movie and then there will be people who take issue with me picking it for Burly because it’s too fun.. But I’m pretty sure Burly is a fun guy in real life so I still think it works.
Pedro Pages
Description: Some would argue they possess the most important and under-appreciated element of (movies/baseball).
So for this comparison, I’m now equating defense with a well-written movie where not a lot actually happens in the movie. Dialogue-driven. The equivalent of Pages, according to me, is a movie entirely dependent on dialogue. I also felt like I had to pick a movie I don’t think is universally liked.
Movie: Women Talking
This got pretty good reviews and nominated for an Oscar, but has “just” a 6.9 rating on IMDB. I believe it’s set in one location for the vast majority of the movie. Much like how really good defense can alone make you an effective player, really compelling dialogue can sometimes be enough.
Victor Scott
Movie: Speed
I mean…. right? I don’t think I need to say more.
Ryan Helsley
Description: It’s not very fun to watch and it seems to take forever, but you can’t deny its greatness.
This is 2025 only, but it took me two seconds to think of a movie for Ryan Helsley.
Movie: Uncut Gems
If you know, you know.
Matthew Liberatore
Description: With zero expectations and not much indication from previous work, they emerge out of nowhere with a great performance.
This one is wishful thinking. And because it’s 2025 specifically, this comparison works for now. So think of a director or actor who almost literally seems to come from nowhere, and they have a very acclaimed movie and suddenly they are in the spotlight. Well not yet, but maybe with their next movie….
Movie: Winter’s Bone
Bonus points here because it’s set in Missouri. Nominated for a Best Picture, Winter’s Bone was not seen by that many people – especially relative to Lawrence’s future movies – but this was the movie that first made people say “Oh shit Jennifer Lawrence can act.” We can even compare Liberatore’s bullpen years as Jennifer Lawrence’s The Bill Engvall Show. I mean she might have been good in it, I’ve never seen it.
And that’s all the names I can muster for today. Hopefully, you guys can join in on the fun. Maybe you can find better movies for my picks, better descriptions for the players (and thus a different movie.). Or think of a player I haven’t covered.
Think of a movie for Sonny Gray, aging pitcher who can get rocked but ends up good in the end. Or Nolan Gorman, where there is one great thing about them, but it isn’t overcoming the flaws. Or Jordan Walker, who can maybe be compared to a great director with a bad first attempt but there was something in that first attempt that promised greatness that you ideally later saw. Again, your optimism or pessimism about players may influence the picks cause it’s all subjective in the end.
Also free idea: if you feel the Cardinals have screwed up in some way in relation to a player, maybe a great actor delivering a bad performance, usually that’s the director’s fault.