This Decade's Oscar Winner Batting Averages

In a sea of pointless Oscar articles, this one was fun. Great job!

Reply

russell crowe won for gladiator and?

Reply

So which of Russell Crowes' two nominations-but-not-victories did you change history on? He won for Gladiator, but not for Beautiful Mind nor Insider. No big deal, just a thought.

Also, in looking at some of the nominees for each year, there seem to be certain years when competition was especially tough as far as repeat nominees go. Of course, when we're talking a very small selection anyway, there will be a few repeat nominees in each year. But sometimes there are up to four repeaters while other years there is only one repeat nominee up for the victory. It's almost like saying who was pitching to them (i.e. their competition) matters too. I wonder if this could be added into your average, although it'd take some statistics that I myself wouldn't know how to do haha. Just another thought.

I like the idea of this a lot though.

Reply

Thanks for the correction. Mr. Crowe is indeed 1 for 3.

Reply

I know you're trying to be diplomatic, but I guess I don't see how being 2 for 2 is better than 2 for 15. That's seven times the recognition, and seven times the wise script choices, even if it's the same amount of gold.

I wonder if Kevin Spacey would trade K-Pax or Pay it Forward or The Life of David Gale for another Oscar nom!

Reply

I found it interestintg that Kate Winslet said afterwards how happy was that she won and how much better was it than losing

she was completely honest and makes it easier to see how all the losers are actually "acting" when they applaud the winner and seem OK with losing

I never really notice that because, you know, that's what they do

the oscars might be artistically meaningless, but on industry terms regarding how much a person get pay, how good roles (or tech jobs) they are offered, etc are huge and it makes a big difference for them

just look at sean penn before he won for mystic river he didn't give a shit about it, last night he couldn't be happier, he learned what it really means

Reply

I think that your analogy of nominations and wins to baseball amusing, but maybe a little off. By extending this analogy, this means that someone nominated once in forty films who wins has a better rating than someone else who makes forty films and is nominated fifteen times with two wins.

Maybe it would be better to think of each movie as one at bat? Then a nomination as supporting could be a base hit, with a win giving an RBI; a nomination as lead is a home run, and a win is a grand slam. This would acknowledge that it is still damn impressive to take home the award while still making it "an honor just to be nominated." I'll leave you to tally the results, but I think consistently strong actors such as Streep and Nicholson will come out looking a bit more like the Holywood's heavy hitters that they are.

Reply

Sally Field, I believe, ties Swank and Spacey in going 2 for 2. ("Norma Rae" and "Places in the Heart"). How could we forget that we like her, we really like her?

Reply

You guys are dead right, of course. Saying that a nomination (for an actor) comes as often as an at-bat (for a ball player) is borderline moronic. But never let it be said that I let an amusing article go to waste due to simple moronocity.

Reply

Al Pacino? By my count 1/8 (1/7 actor, 0/1 supp actor).

De Niro? 2/6 total (1/5 actor, 1/1 supp actor)

Also, I agree that this way of counting and comparing is amusing, but hardly representative of anything other than dumb luck.

A problem with some of the other suggestions for how to count this is it will inevitably benefit younger actors over older ones. Generally speaking, over the course of an actor's career the denominator (number of film appearances) will increase at a greater rate than the numerator (number of Oscar nominations). So even with her 15 nominations, Streep may have a worse average than someone like Swank who's received 1/8 the nominations, but maybe has done 1/10 the films.

I'm not sure what a good way to control for that is. Maybe create categories based on number of films. So you would compare everyone through their first 10, 20, 30 etc. films. For example, Streep through 20 films had X nominations. Swank through 20 films had Y. This would compare apples and apples, and it would also show/reward long-term success. Going back to Pacino, he might do very well in the first 20-30 film calculations, but as you got higher, his "average" would start to plummet (which seems fair). Streep, on the other hand, would likely be consistently high throughout, with the reward being she's probably at the top for the number of movies she's done.

Reply

Very few first-time Oscar winners ever get a second, that's the big leap, so Meryl Streep got it done fairly early in her career.

To me, her dozen or so other nominations are just amazing. That means year after year, her consistent excellence has been unmatched. To create a sports analogy, Tiger Woods is going after Jack Nicklaus' record of 18 wins in major tournaments. What people don't know is that Jack finished second in the majors 19 or 20 times. People who can always show up on the leaderboard are rare, whether Tiger or Jack or Meryl Streep.

Reply

Also, Cate Blanchett has been nominated 5 times (twice in one year).

Reply

Cate Blanchett is 1 for 5, not 1 for 4.

Her five nominations:

Elizabeth
The Aviator
Notes on a Scandal
I'm Not There
Elizabeth: The Golden Age

Also, Sally Field belongs on the .1000 along with Swank and Spacey for winning in her only two nominations for:

Norma Rae
Places in the Heart

Reply

Meryl Streep is the best actress of her generation, and Daniel Day Lewis is the best actor.

Reply