Mets prospect Lastings Milledge has it.
The White Sox had it, and so did the Japanese baseball team in the WBC. (I bet you didn't know the Cubans were "divinely precise," despite all the fielding errors they made.)
The Yankees had it when they won, but lost it when they lost. Or maybe they lost because they had already lost their moxie. It's all so confusing.
The only thing I know is that moxie is more important than ever since Bud Selig has outlawed homeruns.
It's also just nice to see words make comebacks. When is the last time you heard the word "moxie"? When your grandmother said you were a "looker"?
Somewhere, a sportswriter writes that ARod is "vacillating"; the reborn word sweeps through the sportwriting world like pollen in a hurricane; it migrates from country to country like birds with the Avian flu; an intellectual mother lode is tapped as the collective unconscious imposes its will.
Ideas have wings. Even dumb ideas.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Numbers lie, part two.
"The cold, hard numbers have been tabulated. And in what surely is the game's least surprising development since Angels owner Arte Moreno was applauded by fans for lowering concession beer prices, home runs are running for cover now that steroid testing is a regular part of the game.
Last season, the first with a relatively tough steroids policy in place, major leaguers swatted fewer homers than in any summer since 1997.
The decline was not dramatic. And a slight change in one season still could turn out to be as much aberration as trend."
Not to get all MENSA on Scott Miller, but anything that occurs in just one season can not be a trend.
On to the numbers and a most simplistic statistical analysis:
Measurements: 2.05, 2.08, 2.28, 2.34, 2.25, 2.09, 2.14, 2.25, 2.06.
Number of measurements: 9.
High: 2.34.
Low: 2.05.
Average: 2.17.
Standard deviation: 0.11.
Conveniently enough, the 2005 homerun measurement is exactly one standard deviation off the average. One standard deviation is not a lot.
Or just look at the numbers as they move from left to right, from 1997 to 2005. Do you see a trend? Can you guess which year steroids ended?
I'd say steroids ended after the 2001 season when the homeruns per game dropped from 2.25 to 2.09. (It's a trend! The numbers are in and the steroid era ended in 2002!)
I am not blind to the effects of steroids, though I'm not exactly sure why Palmeiro and Bonds are pariahs while Ivan Rodriguez and Clemens get off scot-free.
I also know that homeruns are hardly running for cover. The modern game has not fundamentally changed because homeruns dropped to "only" 2.06 per game.
Last season, the first with a relatively tough steroids policy in place, major leaguers swatted fewer homers than in any summer since 1997.
The decline was not dramatic. And a slight change in one season still could turn out to be as much aberration as trend."
Not to get all MENSA on Scott Miller, but anything that occurs in just one season can not be a trend.
On to the numbers and a most simplistic statistical analysis:
Measurements: 2.05, 2.08, 2.28, 2.34, 2.25, 2.09, 2.14, 2.25, 2.06.
Number of measurements: 9.
High: 2.34.
Low: 2.05.
Average: 2.17.
Standard deviation: 0.11.
Conveniently enough, the 2005 homerun measurement is exactly one standard deviation off the average. One standard deviation is not a lot.
Or just look at the numbers as they move from left to right, from 1997 to 2005. Do you see a trend? Can you guess which year steroids ended?
I'd say steroids ended after the 2001 season when the homeruns per game dropped from 2.25 to 2.09. (It's a trend! The numbers are in and the steroid era ended in 2002!)
I am not blind to the effects of steroids, though I'm not exactly sure why Palmeiro and Bonds are pariahs while Ivan Rodriguez and Clemens get off scot-free.
I also know that homeruns are hardly running for cover. The modern game has not fundamentally changed because homeruns dropped to "only" 2.06 per game.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Oh, fer cryin' out loud ...
"Last season, the Milwaukee Brewers were in the NL wild-card race until midway through September and finished 81-81. Manager Ned Yost says that, assuming health, the Brewers are ready to improve in all aspects and turn into contenders.
'We think we can do enough of the little things to get two more wins a month,' Yost says. 'That puts us at 93 or 94 wins' "
The day Prince Fielder lays down a sacrifice bunt is the day I stop watching baseball and devote my life to stamp collecting.
Listen, everybody, this HR Genie is not going back into the bottle. Babe Ruth broke that egg about 85 years ago and the yolk is not going back into the shell.
'We think we can do enough of the little things to get two more wins a month,' Yost says. 'That puts us at 93 or 94 wins' "
The day Prince Fielder lays down a sacrifice bunt is the day I stop watching baseball and devote my life to stamp collecting.
Listen, everybody, this HR Genie is not going back into the bottle. Babe Ruth broke that egg about 85 years ago and the yolk is not going back into the shell.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Even better than Spring Training games.
I have suspected for a while that sportswriters were completely disconnected from the public. I now have some numerical evidence.
While the WBC is being endlessly praised, the overall ratings on ESPN were 1.1, with the finals receiving a whopping 1.8, which may or may not have beat Knight Rider reruns on channel 55.
I'm not talking about the ratings in Cuba or Japan. I'm talking about the ratings in the USA.
I'm talking about the supposed audience of Kevin Kernan (yet another WBC article), Jon Heyman, John Donovan (with a pat on the head to those cute little Japanese players), Ken Rosenthal (Guess why Japan won? Small ball!), some chick named Janie, and dozens more just like them.
You know what, John Donovan? Two words that prove Japan is not the best baseball-playing nation in the World: Hideki Irabu. Two more words: Tuffy Rhodes.
Were the WBC games exciting? No, not really.
Were they well-attended? No, not really. Unless you're impressed by 737,000 attendees at 39 games. 39 x 2 = 78, so I know right away it's less than 20,000 per game.
Were the games compelling? No, not really. Depending on what country you live in.
Was the type of baseball being played interesting? No, not really. Whenever I watched, it seemed like a bunch of players who couldn't hit.
As for the actual games, most of the analysis is quite condescending. I'll use Heyman's article as the example, but there are about 100 articles out there which basically say the same thing:
"An open letter to Team USA:
Too bad you losers couldn't make it here. Baseball history continued to be made last night without you, South Africa, the Netherlands and the rest of the early-round dropouts.
Cuba and Japan put on a lively, emotional display before a packed house at beautiful PETCO Park in the World Baseball Classic finale. Hope you returning Yankees thoroughly enjoyed that captivating 15-2 Grapefruit League loss to Detroit in lovely Lakeland."
The WBC was more exciting than Spring Training games, this is true. But that's like having a taste test between flat Coke and flat Pepsi.
It's also real nice that you just called South Africa and the Netherlands "losers."
"Many of you mega-millionaires suffered the punishment you deserved for losing: an additional week in central Florida, home to alligators, crocodiles, strippers and Steinbrenner."
The strippers sound kind of nice, actually. Not the kind of thing I'd consider punishment. Playing baseball in central Florida, where the strippers are, while being paid mega-millions by Steinbrenner.
As for the alligators and crocodiles, I don't really think Jeter and ARod actually had to worry about alligators and crocodiles as they ran from the dugout to their positions in the field.
"It may take a while, judging by ESPN, which skipped the first few batters to carry some worthless NIT game."
Number of professionals in the WBC: two. Number of professionals in the NIT: zero.
Number of mega-millionares in the WBC: at least one. Number of mega-millionaires in the NIT: zero.
The Netherlands and South Africa are losers and now the NIT is worthless. Heyman can go watch the NCAA tournaments with its shoe deals and big schools. Pure basketball fans watch the NIT with its teamwork and fundamentals.
"There's one thing we have to make clear. Your defeat wasn't a fluke. Nor were the teams who got here lucky."
So condescending. Nobody said the Japanese were lucky. But if you really open your eyes, you'll know that Team USA wasn't prepared to play, physically or mentally.
"They were here because they can play. And also because they are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional and efficient. The South Korean team, eliminated Friday night, made zero errors in seven games."
Eliminated Friday night because they can't hit.
For what it's worth, the players in the US major leagues can also play. They are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional, and efficient.
The only style that matters is the winning style. If you don't hit homeruns, you're not going to win. The '82 Cardinals were very exciting. But that was 25 seasons ago already. They're the exception, not the rule.
"Matsuzaka, who started last night's finale, tried to jump to the big leagues last year but was prevented by the troubled ownership of the Seibu Lions. You fellows caught a glimpse of him a few days ago, when he shut you out for four innings, putting him in large company.
Anyway, scouts say this kid, only 25, is ready to be an ace in the States. He hit 96 on the gun last night. Plus, he has all he needs: his trick pitch, the rapt attention of the Yankees, and agent Scott Boras to handle his very American goal."
This is as condescending as it gets.
"Wow! In the whole country, the Japanese have a player who can throw the ball 96 miles per hour! I told you the Japanese were good!"
Who can't throw the ball 96 mph? Tanyon Sturtze can throw the ball 96 mph. Rick Ankiel can throw the ball 96 mph. Victor Zambrano can throw the ball 96 mph. Dewon Brazelton can throw the ball 96 mph.
This guy Matsuzaka might be Tom Seaver or he might be Lance McCullers. I have no way of knowing.
But please don't insult his country and his baseball-playing ability by acting all impressed because he can throw a baseball 96 mph. That's AAA in this country, pal.
If you want to prove you're the best in the world, then don't prove it in the WBC. Prove it by signing a four-year deal with the Blue Jays.
"The Japanese team can do the little things. Unlike you guys, they don't wait for the three-run homer."
Look at Team USA's roster. They do not sit back and wait for a three-run homer.
Griffey is past his prime, but he's got ten gold gloves. I understand that his bunting skills are rusty, but that's because it makes more sense for him to swing than to pass the baton. Griffey probably has a better chance of doubling in the run than the next guy does of singling in the run.
Do Damon, Jeter, and ARod sit back and wait for a three-run homer? That's all they do?
Besides, three-run homeruns are exciting, too. They really are. Three-run homeruns score three runs, which is good, because runs help win baseball games.
Three-run homeruns are now somehow symbols or American Sloth and Greed. Three-run homeruns are SUVs lumbering down the highway pushing Celicas off the road. Three-run homeruns are heartless, industrial bombs raining down on quick-witted samurai. Three-run homeruns are double-bacon cheeseburgers which cause us to flatulate in a noble sushi restaurant. Three-run homeruns are big-ass cowboy hats being worn at a funeral. Three-run homeruns are a giant nuclear mutant lizard rising from the sea attacking Tokyo and only the intelligence and teamwork of a sacrifice bunt can drive it back.
"They [Cuba] have a second baseman, Yulieski Gourriel, who could start somewhere for just about any team in the majors now."
Maybe so, maybe not. I saw Gourriel almost cost his team the game against D.R. with a Soriano-cum-Knoblauch fielding play where he actually made two errors. One error for missing the grounder in a fundamentally unsound way. Then, another error when he mindlessly flung the ball into the stands even though he had plenty of time due to a slow baserunner.
Again, why with the condescension? "The Cubans have a player who can play in MLB! The Cubans!"
Why is this a surprise? Even hear of Luis Tiant, Tony Oliva, and El Duque?
Here is a list of pro baseball players born in Cuba.
Maybe I gave the rest of the world more credit than any of these writers. It doesn't surprise me at all that a handful of MLB-ready players exist throughout the world. It doesn't surprise me at all that an unmotivated USA team got their butts kicked.
It doesn't surprise me because, in case Heyman didn't notice, MLB in the US already features many of the best players from all over the world.
If these writers want to watch exciting, compelling, well-played baseball, they should watch the MLB playoffs this October. (If you really think you're a Championship, then I'm naturally going to compare you to the World Series and not just freakin' Spring Training games.)
In the MLB playoffs, the players will pitch! They will bunt! They will steal bases! They will throw the ball 96 mph, just like the Japanese can do! They will turn double plays! Oh, and they might even bore you with a homerun.
The ratings for these MLB playoff games will likely be higher than 1.1.
While the WBC is being endlessly praised, the overall ratings on ESPN were 1.1, with the finals receiving a whopping 1.8, which may or may not have beat Knight Rider reruns on channel 55.
I'm not talking about the ratings in Cuba or Japan. I'm talking about the ratings in the USA.
I'm talking about the supposed audience of Kevin Kernan (yet another WBC article), Jon Heyman, John Donovan (with a pat on the head to those cute little Japanese players), Ken Rosenthal (Guess why Japan won? Small ball!), some chick named Janie, and dozens more just like them.
You know what, John Donovan? Two words that prove Japan is not the best baseball-playing nation in the World: Hideki Irabu. Two more words: Tuffy Rhodes.
Were the WBC games exciting? No, not really.
Were they well-attended? No, not really. Unless you're impressed by 737,000 attendees at 39 games. 39 x 2 = 78, so I know right away it's less than 20,000 per game.
Were the games compelling? No, not really. Depending on what country you live in.
Was the type of baseball being played interesting? No, not really. Whenever I watched, it seemed like a bunch of players who couldn't hit.
As for the actual games, most of the analysis is quite condescending. I'll use Heyman's article as the example, but there are about 100 articles out there which basically say the same thing:
"An open letter to Team USA:
Too bad you losers couldn't make it here. Baseball history continued to be made last night without you, South Africa, the Netherlands and the rest of the early-round dropouts.
Cuba and Japan put on a lively, emotional display before a packed house at beautiful PETCO Park in the World Baseball Classic finale. Hope you returning Yankees thoroughly enjoyed that captivating 15-2 Grapefruit League loss to Detroit in lovely Lakeland."
The WBC was more exciting than Spring Training games, this is true. But that's like having a taste test between flat Coke and flat Pepsi.
It's also real nice that you just called South Africa and the Netherlands "losers."
"Many of you mega-millionaires suffered the punishment you deserved for losing: an additional week in central Florida, home to alligators, crocodiles, strippers and Steinbrenner."
The strippers sound kind of nice, actually. Not the kind of thing I'd consider punishment. Playing baseball in central Florida, where the strippers are, while being paid mega-millions by Steinbrenner.
As for the alligators and crocodiles, I don't really think Jeter and ARod actually had to worry about alligators and crocodiles as they ran from the dugout to their positions in the field.
"It may take a while, judging by ESPN, which skipped the first few batters to carry some worthless NIT game."
Number of professionals in the WBC: two. Number of professionals in the NIT: zero.
Number of mega-millionares in the WBC: at least one. Number of mega-millionaires in the NIT: zero.
The Netherlands and South Africa are losers and now the NIT is worthless. Heyman can go watch the NCAA tournaments with its shoe deals and big schools. Pure basketball fans watch the NIT with its teamwork and fundamentals.
"There's one thing we have to make clear. Your defeat wasn't a fluke. Nor were the teams who got here lucky."
So condescending. Nobody said the Japanese were lucky. But if you really open your eyes, you'll know that Team USA wasn't prepared to play, physically or mentally.
"They were here because they can play. And also because they are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional and efficient. The South Korean team, eliminated Friday night, made zero errors in seven games."
Eliminated Friday night because they can't hit.
For what it's worth, the players in the US major leagues can also play. They are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional, and efficient.
The only style that matters is the winning style. If you don't hit homeruns, you're not going to win. The '82 Cardinals were very exciting. But that was 25 seasons ago already. They're the exception, not the rule.
"Matsuzaka, who started last night's finale, tried to jump to the big leagues last year but was prevented by the troubled ownership of the Seibu Lions. You fellows caught a glimpse of him a few days ago, when he shut you out for four innings, putting him in large company.
Anyway, scouts say this kid, only 25, is ready to be an ace in the States. He hit 96 on the gun last night. Plus, he has all he needs: his trick pitch, the rapt attention of the Yankees, and agent Scott Boras to handle his very American goal."
This is as condescending as it gets.
"Wow! In the whole country, the Japanese have a player who can throw the ball 96 miles per hour! I told you the Japanese were good!"
Who can't throw the ball 96 mph? Tanyon Sturtze can throw the ball 96 mph. Rick Ankiel can throw the ball 96 mph. Victor Zambrano can throw the ball 96 mph. Dewon Brazelton can throw the ball 96 mph.
This guy Matsuzaka might be Tom Seaver or he might be Lance McCullers. I have no way of knowing.
But please don't insult his country and his baseball-playing ability by acting all impressed because he can throw a baseball 96 mph. That's AAA in this country, pal.
If you want to prove you're the best in the world, then don't prove it in the WBC. Prove it by signing a four-year deal with the Blue Jays.
"The Japanese team can do the little things. Unlike you guys, they don't wait for the three-run homer."
Look at Team USA's roster. They do not sit back and wait for a three-run homer.
Griffey is past his prime, but he's got ten gold gloves. I understand that his bunting skills are rusty, but that's because it makes more sense for him to swing than to pass the baton. Griffey probably has a better chance of doubling in the run than the next guy does of singling in the run.
Do Damon, Jeter, and ARod sit back and wait for a three-run homer? That's all they do?
Besides, three-run homeruns are exciting, too. They really are. Three-run homeruns score three runs, which is good, because runs help win baseball games.
Three-run homeruns are now somehow symbols or American Sloth and Greed. Three-run homeruns are SUVs lumbering down the highway pushing Celicas off the road. Three-run homeruns are heartless, industrial bombs raining down on quick-witted samurai. Three-run homeruns are double-bacon cheeseburgers which cause us to flatulate in a noble sushi restaurant. Three-run homeruns are big-ass cowboy hats being worn at a funeral. Three-run homeruns are a giant nuclear mutant lizard rising from the sea attacking Tokyo and only the intelligence and teamwork of a sacrifice bunt can drive it back.
"They [Cuba] have a second baseman, Yulieski Gourriel, who could start somewhere for just about any team in the majors now."
Maybe so, maybe not. I saw Gourriel almost cost his team the game against D.R. with a Soriano-cum-Knoblauch fielding play where he actually made two errors. One error for missing the grounder in a fundamentally unsound way. Then, another error when he mindlessly flung the ball into the stands even though he had plenty of time due to a slow baserunner.
Again, why with the condescension? "The Cubans have a player who can play in MLB! The Cubans!"
Why is this a surprise? Even hear of Luis Tiant, Tony Oliva, and El Duque?
Here is a list of pro baseball players born in Cuba.
Maybe I gave the rest of the world more credit than any of these writers. It doesn't surprise me at all that a handful of MLB-ready players exist throughout the world. It doesn't surprise me at all that an unmotivated USA team got their butts kicked.
It doesn't surprise me because, in case Heyman didn't notice, MLB in the US already features many of the best players from all over the world.
If these writers want to watch exciting, compelling, well-played baseball, they should watch the MLB playoffs this October. (If you really think you're a Championship, then I'm naturally going to compare you to the World Series and not just freakin' Spring Training games.)
In the MLB playoffs, the players will pitch! They will bunt! They will steal bases! They will throw the ball 96 mph, just like the Japanese can do! They will turn double plays! Oh, and they might even bore you with a homerun.
The ratings for these MLB playoff games will likely be higher than 1.1.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Gary Sheffield totally needs a nice, steaming cup of Shut the Bleep Up!
Jon-n-Lisa, the New York Daily News's "mixed nuts," battle it out in a blog battle!
I'll totally check back all year long! I might even send an email in so I can get in on the action!
Dear Jon,
Yankees rule and the Mets drool!
No, seriously, you and Lisa rock. As long as the rivalry is all in good fun.
Though, to be honest, I don't like Jose Reyes. I would probably LOL if Jose Reyes tries to steal second base this year and, while he's sliding into second base, his ankle just snaps right off. That would be kewl beanz!
Catch you on the flip side,
Felz
I'll totally check back all year long! I might even send an email in so I can get in on the action!
Dear Jon,
Yankees rule and the Mets drool!
No, seriously, you and Lisa rock. As long as the rivalry is all in good fun.
Though, to be honest, I don't like Jose Reyes. I would probably LOL if Jose Reyes tries to steal second base this year and, while he's sliding into second base, his ankle just snaps right off. That would be kewl beanz!
Catch you on the flip side,
Felz
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Kevin Kernan has a theory.
The rest of America has moved on, but Kevin Kernan is still analyzing Team USA's performance in the World Baseball Classic:
"One of the everlasting images of the World Baseball Classic didn't take place in Anaheim Stadium or Chase Field.
It took place on the campus of Cal State Fullerton, during what turned out to be Team USA's final workout.
Ken Griffey Jr. grabbed a metal bat, the kind the college kids use, and started launching moonshots. One ball flew over the massive pine trees in right-center, traveling an estimated 500 feet. Teammates, fans and reporters were in awe.
In so many ways, that's what the American Game has become. Hit the ball farther than your opponent and prance around the bases. That's exactly why Team USA is sitting on the sidelines as the WBC semifinalskick off today at Petco Park with Japan battling Korea and the Dominican squaring off against Cuba."
Okay, I am not sure how many everlasting images have resulted from the WBC. ARod's single up the middle to win a game. Vernon Wells ending the final USA game with a 6-4-3 dp. The umpire calling the Japanese player out on the tag up play. Eh.
But I'm pretty sure that the memories of Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not everlasting. I'm also pretty sure that, since Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not televised, that they don't even qualify as "images." Maybe somebody captured it on their cell phone, or something, but I haven't seen it.
It's an everlasting image that's not everlasting and not an image.
Not surprisingly, Kernan also fetishizes small ball:
"Before every game the Asian teams work a long fielding session, something American teams never do anymore. They bunt like Phil Rizzuto. They execute. They work long and hard on all the facets of the game.
That's why there have been no bobbles by undefeated Korea, which has not committed an error in the tournament. That's why watching the Japanese pre-game ritual is a lesson in teamwork. Their players take plenty of swings before the game, too, working on bat control, hitting with a purpose, not long-ball theatrics. Yet, if the pitch is inside, they will look to crush it.
Korea and Japan play your father's brand of baseball, the kind of baseball the Yankees of the '50s played - even the Yankees of 1996-2000."
Just be sure not the bring up the Yankees of the '20s, the '30s, the '60s, or the '70s.
My father watched the 1961 Yankees. 240 homeruns and 1 stolen base, which was a mistake because Moose Skowron was on first base and he thought the count was full with two outs.
My father watched the 1977 Yankees. Reggie Jackson's three nuanced homeruns in one World Series game.
His father probably watched the Yankees move in the fences in right field in order to accommodate Babe Ruth's ability to bunt.
As for the '96 - '00 Yankees, I was there to see for myself. As is typical, when Kernan identifies the '96 - '00 era, he must be talking about the legendary '98 Yankees.
While Wade Boggs may have understood the nuances of the strike zone more than any baseball player ever, he split time in '96 with Charlie Hayes. Charlies Hayes did not seem to understand baseball's nuances. Charlie Hayes was so afraid of being spiked in the glove, he wouldn't even tag sliding baserunners at third base.
Other small ball kings who led the Yankees to a title in '96 were Mariano Duncan, Darryl Strawberry, Cecil Fielder, Gerald Williams, and Jim Leyritz.
The Yankee teams of the past ten years have featured terrific offenses which blend speed and power. Sometimes they win in the playoffs, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they got the breaks, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they beat superior opponents, sometimes they lost to inferior opponents. The difference between winning and losing was never small ball execution.
The way for Team USA and the Yankees to get back on top? It ain't pepper drills.
"One of the everlasting images of the World Baseball Classic didn't take place in Anaheim Stadium or Chase Field.
It took place on the campus of Cal State Fullerton, during what turned out to be Team USA's final workout.
Ken Griffey Jr. grabbed a metal bat, the kind the college kids use, and started launching moonshots. One ball flew over the massive pine trees in right-center, traveling an estimated 500 feet. Teammates, fans and reporters were in awe.
In so many ways, that's what the American Game has become. Hit the ball farther than your opponent and prance around the bases. That's exactly why Team USA is sitting on the sidelines as the WBC semifinalskick off today at Petco Park with Japan battling Korea and the Dominican squaring off against Cuba."
Okay, I am not sure how many everlasting images have resulted from the WBC. ARod's single up the middle to win a game. Vernon Wells ending the final USA game with a 6-4-3 dp. The umpire calling the Japanese player out on the tag up play. Eh.
But I'm pretty sure that the memories of Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not everlasting. I'm also pretty sure that, since Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not televised, that they don't even qualify as "images." Maybe somebody captured it on their cell phone, or something, but I haven't seen it.
It's an everlasting image that's not everlasting and not an image.
Not surprisingly, Kernan also fetishizes small ball:
"Before every game the Asian teams work a long fielding session, something American teams never do anymore. They bunt like Phil Rizzuto. They execute. They work long and hard on all the facets of the game.
That's why there have been no bobbles by undefeated Korea, which has not committed an error in the tournament. That's why watching the Japanese pre-game ritual is a lesson in teamwork. Their players take plenty of swings before the game, too, working on bat control, hitting with a purpose, not long-ball theatrics. Yet, if the pitch is inside, they will look to crush it.
Korea and Japan play your father's brand of baseball, the kind of baseball the Yankees of the '50s played - even the Yankees of 1996-2000."
Just be sure not the bring up the Yankees of the '20s, the '30s, the '60s, or the '70s.
My father watched the 1961 Yankees. 240 homeruns and 1 stolen base, which was a mistake because Moose Skowron was on first base and he thought the count was full with two outs.
My father watched the 1977 Yankees. Reggie Jackson's three nuanced homeruns in one World Series game.
His father probably watched the Yankees move in the fences in right field in order to accommodate Babe Ruth's ability to bunt.
As for the '96 - '00 Yankees, I was there to see for myself. As is typical, when Kernan identifies the '96 - '00 era, he must be talking about the legendary '98 Yankees.
While Wade Boggs may have understood the nuances of the strike zone more than any baseball player ever, he split time in '96 with Charlie Hayes. Charlies Hayes did not seem to understand baseball's nuances. Charlie Hayes was so afraid of being spiked in the glove, he wouldn't even tag sliding baserunners at third base.
Other small ball kings who led the Yankees to a title in '96 were Mariano Duncan, Darryl Strawberry, Cecil Fielder, Gerald Williams, and Jim Leyritz.
The Yankee teams of the past ten years have featured terrific offenses which blend speed and power. Sometimes they win in the playoffs, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they got the breaks, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they beat superior opponents, sometimes they lost to inferior opponents. The difference between winning and losing was never small ball execution.
The way for Team USA and the Yankees to get back on top? It ain't pepper drills.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Golden Boy strands three baserunners.
I don't hold it against Derek Jeter by any means. Hitting baseballs isn't easy and nothing that occurs in the WBC really matters to me.
However, I also know if Alex Rodriguez strands a baserunner, it's the end of the world.
Derek Jeter, on the other hand, doesn't choke after swinging at lots of bad pitches. Derek Jeter guts out tough at-bats:
"With runners on second and third in the fifth inning, Derek Jeter gutted out a tough eight-pitch at-bat, fouling off balls at his face and his feet, only to ground out to second base and end the inning."
For the record, Golden Boy also stranded a runner at third base in the 8th inning.
However, I also know if Alex Rodriguez strands a baserunner, it's the end of the world.
Derek Jeter, on the other hand, doesn't choke after swinging at lots of bad pitches. Derek Jeter guts out tough at-bats:
"With runners on second and third in the fifth inning, Derek Jeter gutted out a tough eight-pitch at-bat, fouling off balls at his face and his feet, only to ground out to second base and end the inning."
For the record, Golden Boy also stranded a runner at third base in the 8th inning.
Say it ain't so, Kevin.
"Mark this down as one of the darkest days in USA baseball history. Abner Doubleday is turning two in his grave."
That would make him Abner Doubleplay.
Ha ha ha! I beat Lupica to the punch.
As an intelligent reader, it is sometimes my duty to read between the lines. When Kernan uses the term "USA baseball history," I am forced to assume he means Team USA International Competition.
March 16, 2006: Mark it down as one of Team USA's darkest days. Not too many Team USA days to choose from -- I know they missed the Olympics one time when they played some college kids -- but, as far as I know, Team USA hasn't had too may dark days or bright days.
It's hard to dispute Kernan's point. It elicits a shrug. Whatever you say.
Having said that, the writer has a duty to explicity distinguish between "Team USA baseball" described above and "USA baseball," as in the "United States of America," as in the country.
Because it's very easy to misinterpret Kernan's point. He seems to be saying this is really one of the darkest days in baseball history.
What is the correct interpretation?
The more I ponder it, the more I am forced to wonder if Kernan really believes this is one of the darkest day in American baseball history. As bad as the Black Sox, work stoppages, fights, injuries, deaths, racism, steroids, drugs, airplane crashes, Eddie Gaedel, disco demolition night, Anna Benson, and Bucky Dent asking Steve Sax to bunt with two strikes.
That would make him Abner Doubleplay.
Ha ha ha! I beat Lupica to the punch.
As an intelligent reader, it is sometimes my duty to read between the lines. When Kernan uses the term "USA baseball history," I am forced to assume he means Team USA International Competition.
March 16, 2006: Mark it down as one of Team USA's darkest days. Not too many Team USA days to choose from -- I know they missed the Olympics one time when they played some college kids -- but, as far as I know, Team USA hasn't had too may dark days or bright days.
It's hard to dispute Kernan's point. It elicits a shrug. Whatever you say.
Having said that, the writer has a duty to explicity distinguish between "Team USA baseball" described above and "USA baseball," as in the "United States of America," as in the country.
Because it's very easy to misinterpret Kernan's point. He seems to be saying this is really one of the darkest days in baseball history.
What is the correct interpretation?
The more I ponder it, the more I am forced to wonder if Kernan really believes this is one of the darkest day in American baseball history. As bad as the Black Sox, work stoppages, fights, injuries, deaths, racism, steroids, drugs, airplane crashes, Eddie Gaedel, disco demolition night, Anna Benson, and Bucky Dent asking Steve Sax to bunt with two strikes.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
If you love something, let it go.
If it comes back to you, it is yours to keep.
If it doesn't come back, it never was yours.
Some deep thoughts upon which to reflect as Kevin Kernan exaggerates the importance of a Spring Training homerun by Hee Sop Choi:
"This loss was no fluke. South Korea outplayed Team USA in every phase of the game that no long [sic] belongs to America."
If it doesn't come back, it never was yours.
Some deep thoughts upon which to reflect as Kevin Kernan exaggerates the importance of a Spring Training homerun by Hee Sop Choi:
"This loss was no fluke. South Korea outplayed Team USA in every phase of the game that no long [sic] belongs to America."
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Mike Lupica rarely pays attention to anything.
"Bonds rarely pays attention to anything or anyone other than himself. But if he watched what happened last year with Giambi, his teammate on the BALCO All-Stars, he couldn't help but notice that Giambi, hitting the way he did the second half of the season and being as much an MVP for the Yankees in that period as anybody, was better than a Presidential pardon."
For a second there, I thought Mike Lupica said Jason Giambi was as much an MVP for the Yankees in the second half of the season as anybody.
In the second half of 2005, Giambi hit .266 with 22 hrs and 55 rbis. Giambi is a slow baserunner and, when he's not DHing, he's a mediocre fielder at an unimportant position.
That's as valuable as Alex Rodriguez. .325-25-58 and about 3 errors at third base.
That's as valuable as Mariano Rivera. 23 saves, 1.69 era in 43 innings.
That's as valuable as Aaron Small. 10-0, 3.20 era in 76 innings.
Jeter .310-8-33-53 runs while playing shortstop; Sheffield .284-17-55; Chacon 7-3, 2.85 era in 74 innings; Johnson 8-2, 3.31 era in 98 innings.
What Mike Lupica said right there is a crock. Can you imagine actually believing that Jason Giambi was the second-half MVP for the Yankees in 2005?
Yet, I have a hunch that Lupica just planted a Stupid seed. Fifty thousand Mike and the Mad Dog listeners just read that column and think it's Gospel. They're going to bother me all summer long, aren't they?
I know rigorous statistical analysis is not the essence of Shootin' From The Lip. (The essence of Shootin' From The Lip is Fox TV shows, Oscar wardrobes, and Johnny Damon's hair, even though Lupica doesn't want to talk about Johnny Damon's hair.) But you've still got to do better than that. You can't just assert that Giambi was the Yankee MVP in the second half of 2005 when there is no way to back it up. You've got to at least look at the scoreboard stats.
It's precisely the wrong question. Of course Johnson and Mussina are not "getting better" at this stage of their careers.
Same goes for Damon, Jeter, ARod, Posada, Giambi, Rivera, Sheffield, etc. The only players who are suddenly going to "get better" are young players who are in the early "stage of their careers."
You might occasionally get an outlier -- 2000 Edgardo Alfonzo or 1993 Gregg Jefferies -- but it's safe to say that veterans in major league baseball don't suddenly "get better."
The most important observation is that the Yankees don't need Johnson and Mussina to get better. The Yankees need 30 combined wins.
Is Lupica slyly suggesting that Johnson and Mussina are on the way down and out? That Johnson and Mussina are anchors that will bring S.S. Yankee down with them?
Yes, I think that is what he's suggesting. Please remember Lupica's assertion when the Yankees win the AL East and Randy Johnson wins the Cy Young Award.
Though when Lupica is proven wrong, he'll just deny ever saying it.
For a second there, I thought Mike Lupica said Jason Giambi was as much an MVP for the Yankees in the second half of the season as anybody.
In the second half of 2005, Giambi hit .266 with 22 hrs and 55 rbis. Giambi is a slow baserunner and, when he's not DHing, he's a mediocre fielder at an unimportant position.
That's as valuable as Alex Rodriguez. .325-25-58 and about 3 errors at third base.
That's as valuable as Mariano Rivera. 23 saves, 1.69 era in 43 innings.
That's as valuable as Aaron Small. 10-0, 3.20 era in 76 innings.
Jeter .310-8-33-53 runs while playing shortstop; Sheffield .284-17-55; Chacon 7-3, 2.85 era in 74 innings; Johnson 8-2, 3.31 era in 98 innings.
What Mike Lupica said right there is a crock. Can you imagine actually believing that Jason Giambi was the second-half MVP for the Yankees in 2005?
Yet, I have a hunch that Lupica just planted a Stupid seed. Fifty thousand Mike and the Mad Dog listeners just read that column and think it's Gospel. They're going to bother me all summer long, aren't they?
I know rigorous statistical analysis is not the essence of Shootin' From The Lip. (The essence of Shootin' From The Lip is Fox TV shows, Oscar wardrobes, and Johnny Damon's hair, even though Lupica doesn't want to talk about Johnny Damon's hair.) But you've still got to do better than that. You can't just assert that Giambi was the Yankee MVP in the second half of 2005 when there is no way to back it up. You've got to at least look at the scoreboard stats.
"I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in Yankeeville, but I don't see how you can't have questions about the Yankee starting rotation.
Especially the two guys at the top of it, Big Unit Johnson and Mike Mussina.
Maybe the question is this:
Are either one of them getting better at this stage of their careers?"
I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in Metville, but I was wondering if Pedro and Glavine are getting better at this stage of their careers. I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in RedSoxville, but I was wondering if Wells and Schilling are getting better at this stage of their careers. I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in WhiteSoxville, but I was wondering if Buehrle and Vazquez are getting better at this stage of their careers.It's precisely the wrong question. Of course Johnson and Mussina are not "getting better" at this stage of their careers.
Same goes for Damon, Jeter, ARod, Posada, Giambi, Rivera, Sheffield, etc. The only players who are suddenly going to "get better" are young players who are in the early "stage of their careers."
You might occasionally get an outlier -- 2000 Edgardo Alfonzo or 1993 Gregg Jefferies -- but it's safe to say that veterans in major league baseball don't suddenly "get better."
The most important observation is that the Yankees don't need Johnson and Mussina to get better. The Yankees need 30 combined wins.
Is Lupica slyly suggesting that Johnson and Mussina are on the way down and out? That Johnson and Mussina are anchors that will bring S.S. Yankee down with them?
Yes, I think that is what he's suggesting. Please remember Lupica's assertion when the Yankees win the AL East and Randy Johnson wins the Cy Young Award.
Though when Lupica is proven wrong, he'll just deny ever saying it.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Perspective on the WBC.
"If Mexico defeats Canada by a score of 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1, then both Mexico and Canada will secure berths in the second round, ending Team USA's run. Tomorrow's game against South Africa would become a meaningless exhibition."
Okay, you've got pitch counts, mercy rules, silly player substitutions, and rules like "if Mexico defeats Canada by a score of 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1, then USA is eliminated."
Under any circumstances, when Team USA plays Team South Africa, that game is a meaningless exhibition.
The entire tournament is a meaningless exhibition.
Okay, you've got pitch counts, mercy rules, silly player substitutions, and rules like "if Mexico defeats Canada by a score of 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1, then USA is eliminated."
Under any circumstances, when Team USA plays Team South Africa, that game is a meaningless exhibition.
The entire tournament is a meaningless exhibition.
Kevin Kernan is silly.
"This was an international disgrace."
No, it was not. Losing a baseball game is not an international disgrace.
(Predictably, Team Canada's manager suggests that his team won because they have more heart. I'm guessing they're also clutch and a team of destiny.)
"Mark it down as the most embarrassing defeat in Team USA baseball history, losing on its home turf to a country known for hockey, eh."
I can't rebuke that particular point. It probably is the most embarrassing loss in Team USA baseball history. It's also proably the least embarrassing loss in Team USA history.
Quick! Name one other loss in Team USA baseball history. Name one victory in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC. Name one play in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC.
"Shockingly, Team USA could be eliminated from the World Baseball Classic without throwing another pitch."
Good. Get them back to their teams in Spring Training.
Then the fans can be "shocked" and "stunned" when AAA pitchers manage to get three outs in an inning, which happens every day in Spring Training. Heck, it happens just about every day in the Majors. The only difference between Randy Keisler and Sandy Koufax is consistency.
Team USA's WBC loss is niether shocking nor stunning. It's one game and that's just how baseball works.
Dontrelle Willis had an off day in early March and Mark Teixeira was 0-for-5. Play again in July and Willis might throw a shutout and Teixeira might hit two grand slams. Play again tomorrow and Team USA might win 15-zip and set the world back on its axis.
No, it was not. Losing a baseball game is not an international disgrace.
(Predictably, Team Canada's manager suggests that his team won because they have more heart. I'm guessing they're also clutch and a team of destiny.)
"Mark it down as the most embarrassing defeat in Team USA baseball history, losing on its home turf to a country known for hockey, eh."
I can't rebuke that particular point. It probably is the most embarrassing loss in Team USA baseball history. It's also proably the least embarrassing loss in Team USA history.
Quick! Name one other loss in Team USA baseball history. Name one victory in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC. Name one play in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC.
"Shockingly, Team USA could be eliminated from the World Baseball Classic without throwing another pitch."
Good. Get them back to their teams in Spring Training.
Then the fans can be "shocked" and "stunned" when AAA pitchers manage to get three outs in an inning, which happens every day in Spring Training. Heck, it happens just about every day in the Majors. The only difference between Randy Keisler and Sandy Koufax is consistency.
Team USA's WBC loss is niether shocking nor stunning. It's one game and that's just how baseball works.
Dontrelle Willis had an off day in early March and Mark Teixeira was 0-for-5. Play again in July and Willis might throw a shutout and Teixeira might hit two grand slams. Play again tomorrow and Team USA might win 15-zip and set the world back on its axis.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Situational Ethics.
Every time he pencils Jason Giambi's name in the lineup, Joe Torre risks falling off his high horse:
"I think the one thing that baseball has always tried to maintain was the integrity because our game more than any other game statistics are so important. I think that right now that is called into question, and it's a shame in Barry's case. He's such a good player ... long, long ago before there was any doubt on what made him good. It's certainly a black eye that we all have to be aware of. It can turn to anger if you try to circumvent and get around trying to help us clean up. Trying to cut corners or trying a different way to keep doing what you're doing, that I think is wrong and knowingly wrong."
"I think the one thing that baseball has always tried to maintain was the integrity because our game more than any other game statistics are so important. I think that right now that is called into question, and it's a shame in Barry's case. He's such a good player ... long, long ago before there was any doubt on what made him good. It's certainly a black eye that we all have to be aware of. It can turn to anger if you try to circumvent and get around trying to help us clean up. Trying to cut corners or trying a different way to keep doing what you're doing, that I think is wrong and knowingly wrong."
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Bonds Worthy of Scorn Despite Abdul Impersonation.
"Faced with the most damning, deeply sourced, comprehensive and chilling charges against Barry Bonds yet, courtesy of a new book by the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who have been on him from the start, decision day is here for Bonds, for baseball and for the San Francisco Giants."
The charges are damning, deeply sourced, and comprehensive. I'm not sure why Dan Wetzel thinks they're chilling. I'm also not sure why this is considered new information.
Wetzel himself acknowledges the information is no surprise:
"It is not that the book reveals that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs to become the most incredible home run hitter of all time. Only the most naive among us didn't already know that, Giants officials included."
So Wetzel is suddenly stunned and chilled, but he already knew Bonds did steroids.
Ummm ... huh?
"There isn't any middle ground. There isn't any room for debate or for situational ethics. There isn't any more time to put off making serious decisions about Bonds' future."
Actually, the entire discussion is middle ground and debate about situational ethics.
I haven't seen Dan Wetzel or anybody else ask the Mariners to bench Matt Lawton. There's your debate about situational ethics right there.
Is Wetzel really saying the contrite cheaters aren't really cheaters? That's sure what he seems to be saying:
"If Barry's reaction is to ignore, to pout, to try to clown it up in a pathetic, public relations-fueled drag act – his hair and boobs as fake as his career stats – then no longer can anyone sit by and idly watch."
That sounds precisely like situational ethics to me.
How about if Barry Bonds talks to the press, takes the newspaper to court, smiles more often, and dresses in men's clothes. Then Wetzel is cool with the steroids?
Besides, even if Dan Wetzel and everybody else in the world treats Barry Bonds with scorn, that's really not that much different than sitting by and idly watching. We'll all be idly watching, except with scorn.
I think everyone knows Bonds got chemical help. But everybody gets chemical help nowadays. The difference between legal drugs endorsed by MLB and illegal drugs? It's situational ethics and middle ground.
"Understand that Bonds is no one's victim, no one's good guy. Don't let the Paula Abdul act that got all the clowns on the 11 o'clock news chortling fool you."
Is it just me or is Wetzel obsessing about Barry Bonds in drag?
Funny Wetzel should mention it, because when I saw Barry Bonds dressed up as Paula Abdul, it totally fooled me.
I thought to myself, "That man is a good guy. Until I saw him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I was unsympathetic to his situation. But now that I've seen him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I am suddenly sympathetic to his situation."
Wetzel is right about one thing: This battle is in the court of public opinion. Bonds lost that battle long ago.
With that in mind, Wetzel's next suggestion is categorically ridiculous and downright disgusting:
"It should motivate Bud Selig to wipe the record book clean of that time frame, even reinstating Roger Maris' 61 home runs as the single-season record. Because baseball relies on having its lore passed down through the generations, and there is no way you'll ever be able to explain all of this to your children or your grandchildren."
This is an amazement statement by Dan Wetzel.
It should be obvious that Selig can't "wipe the record book clean of that time frame" because it's simply not possible. Think about it for five minutes and you tell me where you start. Even if you only go after the premier HR hitters of that era, it is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is no way to figure out which stats should stay and which stats should go.
What is "that time frame," anyway? Is it 1993 when Lenny Dykstra pulled 4 World Series homeruns out of his butt? Is it 1996, with Brady Anderson's 50 homerun season? Does it start with Cecil Fielder in the early '90s?
Which homeruns are steroid homeruns? Does Bonds get to keep his three pre-'98 MVPs? Or does he only get to keep them if he apologizes to Dan Wetzel?
The devil is in the details. The court of public opinion can easily and elegantly wipe Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and anybody else from their personal record books. The official codifying of this is not possible.
We still haven't even proven that Bonds took steroids and, if we're going to start eliminating records because of suspicions, then I get to start with Luis Gonzalez in 2001 and give the Yankees their World Series rings. Or at least the Yankees who weren't on the 'roids.
Most alarming is Dan Wetzel's conclusion. He won't be able to explain this to his children or his grandchildren.
Is he serious? There is "no way" Dan Wetzel can explain "all of this" to his children?
Felz can do it in two sentences:
"In the '90s, a fairly substantial number of baseball players evidently took steroids, which made them significantly stronger than they would have been with weight training alone, and seems to have resulted in a lot more homeruns. A lot of people believe this steroid use resulted in an inherently unfair situation because most of the steroid users' contemporaries, and all of the players from pre-steroid times, did not benefit from similarly artificially-enhanced physiques."
Somebody call DYFS right away and get Dan Wetzel's kids out of his house. If he can't explain steroids and their impact on the baseball record books, then I wonder how he explains sex, pot, taxes, death, the infield fly rule, the Civil War, the two-party political system, Roth IRAs, gravity, evolution, algebra, global warming, dialectical materialism, and carrier pigeons.
The charges are damning, deeply sourced, and comprehensive. I'm not sure why Dan Wetzel thinks they're chilling. I'm also not sure why this is considered new information.
Wetzel himself acknowledges the information is no surprise:
"It is not that the book reveals that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs to become the most incredible home run hitter of all time. Only the most naive among us didn't already know that, Giants officials included."
So Wetzel is suddenly stunned and chilled, but he already knew Bonds did steroids.
Ummm ... huh?
"There isn't any middle ground. There isn't any room for debate or for situational ethics. There isn't any more time to put off making serious decisions about Bonds' future."
Actually, the entire discussion is middle ground and debate about situational ethics.
I haven't seen Dan Wetzel or anybody else ask the Mariners to bench Matt Lawton. There's your debate about situational ethics right there.
Is Wetzel really saying the contrite cheaters aren't really cheaters? That's sure what he seems to be saying:
"If Barry's reaction is to ignore, to pout, to try to clown it up in a pathetic, public relations-fueled drag act – his hair and boobs as fake as his career stats – then no longer can anyone sit by and idly watch."
That sounds precisely like situational ethics to me.
How about if Barry Bonds talks to the press, takes the newspaper to court, smiles more often, and dresses in men's clothes. Then Wetzel is cool with the steroids?
Besides, even if Dan Wetzel and everybody else in the world treats Barry Bonds with scorn, that's really not that much different than sitting by and idly watching. We'll all be idly watching, except with scorn.
I think everyone knows Bonds got chemical help. But everybody gets chemical help nowadays. The difference between legal drugs endorsed by MLB and illegal drugs? It's situational ethics and middle ground.
"Understand that Bonds is no one's victim, no one's good guy. Don't let the Paula Abdul act that got all the clowns on the 11 o'clock news chortling fool you."
Is it just me or is Wetzel obsessing about Barry Bonds in drag?
Funny Wetzel should mention it, because when I saw Barry Bonds dressed up as Paula Abdul, it totally fooled me.
I thought to myself, "That man is a good guy. Until I saw him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I was unsympathetic to his situation. But now that I've seen him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I am suddenly sympathetic to his situation."
Wetzel is right about one thing: This battle is in the court of public opinion. Bonds lost that battle long ago.
With that in mind, Wetzel's next suggestion is categorically ridiculous and downright disgusting:
"It should motivate Bud Selig to wipe the record book clean of that time frame, even reinstating Roger Maris' 61 home runs as the single-season record. Because baseball relies on having its lore passed down through the generations, and there is no way you'll ever be able to explain all of this to your children or your grandchildren."
This is an amazement statement by Dan Wetzel.
It should be obvious that Selig can't "wipe the record book clean of that time frame" because it's simply not possible. Think about it for five minutes and you tell me where you start. Even if you only go after the premier HR hitters of that era, it is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is no way to figure out which stats should stay and which stats should go.
What is "that time frame," anyway? Is it 1993 when Lenny Dykstra pulled 4 World Series homeruns out of his butt? Is it 1996, with Brady Anderson's 50 homerun season? Does it start with Cecil Fielder in the early '90s?
Which homeruns are steroid homeruns? Does Bonds get to keep his three pre-'98 MVPs? Or does he only get to keep them if he apologizes to Dan Wetzel?
The devil is in the details. The court of public opinion can easily and elegantly wipe Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and anybody else from their personal record books. The official codifying of this is not possible.
We still haven't even proven that Bonds took steroids and, if we're going to start eliminating records because of suspicions, then I get to start with Luis Gonzalez in 2001 and give the Yankees their World Series rings. Or at least the Yankees who weren't on the 'roids.
Most alarming is Dan Wetzel's conclusion. He won't be able to explain this to his children or his grandchildren.
Is he serious? There is "no way" Dan Wetzel can explain "all of this" to his children?
Felz can do it in two sentences:
"In the '90s, a fairly substantial number of baseball players evidently took steroids, which made them significantly stronger than they would have been with weight training alone, and seems to have resulted in a lot more homeruns. A lot of people believe this steroid use resulted in an inherently unfair situation because most of the steroid users' contemporaries, and all of the players from pre-steroid times, did not benefit from similarly artificially-enhanced physiques."
Somebody call DYFS right away and get Dan Wetzel's kids out of his house. If he can't explain steroids and their impact on the baseball record books, then I wonder how he explains sex, pot, taxes, death, the infield fly rule, the Civil War, the two-party political system, Roth IRAs, gravity, evolution, algebra, global warming, dialectical materialism, and carrier pigeons.
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
See? I'm a good sport.
Nobody got hurt and the players seem genuinely excited about playing for their country.
Not sure if Derrek Lee is quite understanding the WBC's pop culture relevance:
"Today I felt proud," Lee said. "I felt like the whole country was watching."
Team USA's game was shown on ESPN2, apparently pre-empting repeats of Cold Pizza. I don't know if anybody was watching ESPN2 on Tuesday afternoon, but if Derrek Lee felt proud, then bully for him.
Speaking for myself, I saw exactly one play. Joe Nathan struck out a Mexican player and the pitch was in the dirt. The catcher picked up the ball and threw him out at first.
Then I switched to Simpsons reruns. It was the one where Homer creates "tomacco."
Nobody got hurt and the players seem genuinely excited about playing for their country.
Not sure if Derrek Lee is quite understanding the WBC's pop culture relevance:
"Today I felt proud," Lee said. "I felt like the whole country was watching."
Team USA's game was shown on ESPN2, apparently pre-empting repeats of Cold Pizza. I don't know if anybody was watching ESPN2 on Tuesday afternoon, but if Derrek Lee felt proud, then bully for him.
Speaking for myself, I saw exactly one play. Joe Nathan struck out a Mexican player and the pitch was in the dirt. The catcher picked up the ball and threw him out at first.
Then I switched to Simpsons reruns. It was the one where Homer creates "tomacco."
Mike Lupica Endorses World Baseball Classic, Witty Wordplay.
"It is called the World Baseball Classic, but for now, the only classic thing about it is George Steinbrenner's reaction, from his world."
"It is called the World Baseball Classic, but for now, the only classic thing about it is George Steinbrenner's reaction, from his world."
Uh huh.
See what he did there? Did you see with the "world" and the "classic"? He took you this way and that way and then ... boom! ... he dropped the punchline like a right hook from Rocky Marciano!
Oy.
Is this microphone working? What do you know from comedy, anyway?
Did Mike Lupica just jump the shark? I'm thinking, with that sentence, Lupica's patented strained wordplay has gone beyond all credible bounds of journalistic decency.
"Around here, we are supposed to believe that the World Baseball Classic is bad, bad, bad. Why? Because the Yankees say it is bad, bad, bad, that's why."
First of all, we're not supposed to believe anything the Yankees say. We're supposed to think for ourselves. Most intelligent observers know by now that everything Steinbrenner says is spin and hype.
Sell the product. Sell, sell, sell! Twenty-four hours a day!
Too bad the commissioner of the league hasn't learned that lesson.
Let me flip the question on Lupica: Am I supposed to believe the WBC is good because esteemed intellects like Roger Clemens think it's good? Am I supposed to believe the WBC will expand baseball internationally because Bud Selig says it will?
Because of Selig's stellar track record in Tampa Bay? The guy who wants to expand the game is the same guy who had the Twins on the chopping block?
The WBC is neither bad nor good, it's simply uninteresting to most American baseball fans. I have no rooting interest and I don't care which team wins. I think there's a good chance Team USA will tank because they simply don't care that much.
Will this mean Japan has the best players in the world? If that floats your boat, cool with me. I still say the White Sox are the World Champs and it's a beautiful thing because they were brought together by the Pure pursuit of money rather than the Artifice of ethnicity.
There is only one Race (dramatic pause) -- the Human Race.
"And you never know, if Jeter or A-Rod or Damon ends up getting the big hit to win the championship game, maybe Steinbrenner will want to call the thing 'Pride of the Yankess.' "
Ha ha. Good one, Mike. "Yankess" instead of "Yankees." Just like the sign!
And you never know, if Jeter fouls a ball off his foot while playing South Africa, then I guess Lupica really will have to watch snowboarding or NASCAR.
Because "let's face it, the Yankees aren't the Yankees when Jeter's not in the game."
"It is called the World Baseball Classic, but for now, the only classic thing about it is George Steinbrenner's reaction, from his world."
Uh huh.
See what he did there? Did you see with the "world" and the "classic"? He took you this way and that way and then ... boom! ... he dropped the punchline like a right hook from Rocky Marciano!
Oy.
Is this microphone working? What do you know from comedy, anyway?
Did Mike Lupica just jump the shark? I'm thinking, with that sentence, Lupica's patented strained wordplay has gone beyond all credible bounds of journalistic decency.
"Around here, we are supposed to believe that the World Baseball Classic is bad, bad, bad. Why? Because the Yankees say it is bad, bad, bad, that's why."
First of all, we're not supposed to believe anything the Yankees say. We're supposed to think for ourselves. Most intelligent observers know by now that everything Steinbrenner says is spin and hype.
Sell the product. Sell, sell, sell! Twenty-four hours a day!
Too bad the commissioner of the league hasn't learned that lesson.
Let me flip the question on Lupica: Am I supposed to believe the WBC is good because esteemed intellects like Roger Clemens think it's good? Am I supposed to believe the WBC will expand baseball internationally because Bud Selig says it will?
Because of Selig's stellar track record in Tampa Bay? The guy who wants to expand the game is the same guy who had the Twins on the chopping block?
The WBC is neither bad nor good, it's simply uninteresting to most American baseball fans. I have no rooting interest and I don't care which team wins. I think there's a good chance Team USA will tank because they simply don't care that much.
Will this mean Japan has the best players in the world? If that floats your boat, cool with me. I still say the White Sox are the World Champs and it's a beautiful thing because they were brought together by the Pure pursuit of money rather than the Artifice of ethnicity.
There is only one Race (dramatic pause) -- the Human Race.
"And you never know, if Jeter or A-Rod or Damon ends up getting the big hit to win the championship game, maybe Steinbrenner will want to call the thing 'Pride of the Yankess.' "
Ha ha. Good one, Mike. "Yankess" instead of "Yankees." Just like the sign!
And you never know, if Jeter fouls a ball off his foot while playing South Africa, then I guess Lupica really will have to watch snowboarding or NASCAR.
Because "let's face it, the Yankees aren't the Yankees when Jeter's not in the game."
Monday, March 06, 2006
.273 hitter sets his sights on Joe D.
While Mike Lupica's gears are grinding as he comes to the astonishing conclusion that George Steinbrenner authorized the anti-WBC sign in the Yankees' Spring Training ticket office, I feel the need to draw your attention to the current hitting streak of Jimmy Rollins. Because very few baseball writers seem to notice.
Rollins is twenty away from Joe D., eight away from Rose's NL record, and his current streak is already the third-best hitting streak of my lifetime.
It's nice to know that Dom Dimaggio is so gracious whenever a player gets within twenty games of his brother:
"It would be a little bit difficult for me to swallow," said DiMaggio, 89, in a telephone interview. "You can't compare a hitting streak in a full season with one in two seasons. There's a rest in there. Even though there's pressure on him, I have to believe there's more pressure doing it in one season than in two."
I'd be surprised if Rollins gets to 40, much less 57.
But can you imagine hitting in 36 straight games -- which is remarkable in its own right -- and then taking a whole season off -- and then starting the next season by hitting in 21 straight games?
No pressure? It's easier when you have an entire off-season to lose your timing and lose your groove?
Is Rollins seriously going to have to deal with ingnorant comments like this if his streak continues? Can a modern baseballlplayer do anything that would impress an 89-year-old man? Am I to believe that all the great baseball-playing human beings were miraculously born between the years of 1900 and 1930?
Okay, now I'm riled up. I suddenly find myself rooting for Rollins ...
Rollins is twenty away from Joe D., eight away from Rose's NL record, and his current streak is already the third-best hitting streak of my lifetime.
It's nice to know that Dom Dimaggio is so gracious whenever a player gets within twenty games of his brother:
"It would be a little bit difficult for me to swallow," said DiMaggio, 89, in a telephone interview. "You can't compare a hitting streak in a full season with one in two seasons. There's a rest in there. Even though there's pressure on him, I have to believe there's more pressure doing it in one season than in two."
I'd be surprised if Rollins gets to 40, much less 57.
But can you imagine hitting in 36 straight games -- which is remarkable in its own right -- and then taking a whole season off -- and then starting the next season by hitting in 21 straight games?
No pressure? It's easier when you have an entire off-season to lose your timing and lose your groove?
Is Rollins seriously going to have to deal with ingnorant comments like this if his streak continues? Can a modern baseballlplayer do anything that would impress an 89-year-old man? Am I to believe that all the great baseball-playing human beings were miraculously born between the years of 1900 and 1930?
Okay, now I'm riled up. I suddenly find myself rooting for Rollins ...
Life Lessons from Commissioner Fuddy Duddy.
Can't anybody take a joke? The sign was funny. The misspelling of "Yankees" only added to the hilarity.
I'll tell you what else: MLB graciously accepts the $zillion luxury tax and, in exchange, the Yankees can complain all they want.
Instead, Bud Selig does his best impression of Captain Kangaroo:
"At some point in life, you've got to rise above your own selfish interest," Selig said. "If this sport is to go on to do the heights we have to do, you can't let your own myopic interest guide you."
I hope Selig remembers that during the next round of labor negotiations. Or the next time he's negotiating a TV contract with ESPN. Or the next time he testifies before Congress.
You know, professional sports are competitive. Most of the owners are millionaires at least. How do you think Steinbrenner became owner of the Yankees in the first place? By sharing the wealth with CBS? Or by putting Michael Burke's kibbles-n-bits in a vice?
Myopic interests guide the whole thing. Myopic interests guide every pitch, every at-bat, every GM decision.
"At some point - I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite - sometimes in life, you do things that in the long run really help you and your sport."
"I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite." Gee whiz, that's swell. Go back into your crypt and leave the talking to David Stern.
How is the WBC going to help the Yankees in the long run?
How is the WBC going to help the sport in the long run?
The Yankees are doing quite well without the WBC, thank you very much.
If Selig wants the Yankees to play, he should pay. Cash money. Money talks and BS walks.
I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite.
I'll tell you what else: MLB graciously accepts the $zillion luxury tax and, in exchange, the Yankees can complain all they want.
Instead, Bud Selig does his best impression of Captain Kangaroo:
"At some point in life, you've got to rise above your own selfish interest," Selig said. "If this sport is to go on to do the heights we have to do, you can't let your own myopic interest guide you."
I hope Selig remembers that during the next round of labor negotiations. Or the next time he's negotiating a TV contract with ESPN. Or the next time he testifies before Congress.
You know, professional sports are competitive. Most of the owners are millionaires at least. How do you think Steinbrenner became owner of the Yankees in the first place? By sharing the wealth with CBS? Or by putting Michael Burke's kibbles-n-bits in a vice?
Myopic interests guide the whole thing. Myopic interests guide every pitch, every at-bat, every GM decision.
"At some point - I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite - sometimes in life, you do things that in the long run really help you and your sport."
"I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite." Gee whiz, that's swell. Go back into your crypt and leave the talking to David Stern.
How is the WBC going to help the Yankees in the long run?
How is the WBC going to help the sport in the long run?
The Yankees are doing quite well without the WBC, thank you very much.
If Selig wants the Yankees to play, he should pay. Cash money. Money talks and BS walks.
I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Two out of three ain't bad.
Jon Heyman identifies three key Yankee concerns for the upcoming 2006 season.
Number one is Carl Pavano:
"The $39.95-million enigma has reported an assortment of physical ailments since signing and doesn't always give the impression he's anxious to get back to work."
I agree. Pavano is not only a mediocre pitcher, he also seems soft and gutless.
Pavano had one good season and that was in the National League. I'm not sure why GMs around the league thought he was Curt Schilling instead of Javier Vazquez or Pete Schourek or Pete Harnisch. So, the Yankees bought the hype and will pay a lot of money for an average starting pitcher.
Time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same fate befalls Josh Beckett.
A second concern is Robinson Cano's work ethic. It is widely reported that he showed up for Spring Training out of shape:
"But one of the first things scouts are noticing is how much bigger Robinson Cano is, and not necessarily in a good way. Torre is a big fan and sees 30 homers a year in Cano's future, but one Yankees teammate said he could see Cano going either way: Cooperstown in 20 years or Columbus in 20 weeks. Fortunately, Damon, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez are there to set perfect examples.
The Yankees say Cano is only seven pounds heavier than he was at the start of spring training in 2005 and that he's put on mostly muscle. Oddly enough, it appears to be all in his backside."
I'm not sure if it really matters too much. Bat ninth, try to avoid grounding into too many double plays, and turn the double plays in the field. Damon and Jeter on on deck, so just try to save their ups.
I hope Cano's lax attitude is more of a perception than reality, but maybe Larry Bowa can whip Cano into shape, since Joe Torre is more concerned with being lovable Uncle Joe.
(Maybe the dude who complained about Cano's attitude in the ice cream shop was onto something!)
Okay, so we've got one and a half problems so far.
Guess what Heyman identifies as problem #3? Can you guess?
None other than Gary Sheffield:
"Gary Sheffield, who's already suggested that Brian Cashman doesn't deserve his trust, ridiculed the 10-year contracts of star teammates (gee, who could he be talking about there?) and threatened to act up if he isn't treated right. Anything short of handing him gobs of cash daily as he enters the clubhouse could spell continuing trouble."
Number one is Carl Pavano:
"The $39.95-million enigma has reported an assortment of physical ailments since signing and doesn't always give the impression he's anxious to get back to work."
I agree. Pavano is not only a mediocre pitcher, he also seems soft and gutless.
Pavano had one good season and that was in the National League. I'm not sure why GMs around the league thought he was Curt Schilling instead of Javier Vazquez or Pete Schourek or Pete Harnisch. So, the Yankees bought the hype and will pay a lot of money for an average starting pitcher.
Time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same fate befalls Josh Beckett.
A second concern is Robinson Cano's work ethic. It is widely reported that he showed up for Spring Training out of shape:
"But one of the first things scouts are noticing is how much bigger Robinson Cano is, and not necessarily in a good way. Torre is a big fan and sees 30 homers a year in Cano's future, but one Yankees teammate said he could see Cano going either way: Cooperstown in 20 years or Columbus in 20 weeks. Fortunately, Damon, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez are there to set perfect examples.
The Yankees say Cano is only seven pounds heavier than he was at the start of spring training in 2005 and that he's put on mostly muscle. Oddly enough, it appears to be all in his backside."
I'm not sure if it really matters too much. Bat ninth, try to avoid grounding into too many double plays, and turn the double plays in the field. Damon and Jeter on on deck, so just try to save their ups.
I hope Cano's lax attitude is more of a perception than reality, but maybe Larry Bowa can whip Cano into shape, since Joe Torre is more concerned with being lovable Uncle Joe.
(Maybe the dude who complained about Cano's attitude in the ice cream shop was onto something!)
Okay, so we've got one and a half problems so far.
Guess what Heyman identifies as problem #3? Can you guess?
None other than Gary Sheffield:
"Gary Sheffield, who's already suggested that Brian Cashman doesn't deserve his trust, ridiculed the 10-year contracts of star teammates (gee, who could he be talking about there?) and threatened to act up if he isn't treated right. Anything short of handing him gobs of cash daily as he enters the clubhouse could spell continuing trouble."
Lupica builds up an idea just to knock it down.
In this article, Mike Lupica mocks the notion that a player can't handle the pressure of playing in NYC:
"All season long, through the winter, into spring training, we heard about Randy Johnson's period of adjustment in New York City. Every time we did, we had to be reminded of Roger Clemens' period of adjustment. Two of the great pitchers of all time, and we're expected to believe the big city turned them into rubes."
First of all, Randy Johnson was 17-8 last year and Pedro Martinez was 15-8. Lupica claims there is "no telling" how many games Pedro would have won if he'd had a good bullpen. It's not that hard to do a little research and find out. Thirty-one starts resulting in 15 wins and 8 losses. Looper and the bullpen blew one or two wins for Pedro.
Not really the point. Johnson's 17-8 was not as bad as Lupica seems to think. The big city didn't turn Randy Johnson into a rube because rubes don't win 17 games.
What really mystified me was Lupica's rebuke of the idea of a NYC adjustment period. I personally believe the NYC adjustment period is a lame excuse and not much of a factor at all. But it also seems to me that Lupica is one of the high priests of this particular shibboleth.
When Lupica says "we heard" about Unit's adjustment period, he may have been listening to himself.
How long would it take for Lupica to contradict himself?
How long would it take Lupica to bring up the NYC adjustment period and predict doom for a newly-acquire Yankee?
One article later, this is Mike Lupica predicting doom for the Yankee bullpen:
"Every year the Yankees bring in new set-up men for the great Mo Rivera, and every year, it's the same deal:
Whatever it says on their resume, we don't know anything about them until they have pitch in front of 50,000 at the Stadium.
And we REALLY don't know about them until they have to do that in the heat."
"All season long, through the winter, into spring training, we heard about Randy Johnson's period of adjustment in New York City. Every time we did, we had to be reminded of Roger Clemens' period of adjustment. Two of the great pitchers of all time, and we're expected to believe the big city turned them into rubes."
First of all, Randy Johnson was 17-8 last year and Pedro Martinez was 15-8. Lupica claims there is "no telling" how many games Pedro would have won if he'd had a good bullpen. It's not that hard to do a little research and find out. Thirty-one starts resulting in 15 wins and 8 losses. Looper and the bullpen blew one or two wins for Pedro.
Not really the point. Johnson's 17-8 was not as bad as Lupica seems to think. The big city didn't turn Randy Johnson into a rube because rubes don't win 17 games.
What really mystified me was Lupica's rebuke of the idea of a NYC adjustment period. I personally believe the NYC adjustment period is a lame excuse and not much of a factor at all. But it also seems to me that Lupica is one of the high priests of this particular shibboleth.
When Lupica says "we heard" about Unit's adjustment period, he may have been listening to himself.
How long would it take for Lupica to contradict himself?
How long would it take Lupica to bring up the NYC adjustment period and predict doom for a newly-acquire Yankee?
One article later, this is Mike Lupica predicting doom for the Yankee bullpen:
"Every year the Yankees bring in new set-up men for the great Mo Rivera, and every year, it's the same deal:
Whatever it says on their resume, we don't know anything about them until they have pitch in front of 50,000 at the Stadium.
And we REALLY don't know about them until they have to do that in the heat."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)