Blinded by the Light

During last night's game, the TBS broadcasting crew of Skip Carey, Tony Gwynn and Bob Brenly showed the most amazing lack of preparation that I've seen this side of Tim McCarver. They kept on talking about the speed of Chein Ming Wang's sinker. They all commented that he was throwing it in the mid ninties and that he needed to slow it down in order to get better sinking action on the ball. However, if they had ever seen Wang pitch before (and they did in game 1 of the series), they should have been aware of the fact that he is the hardest thrower on the Yankees starting staff. He consistently throws his sinker in the mid nineties and has for the past three years. Somehow that fact escaped them all. He actually threw a good one at 94 mph and they commented that he was finally slowing his pitches down and getting some sink on the ball. Carmona, the Indians starter also throws a power sinker and I don't remember them complaining that he was throwing too hard as his pitches reached the mid-nineties on Friday night. Seriously guys, it's the playoffs. It would be nice if you knew something about the players you're covering.

Spitting Allowed

Mike Lupica wrote another article about Arod and his lack of postseason success today. He had this to say:

"Did nothing against the Angels in the division series of 2005 and nothing against the Tigers in the division series of 2006. Is everything his fault? Not on your life. No one has ever suggested that it is. "

No has ever suggested that the Yankees not winning was all Arods fault???? Really? What planet has he been living on?Lupica himself has written at least a dozen articles where he blamed Arod for the Yankees lack of recent postseason success. Apparently he includes himself in his general contempt for the world and doesn't read his own material. It would quite something if the Yankees were to win the World Series this year. Lupica would write about how wonderful Joe Torre is (after calling for his job for the past two seasons) and how wonderful Arod is (after calling him a choker on many occasions) and how perfect this Yankee team is and how it reminds him of the the team in the 90's (after repeatedly saying how different this team is from those teams) and how all is right with the world with the Yankees on top of baseball again (after proclaiming the Mets the new kings of New York for the last couple of years). Lupica is like a weatherman; his predictions are often wrong but there never seem to be any repercussions. Nice work if you can get it.

And That's The Way It Is

Dan Patrick announced recently that he is leaving ESPN. Now I'm not sure if this is really a sports story, but I felt like I had to say a few words about the end of the "Patrick era" at ESPN. He became the lead anchor of Sportscenter in 1989, which was just about the time that ESPN became my number one destination on my TV dial. To me, Dan Patrick was Sportscenter, so it feels a little like Walter Cronkite leaving the evening news.

Dan gave us the sports news in a very understated manner. He didn't go in for the screaming over the top hyperbole that many of his contemporaries seemed to favor. Where others would scream, Dan would whisper. His home run call was a simple, "gone", and the only catch phrase that he used was his "en fuego" reference to basketball players on a roll. Dan always let the sports do the entertaining. He never fell into the trap that anchors such as Chris Berman and Stuart Scott have. They seem to have forgotten that the teams and the players are the reason that people tune in. If I never hear another home run call by Berman, I'll be a happy man.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of having lunch with Dan and few of the other ESPN personalities at a family style Italian restaurant. While I won't mention names (Sean Salisbury, Rob Dibble), it was pretty fair to say that Dan was the most dignified and friendly of the group. He was, just as he appeared to be on Television. I don't really watch Sportscenter much anymore, but it was always a pleasure when I happened upon Dan Patrick sitting in the anchor's chair. He still remained a breath of fresh air on a network filled with ex-jocks and indistinguishable talking heads.

Sportscenter is still an occasional destination for me, but it won't be the same for me knowing that Dan Patrick will not be returning. I guess after being a Sportscenter anchor for 17 years it is time for him to, as he put it, try something different. I wish him luck in whatever his next endeavour may be. It is sad to see him leave ESPN however. Quiet and understated are not really the things that they are looking for these days in Bristol. It may be a long time before we see his like again on that network.

Hop on the Bandwagon

The New York Yankees are suddenly the hottest team in baseball. The press is falling all over themselves to try and pinpoint the reason for their sudden turnaround. The theories have gone from putting Melky in CF to Miguel Cairo taking over at first base to Roger Clemens showing up to (surprisingly) Arod being pictured with a woman who was not his wife in Toronto. However for the faithful readers of my column, it's clear that the turnaround can be traced to this! That's right, my friends. The Yankees have reeled off 13 wins in 15 games since I gave them the formula for fixing what ailed them. And while most of the credit goes to the players on the field, I have to give myself a pat on the back for showing them the way. Of course no one in the Yankees organization is going to admit to reading my blog, but trust me they are doing it (That's right, Brian. The jig is up!).

So now that the Yankees are rolling, it's just amazing to see the attitude of the local writers turn around. All of sudden it's the Yankees that can do no wrong. The Yankees hot streak has happened to coincide with an almost identical streak of futility from the Mets. The Mets have only managed 3 wins this month so far and their once healthy lead in the NL East has shrunk to 1-1/2 games over the Braves and 2 games over the Phillies. The New York press, which is always looking for a reason to say that the Mets are better than the Yankees, have had two months of absolute bliss while the Yankees struggled. Of course that same group of writers is now just as quick to point out the flaws of struggling Mets team.

The basic truth of sports is that no team is as ever as good as it looks when it's playing well and conversely, no team is as bad as it looks when it's playing poorly. I never understood why that is such a hard concept for fans and writers alike to understand. The Mets and Yankees are both good teams. They will play up to the level of their talent over a 162 game season. There will be ups and downs, but basically they are both more than capable of winning 90+ games and they both probably will. Hopefully that will keep fans and sportswriters alike from jumping off the deep end or printing playoff tickets at the next losing or winning streak from either team.

I just have one more bone to pick with the sportswriters in town and that is that in the first half of last year they anointed David Wright as the best third baseman in town. The funny thing is that I don't hear anyone making those kind of pronouncements this year. David Wright is a fine player, but he is not, I repeat not, in Arod's class. Wright hit 26 home runs in 582 at-bats last season, Arod has 27 in 251 at-bats this season. Arod in a supposed down season for him hit 35 home runs and drove in 121 runs and had an OPS of .915. Wright's numbers were 26, 116 and .859. Admittedly, those are great numbers for a 24 year old, but when Arod was the same age his numbers were 41, 132 and 1.026. David Wright may very well be the best third baseman in the National League, but Arod is one of the greatest hitters ever to play the game. So please let's stop this nonsense of comparing the two players. The truth of the matter is that Arod probably isn't going to be playing for the Yankees next year, so thankfully the writers won't have to embarrass themselves anymore.

Tim McCarver on Baseball...

"You can't score a runner from third on a groundout with two outs, but you can with one out."

He actually gets paid for this.

Glory Days

I ran across a ridiculous article on the Fox Sports website. A supposed "sports" writer named Roger Sackaroff thinks he has come up with all the answers to the Yankees problems. Before I start I would like to say that I do agree with a couple of things he said. I would like the Yankees to take a shot at signing Matsuzaka. Also I think bringing Mussina back at a reasonable price would probably be a good thing to do and Phillip Hughes should get a shot in spring training to prove himself. That's about it.

Let's start with his evaluation of the championship teams from the 90's:

"the Yankees relied on everyone pulling on the rope together to win big games. The home run leaders in 1996, '98, '99 and 2000 were Williams (29), Martinez (28), Martinez (28) and Williams (30). There was no single player relied on to step up and carry the team. Everyone had to chip in, and they did. Those teams struck out less, bunted better, moved over runners and stole bases."

Alright, where do I start? First of all the Yankees have so many good hitters in their current lineup, that it is clear, that no one player is relied on to carry the team. In fact a lot was made of that fact when Bobby Abreu came over from the Phillies and was much more comfortable in the lineup because he didn't have to carry the offense. Robison Cano hit .340 from the 9th spot. If there has been a better example of a lineup in which every single player could come through at any point, I'd like to see it. The lineups from '96-'00 were top to middle heavy. The exception being '98 when Brocious had 99 rbi's from the 9th slot. As far striking out less, the '06 team did strike out more than the championship teams, but the only one with a significant difference was the '96 team, which struck out 144 fewer times. The '98 team only struck out 28 fewer times. Stealing more bases? The '06 team stole more bases than each of the championship years except '98. Bunts? Only the '96 team is credited with more sacrifice hits. The on base percentage and slugging percentage was practically identical to the last three championship teams and on base percentage was significantly better than the '96 team. This is the kind of anecdotal bullshit that gives sports writers a bad name. Mr. Sackaroff could have easily looked up these numbers at Baseball Reference, but he instead decided to rely on his clearly faulty memory of previous yankee teams. I know that everything seemed like roses and candy back in those days, but if you look at the numbers, this years lineup was every bit as good as those and probably a little bit better. Keep up the good work Roger. Oh, but I am just getting started.

His take on the pitching from the "glory" years:

"The Yankees teams in the late 1990s had multiple pitchers who could have been aces on other teams."

The '06 yankees had Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson and Wang (who lead the majors in victories). It seems to me that those guys would qualify as pitchers who could have been aces on other teams. And why don't we take a closer look. The average ERA of the top 4 starters for the '06 team was 4.16. That seems pretty high until you compare it to the top 4 from each of the championship teams. The '98 team has the best ERA of 3.84. It goes up from there, with a low of 4.22 to a high of 4.87. These are the ERA's of the top 4 starters that the yankees took into the playoffs in each of the championship years. Only the '98 team had a better starters ERA than this years team. So clearly the pitching wasn't any better than it was this year. Roger Clemens, David Cone and Andy Pettitte all have career post season ERA's which are higher than either Mike Mussina's or Randy Johnson's. Did the pitchers in previous years have better performances in the playoffs than this years team? Undoubtedly some of them did, but that doesn't mean that there was anything particularly wrong with this years rotation. It had one Cy Young candidate (a far distance from Santana, but a candidate non the less), one first ballot hall of famer who still won more games than any pitcher in the National League and one potential hall of famer at the top of the rotation. Randy Johnson came up with a major back problem at the wrong time and the Tigers pitchers were just better in the series. That is the reason the yankee pitching looked bad, but on a whole they were no worse than what the Yankees took into the playoffs in each of their championship years.

Now that his premise has been proven to be absolutely wrong, let's take a look at his remedy for what ails the yanks. His first change is the obvious one that people who don't know anything about baseball are going to make: Trade Arod. This is just ridiculous. Would I trade Arod? Sure, for Johan Santana, but outside of that, there is no way to get equal value for him. Arod hit 35 home runs and drove in 120 IN AN OFF YEAR! Do you know how ridiculous it is to think that his production can be replaced. He has this to say about Arod:

"He is one year removed from an MVP and near Gold Glove year, and besides his issues in the field, wasn't bad at the plate this season either."

Then why in the hell would you want to trade him? This makes absolutely no sense. He must be blaming Arod for not carrying the team on his back, when clearly he has made the argument that the team is better with no one particular player carrying the load. He doesn't give a reason for trading Arod, he just thinks that it would be a good idea. Way to strike a blow for journalism, stupid.

His next idea is trading Giambi. He has this to say:

"Giambi has regained his health and his hitting stroke, but should not be a regular fielder."

I think everyone would agree with that, probably even Giambi. He goes on to say that Giambi will make too much noise in the clubhouse if he doesn't get to play first every day. By the way, Giambi played more games at DH this year than he did at 1B. He is clearly on his way to becoming a full time DH. Did anyone hear all the noise that Giambi was making this year for not playing first base all the time? Good, because neither did I. What the hell is he talking about? And if this is going to be an ongoing problem, why would another team want to assume that headache? Or Giambi's contract for that matter? This doesn't make any sense, but neither does his next point which is to trade Johnny Damon.

"Damon had a very good year at the plate for the Yankees. He played hurt and fit into the team seamlessly. However, his defensive shortcomings, most notably his poor throwing arm, cost the Yankees several games. It would make a lot of sense for both teams if the Yankees traded Damon back to the Red Sox for Mike Lowell, but it would never happen."

I didn't think that the Yankees needed Johnny Damon and I still think that Derek Jeter is a better lead off hitter than he is, but with all that said, he did have a pretty good year for the Yankees. Does he have a shitty arm? Yep, he sure does. But did his throwing arm cost the yankees "several" games. I don't think there is one statistical measurement which would show that Johnny Damon's arm cost the yankees several wins (I'm not even sure you could find one that showed that it cost the yankees one win). I would also argue that his glove saved more than a few runs and his legs and bat won a few games as well. Whatever shortcomings his arm creates, were more than made up for in other areas. The only way his arm could have cost the yankees "several" games was if he made a bunch of throwing errors which allowed runs to score and that just didn't happen. As far as trading him to the Red Sox for Mike Lowell???? I don't even know what to say about that except that at this point I think he's just writing the article as a comedy piece.

I'll just go through a couple of more of his suggestions. We should sign Andy Pettitte or Mark Mulder. Arm injuries waiting to happen. We should sign Soriano or Gary Matthews Jr. to play CF. We already have a CF'er and he's not going anywhere. In his final equation he would replace, Arod, Sheffield, Giambi and Damon with Andy Phillips, Mike Lowell, Melky Cabrera and Gary Matthews Jr. I guess that's what you call addition by subtraction. His idea is to take 120+ home runs and 400+ rbi's off the team and replace that with 50 home runs and 200 rbi's. That, my friends is sound thinking. It's the kind of thinking that made the betamax the great success story that it was.

So Mr. Sackaroff how is this supposed to work again? The yankees will be better because they'll have four fewer people in the lineup who can hit? Genius! I can't believe that your work has been limited to the Fox website. I'm sure the NY Times is going to come beating down your door any second now. Hey, keep up the shitty work.

It's A Small World After All

Mike Lupica is at it again. Spouting his Yankee hating bulls#@t, that the Daily News for some reason allows him to print. Today he said that the Yankees have no excuse for not winning the World Series this year. He had this to say about Joe Torre:

"If Joe Torre can't win with this lineup, with this kind of insane financial advantage over any American League team they are going to come up against, if Torre can't win with the deepest and most diversified and most talented batting order in baseball history, then when does he win again? If this isn't enough for him, what is?"

First of all, anyone who knows anything about baseball knows that there are no guarantees in the post season. A five game series does not prove who the better team is, it just proves who played the best over those five games. Do the Yankees have a ridiculous lineup? Of course they do. I've already stated that I think it's the best of all time. Does that guarantee a win? Absolutely not. We only have to look to a few days ago when the Yankees came within two outs of being no-hit.

Lupica is really trying to set the Yankees up for the big fall. He can't wait to tear them apart if they don't win the series. The key to playoff baseball is pitching. He dismisses the fact that Randy Johnson is not 100%. He makes this statement:

"They are supposed to win it all, and do it without much sweat. With or without Randy Johnson. They shouldn't lose a game in the first round and they should handle the Twins or A's easily in the ALCS, and they should win the World Series even if it is against the Mets, who played them tough in this year's regular-season version of the Subway Series."

They shouldn't lose a game in the first round? Says who? The Tigers won 95 games this year. For the first half of the season, they played as well as any team ever has. They reeled off multiple double digit win streaks. Why on earth should they now roll over for the Yankees in playoffs. They should handle the Twins or A's easily? The Yankees split the season series agains the Twins and lost the season series to the A's. The Twins have the best starting pitching and bullpen in the league. The A's starters are also very good. The Yankees have the worst team ERA of any of the teams in the playoffs. Why exactly are the Yankees supposed to steamroll through the playoffs again? Oh, that's right. Because Mike Lupica says so. And of course what he says goes. Just to show you what a complete and absolute idiot Lupica is he makes this statement:

"The Yankees have Chien-Ming Wang, as much a Cy Young candidate as anybody in the American League"

Johan Santana of the Twins won the pitching triple crown for Christ's sake. He led the majors in wins, strikeouts, ERA and a few other categories as well. There is only one Cy Young candidate in the American League and he pitches for Minnesota. I understand that Lupica is trying to build the Yankees up to mythic proportions at this point, but seriously, only an absolute moron would make a statement like that.

I can understand how painful the Yankees dominance of the late 90's must have been for Lupica. As I understand the absolute joy that only someone who is a Boston Red Sox fan must feel at the continued failures of the Yankees in the postseason. He just can't wait to blast Torre and the rest of the Yankees in the press. Here's another comment:

"Barring another injury to Rivera, there are no excuses. None."

I'm sure if the Yankees lose they will not make excuses. They never do. But it is certainly possible that they will lose. The White Sox ran the table last year with extraordinary starting pitching. Could the Yankees run into a similar buzzsaw this year? Of course they could. As has already been seen, good pitching will beat good hitting. The Yankee lineup is great, but they can be shut down for a few nights by stellar starting pitching. Even with a lineup full of .300 hitters, they are still going to fail 70% of the time. Baseball is not a game of guarantees. The breaks have to go your way along with timely hitting and good pitching. The stars must align in your favor. And sometimes it's just not your day. Even with the greatest lineup in history, the Yankees are assured of nothing, except the gloating and "I told you so" nonsense from Lupica should they lose.

I assure that Lupica is rooting for a Yankees loss with all the desire that his cold, little heart can muster. I always hope that someone at the Daily News would sit lupica down in his booster seat and explain to him that openly rooting against the home town team is probably not the right thing to do. Well, Mike, I hope you enjoy shopping in the "husky" boys section of your local clothing outlet, because while the Yankees winning is not a certainty, your remaining a midget is.

Good Night & Good Luck

Jim Kaat is going to be broadcasting his last game for the Yankees tonight. It's a rainy day here in NY, so I'm not even sure that the game is going to be played. I certainly hope that they get it in and that the YES network is able to give Jim the send off he deserves. He has served as a baseball analyst on Yankees telecast since 1995. In fact he arrived just as the Yankees were about to go on their amazing run of playoff and World Series appearances. I can't think of anyone I would rather have had take me through the last 11 years than Jim Kaat. He was an all-star pitcher for the Twins and White sox during the sixties and seventies. He even had a short stint as a reliever for the Yankees in the early eighties. He won 283 games and a still record 16 gold gloves. He belongs in the baseball hall of fame and hopefully, one day, the veterans committee will fix that oversight of the baseball writers. I know that they induct announcers into the hall of fame as well and he should be there as a broadcaster as well. No one broke down the game as well as Jim Kaat did. He brought his amazing knowledge of pitching and game management to the broadcast booth and was able to convey that knowledge without talking down to his audience. He always made it seem as if he were nothing but a journeyman pitcher when the record clearly states something else. I've commented about Tim McCarver before and how he talks as if he were actually a hall of famer, when the only thing McCarver knows about hitting is that it's hard to do. Kaat talks about pitching and approaching hitters in such a way that it makes you feel more knowledgeable about the game from just having listened to him explain it. With Jim Kaat in the booth, it always felt like you were having a conversation about baseball, instead of listening to a baseball analyst. His take on pitching strategy was always consistent. He was one of the few people on the YES network who would challenge the Yankees decisions. He would speak up about trades or management decisions. He defended Mel Stottlemyre against the wrath of George Steinbrenner during his contentious last two years with the team (always to deafening silence from the ultimate corporate man Michael Kay). You always felt like you had a friend in the booth when Jim Kaat was behind the mike. Ken Singleton has much the same style and it always made for a more pleasant evening when they were together in the booth. I wish Jim well in his retirement. I'm sorry to see him go, but I'm happy that he will now get to spend the summer months with his wife enjoying his well earned time off. So as he signs off for the last time I would just like to say good night and good luck. And I can't thank him enough for making the game that I love much more enjoyable over the past 12 years. Thanks, Jim.

UPDATE 12/6/2021

Jim did retire for a short time, but came back to broadcast games for MLB network. We baseball fans were all the better for it. It was announced yesterday that after a ridiculous wait, he was finally elected to the Hall of Fame. He deserved to be there a long time ago and I'm just thankful that the award did not come too late for him to enjoy it with his family. Congratulations, Jim! And now let's get Tommy John in as well!

Good News

Just a quick note here. Peter Gammons was at the game on Saturday. It was great to see him at the ballpark again. Hopefully his recovery from a brain aneurysm is going well. Good luck and God speed, Peter.

Lupica is a Midget

Our favorite "reporter", Mike Lupica wrote an article today about Paul LoDuca and his current marital issues. He started the column off this way:

"This is how fast it changes for everybody and how fast it changed for Paul Lo Duca, a good Brooklyn-born catcher and a good guy this season batting No. 2 for the Mets, the No. 1 team in the National League and maybe in town."

There are two things wrong with this column. First of all, I don't care about Paul LoDuca's problems with his wife. This has nothing to do with sports. I already wrote about this when the press decided that Randy Johnson's illegitimate daughter was front page news. The second problem with this article is that Lupica is just hell bent on once again proclaiming that the Mets are the best team in NY. I don't know if the Mets are the best team in NY, but here are the facts:

The Yankees are 24 games over .500, the Mets are 22 games over .500
The AL East is a combined 24 games over .500, the NL East is a combined 12 games under .500
The division leaders in the AL are a combined 73 games over .500
The division leaders in the NL are a combined 36 games over .500
The NL has 2 teams that are at least 9 games over .500
The AL has 6 teams that are at least 9 games over .500
The NL has 1 team that is at least 19 games over .500
The AL has 5 teams that are at least 19 games over .500
The AL held a 154-98 advantage during interleague play
The AL won the All-Star game for the 10th year in a row (one year was actually a tie)

Those are the facts that Lupica had on hand when he decided to make his comment about the Mets' standing in New York. The Yankees have a better record, play in a tougher division and play in a superior league. Where did Lupica come up with that statement? I'm not sure but I'm going to attribute it to the fact that he is too short to reach the shelf at the Daily News that contains the actual baseball facts.

Losing My Religion

I read an article by Gary Gillette on ESPN.com about the fact that Baseball isn't as popular as it used to be. Wow, newsflash. I'm glad I pay every month to get those keen insights from the ESPN insiders. He also says that the commissioners office is trying to cover up this fact by pointing out that Baseball set an all time attendance record last year and are on their way to another record this year. That is a more valid point. Overall attendance is at an all time high, but average per game attendance has never reached the high of the pre-strike '94 days. The bump in attendance comes from the fact that a couple of new teams have been added since those days. While the Marlins and Devil Rays haven't done much for attendance, the Colorado Rockies (who basically sold out all their home games for their first two years of existence) certainly have.

It's fairly clear that the NFL is the dominant sports league in the US, and it has been for some time. The Superbowl is the preeminent sporting event in the US every year. Millions gather at parties and bars every year to watch or not watch the game, but it is an event. The World Series simply can't compete with the Superbowl as far as events go. Does that mean that there is some major crisis for baseball? I don't think so. TV ratings for baseball pale in comparison to those for football, but football ratings pale in comparison to those it used to get twenty years ago. Some will claim that Baseball lost a lot of fans because of the strike of '94. It's undoubtedly true that some people did stop watching the sport because of that strike, but it's also true that the majority of fans came back when the players did. All of the major sports have had strikes and despite a lot of grumbling and protest, the fans have come back to the stadiums and arenas every time.

National TV ratings are not necessarily the best measure of the health of baseball. There was a time in baseball when teams only went as far south as Washington D.C. and as far west as St. Louis. Baseball was a regional game then. If you lived in the west you rooted for the Cardinals, Cubs or White Sox. If you lived in the South, perhaps the Yankees, or Dodgers were your favorite. You didn't get to see them much, and local media coverage was pretty poor. The World Series and All-Star game on TV were a much bigger event because it was your first time all year to actually see certain teams and players. Baseball is much more of a local sport now. Most areas of the country now have a team within driving distance. Outside of the Yankees and Red Sox who both have a huge national following, most teams now just have a local following. ESPN has made it possible for fans in all cities can now see every other team in the country. The novelty of the World Series and All Star games simply doesn't exist anymore.

Baseball averages about 31,000 people per game. There 162 games on the schedule of each team. The Yankees average over 50,000 people per game. 75,000,000 people will attend major league baseball games this year. The fan interest, at least on a local level, is certainly still there. Perhaps America's attention span has just gotten shorter over time and baseball as a TV sport doesn't fit that span anymore. Regardless, there is no reason for Baseball to feel bad about losing it's spot at the top of the sports pyramid in America. It's still a great game. There are still millions of people who watch the game on TV and go to the stadiums. Baseball isn't Football or Basketball and it can't be marketed the same way. It's a game that takes some time to understand and unfolds at it's own pace. There's no game clock, no 30 second clock, no play clock. Fans looking for the constant action of Hockey or Basketball or the violence of Football won't find that at a Baseball game.

Baseball isn't the national pastime. It never was. Here is the definition of a pastime; An activity or diversion that occupies one's spare time pleasantly. Baseball certainly works that way for some, as does Football, Basketball, gambling, knitting, skateboarding, reading, writing, watching TV, Sailing, Golfing, Tennis, Hiking, Camping, Theater going, Sleeping, Drinking, Eating, Sex, Cooking, Soccer, or any of a thousand things would qualify as a pastime. There is no such thing as a national pastime. In a country of over 280 million, outside of the things necessary for survival, there could not possibly be one thing that would keep everyone pleasantly occupied. Except for religion, that is. I think Marx was right about that. Although it really never seemed that pleasant to me.

There's a Screw Lose in that Phillips Head

Steve Phillips, who is the ex-GM of the Phillies and Mets and now works as a commentator for ESPN, makes his living talking about baseball. The only problem with that is that his knowledge of baseball appears to be extremely limited. I'm not sure how someone with his lack of ability to analyze the game, ever rose to the heights that he has. He must have excellent oral skills. You get it? You get it? You don't get it.

Anyway, he put his skills (or lack thereof) on display by saying that he thinks the Blue Jays will pass the Yankees for second place in the AL east. Now this in itself is not a ridiculous statement. The Blue Jays are only three games behind the Yankess and they have shown that they are a much improved team. Phillips shows his complete lack of baseball acumen by talking about the reason that he thinks the Blue Jays can pass the Yankees. He bases his theory on the Blue Jays "top three" pitchers. He said that if he could take any teams top three pitchers in the AL east, he would pick the Blue Jays. There is a reason why Steve Phillips isn't the GM of a major league club anymore.

Let's take a look at the top 3 pitchers on the Blue Jays staff. Roy Halladay, who is a former Cy Young winner and a legitamate candidate for the award this year, has 12 wins. Ted Lilly is a career journeyman pitcher who has nine wins and A.J. Burnett is a known head case who has had arm trouble all year and is 1-3. As a unit they are 22-13. The Red Sox top 3 pitchers (Schilling, Beckett and Lester) are a combined 29-8. The Yankees top 3 pitchers (Wang, Johnson and Mussina) are a combined 31-15. Johnson is definitely going to the hall of fame, is a five time Cy Young winner and World Series MVP, Schilling and Mussina might end up there as well. Beckett is a former World Series MVP and has 12 wins already this year.

Here is the quote from Phillips about the three staffs:

"If everyone stays healthy and performs like I think they can, and taking into account Randy Johnson isn't the same guy he has been in the past, I would take the Blue Jays' three [starters.]"

At this point in all their respective careers, Halladay is probably the best pitcher of the nine. That being said, I don't think that there's a GM or manager in baseball who would pick any of the other two starters on the Blue Jays staff over Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Josh Beckett or Curt Schilling. Lester is a rookie, so it's hard to say how he will pan out, but I'm sure most GM's would still take him over Ted Lilly. Steve Phillips is supposed to be able to evaluate talent. He was responsible for making deals and trying to help his teams win. However, it's fairly clear that his judgment is pretty bad. The Blue Jays staff consists of one Cy Young winner, one career .500 pitcher(lilly is 53-53) and one pitcher who is under .500 for his career(Burnett is 50-53). That, in his humblie opinion is the best starting staff in the AL east.

Wow. If the Yankees or the Red Sox had that staff, the papers and fans in both cities would be screaming bloody murder and here's the funny thing, so would Phillips. He's been talking all year about the Yankees lack of pitching, but from his statements it's clear that he doesn't know what a pitching staff is. I guess he would rather have Ted Lilly pitching with the World Series on the line than Curt Schilling or Randy Johnson.

What an Idiot.

A Tar Heel Born and Bred

Just a quick note here about a fellow Tar Heel Alum, Peter Gammons. Get well soon Peter. You've made baseball a lot more enjoyable over the years and hopefully you've got a lot more coming.

Nero Fiddled

Jim Rome is a smug jerk who hosts a show on ESPN called "Rome is Burning". It should be called "Rome is an idiot who has a man crush on David Eckstein and Darin Erstad and really doesn't know anything about sports", but I guess that's not as sexy. On his show, he basically substitutes catch phrases and name calling for actual sports commentary. He first came to national prominence by getting a NFL player to attack him on camera. Jim Everett was a QB for the LA Rams at the time and Rome always questioned his toughness, so he tagged him with the nickname "Chris Everett". Jim Everett appeared on the show and told Rome that the didn't appreciate it and didn't want him to use that nickname anymore. Rome decided to use the nickname anyway and Everett physically attacked him on his show. (Click here to see Rome get pimp slapped)

He opens and closes his current show on ESPN with his personal musings about the previous evenings sporting events and it really is absolutely hilarious. Earlier this week he was talking about David Ortiz bunting for a base hit in a segment entitled "what a drag". He kept on talking about Ortiz and how he laid down a drag bunt in a game against Toronto. Now this is a fairly small point, but Ortiz actually laid down a push bunt. A drag bunt for a left handed hitter would be hit down the first base line. The hitter is dragging the ball in the direction that he's running. Hence the term "drag bunt". A push bunt is hit in the opposite direction. Any twelve year old baseball fan would be able to tell you the difference, but since he couldn't come up with any cute headline for a push bunt and assumed that the audience was as stupid as he was, he just decided it didn't matter.

I can't tell you the number of times that he's talked about how Darin Erstad and David Eckstein just "get it done". It's as if they are the only players in baseball who actually play hard. Erstad "got it done" to the tune of a .696 OPS last year. I've already made comments about David Eckstein, so there's no need for me to repeat them. I have nothing against these players, and I certainly understand that not everyone can be Albert Pujols, but using a head first slide or getting your uniform dirty does not make you an all-star. I'm sure if Jim Rome had a vote he would put both Erstad and Eckstein in the Hall of Fame.

A lot of sports commentators are annoying but Rome is annoying, stupid and smug. He's a know-it-all who actually doesn't know anything. Where is Jim Everett when we need him? Jim Rome wins the first annual "Be Like Mike" award, which is named after the patron saint of idiot sports commentators everywhere, Mike Lupica. Congratulations Jim. You deserve it.

Here Today, Gone Today

I was watching "Around the Horn" on ESPN today. They were discussing the future of Randy Johnson and whether he was in trouble because he had a terrible outing against the Blue Jays yesterday. Three of the four writers said that he was definitely in trouble and that his career was in either a freefall or serious decline. I bring up this particular topic because yesterday they were talking about Greg Maddux. Maddux has gotten off to a great start this year and all four of the writers said that he was on his way to great year.

Now I'm not sure whether Johnson is done or Maddux is about to have a renaissance in Chicago, but what I do know is that it's way too early to make those sorts of prediction. And if you are forced to make those predictions then shouldn't you look at the track record before making some ridiculous proclamation? Greg Maddux won 13 games last year and lost 15 with an ERA of 4.24. The previous year (2004) his ERA was 4.02. The last time Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux played in the same league was 2004 and Randy had an ERA of 2.60. It is true that Randy's ERA went up over a run last year, but he did have to adjust to moving to the Yankees and changing leagues to the AL where more runs are scored. He still won 17 games and was 10-2 after the all star break and his ERA was still a 1/2 run lower than Greg Maddux.

Every pitcher has bad starts. I'm not sure why there's always a rush to say that Johnson is done whenever he has a bad start. Clearly he's not the consistently dominating pitcher he used to be, but I don't think he's quite ready for the scrap heap yet. Maddux is an all time great, but if his last two years are any indicator, his fast start will not last. He will continue to be an effective starter but not a spectacular one. Johnson still has the ability to dominate. And whatever his issue was on Tuesday, I'm fairly sure that he'll figure it out.

It's amazing how far goodwill goes with sports writers and commentators. They are all willing to throw Johnson under the bus at the first opportunity, yet they will bend over backwards to support Greg Maddux. It really is just amazing that sports writers would base their argument on one start or on a handful. Aren't these guys supposed to be paying attention to what happened before yesterday? Why not say that Chris Shelton is going to hit 120 home runs this year? I mean he has 9 through 14 games. Using their logic, it only makes sense that he'll continue that pace throughout the entire season.

Once again, the sportswriters who should know better, are guilty of shortsightedness. It's a shame that most of the general public actually take these people at their word.

The Great White Hope, Part Deux

J.J. Redick shot 3 for 18 and scored 11 points in the Duke loss to LSU and then cried as he left the court. I really don't have much to say except, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

No, really, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha...

I'm sure Gregg Doyel at CBS Sportsline will be happy to console you (see "I don't know how to quit you" 3/2), J.J., ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Greatest college player ever, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

I have to apologize for being a five year old. I just can't help myself sometimes.

Passion Fruit

John Donovan of SI.com wrote a follow up article about the WBC, praising the talented Japanese team for their victory. Here's part of what he had to say:

"So it follows ... the best Japanese team ever, beating the best competition the world has ever offered. Can there be any doubt? Japan is the best."

However according to his previous article (see "Even the President needs... on 3/20), being the best team has nothing to do with winning. It's all about passion and desire. So I guess it follows that the Cuban team just didn't "want" it enough.

What an idiot.

Even the President needs...

I was reading SI. com this morning and ran across an article by John Donovan about the WBC (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/03/17/wbc.passion/index.html). Here's a sample of what he had to say:

"That's what the U.S. was up against in this tournament and what, in the end, was its downfall. The final four teams in the WBC have a desire, a passion that the U.S. team simply couldn't match. Passion is the difference in this tournament. It's carried the WBC."

I understand his premise on some level, but seriously, passion and desire or lack thereof were not the reasons that the US did not make the semi-final. The US looked pretty passionate when they stormed the field after Arod's winning hit against Japan. I've already made mention of Chipper Jones' comments, so I'm fairly sure that they were passionate. And how exactly do you measure passion or desire. Were the Mexicans not passionate, the Venezuelans, hell even the Italians and Canadians were passionate. I didn't see one US player acting like they didn't want to be there. Passion has not carried the WBC, talent and pitching have.

Here's another quote from the article:

"But the truth is that the best four teams in the new World Baseball Classic are in this weekend's finale, and Team USA -- for all its future Hall of Famers, All-Stars and multi-multimillionaires -- is not. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Korea and Japan have shown, even in the abruptness of a tournament like this one, that they're better teams. That they wanted it more."

I happen to agree with everything he said in this quote until the last sentence. How does he know "that they wanted it more"? What is that based on? The fans waving flags in the stands? It's a silly premise to base wins and losses on in a tournament like this. I could put together an all-star team of the most passionate little leaguers in the world and they wouldn't stand a chance in the tournament. Desire and passion are a part of the game, but in this tournament, I am fairly confident that all the teams had that going for them. All the players were proud to represent their countries. Is John trying to suggest that the team from Japan had more pride than the team from the US, or Mexico, or Puerto Rico? It just doesn't make sense (Maybe the team from Korea did have a better reason to play well than anyone else in the tournament. They were all promised that their mandatory military service obligation would be waived if they made the semi finals, they did and it was). Baseball isn't like basketball where desire can be seen by things like diving after loose balls and rebounding or football where fighting for extra yardage and running hard on each play are indicative of effort and desire. I've certainly heard the argument that people who care too much don't perform as well, because they are trying too hard. Why not make that argument about the US baseball team? Maybe the US just cared too much and they were too tight to perform. Some would say that Dontrelle Willis was so pumped up that he wasn't his usual self. I think that argument holds just as much water as the opposite does. Or course I don't think either of them are valid in this case.

The US may have had the most talented team at the WBC, but the teams with the most talent simply do not always win baseball games. The team with the better pitching and the timeliest hitting on that day wins them. The US had a couple of bad pitching performances from Dontrelle Willis that they simply could not overcome. The preparation time for the US was probably lacking. I think there was a conceit on the US side that they could simply put together an all-star team and win by mere talent alone. That does not mean that the players weren't passionate, it just means that they were not as prepared as some of the other teams. If the US team had been given a 3 week training period, I have no doubt that they would have had a stronger showing. In fact I would bet that the US would win a tournament like this 7 out of 10 times with the appropriate amount of time to get ready.

I applaud the teams and fans of the teams that made the semi's in the WBC. They all deserve to be there. The teams played with passion and desire and their fans reflected that emotion in the stands. The most important elements for the four teams however, were talent and preparation. Not passion and desire. By the way if there's a major league team out there looking for a passionate 40 year old who hasn't played since little league, give me a call. I'm still available.

See, What Had Happened Was...

J.J. Redick tonight versus UNC: 5 for 21. 1 for 19 after the first five minutes. Well I guess it's pretty clear that he's the greatest player/shooter in the history of college basketball. Just like all the greats he really produced in the big game. Somewhere Gregg Doyel is crying.

I Don't Know How to Quit You

We have the latest example of the unabashed man love that takes place in the press over J.J. Redick. Gregg Doyel of CBS Sportsline has these fine words to share with us:

"I like J.J. Redick. Actually, that's not strong enough. Not nearly so. I don't just like J.J. Redick. I like dolphins. I like $12 appetizers. I'm in love with J.J. Redick...Redick, is my favorite player in nine years as a college basketball writer. I'm allowed to have a favorite, you know."

Okay, so he's got some sort of major man crush on Redick, but that shouldn't cloud his judgment as an objective writer, right? Wrong, wrong! Here's what he said later:

"He's good, J.J. Redick. He's better than anyone you've ever seen in college basketball. Probably better than anyone you will see in the future."

Wow, Gregg not only decided that Redick is the not only the greatest player that we've ever seen, he's the greatest that we'll ever see. Don't you think this greatest player of all time could at least lead the nation in scoring. I mean since shooting is all that he does? As far as I know, he's second to Adam Morrison. Don't you think the greatest player of all time should be able to do more than score? What about rebounding or passing or defense? I guess to Gregg these are minor points of the game. Sorry Oscar, Jerry, Larry, Magic, Michael, you guys were wasting your time with that other stuff. Love is apparently blind and stupid.

Here's his closing line:

"One day I'll tell my kids I saw the greatest shooter in college basketball history"

I think I'm going to cry. Well, cry or go and beat the shit out of Gregg Doyel. He could tell his kids that he saw the greatest shooter in history and he could also tell them that pigs fly out of his ass every half an hour, but neither of those statements would be true (actually I don't know about the pigs, but I'm not going to do any follow up on that one). I don't have to go that far back in history to find Ray Allen, Glen Rice, Chris Jackson, Chris Mullin or Dennis Scott, any of whom I would take over Redick. He bases this "greatest shooter" label on the fact that Reddick has more 3 pointers than anyone else in the history of College Basketball. That is true, but what he doesn't tell you is that the greatest shooters from the past didn't have a 3 point line to shoot from. Pete Maravich averaged 44 points a game for his career without the benefit of a 3 point line. How many 3 pointers do you think he would have had? Jerry West, Larry Bird, Bill Bradley? The number would have been well beyond Redick's reach.

It's this kind of shortsighted analysis that gives sports writers a bad name. I guess if he wasn't this asinine, I wouldn't have had anything to write about today, so I should be grateful. Thanks Gregg Doyel. You really deserve my first annual "I don't think Brokeback Mountain went far enough" award. Congratulations!

There's a poll attached to the is article that asks if Redick is the greatest player of all time. The saddest part of this whole fiasco is not that this idiotic poll was included, but that 31% of the respondents said yes. I'm really worried about the future of this country.

By the way, if you care to see this trash, here's the link: http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9274126