Did anyone else read Heyman's most recent take on the Clemens situation? Bizarre, right? It can't just be me, can it? (Sidenote: Why do I continue to read SI.com?)
My favorite part of the Roger Clemens interview on the Mike & Mike in the Morning radio show Tuesday came when he said steroids could be bad for him because of his family history, and then cited his stepfather's heart attack as evidence.
[Actually, I'm with Heyman on this one-- citing a STEPfather to support a "family history" claim = High Comedy.]
Clemens also repeated the claim that McNamee never gave him steroids or HGH, calling the hosts "Greeny" and "Goli" (Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic).
[What nerve, right?! I mean, so informal! As noted by The Guy Who Knows Things in an email to me, "I wonder if when Heyman talks to two people on the phone both named Mike, if he insists on only calling them by their same first name instead of commonly used last names, since Clemens is a jerk for that too."
Exactly. Heyman would never call Mike Greenberg "Greeny." Totally unprofessional.]
It seems he is intent on repeating these claims until no one believes him (even Greeny said he thought Clemens was guilty).
[(heavy sigh)]
I texted McNamee as to whether he'd like to respond to Clemens' latest claims....
[Spoiler alert: Heyman knows McNamee.]
The response from McNamee: "Noooo! Sorry." Which makes sense. It's best to quit while you're ahead. And while we're still in the fifth inning of this drama, it's about 20-zip for McNamee.
[Heyman sent a smiley-face text back to McNamee, for those keeping score at home. Did I mention that they are buddies?]
I will never understand Clemens' "strategy" of denial on 60 Minutes (which I watched with McNamee)....
[Starting to get a little weird.]
While the feds haven't made their move on him yet, I firmly believe -- and many baseball people believe -- he has more chance to wind up in jail than Barry Bonds.
[Heyman knows that Kangaroo Court <> Criminal Justice Department, right?
-- If it pleases the court, I would like to offer Exhibit A into evidence. Let the record show that Exhibit A is a signed statement made by a self-proclaimed "baseball person" that Roger Clemens is more likely to go to prison than Barry Bonds. Also, I would like to offer into evidence Exhibit B- a photograph of me and Brian McNamee riding the Superman Roller coaster at Six Flags. The prosecution rests.]
Taking steroids may be a silly reason to go to jail, but I don't feel sorry for Clemens, whose ego is as big as all of Texas. As hard as it is to fathom, I am starting to feel sorry for Bonds.
[Exactly- Bonds would *never* hang his trainer out to dr-- oh, wait. Nevermind.]
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Ibañez contract: A great deal for *everyone*
What is Raul Ibañez doing with his three-year, $31.5 million contract he received from the Phillies? Joe Lemire of SI.com has the scoop, and thoughts on why this contract was awesome.
"We have really great, funny conversations during pitching changes," Ibañez said. "A lot of random things get brought up -- it's almost like an episode of Seinfeld."
[This has been happening for years in major league baseball, though. Everyone remembers when David Cone re-enacted "The Contest" episode in the bullpen years ago....]
For starters, Ibañez and Werth are avid watchers of infomercials. Though they declined to reveal what absurdities they've recently purchased for fear of giving an undue endorsement, it's not hard to imagine their homes are strewn with Snuggies, ShamWows and Swiffer SweeperVacs.
[Big blow to the ShamWow Guy-- heard he was really holding out for a Raul Ibañnez endorsement.]
"We both agree that it's tough to watch an infomercial and not want to at least try it," Werth said with a laugh. "Maybe we're both suckers."
[Is this really what ball-players do on the road at night? Watch infomercials? I miss the '86 Mets....]
The man Ibañez replaced, Pat Burrell, as well as another ex-Phillie, Bobby Abreu, both had comparable slugging numbers over the last five years, and they settled for contracts of two years, $16 million, and one year, $5 million, respectively.
[So this was... bad value, right?]
But Ibañez's hot start has helped dispel the notion that he was an unnecessary purchase.
[Oh, right-- forget about the part where we analyze multi-year contracts based upon the first 6% of the contract duration. Good point.]
Should opponents start summoning more lefty relievers to face him in the late innings, Ibañez ought to be equipped for the challenge. He's a .267 career hitter against southpaws, and this year is batting .250 with one homer.
[Was that second sentence ironic?]
One of the knocks on Ibañez was his defense, but he has had a renaissance on Philadelphia's south side.... Ibañez's cerebral approach to fielding includes noting the cut of the grass to predict which way a ball is likely to skip.
[This is great stuff.]
"Raul's a winner," Werth said of Ibañez, whose Mariner teams averaged only 72 wins per game. "That's really tough to say about somebody who's played for teams that haven't won."
[Bordering on amazing stuff.]
"We have really great, funny conversations during pitching changes," Ibañez said. "A lot of random things get brought up -- it's almost like an episode of Seinfeld."
[This has been happening for years in major league baseball, though. Everyone remembers when David Cone re-enacted "The Contest" episode in the bullpen years ago....]
For starters, Ibañez and Werth are avid watchers of infomercials. Though they declined to reveal what absurdities they've recently purchased for fear of giving an undue endorsement, it's not hard to imagine their homes are strewn with Snuggies, ShamWows and Swiffer SweeperVacs.
[Big blow to the ShamWow Guy-- heard he was really holding out for a Raul Ibañnez endorsement.]
"We both agree that it's tough to watch an infomercial and not want to at least try it," Werth said with a laugh. "Maybe we're both suckers."
[Is this really what ball-players do on the road at night? Watch infomercials? I miss the '86 Mets....]
The man Ibañez replaced, Pat Burrell, as well as another ex-Phillie, Bobby Abreu, both had comparable slugging numbers over the last five years, and they settled for contracts of two years, $16 million, and one year, $5 million, respectively.
[So this was... bad value, right?]
But Ibañez's hot start has helped dispel the notion that he was an unnecessary purchase.
[Oh, right-- forget about the part where we analyze multi-year contracts based upon the first 6% of the contract duration. Good point.]
Should opponents start summoning more lefty relievers to face him in the late innings, Ibañez ought to be equipped for the challenge. He's a .267 career hitter against southpaws, and this year is batting .250 with one homer.
[Was that second sentence ironic?]
One of the knocks on Ibañez was his defense, but he has had a renaissance on Philadelphia's south side.... Ibañez's cerebral approach to fielding includes noting the cut of the grass to predict which way a ball is likely to skip.
[This is great stuff.]
"Raul's a winner," Werth said of Ibañez, whose Mariner teams averaged only 72 wins per game. "That's really tough to say about somebody who's played for teams that haven't won."
[Bordering on amazing stuff.]
Friday, May 8, 2009
My favorite take on the Manny situation
I got a text message last night my resident medical expert that read:
"Has anyone entertained the idea that maybe Manny wanted to have a baby?"
Pretty high comedy-- was actually kicking myself that I hadn't thought of that seemingly-obvious punch-line.
Jim Salisbury of the Philadelphia Inquirer uses a similar headline in his piece today, but then he kind of resorts to the usual fist-shaking.
"Has anyone entertained the idea that maybe Manny wanted to have a baby?"
Pretty high comedy-- was actually kicking myself that I hadn't thought of that seemingly-obvious punch-line.
Jim Salisbury of the Philadelphia Inquirer uses a similar headline in his piece today, but then he kind of resorts to the usual fist-shaking.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Unwritten Rules: Unwritten for a reason.
John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle takes issue with Carl Crawford swiping a bag up 7-0 in the 5th inning.
Glancing at Crawford's 19 steals (in 19 attempts), we noticed one in Oakland on April 24. It stands out. Fifth inning. Rays leading 7-0.
[8-0 > 7-0.]
We looked everywhere for that unwritten rule stating baserunners ought not rub it in by stealing in a lopsided game. Couldn't find it. Then we remembered: It's not written anywhere.
[Because it's stupid?]
So we sought the opinion of a couple of A's. Kurt Suzuki, the catcher that night, said he didn't recall the situation and added it "never crossed my mind (that Crawford would disregard etiquette). He plays the game hard. He plays the game right."
[If he didn't recall the situation, did he really need to add that it never crossed his mind?]
Oakland's best base-stealing threat, Rajai Davis, said, "Yeah, I remember it," adding he was taught not to run at such a time. Davis wasn't knocking Crawford, who's respected around the game, as much as suggesting it might have been appropriate to shut down the running game.
[Of all of the things that Davis said, why only put "Yeah, I remember it" in quotes? The rest of the alleged statements were kind of the important part, no?]
Two different interpretations of the rule. What did you expect? It's unwritten.
[Thereby by precluding it from...... being a rule, right?
Not a believer here-- this isn't a YMCA league. These guys are paid professionals. Do other professional industries ease on the breaks if they are crushing their competitors? Suck it up, folks.]
Glancing at Crawford's 19 steals (in 19 attempts), we noticed one in Oakland on April 24. It stands out. Fifth inning. Rays leading 7-0.
[8-0 > 7-0.]
We looked everywhere for that unwritten rule stating baserunners ought not rub it in by stealing in a lopsided game. Couldn't find it. Then we remembered: It's not written anywhere.
[Because it's stupid?]
So we sought the opinion of a couple of A's. Kurt Suzuki, the catcher that night, said he didn't recall the situation and added it "never crossed my mind (that Crawford would disregard etiquette). He plays the game hard. He plays the game right."
[If he didn't recall the situation, did he really need to add that it never crossed his mind?]
Oakland's best base-stealing threat, Rajai Davis, said, "Yeah, I remember it," adding he was taught not to run at such a time. Davis wasn't knocking Crawford, who's respected around the game, as much as suggesting it might have been appropriate to shut down the running game.
[Of all of the things that Davis said, why only put "Yeah, I remember it" in quotes? The rest of the alleged statements were kind of the important part, no?]
Two different interpretations of the rule. What did you expect? It's unwritten.
[Thereby by precluding it from...... being a rule, right?
Not a believer here-- this isn't a YMCA league. These guys are paid professionals. Do other professional industries ease on the breaks if they are crushing their competitors? Suck it up, folks.]
Monday, May 4, 2009
Lessons in scouting
From Peter King today in his SI.com column....
If you're a football scout or GM, how could you watch the Texas-Texas Tech game last fall and not think Harrell belongs in the NFL? He doesn't have the arm of Matthew Stafford, obviously, but neither did Joe Montana, and neither does Drew Brees.
[I sense something amazing forthcoming...]
My humble advice (and I mean that; I don't study college tape at all) to those who make their living grading college football players: Watch the games.
[Boom.
I am going to try to unscramble this:
- King blasts scouts for missing the boat on a player that he thinks is good.
- King admits that he does not "study college tape at all."
- King suggests that scouts should watch COLLEGE GAMES to determine which players are good.
QED.]
If you're a football scout or GM, how could you watch the Texas-Texas Tech game last fall and not think Harrell belongs in the NFL? He doesn't have the arm of Matthew Stafford, obviously, but neither did Joe Montana, and neither does Drew Brees.
[I sense something amazing forthcoming...]
My humble advice (and I mean that; I don't study college tape at all) to those who make their living grading college football players: Watch the games.
[Boom.
I am going to try to unscramble this:
- King blasts scouts for missing the boat on a player that he thinks is good.
- King admits that he does not "study college tape at all."
- King suggests that scouts should watch COLLEGE GAMES to determine which players are good.
QED.]
Friday, May 1, 2009
They wear gloves for a reason
SI.com's Tim Marchman discovers that good defense --> run prevention --> good times.
A near iron law of baseball holds that if you can't quite tell why a team is good, it's probably good at defense.
[Just an atrocious sentence.]
On Tuesday, I had a chance to test this theory against 17 innings of observation when the first-place Seattle Mariners played a straight doubleheader over a cold afternoon and evening in Chicago.
[Iron Law = A Theory?]
It isn't just skill at work here. Like other teams, the Mariners put real thought into positioning.
[Not *every* team though. (See, Mets-- cross-ref Murphy, Daniel)]
"There's obviously three ways of looking at defending a batter," explains manager Don Wakamatsu. "Number one is you look at their sprays versus a left-hander or a right-hander pitching. Number two is you look at what hitters do off your pitcher individually. Number three is the individual matchups.
[Am I just not reading that last part correctly? #2 = #3, right?]
If the Mariners know that no one ever pulls Erik Bedard's curveball, for instance, they can pull the left fielder all the way toward center field at certain times.
[Wouldn't that tip-off the batter as to what pitch is coming?]
Last year, going by Ultimate Zone Rating, a sophisticated defensive statistic based on play-by-play data, the pennant winners were streets ahead of any other team in the field, saving more than 30 runs on defense above what the third-best team did.
[Cool-- I didn't want to know how UZR was calculated anyway. Knowing that it is "sophisticated" is good enough for me.]
"The bottom line is efficiency," he says, "This game is about pitch economy. The team that throws less pitches generally wins." It's an obvious point, but one apparently overlooked by teams such as New York's two clubs, who have struggled in part because of lousy pitching that hasn't been helped by lousy defense.
[2005 Mets: 83-79; 2006 Mets: 97-65; 2007 Mets: 88-74; 2008 Mets: 89-73.
2005 Yankees: 95-67; 2006 Yankees: 97-65; 2007 Yankees: 94-68; 2008 Yankees: 89-73.
2005 Mariners: 69-93; 2006 Mariners: 78-84; 2007 Mariners: 88-74; 2008 Mariners: 61-101.
Yup. This article is going great so far.]
Either way, the wins count the same. The Mariners are on pace to improve on last year's UZR total by about 80 runs....
[OK, got it. Good UZR numbers = Good Defense.]
Granting that it's early and that UZR, like any statistic, has its quirks -- right now it rates spectacularly inept Mets left fielder Daniel Murphy among the better defenders in the game...
[njhfdsahnifdsyuinjkldfajknl]
...this would seem to suggest the Seattle Mariners is for real.
[This article are FAIL.]
A near iron law of baseball holds that if you can't quite tell why a team is good, it's probably good at defense.
[Just an atrocious sentence.]
On Tuesday, I had a chance to test this theory against 17 innings of observation when the first-place Seattle Mariners played a straight doubleheader over a cold afternoon and evening in Chicago.
[Iron Law = A Theory?]
It isn't just skill at work here. Like other teams, the Mariners put real thought into positioning.
[Not *every* team though. (See, Mets-- cross-ref Murphy, Daniel)]
"There's obviously three ways of looking at defending a batter," explains manager Don Wakamatsu. "Number one is you look at their sprays versus a left-hander or a right-hander pitching. Number two is you look at what hitters do off your pitcher individually. Number three is the individual matchups.
[Am I just not reading that last part correctly? #2 = #3, right?]
If the Mariners know that no one ever pulls Erik Bedard's curveball, for instance, they can pull the left fielder all the way toward center field at certain times.
[Wouldn't that tip-off the batter as to what pitch is coming?]
Last year, going by Ultimate Zone Rating, a sophisticated defensive statistic based on play-by-play data, the pennant winners were streets ahead of any other team in the field, saving more than 30 runs on defense above what the third-best team did.
[Cool-- I didn't want to know how UZR was calculated anyway. Knowing that it is "sophisticated" is good enough for me.]
"The bottom line is efficiency," he says, "This game is about pitch economy. The team that throws less pitches generally wins." It's an obvious point, but one apparently overlooked by teams such as New York's two clubs, who have struggled in part because of lousy pitching that hasn't been helped by lousy defense.
[2005 Mets: 83-79; 2006 Mets: 97-65; 2007 Mets: 88-74; 2008 Mets: 89-73.
2005 Yankees: 95-67; 2006 Yankees: 97-65; 2007 Yankees: 94-68; 2008 Yankees: 89-73.
2005 Mariners: 69-93; 2006 Mariners: 78-84; 2007 Mariners: 88-74; 2008 Mariners: 61-101.
Yup. This article is going great so far.]
Either way, the wins count the same. The Mariners are on pace to improve on last year's UZR total by about 80 runs....
[OK, got it. Good UZR numbers = Good Defense.]
Granting that it's early and that UZR, like any statistic, has its quirks -- right now it rates spectacularly inept Mets left fielder Daniel Murphy among the better defenders in the game...
[njhfdsahnifdsyuinjkldfajknl]
...this would seem to suggest the Seattle Mariners is for real.
[This article are FAIL.]
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The NBA Playoffs: Dreadful, but humorously so
With the exception of the Bulls-Celtics series, the rest of the '09 NBA Playoffs have been completely unwatchable (and even the Bulls-Celtics is a tough sell with the TV networks highlighting every Garnett F-bomb). The Hornets lost to Denver 121-63 a few days ago. Brutal. Just go ahead and call me when LeBron and Kobe meet in the finals. Until then, here is an amusing Playoff entry from SI's Scott Howard-Cooper.
It's foolish to put too much stock in one quote after one game, especially a game with the emotions of a season-ending defeat, but just try disregarding the Jerry Sloan assessment of Utah reserve point guard Ronnie Price in the televised news conference Monday.
[But that would be foolish!]
"I've never seen a guy play that hard in my life in that situation," the Jazz coach said.
[OK.]
It's Sloan, the most anti-hyperbole guy in the NBA and possibly the world, so: Wow.
[The most anti-hyperbole guy in THE WORLD.
Anti-hyperbole.
The World.
Wow is right.]
It's foolish to put too much stock in one quote after one game, especially a game with the emotions of a season-ending defeat, but just try disregarding the Jerry Sloan assessment of Utah reserve point guard Ronnie Price in the televised news conference Monday.
[But that would be foolish!]
"I've never seen a guy play that hard in my life in that situation," the Jazz coach said.
[OK.]
It's Sloan, the most anti-hyperbole guy in the NBA and possibly the world, so: Wow.
[The most anti-hyperbole guy in THE WORLD.
Anti-hyperbole.
The World.
Wow is right.]
Friday, April 24, 2009
Hey, High-Schoolers-- go chase millions. Unless it is via basketball.
Hard not to see this kind of fist-shaking coming on the heels of high school hoops star Jeremy Tyler opting to take his senior year of high school overseas to play pro ball in Europe. Eric Crawford of the Courier-Journal is all over the problem.
The last time a kid said he was going to skip his senior year of high school and go pro, the year was 1999, his name was Brandon Bender, and everybody laughed.
[So I guess for the purposes of this "big picture/problem with society" piece that we are just going to ignore golf/tennis/baseball/auto-racing/music/acting/etc.? OK, cool.]
I can't knock the 6-foot-11 U of L prospect and his family for deciding to negotiate a six-figure professional basketball deal in Europe, probably Spain, in favor of his senior year of high school.
[Why do I feel like he is about to knock him anyways?]
Something tells me that Tyler isn't availing himself of much in the way of "off-the-court stuff" in high school, either. Might as well finish his graduation requirements online, as he plans to do. Let's hope one of those lessons teaches him to find Spain on a map.
[Bingo. Classy.]
On the flip-side, a rare kudos to SI.com for Andy Staple's piece on the same issue. Hint: Staples takes a slightly different view than Crawford.
The last time a kid said he was going to skip his senior year of high school and go pro, the year was 1999, his name was Brandon Bender, and everybody laughed.
[So I guess for the purposes of this "big picture/problem with society" piece that we are just going to ignore golf/tennis/baseball/auto-racing/music/acting/etc.? OK, cool.]
I can't knock the 6-foot-11 U of L prospect and his family for deciding to negotiate a six-figure professional basketball deal in Europe, probably Spain, in favor of his senior year of high school.
[Why do I feel like he is about to knock him anyways?]
Something tells me that Tyler isn't availing himself of much in the way of "off-the-court stuff" in high school, either. Might as well finish his graduation requirements online, as he plans to do. Let's hope one of those lessons teaches him to find Spain on a map.
[Bingo. Classy.]
On the flip-side, a rare kudos to SI.com for Andy Staple's piece on the same issue. Hint: Staples takes a slightly different view than Crawford.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
NFL Draft Columns: Where Logic Goes to Die
A couple of points in Peter King's most recent column (though, he is hardly the only one making them) about the upcoming NFL Draft that I cannot quite wrap my mind around.
Curry's less of a gamble than Stafford because quarterbacks fail at a higher percentage high in the draft than do linebackers.
[Perhaps I am missing something, but this simply makes *no* sense. Picking Curry is less risky than picking Stafford because previous players that *aren't* Stafford have failed?? Really? Not sure what that has to do with Stafford. Using past performance of SEPARATE individual players to predict future performance of a particular present-day player seems...... stupid, right? I mean, this is an obvious point, no??]
New England will surely hit it rich on one of their first-day picks. Check out some of the names taken in the last two decades with that 34th pick, for instance: Carnell Lake, Amani Toomer, Jamie Sharper, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Chris Snee, D'Qwell Jackson.
[Kind of the same idea here, right? Predicting that a team will get a great player at a certain pick because six times in the last 20 years the team with that same pick ended up with a decent player? Solid. Cherry-pick = Fail.]
Curry's less of a gamble than Stafford because quarterbacks fail at a higher percentage high in the draft than do linebackers.
[Perhaps I am missing something, but this simply makes *no* sense. Picking Curry is less risky than picking Stafford because previous players that *aren't* Stafford have failed?? Really? Not sure what that has to do with Stafford. Using past performance of SEPARATE individual players to predict future performance of a particular present-day player seems...... stupid, right? I mean, this is an obvious point, no??]
New England will surely hit it rich on one of their first-day picks. Check out some of the names taken in the last two decades with that 34th pick, for instance: Carnell Lake, Amani Toomer, Jamie Sharper, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Chris Snee, D'Qwell Jackson.
[Kind of the same idea here, right? Predicting that a team will get a great player at a certain pick because six times in the last 20 years the team with that same pick ended up with a decent player? Solid. Cherry-pick = Fail.]
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Citi Field: Why aren't you causing the Mets to win every game?
Bob Klapisch plays the role of Buzz Killington in his breakdown of last night's Citi Field debut.
Everything was bigger, louder, brighter — a consumer’s dream, at least for those who equate a good time at the ballpark with the perks.
[True. I'd prefer the Mets play their games on one of the LGA runways. No grass. No dirt. No seats. Just asphalt, jet fuel fumes and baseball. Good time.]
But it’ll take more than the peripherals to make believers out of this long-suffering community.
[Believers of what? It's a BUILDING.]
The only way to eradicate the collapses of ’07 and ’08 is to win a pennant in ’09, which is to say, give it a month and Citi won’t feel so new anymore.
[Really? Those two things are related? Dude, it's a new stadium, not one of those Men In Black memory-erasing gadgets. Which is to say, fail.]
Is Mike Pelfrey injured?
[Why? Was he holding his arm or complaining of soreness?]
He allowed five runs in five innings, and with an 8.10 ERA has management worried.
[Oh, right, he's had a bad *week*. Obviously injured. In a related story, Chien-Ming Wang is in a coma.]
By June, depending on how the Mets are playing, Citi either will be greater New York’s nifty little treasure, or just another place where fans can have their hearts broken.
[Note to architects: Worry less about the actual structure, and more about the various people that may occupy it. And nice T-square. Nerds.]
If Shea Stadium’s legacy belonged to Tom Seaver and Mike Piazza and Darryl Strawberry and Keith Hernandez, Citi will be Wright’s domain now and forever. Only 25, he’ll soon enter his prime years in this ballpark, and with left field a manageable 364 feet in left, the third baseman easily could evolve into a 40-homer threat.
[In contrast to right field, which is 330 feet IN RIGHT.]
Learning that the ball doesn’t carry straightaway is just one of the many secrets of Citi.
[Soooo, they should..... swing harder?]
The Mets have the potential to rock the house in 2009, but not because Citi is a nice upgrade over Shea.
[Just enjoy the new digs, Klapisch. This isn't that hard.]
Everything was bigger, louder, brighter — a consumer’s dream, at least for those who equate a good time at the ballpark with the perks.
[True. I'd prefer the Mets play their games on one of the LGA runways. No grass. No dirt. No seats. Just asphalt, jet fuel fumes and baseball. Good time.]
But it’ll take more than the peripherals to make believers out of this long-suffering community.
[Believers of what? It's a BUILDING.]
The only way to eradicate the collapses of ’07 and ’08 is to win a pennant in ’09, which is to say, give it a month and Citi won’t feel so new anymore.
[Really? Those two things are related? Dude, it's a new stadium, not one of those Men In Black memory-erasing gadgets. Which is to say, fail.]
Is Mike Pelfrey injured?
[Why? Was he holding his arm or complaining of soreness?]
He allowed five runs in five innings, and with an 8.10 ERA has management worried.
[Oh, right, he's had a bad *week*. Obviously injured. In a related story, Chien-Ming Wang is in a coma.]
By June, depending on how the Mets are playing, Citi either will be greater New York’s nifty little treasure, or just another place where fans can have their hearts broken.
[Note to architects: Worry less about the actual structure, and more about the various people that may occupy it. And nice T-square. Nerds.]
If Shea Stadium’s legacy belonged to Tom Seaver and Mike Piazza and Darryl Strawberry and Keith Hernandez, Citi will be Wright’s domain now and forever. Only 25, he’ll soon enter his prime years in this ballpark, and with left field a manageable 364 feet in left, the third baseman easily could evolve into a 40-homer threat.
[In contrast to right field, which is 330 feet IN RIGHT.]
Learning that the ball doesn’t carry straightaway is just one of the many secrets of Citi.
[Soooo, they should..... swing harder?]
The Mets have the potential to rock the house in 2009, but not because Citi is a nice upgrade over Shea.
[Just enjoy the new digs, Klapisch. This isn't that hard.]
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Tiger, We Hardly Know Ye
Here's a truly bizarre piece by Edwin Pope of the Miami Herald about Tiger, and how the fact that we don't know anything really damaging about him makes him a jerk.
He is the greatest athlete the world has never known. And never will.
[Tiger Woods = Keyser Söze]
I wrote about 10 years ago that the only thing wrong with Tiger's future dominance was that we would never know him. At the time, I thought that sad.
[The only thing wrong with his FUTURE dominance?? That must have been a breakthrough column. "Tiger Woods: Young Phenom Destined for Greatness-- But also Sadness."]
Tiger has plenty to say, including how it must feel to be a future billionaire. But I sat through a 40-minute news conference with him here and he never said one word about himself that was worth printing.
[So...... I'm just going to write an entire article about how he didn't say anything worth printing.]
And he was too bland, as he almost always is, for it to be accidental. Only obsessive self-control seems to keep everything about him inside.
[I guess I should be happy that he said "seems."]
He talked about his wife, Elin, and their two children, who, he said, could save the worst golf day any human ever endured. Nothing about Tiger. Nothing that would give away the slightest hint of what he is all about.
[Frustrating, right? I mean, who talks about their family?? What an irrelevant topic! Tell me about things that are, you know, *important* to you.]
I have one rag-tag theory why he is like this, but it cannot be any more than a guess.
[But what the hell! Let's print it.
Professional.
Journalism.]
A friend of mine, one of golf's most prominent writers ever, has known every top golfer of the past 50 years, but he doesn't know Tiger.
[Here's a rag-tag theory of my own: Using the word "prominent" a little loosely, are we? Just a thought?]
On a different level, some expect Woods to at least occasionally refer to President Barack Obama, if for no other reason than Obama is the first black president.
[Apparently all minorities must make at least one audible reference to Obama per day? Can anyone confirm this?]
On the Obama matter, though, Tiger has been pointedly apolitical. He spoke at a Navy Glee Club affair at the Lincoln Memorial in connection with Obama's inauguration. Otherwise, no politics.
[The nerve! Who does Tiger think he is-- not forcing his personal views on all of us!?!]
Part of this is easy to understand. With a virtually limitless fortune to manage alongside his still-blazing golf ambition, he has no time to spare.
[While Pope, on the other hand, apparently has tons to spare!
What, exactly, does Pope actually want to *know* about Tiger? His favorite ice cream flavor? His Tivo recordings? His favorite Beatle?
Pointless.]
He is the greatest athlete the world has never known. And never will.
[Tiger Woods = Keyser Söze]
I wrote about 10 years ago that the only thing wrong with Tiger's future dominance was that we would never know him. At the time, I thought that sad.
[The only thing wrong with his FUTURE dominance?? That must have been a breakthrough column. "Tiger Woods: Young Phenom Destined for Greatness-- But also Sadness."]
Tiger has plenty to say, including how it must feel to be a future billionaire. But I sat through a 40-minute news conference with him here and he never said one word about himself that was worth printing.
[So...... I'm just going to write an entire article about how he didn't say anything worth printing.]
And he was too bland, as he almost always is, for it to be accidental. Only obsessive self-control seems to keep everything about him inside.
[I guess I should be happy that he said "seems."]
He talked about his wife, Elin, and their two children, who, he said, could save the worst golf day any human ever endured. Nothing about Tiger. Nothing that would give away the slightest hint of what he is all about.
[Frustrating, right? I mean, who talks about their family?? What an irrelevant topic! Tell me about things that are, you know, *important* to you.]
I have one rag-tag theory why he is like this, but it cannot be any more than a guess.
[But what the hell! Let's print it.
Professional.
Journalism.]
A friend of mine, one of golf's most prominent writers ever, has known every top golfer of the past 50 years, but he doesn't know Tiger.
[Here's a rag-tag theory of my own: Using the word "prominent" a little loosely, are we? Just a thought?]
On a different level, some expect Woods to at least occasionally refer to President Barack Obama, if for no other reason than Obama is the first black president.
[Apparently all minorities must make at least one audible reference to Obama per day? Can anyone confirm this?]
On the Obama matter, though, Tiger has been pointedly apolitical. He spoke at a Navy Glee Club affair at the Lincoln Memorial in connection with Obama's inauguration. Otherwise, no politics.
[The nerve! Who does Tiger think he is-- not forcing his personal views on all of us!?!]
Part of this is easy to understand. With a virtually limitless fortune to manage alongside his still-blazing golf ambition, he has no time to spare.
[While Pope, on the other hand, apparently has tons to spare!
What, exactly, does Pope actually want to *know* about Tiger? His favorite ice cream flavor? His Tivo recordings? His favorite Beatle?
Pointless.]
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Losing breeds... winning?
Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel "explains" how Tracy McGrady's selfishness paved the way for Magic's future success.
And, to think, all these years I've been erroneously blaming Me-Mac for essentially quitting during the 2003-04 season when the Magic lost 19 consecutive games at one joyless juncture and finished the season with an NBA-worst 21-61 record.
[What does "essentially" quitting mean? Who cares-- attacking a guy's character here with vagaries here!]
Without the Magic's disastrous difficulties of five seasons ago, they would likely still be in a state of utter disrepair.
[hgjhmujkmjghu7yikknm3asctnh5hnq
Let me try to wrap my mind around this one: If the Magic weren't terrible five years ago, then they would probably STILL be terrible now..... even though (under this logical gem) they *weren't* terrible five years ago?]
Let's be honest, shall we? Without Dwight on the team, the Magic would today be the Bobcats, who took Emeka Okafor with the No. 2 pick in that 2004 draft. Actually, they might be worse than the Bobcats.
[Great point. If not for event X occuring, team A *might* be different.]
If McGrady had been a real leader who refused to give up in 2004 instead of the team captain who abandoned ship and sat out the final 10 games of that season with one of his mysterious ailments, the Magic might be the Grizzlies right now.
[Did I already mention that Bianchi thinks that McGrady is a total pansy? I mean, who gets injured or sick anyways?? Sounds bogus to me too....]
The San Antonio Spurs, coincidentally, were 21-61 the year before Tim Duncan arrived and have won four championships in the years since. Could the Magic conceivably be on a similar path? What better person to ask than....
[...Tim Duncan? The Spurs GM?]
...Magic reserve point guard Tyronn Lue, who was shipped to Houston along with McGrady after the calamitous 2004 season but now is back in Orlando.
[Or him. Done!]
And, to think, all these years I've been erroneously blaming Me-Mac for essentially quitting during the 2003-04 season when the Magic lost 19 consecutive games at one joyless juncture and finished the season with an NBA-worst 21-61 record.
[What does "essentially" quitting mean? Who cares-- attacking a guy's character here with vagaries here!]
Without the Magic's disastrous difficulties of five seasons ago, they would likely still be in a state of utter disrepair.
[hgjhmujkmjghu7yikknm3asctnh5hnq
Let me try to wrap my mind around this one: If the Magic weren't terrible five years ago, then they would probably STILL be terrible now..... even though (under this logical gem) they *weren't* terrible five years ago?]
Let's be honest, shall we? Without Dwight on the team, the Magic would today be the Bobcats, who took Emeka Okafor with the No. 2 pick in that 2004 draft. Actually, they might be worse than the Bobcats.
[Great point. If not for event X occuring, team A *might* be different.]
If McGrady had been a real leader who refused to give up in 2004 instead of the team captain who abandoned ship and sat out the final 10 games of that season with one of his mysterious ailments, the Magic might be the Grizzlies right now.
[Did I already mention that Bianchi thinks that McGrady is a total pansy? I mean, who gets injured or sick anyways?? Sounds bogus to me too....]
The San Antonio Spurs, coincidentally, were 21-61 the year before Tim Duncan arrived and have won four championships in the years since. Could the Magic conceivably be on a similar path? What better person to ask than....
[...Tim Duncan? The Spurs GM?]
...Magic reserve point guard Tyronn Lue, who was shipped to Houston along with McGrady after the calamitous 2004 season but now is back in Orlando.
[Or him. Done!]
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
It's Official: The Yankees' Off-Season Was a HUGE Fail
SI's Jon Heyman takes the completely appropriate perspective in dissecting the Yankees' off-season acquisitions of Sabathia and Teixiera.
The whole thing was such a letdown after the big buildup, yet manager Joe Girardi declared in the postgame press conference that he feels as good about this Yankees team as any team he's ever been associated with, big talk since Girardi was on the 1998 Yankees team that won 125 games.
[Yeah, Girardi. Idiot. You just lost a game. Totally not something that the '98 team would have done.]
Between Sabathia and Teixeira, the Yankees got zero return on their $341 million investment.
[Seriously. If Cashman knew that Sabathia and Teixeria were going to have a *single* bad game over the course of their lengthy multi-year contracts, he would have NEVER inked those deals. Spot on, Heyman. Kudos on a job....... done.]
The whole thing was such a letdown after the big buildup, yet manager Joe Girardi declared in the postgame press conference that he feels as good about this Yankees team as any team he's ever been associated with, big talk since Girardi was on the 1998 Yankees team that won 125 games.
[Yeah, Girardi. Idiot. You just lost a game. Totally not something that the '98 team would have done.]
Between Sabathia and Teixeira, the Yankees got zero return on their $341 million investment.
[Seriously. If Cashman knew that Sabathia and Teixeria were going to have a *single* bad game over the course of their lengthy multi-year contracts, he would have NEVER inked those deals. Spot on, Heyman. Kudos on a job....... done.]
Friday, April 3, 2009
Baseball Trivia Wears a Bow-Tie!
Nils (if he is still alive-- questionable at this point) and I are naturally excited for baseball season to finally start, and in that spirit I am passing along (courtesy of The Guy Who Knows Things) a link to George Will's most recent Newsweek piece that includes 50 baseball trivia questions that are actually pretty fun to skim through.
And I also share TGWKT's hope that Will, this Sunday morning on ABC, "responds to a question about the banking crisis by talking about Placido Polanco's musical sounding name."
And I also share TGWKT's hope that Will, this Sunday morning on ABC, "responds to a question about the banking crisis by talking about Placido Polanco's musical sounding name."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
LeBron and Arbitrary Statistical Benchmarks
Big fan of Michael Wilbon here, but his piece on LeBron's chances at averaging a triple-double was fail-tastic.
We see all-court brilliance like this every 25 years or so, when a player is extraordinary in basketball's primary skills: scoring, rebounding and passing. Only Oscar Robertson, in 1962, has averaged double digits in those three categories over an entire season.
[OK.]
It has been such an unreachable mark, like hitting .400 for an entire season or scoring 100 points in a single game, that it's now presumed to be unthinkable that a player would average a triple-double over a full NBA season.
[Except that every other NBA columnist is writing "LeBron! Triple-Double!" articles now. Makes it seem at least kind of thinkable, right? Oh, and also, what makes an impossibility (which none of the noted achievements are, by the way) an unreachable mark versus *such* an unreachable mark? Infinity plus one!]
Robertson, who isn't one to throw a lot of phony praise at today's players, said of James: "I am definitely impressed with LeBron. . . . [He's] so gifted in his abilities. He doesn't even know, yet, all of what he can do."
[For example, last week it was reported that LeBron realized that he was fluent in Mandarin. Neat.]
There are those who think LeBron could, if he decided it was a priority.
[Great point. Accumulating as many points, rebounds and assists as possible would be a stupid top priority, especially when LeBron has that cool baby powder entrance to focus on each game. I'm sure that LeBron actively decides to limit the number of points, rebounds and assists he gets each game. It just makes sense. Think about it.]
Even if LeBron wanted to go after the season-long triple-double it might be out of his reach because what Robertson did is the pre-steroid statistical equivalent of hitting .350, with 55 home runs and 160 runs batted in.
[???? This is turning into some kind of sportswriting Madlibs. Oooh! I want to try one:
...what Robertson did is the (arbitrary sports era) pre-forward pass statistical equivalent of (your favorite number) 20 points in a single game.
Fun.]
He knows it's going to be difficult, but Robertson repeated that he believes LeBron has a chance.
[What is he supposed to say? "You know, Mike, actually..., not a huge LeBron fan here. Seems a little flash-in-the-pan-y for me. I bet he levels off big time."]
That such a discussion even exists and that one of the five best all-around players in history has an open mind about LeBron doing it is one of the best arguments for him being MVP this season....
[This statement makes the BBWAA seem like Dr. Gregory House. Let me see if I got it. One of the "best" arguments for LeBron being named the 2008-09 MVP is that *one* retired player mentioned to a reporter that LeBron has a "chance" at having an historic statistical season... at some point in the future?
Sold. Start etching that plaque now!]
We see all-court brilliance like this every 25 years or so, when a player is extraordinary in basketball's primary skills: scoring, rebounding and passing. Only Oscar Robertson, in 1962, has averaged double digits in those three categories over an entire season.
[OK.]
It has been such an unreachable mark, like hitting .400 for an entire season or scoring 100 points in a single game, that it's now presumed to be unthinkable that a player would average a triple-double over a full NBA season.
[Except that every other NBA columnist is writing "LeBron! Triple-Double!" articles now. Makes it seem at least kind of thinkable, right? Oh, and also, what makes an impossibility (which none of the noted achievements are, by the way) an unreachable mark versus *such* an unreachable mark? Infinity plus one!]
Robertson, who isn't one to throw a lot of phony praise at today's players, said of James: "I am definitely impressed with LeBron. . . . [He's] so gifted in his abilities. He doesn't even know, yet, all of what he can do."
[For example, last week it was reported that LeBron realized that he was fluent in Mandarin. Neat.]
There are those who think LeBron could, if he decided it was a priority.
[Great point. Accumulating as many points, rebounds and assists as possible would be a stupid top priority, especially when LeBron has that cool baby powder entrance to focus on each game. I'm sure that LeBron actively decides to limit the number of points, rebounds and assists he gets each game. It just makes sense. Think about it.]
Even if LeBron wanted to go after the season-long triple-double it might be out of his reach because what Robertson did is the pre-steroid statistical equivalent of hitting .350, with 55 home runs and 160 runs batted in.
[???? This is turning into some kind of sportswriting Madlibs. Oooh! I want to try one:
...what Robertson did is the (arbitrary sports era) pre-forward pass statistical equivalent of (your favorite number) 20 points in a single game.
Fun.]
He knows it's going to be difficult, but Robertson repeated that he believes LeBron has a chance.
[What is he supposed to say? "You know, Mike, actually..., not a huge LeBron fan here. Seems a little flash-in-the-pan-y for me. I bet he levels off big time."]
That such a discussion even exists and that one of the five best all-around players in history has an open mind about LeBron doing it is one of the best arguments for him being MVP this season....
[This statement makes the BBWAA seem like Dr. Gregory House. Let me see if I got it. One of the "best" arguments for LeBron being named the 2008-09 MVP is that *one* retired player mentioned to a reporter that LeBron has a "chance" at having an historic statistical season... at some point in the future?
Sold. Start etching that plaque now!]
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
"Optimism" for the Royals
Buster Olney blogs today about Mark Teahan's transition to 2B as one piece of the "widespread optimism" in Kansas City this spring.
Teahen feels the optimism that has been pervasive in the Royals' camp. He sees the improvement in Alex Gordon and in Kyle Davies. He sees the same potential in the team that rival scouts have noted. "This is the first year I'm leaving camp thinking that we should be in contention," Teahen said.
[Hmmm. Seems pretty glass-half-full, but I haven't really looked into the '09 Royals to any meaningful extent yet. So maybe the "pervasive" optimism about the '09 Royals is appropriate.]
It appears that Sidney Ponson has won a spot in the Royals' rotation....
[Nevermind!]
Teahen feels the optimism that has been pervasive in the Royals' camp. He sees the improvement in Alex Gordon and in Kyle Davies. He sees the same potential in the team that rival scouts have noted. "This is the first year I'm leaving camp thinking that we should be in contention," Teahen said.
[Hmmm. Seems pretty glass-half-full, but I haven't really looked into the '09 Royals to any meaningful extent yet. So maybe the "pervasive" optimism about the '09 Royals is appropriate.]
It appears that Sidney Ponson has won a spot in the Royals' rotation....
[Nevermind!]
Monday, March 30, 2009
Never? Did I say never??
Bob Ford of the Philadelphia Inquirer seems confused. I know I am.
"The Play" - and it will be known for a very long time as "The Play" among followers of Villanova basketball in particular and Philadelphia basketball in general - never works in practice, of course.
[Can't you just picture Ford forcing this "The Play" moniker into every conversation he has about that Villanova-Pitt game?
Co-worker/friend/relative/total stranger: Bob, tell me saw the finish to that Villanova game!
Bob Ford: You mean "The Play?"
Other Person: No, I mean when Scottie Reynolds went almost the length of the court weaving through defenders and hit that shot in the paint with practically no time left?
Bob Ford: Right! "The Play!"
Other Person: What the hell are you talking about? Did you see the game or not?
Bob Ford: Of course. It's called "The Play." Everybody's calling it "The Play."
Other Person: Nobody is calling it that. That's stupid. Whatever, Ford.]
It is one of the Wildcats' standard, end-of-game, little-time-left, 94-feet-away plays, and they practice it every day, with the blue team of starters being defended by the white team of reserves. Never works.
[I wonder why it NEVER works in practice....]
Either the inbounds pass goes to Scottie Reynolds and he can't make his way through the maze of defenders quickly enough, or the pass goes to Dante Cunningham but is knocked away. Or perhaps the blue team scores, but leaves too much time on the clock, and the white team comes right back down and wins the imaginary game.
[That would mean that the played WORKED though, right?? You know what? Forget it. Whatever, Ford.]
"The Play" - and it will be known for a very long time as "The Play" among followers of Villanova basketball in particular and Philadelphia basketball in general - never works in practice, of course.
[Can't you just picture Ford forcing this "The Play" moniker into every conversation he has about that Villanova-Pitt game?
Co-worker/friend/relative/total stranger: Bob, tell me saw the finish to that Villanova game!
Bob Ford: You mean "The Play?"
Other Person: No, I mean when Scottie Reynolds went almost the length of the court weaving through defenders and hit that shot in the paint with practically no time left?
Bob Ford: Right! "The Play!"
Other Person: What the hell are you talking about? Did you see the game or not?
Bob Ford: Of course. It's called "The Play." Everybody's calling it "The Play."
Other Person: Nobody is calling it that. That's stupid. Whatever, Ford.]
It is one of the Wildcats' standard, end-of-game, little-time-left, 94-feet-away plays, and they practice it every day, with the blue team of starters being defended by the white team of reserves. Never works.
[I wonder why it NEVER works in practice....]
Either the inbounds pass goes to Scottie Reynolds and he can't make his way through the maze of defenders quickly enough, or the pass goes to Dante Cunningham but is knocked away. Or perhaps the blue team scores, but leaves too much time on the clock, and the white team comes right back down and wins the imaginary game.
[That would mean that the played WORKED though, right?? You know what? Forget it. Whatever, Ford.]
Best Damn Benchmark Period.
Personally, I would be a little surprised if John Calipari left Memphis to take the Kentucky job. But, I could see how Memphis fans might be moderately nervous. Geoff Calkins of the Memphis Commercial Appeal, however, identifies the key pro-Memphis arguments that should help put all Tigers fans at ease.
He can’t get more famous than he is now. He can’t get richer. He can’t do better than the No. 1 recruiting class in the country. He can’t have any more appearances on “The Best Damn Sports Show Period.”
[Yup. Sorry, Kentucky. Unless you randomly hire Tom Arnold as your athletic director in the next few days, might as well start looking at other candidates.]
He can’t get more famous than he is now. He can’t get richer. He can’t do better than the No. 1 recruiting class in the country. He can’t have any more appearances on “The Best Damn Sports Show Period.”
[Yup. Sorry, Kentucky. Unless you randomly hire Tom Arnold as your athletic director in the next few days, might as well start looking at other candidates.]
Friday, March 27, 2009
Maybe these Tebow-rific quotes will drag Nils out from hiding...
Not a jab at David Jones at all here. I just felt compelled to share some of the quotes he got for his The USA Today piece that are...... well......
When it came time for Urban Meyer, head coach of the defending national champion Florida Gators, to offer some advice to his new quarterbacks coach on how to handle Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow, the message was pretty simple. "Coach Meyer said just don't screw him up," Scot Loeffler said.
[That would imply that Tebow has flaws or even human mortality, which is a ridiculous implication because everyone knows that he does not.]
Loeffler calls it "an honor" to be apart of the UF staff and work with Tebow.
[Hmmm, that's an OK start. But I still think that your adulation for Tebow can be a *lot* more over-the-top, to the point where it borders on creepy.]
"From day one, meeting the kid, he's had 'it.' And he'll always have 'it.' There's not one thing that surprises me about him except how he handles the off-the-field issues. He has a miraculous way of dealing with the public. He's awesome in every sense of the word."
[Boom.]
When it came time for Urban Meyer, head coach of the defending national champion Florida Gators, to offer some advice to his new quarterbacks coach on how to handle Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow, the message was pretty simple. "Coach Meyer said just don't screw him up," Scot Loeffler said.
[That would imply that Tebow has flaws or even human mortality, which is a ridiculous implication because everyone knows that he does not.]
Loeffler calls it "an honor" to be apart of the UF staff and work with Tebow.
[Hmmm, that's an OK start. But I still think that your adulation for Tebow can be a *lot* more over-the-top, to the point where it borders on creepy.]
"From day one, meeting the kid, he's had 'it.' And he'll always have 'it.' There's not one thing that surprises me about him except how he handles the off-the-field issues. He has a miraculous way of dealing with the public. He's awesome in every sense of the word."
[Boom.]
"Wanting it" > Anything Else
Last night, I found myself watching Villanova completely destroy Duke and wondering aloud "How is 'Nova doing it?" Well, thanks to Bob Ford of the Philadelphia Inquirer, my query has been answered.
It is this simple: They don't want it to end.
[Analysis over!]
From the very start, Villanova played to win, not to avoid a loss.
[Which would also leave "winning" as their only option..... right?]
From the very start, the Wildcats gave No. 2-seeded Duke far more than it wanted.
[Well, that's not surprising because we've already established that Duke wanted "it" less than Nova did, so the amount of "it" that Duke wanted was likely a manageable sum.]
If the game was a test of will, only one team passed.
[In fact, Jay Wright's $2,000 suit was actually made out of "will." Really durable fabric.]
Whatever this postseason will become, however far it will go, it isn't over yet.
[?]
It is this simple: They don't want it to end.
[Analysis over!]
From the very start, Villanova played to win, not to avoid a loss.
[Which would also leave "winning" as their only option..... right?]
From the very start, the Wildcats gave No. 2-seeded Duke far more than it wanted.
[Well, that's not surprising because we've already established that Duke wanted "it" less than Nova did, so the amount of "it" that Duke wanted was likely a manageable sum.]
If the game was a test of will, only one team passed.
[In fact, Jay Wright's $2,000 suit was actually made out of "will." Really durable fabric.]
Whatever this postseason will become, however far it will go, it isn't over yet.
[?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
