It's time for the New York media to relay what A-Rod has done wrong lately. The New York media previously gnashed their teeth that A-Rod wanted the full bonus the Yankees had promised him in his contract, and he wanted the full amount even if the Yankees gave the bonus to charity rather than A-Rod. Also, A-Rod wouldn't create controversy on demand, which frustrated Bill Madden. Now A-Rod isn't doing anything to increase the ratings at YES (because A-Rod is singlehandedly responsible for these ratings) and he didn't get voted on to the All-Star team. What a bunch of serious missteps by A-Rod.
I'll start off first with Bob Raissman, who says that A-Rod has played well on the field, but he still isn't helping the Yankees with television ratings. Because A-Rod's job is to make sure ratings increase, not perform well on the field, and it is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job to increase Yankees' television ratings.
Is there a Yankeeography on the Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network in Alex Rodriguez’s future?
Judging by pinstriped suits’ (Hal, Hankenstein, etc.) positive reaction
to A-Rod’s “Summer of Love Tour,” we would have to say (Only On) YES.
Rodriguez has done all the right things upon his return from a year-long sentence for his role in the Biogenesis caper.
The New York media is still a little bitter they can not bash A-Rod for underachieving this year, so resorting to being cutesy and sarcastic about A-Rod coming back from his year-long suspension and contributing to the team is the attitude of choice.
Since he embarked on this comeback, during which he’s posted the kind of
numbers even know-it-all Analytics Aliens could not have predicted,
The media continuously has no idea what Sabermetrics are or how these statistics are supposed to be used. Using Sabermetrics isn't like being a psychic where they are trying to predict the future as if they know it all. It's the use of statistics to make predictions based on past information and A-Rod's age. It's less know-it-all and more let's-use-data-to-try-and-predict-but-this-isn't-guaranteed-to-be-right. Sabermetricians don't claim to be psychics.
much of the media has gifted him the kind of supernatural powers performance-enhancing drugs cannot produce.
Yes, the media is making A-Rod into a better player than he truly is. Why is the media always on A-Rod's side? Sure, it's really impressive he's putting up such numbers at the age of 40 (while apparently clean) after taking an entire year off from baseball, after suffering injuries prior to his year off from baseball, but stop talking about him like he's good at the sport. The media is always overrating A-Rod's abilities.
This is a much higher power — like the ability to jack up television
ratings, which influence the rates networks can charge advertisers to
buy time.
Sure A-Rod's doing a good job of hitting the baseball, but the real test of his baseball skill is his ability to increase television ratings. This is A-Rod's job and only A-Rod's job. If YES ratings are low, it's because A-Rod can't draw a viewing crowd. These ratings are a direct reflection on A-Rod and it's not at all possible ratings would be even lower if A-Rod wasn't drawing more viewers to YES Yankees broadcasts.
Part of the debate over whether Rodriguez deserves to be a member of the
American League All-Star team Tuesday night in Cincinnati includes a
perception he can draw eyeballs to the Foxies’ party.
But this perception is wrong because the Yankees don't have great ratings. This is just like the perception Paul Goldschmidt could help a contending team who trades for him is wrong because the Diamondbacks aren't very good. The D-Backs suck and that means so does Goldschmidt.
Kay admits Rodriguez does not belong on the AL All-Stars. “Just tell me
who he replaces?” Kay asked. But on his ESPN-98.7 gabfest, Kay added: “I
think it would be great for Fox (if A-Rod was on the team). I think it
(the game) will get higher ratings with Alex there.”
Kay, and the many others who share his opinion, never quantify it. If
they did, they couldn’t back up their words.
It concerns me that Bob Raissman gets paid to write about television broadcasts and ratings when he uses the logic he is about to use in order to justify his point. The big issue here is that there is no telling what the ratings would be this year if A-Rod wasn't playing, so it's almost impossible to say the effect he has on ratings. The Yankees are also not expected to be competing for the World Series, which also affects the ratings.
Through July 7, Yankees TV
ratings on YES were averaging a 2.55 rating, down a hefty 15% from the
same point in the 2014 season, according to The Nielsen Co. And average
total viewership on YES’ Yankees cablecasts is 237,000, down 17% from
the same point in 2014.
This is concerning for me. Bob Raissman uses ratings from the 2014 season, which could easily be skewed based on it being Derek Jeter's last season as a Yankee. Ratings could have been higher for 2014 than 2013, which would mean the ratings for the Yankees this season are normal. It's concerning to me that Raissman uses a potentially outlier year to prove his point without using any other data from previous seasons to compare 2014 to. Maybe he could learn something from the Analytics Aliens.
So, if A-Rod can’t put the Yankees ahead in the ratings department on
YES, where the majority of peepers have forgot about his PED past and
mostly have forgiven him (as long as he continues being productive) for
past “sins,” there is no shot — absolutely none — that extraneous
eyeballs from sea to shining sea are going to go out of their way to
tune into Fox’s All-Star telecast to see A-Rod.
Who says A-Rod isn't helping YES ratings? Aren't there are other reasonable explanations for the decline in YES ratings? It's possible A-Rod is helping ratings, but the other factors that go into how many Yankees fans watch the games are hurting the ratings more.
Why waste time watching a guy they still despise?
This is the only obvious conclusion. Fans who will watch the All-Star game hate A-Rod because the ratings for Yankees games are down from the 2014 season.
Understand?
Yes, I understand you are making assumptions and using rating data from one year, a year that very well could be an outlier, in order to make the point you want to make. I understand you are assuming A-Rod is personally responsible for the ratings decline on YES and you are willfully ignoring all other factors that could affect ratings. I understand you get paid to do this job and I understand that makes me sad and embarrassed for you.
Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings. And
even if A-Rod were on the team, viewers would see him only during the
opening introductions and likely in a pinch-hitting role.
How Bob Raissman knows that Rodriguez would have zero impact on All-Star TV ratings is beyond me. He seems to really lack the ability to think three dimensionally about this topic.
Maybe, MAYBE, ESPN would enjoy a ratings boost from A-Rod if he were
added to the Home Run Derby. In that freak show, an oddity of A-Rod’s
proportion could be a ratings difference maker.
Maybe, MAYBE, Bob Raissman has very little evidence anything he is writing is fact-based.
That said, it’s surprising that A-Rod is not driving ratings higher on
Yankees telecasts. Think about it: The numbers were better at this point
last season WITHOUT him.
True, but the ratings could have been higher last season due to one of the greatest Yankees ever playing his last season. I'm sure the 2014 ratings had less to do with The Jeter retiring and more to do with Yankees fans watching games again now that they were rid of A-Rod.
Rodriguez brings controversy, legitimate star power and a possible
comeback of the year storyline to a team with little marquee value to
sell, unless you believe Chase Headley, Brett Gardner, Mark Teixeira or
Didi Gregorius are all major attractions.
Bob Raissman a few paragraphs ago: "The Yankees had better ratings WITHOUT A-Rod. How come the ratings for Yankees games on YES are so low and A-Rod can't pull them up? What else could explain the decreased ratings?"
Bob Raissman now: "The Yankees have no star power and the team is a tough sell. Here is a list of players who don't provide marquee value."
Think perhaps the lack of other players on the roster with marquee value affects the ratings of Yankees games? Perhaps the ratings would be even worse without A-Rod on the team, which means he would have an impact on the All-Star games' ratings.
Maybe this can be attributed to boring baseball (played by both teams in
this city) and a lack of offense. Has this caused viewers to tune out?
Absolutely not. Do not entertain this wild idea. I'm sure A-Rod has more to do with the decreased ratings from 2014 than the fact it was The Jeter's last season, as well as the perception the 2015 Yankees lack marquee value and don't seem like they would be competitive. It's A-Rod, not the boring (supposedly) team that causes viewers to tune out.
Anyway, even though he has proven not to be a ratings magnet, A-Rod sure ain’t boring.
This has provided plenty of material for use inside the Valley of the
Stupid and other media precincts. The Gasbags wonder why. Or they ask
who really is keeping A-Rod out? Is it players who can’t stand him?
Yes, it is the players who can't stand A-Rod. His not being selected is not a result of other players being more deserving, but instead is the result of the players not liking A-Rod and getting their revenge by choosing to put more deserving players on the team.
“I’m not going to make it (A-Rod not being an All-Star) like it’s the
crime of the century because it isn’t,” Mike Greenberg said on ESPN
Radio.
Just enough of a “crime” to float across many media platforms where
opinions can be delivered between commercial messages. Consider it a
gift delivered by A-Rod.
Yes, it is definitely A-Rod's fault that many media platforms are discussing his not being in the All-Star game. A-Rod specifically tells ESPN what to talk about and when to talk about it. The network will immediately do as they are told.
Just don’t ask him to deliver any ratings. He doesn’t have that kind of juice.
Maybe he doesn't, maybe he does. The ratings on YES aren't simply a by-product of A-Rod's presence on the Yankee roster. Bob Raissman admits the Yankees lack marquee stars, yet he isn't capable of connecting the dots and seeing that could be part of the reason in the ratings dip. He also doesn't compare the 2015 ratings to any other year for further perspective, outside of 2014 when The Jeter was making his farewell tour. It's Raissman's job to talk about ratings and the media, yet he fails at this job.
Now John Harper thinks the fact A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team shows that the people really hate A-Rod. Because, you know, it's so embarrassing to hate A-Rod that people who don't like him have to do it in private and through passive-aggressiveness acts rather than just admit how they feel about him. No one has the guts to hate A-Rod publicly, so the fact he didn't make the All-Star team proves what John Harper chooses to believe. Weird how that works. Harper has a belief and tries hard to fit reality into that belief.
Nope, for all of the stature A-Rod has regained in baseball this season
with his bat and his contrite demeanor, his peers wouldn't let him slip
past the velvet rope to mingle with the best of the best, as he once did
every summer.
It's the result of a vendetta against A-Rod, not a snub based on A-Rod's merit compared to the merit of other AL hitters.
Does that have anything to do with the many bridges A-Rod torched when
he was at war with every facet of Major League Baseball — including the Players Association — in 2013 while trying in vain to avoid a PED suspension?
It’s a fair question, though one to which there is no obvious answer.
This is a fair question. It is also a question that makes more assumptions than is required when the easy and more obvious answer is that A-Rod's exclusion on the AL All-Star roster was based on his merit versus the merit of other AL hitters. But why would John Harper go with the easy answer when he can come up with an answer more elaborate that helps him to write a column about how this All-Star exclusion means everyone hates A-Rod?
A-Rod had the numbers to warrant a DH spot on the AL All-Star team, but
after the fans voted Nelson Cruz as the starter, the Yankee star was not
named among the reserves that are chosen by player vote and manager Ned
Yost’s preference.
Perhaps, and I know this doesn't fit the story that John Harper wants to push, the players just thought there were more deserving candidates to represent the AL in the All-Star game and A-Rod's exclusion wasn't because they don't personally like him. I know, that would be a logical conclusion, but what's the fun in logic when Harper can shoehorn his beliefs into this (lack of a) story?
Prince Fielder earned the back-up DH nod, and it’s tough to argue with
his selection, considering that he’s hitting .347 with 13 home runs, 50
RBI and a .943 OPS.
John Harper a few paragraphs ago: "Was A-Rod left off the All-Star roster because the MLB players hate him for suing the union? It's possible!"
John Harper now: "Here is a player who took A-Rod's roster spot that was more deserving than A-Rod."
I think we have our answer on why A-Rod didn't make the All-Star team.
Had Yost somehow finagled Kendrys Morales, his Royals DH, onto the team,
then you could have made the case that A-Rod got snubbed.
But you are the one making the case A-Rod was left off for reasons other than merit. You are the one suggesting it was a conspiracy among the players that ended with A-Rod not being on the All-Star roster. Now you are refuting your own theory, but only refuting it after trying to make the case that everyone hates A-Rod. It's important to put that line of thought out in the universe before refuting it.
But Fielder certainly was deserving.
So, there we go. It wasn't about whether A-Rod was hated or not by his fellow players, but about Prince Fielder being more deserving than A-Rod.
In truth, Brett Gardner is the Yankee who had a right to feel he got jobbed.
Gardner is clearly having an All-Star season, and in many ways he has
become the heart and soul of these Yankees, his hustle and
aggressiveness setting a tone at the top of the lineup for a team that
has exceeded expectations so far.
So does this exclusion mean that John Harper thinks the AL players hate Gardner like he believes A-Rod's exclusion was the result of the players passive-aggressively telling A-Rod how they feel? Of course not! That's silly. The "he got snubbed because everyone hates him" logic is only used for A-Rod.
As for A-Rod, Yost made the case on the ESPN All-Star selection show
that much discussion went into his candidacy, but ultimately the need
for position players outweighed whatever desire there was to include
him.
“We wanted to try to find a way to get Alex Rodriguez on there,” Yost said. “We couldn’t.”
How hard they tried is anybody’s guess.
PROBABLY NOT HARD AT ALL!
In fact, I bet AL pitchers threw Prince Fielder fastballs straight down the plate in order to ensure he made the All-Star team over A-Rod. How could this not be true? It's a fair assessment with no obvious answer.
A-Rod would have added some sizzle to an event that remains mostly a
spectacle, no matter how determined MLB is to cling to this silly idea
that the game should decide home-field advantage in the World Series.
It’s not likely that a pitcher would have thrown A-Rod the “pipe-shot”
that Adam Wainwright served up for Derek Jeter last year.
It's not likely. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if A-Rod had made the team, and the second he stepped in the batter's box, the NL catcher would have pulled out a switchblade and knifed him to death. It could happen. Would the NL catcher murder A-Rod in the All-Star game? It's a fair question with no obvious answer.
Nor would you think someone might pull a Ryan Dempster
and drill him on such a big stage as some sort of statement on behalf
of the union members who were included in the suit Rodriguez temporarily
brought against the Players Association — at least until he seemed to come to his senses.
It could happen since the only assumption that is being worked under right now is that everyone hates A-Rod. Sure, there's no evidence this is true, but who needs evidence when John Harper has a fancy computer and inclination to believe this conclusion?
On the surface, at least, all seems to have been forgiven this year as
A-Rod has made his return from his 2014 suspension. He has long since
won over Yankee fans with his rather stunning offensive production, to
the point that he was practically given the Jeter treatment, curtain
call and all, when he hit a home run for his 3,000th hit.
He almost got "the Jeter treatment," which apparently is what a curtain call will now be referred to as being.
And while he was never the outcast in the Yankee clubhouse he was sometimes portrayed as,
Gee, I wonder who sometimes portrayed A-Rod as the outcast in the clubhouse? I'm sure it wasn't John Harper and his fellow media members.
all indications are that he is admired now more than ever by teammates
for his work ethic, his superstar status and his singular talk of
winning as a team.
But fuck indications, let's make some shit up. Sure, A-Rod isn't an outcast like the media portrays him as being, and sure, he probably didn't make the All-Star team based on merit and not based on some long-held grudge, but where's the fun in coming to this conclusion?
Everybody loves A-Rod? Well, not enough to give him a Jeter-like
All-Star sendoff, even with a deserving resume. Perhaps forgiveness only
goes so far.
Wait, "a Jeter-like All-Star sendoff"? Is Alex Rodriguez retiring after this season? I think all indications are that A-Rod will be back next year, so why would his presence in the All-Star game this season have been a "sendoff"? It's likely that John Harper is doing what every boring, predictable New York sportswriter does, which is compare A-Rod to Derek Jeter, and therefore lazily assumes this is A-Rod's last season or chance to the make the All-Star team. Everything always comes back to Derek Jeter for sportswriters. Always.
Showing posts with label All Star game. Show all posts
Showing posts with label All Star game. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
2 comments Terence Moore Writes about How Great the MLB All-Star Game Is, Certainly Not at the Behest of His Employer
Terence Moore works for MLB.com. He has written an article about how great the All-Star Game is and how the MLB All-Star Game is still totally relevant because MLB says so. He even throws in a little bit about how great the Home Run Derby is for good measure. It's probably just coincidence that MLB.com has an article up about how great the All-Star Game is. Nothing to see here. The problem is that while Terence Moore writes about how the MLB All-Star Game is still relevant, the facts don't show that the All-Star Game has maintained the relevance Terence claims it has. So here is Terence Moore, not at all doing MLB.com's bidding by talking up the All-Star Game, telling us how the All-Star Game is relevant still, just as long as you ignore that fewer and fewer viewers are tuning into the game.
Don't give me this crap either about how there are other things to watch on television and that's why ratings are down. This is a good counter to the constant attempts to explain how baseball is dying, because baseball is really a regional sport, but the All-Star Game is not supposed to be regional. A person may not watch the Tigers and Yankees on Monday Night Baseball because they are watching something else, but the All-Star Game is supposed to be an event. I don't buy the "regionalism" excuse in this situation.
So was it LeBron James, and then the Final Vote?
Or was it the Final Vote, and then LeBron?
It was more like "Everyone talking LeBron and then a few Tweets about the Final Vote mainly involving hashtags."
Full disclosure here before I begin going through Terence Moore's insistence the All-Star Game is still relevant. I am a fan of baseball and don't watch the All-Star Game. I haven't watched it in nearly a decade and I will not, ever, ever, watch any more than a few minutes of the Home Run Derby. I've tried it before. It's by far among the most boring and overrated events involved with any sport ever. It needs to improved in so many ways (not the least of which to get the human penguin Chris Berman off the program, preferably locked in a closet with a grenade in his mouth) that I can't watch the event as it is currently shown. I don't know what kind of half-assed event allows the competitor to choose the person pitching to him and then allows an infinite number of pitches that batter can take. If you choose your pitcher, then you can't sit there for half an hour waiting on the perfect pitch. That's my stance. So I am biased in that I am a fan of baseball who is tired of the pomp and circumstance of the Home Run Derby and doesn't really care about the All-Star Game all that much. It's an exhibition game no matter how much baseball doesn't want it to be.
I don't watch any All-Star games in any sport. I think baseball's All-Star Game is the best of the major sports, but All-Star Game is a relic of a time when fans couldn't watch every single MLB player any time they wanted. You could see Babe Ruth hit! Now you can see a guy for the Yankees hit by getting the MLB Extra Innings package or tuning into any Monday/Wednesday/Sunday Night Baseball game on ESPN where the Yankees appear 25 times per year. If that doesn't work for you, just pay attention to the multitude of highlights available showing that player hitting. All-Star games were once for the fans to see players they normally couldn't see play. That day has passed.
The Major League Baseball All-Star Game still matters, and it does so big time. We know this, because the Final Vote spent the last few days sprinting around the bases toward scoring the winning run among Twitter followers.
I think this may be more of a result of fans of certain players wanting that player to have the honor of participating in the All-Star Game, rather than proof the All-Star Game matters big time. More users of Twitter are younger, while those who watch the All-Star Game average to be in their 50's. These circles overlap certainly, but the Final Vote was more of a way for fans to get their favorite player in the game more than proof the All-Star game matters more than ever. So it seems there are quite a few people who voted for the final spot on the NL/AL team who probably won't end up watching the game.
Trending? Twitter? Cyberspace? There goes another myth that baseball doesn't keep up with the times.
Young people like baseball. Baseball doesn't always keep up with the times, but it certainly is a myth that there aren't fans of baseball who are younger. No doubt.
There is Interleague Play throughout the season. There is expanded replay. There even are lights in Wrigley Field. Mostly, there isn't a reason for folks to insist the game is operating in the dark ages, not unless they choose to ignore the several million people who spent much of this week typing things into their electronic devices such as #PickRick, #VoteJUP and #TargetSale.
I'll remember this statement the next time Terence Moore claims innovations and changes in baseball are ruining the sport. The sport is in great shape and there's no way the game is operating in the dark ages, much of this to the chagrin and against the will of the so-called "Traditionalists" like Terence Moore. The game of baseball is changing and innovating despite writers like Terence Moore who dig in their heels and refuse to budge when confronted with ideas they don't like.
Those hashtag items on Twitter represented Final Vote candidates. There was a group of five players from each the National and American Leagues, and much of the universe (at least the part that was tweeting, re-tweeting or sort of thinking about it) watched those several million folks push aside thoughts of LeBron's latest decision to study, then discuss and then pick the player they wanted for the last roster spot of that player's respective league at Tuesday night's All-Star Game in Minneapolis.
I didn't see a lot of discussion about these players and why one player deserved to be on the All-Star team over another player on Twitter. Mostly there were a lot of hashtags and statements simply made about who the respective Tweeter supports for the Final Vote. There was much more discussion (that I saw at least) on LeBron and his free agency decision.
I feel like Terence Moore is translating interest in a player from a certain team making the All-Star team to also mean those people Tweeting support of that player were very interested in the All-Star game as a whole. It may be true, but the last time I checked MLB didn't even release the final Final Vote counts. Perhaps I missed it. It seems the Final Vote is just a way to get more players from a fan's favorite team into the All-Star Game.
Contrary to the whispers that have become shouts over the decades among baseball bashers, the All-Star Game still matters, all right.
The All-Star Game matters only because MLB has tied the winner of the All-Star Game to the league that gets homefield advantage in the World Series. So the game matters in that it's forced to matter, rather than settle which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series by giving it to the team that has the best record on the season. That makes more sense to me. So the game matters because it's made to matter, but viewership is declining.
Two words: Derek Jeter.
(Starts screaming out of joy and eventually faints)
Officially, he is the Yankees' Captain.
Unofficially, he is the Lord Commander of All That is Right with Baseball.
Unofficially, he has been baseball's greatest ambassador inside and outside of the foul lines for most of his two decades in the Major Leagues. Come to think of it, Jeter has been more significant than that.
Definitely. He's also the Shining Example of Players Who Don't Use PED's and Would Never Dream of Benefiting from Using PED's *
*As long as you don't count the fact he's been teammates with multiple PED users and has won many games, including a few World Series, while benefiting from his teammates who have used PED's.
He is retiring after this season.
WHAT? I HAD NOT HEARD ABOUT THIS! DO ELABORATE IN NO LESS THAN 50,000 WORDS!
He already has been hugged in every city he has visited for the last time. So, since this is his last All-Star Game, more than a few folks will be clicking their remotes Tuesday night to view it all.
Oooooo....yeah, but Tuesday is "Shark Tank" night on CNBC and I also have started watching "House of Cards." So I'll just have to settle for watching Jeter play the 68 other games he will play in the regular season. See, I will be able to do that because it's not 1946 and his team is on television all the time. Welcome to the future.
Did I say baseball All-Star Games still matter?
Yeah, but it's true only in that it's forced to be true.
Think Jeter, and now think Cal Ripken Jr., whose farewell season was 2001, when he played his last All-Star Game in Seattle. There was two-fold drama for this noted iron man of the Orioles, and it began before the first pitch after AL shortstop Alex Rodriguez exchanged positions with Ripken at third base to bring Ripken back to his shortstop roots.
Well plus, A-Rod's steroids worked better when he was at third base. This is a scientifically accurate statement.
Jeter will become Ripken next week in his own way. I don't know when, and I don't know how.
Less insightful sentences will ever be written. Remember when this column was about the All-Star Game mattering and not about Derek Jeter?
Let's review this sentence briefly. Jeter will become Ripken "next week" in his own way. Terence doesn't know when, despite the fact he just said it will be "next week" when this occurs. So next week (but don't ask Terence when because he doesn't know) Derek Jeter will become a white balding man who plays third base for the Baltimore Orioles. Don't ask Terence Moore how, he knows, but he's working on a really original screenplay that will elaborate more on how Derek Jeter turns into Cal Ripken.
That's because everything around the All-Star Game still matters, along with the nearly 30-year-old Home Run Derby, which is an extension of the game itself.
The Home Run Derby is like cancer on the anus of the All-Star Game. It could easily go away and many people would feel better, especially those who have to hear Chris Berman constant bellowing "Back, back, back..." fifty million times as he randomly names cities and wonders why anyone who still has their hearing hates him.
Unlike the NBA that struggles to get stars to participate in the Slam Dunk Contest during its All-Star Game Weekend, baseball has many of its premier sluggers in the 2014 Gillette Home Run Derby. They include Giancarlo Stanton and Yasiel Puig, masters of rocket shots toward the farthest black hole, and Josh Donaldson, who joins Stanton (21) with at least 20 homers already in this Year of the Pitcher.
Except the Home Run Derby takes longer than actual game of baseball, it just has Chris Berman as the commentator and lacks any other type of exciting action. Even the most exciting part of the Home Run Derby, when a ball is hit far, is interrupted by the seal-like bellowing of Applebees' favorite shill.
The Home Run Derby needs a huge re-vamp. It's way too long. Outside of Chris Berman, the length of the Home Run Derby is outrageous. Players shouldn't be able to choose their pitcher and then stand at home plate and wait for the perfect pitch to hit. You chose the pitcher, hit what he throws you.
There is the Futures Game that showcases stars to come, the Legends and Celebrity Softball Game, a concert and the Red Carpet Show before the game.
And I know fans really love the Red Carpet Show before the Home Run Derby. Who are you wearing, David Ortiz?
But it's all about the primary game, and those who contend that it doesn't matter keep confusing baseball's All-Star Game with its historically irrelevant counterparts from the other four major professional leagues in North America.
In terms of being the best All-Star game, MLB's is the best, but this is like being the fastest kid at fat camp. The Pro Bowl is the jokiest of jokes, the NBA All-Star Game is just a bunch of scoring and I know nothing about the NHL All-Star Game so I probably should avoid commenting on it like I already have. At least baseball's All-Star Game has some semblance of similarity to a real baseball game. Still, ratings have been declining and the game only matters because MLB forces it to matter.
Quick: Name your favorite Pro Bowl.
The one where the punter got blown up by some defensive player.
Elsewhere, the All-Star Games associated with the NBA and NHL resemble the Pro Bowl in that they really aren't games. It's difficult to say what they are. Not only do they rarely feature defense, they lack true offense. The same goes for any sense of strategy, enthusiasm and charisma.
Again, it's like being the fastest kid at fat camp. Yes, MLB has the best All-Star Game, though it does lose in terms of ratings to the Pro Bowl. The audience for the MLB All-Star Game is declining and this can't be ignored when speaking about it's relevance. All the hashtags and Final Vote tallies can't cover up for the fact the All-Star Game is very popular, but not as popular as it used to be. It's an important event, but only through contrived circumstances, and the novel idea of the All-Star Game lacks relevance in 2014 when fans can see the participants in the All-Star Game play baseball almost any time they would like to.
Baseball's All-Star Game has all of that, and it began with the legendary likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx during the first one in 1933. They made the whole thing magical forever. Cal Hubbell striking out five consecutive Hall of Famers. Ted Williams skipping around the bases after a game-winning homer. Pete Rose slamming through Ray Fosse at home plate for an NL victory. Reggie Jackson's rocketing a shot off a light tower at Tiger Stadium. Dave Parker making a throw for the ages from right field.
Notice what all of those highlights have in common? I'll give you a hint, Mike Trout wasn't around to see them.
There always are moments at baseball's All-Star Games, and none surpasses that impromptu tribute to Williams before the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway Park. Half of New England gathered around the pitcher's mound for a group hug of the Red Sox legend. Actually, it was just current baseball legends doing the honor, but it seemed like more.
This was a nice moment. It was also a moment that didn't really have anything to do with the game being played on the field that night. What did have to do with the product on the field was Pedro Martinez striking out five of the first six batters he faced.
More importantly, the ratings for that game were 17.64 million people, which is a number the All-Star Game hasn't hit since that time. That was 15 years ago, by the way. I think this ties in well with the idea that MLB has the best All-Star game of the four major sports, but this doesn't mean the game matters now more than it used to. It's still an exhibition game, just an exhibition game with an outcome tied to the World Series.
Then came last year, when Yankees closer Mariano Rivera played his last All-Star Game along the way to retirement. He didn't know he was about to produce moist eyes throughout Citi Field in New York. He was sent to the pitcher's mound to start the eighth inning, but nobody else took the field.
He was a man alone ... with endless cheers.
That was a good moment too. The All-Star Game isn't irrelevant, it's just not the exciting, defining moment of the season that Terence Moore seems to be believe it is. Terence claims the game matters because of the Final Vote and because the game decides World Series homefield advantage. The fact the game decides the World Series is a way contrived to give the game meaning, so I don't really include that as giving the All-Star Game meaning. I also think those people on Twitter who wanted fans to vote for a certain player for the final spot on the team did so out of love for their team, not necessarily as a shining example of how much they think the All-Star Game matters.
Baseball's All-Star Game still matters for those reasons and that other one: The winning league gets home-field advantage in the World Series.
And yet, this doesn't really mean the game matters in the eyes of the fans. Whether the game really matters to the general public is reflected in the ratings for the game, which reflects who was interested enough to watch the game. So the All-Star Game doesn't matter because of the insistence of tying homefield advantage into who wins the All-Star Game. It matters because fans enjoy and watch the game. By that metric, the game doesn't matter as much as it used to. Baseball isn't dying because it's a regional sport and the All-Star Game isn't dying. Pretending it still holds the relevance it used to is folly though.
Don't give me this crap either about how there are other things to watch on television and that's why ratings are down. This is a good counter to the constant attempts to explain how baseball is dying, because baseball is really a regional sport, but the All-Star Game is not supposed to be regional. A person may not watch the Tigers and Yankees on Monday Night Baseball because they are watching something else, but the All-Star Game is supposed to be an event. I don't buy the "regionalism" excuse in this situation.
So was it LeBron James, and then the Final Vote?
Or was it the Final Vote, and then LeBron?
It was more like "Everyone talking LeBron and then a few Tweets about the Final Vote mainly involving hashtags."
Full disclosure here before I begin going through Terence Moore's insistence the All-Star Game is still relevant. I am a fan of baseball and don't watch the All-Star Game. I haven't watched it in nearly a decade and I will not, ever, ever, watch any more than a few minutes of the Home Run Derby. I've tried it before. It's by far among the most boring and overrated events involved with any sport ever. It needs to improved in so many ways (not the least of which to get the human penguin Chris Berman off the program, preferably locked in a closet with a grenade in his mouth) that I can't watch the event as it is currently shown. I don't know what kind of half-assed event allows the competitor to choose the person pitching to him and then allows an infinite number of pitches that batter can take. If you choose your pitcher, then you can't sit there for half an hour waiting on the perfect pitch. That's my stance. So I am biased in that I am a fan of baseball who is tired of the pomp and circumstance of the Home Run Derby and doesn't really care about the All-Star Game all that much. It's an exhibition game no matter how much baseball doesn't want it to be.
I don't watch any All-Star games in any sport. I think baseball's All-Star Game is the best of the major sports, but All-Star Game is a relic of a time when fans couldn't watch every single MLB player any time they wanted. You could see Babe Ruth hit! Now you can see a guy for the Yankees hit by getting the MLB Extra Innings package or tuning into any Monday/Wednesday/Sunday Night Baseball game on ESPN where the Yankees appear 25 times per year. If that doesn't work for you, just pay attention to the multitude of highlights available showing that player hitting. All-Star games were once for the fans to see players they normally couldn't see play. That day has passed.
The Major League Baseball All-Star Game still matters, and it does so big time. We know this, because the Final Vote spent the last few days sprinting around the bases toward scoring the winning run among Twitter followers.
I think this may be more of a result of fans of certain players wanting that player to have the honor of participating in the All-Star Game, rather than proof the All-Star Game matters big time. More users of Twitter are younger, while those who watch the All-Star Game average to be in their 50's. These circles overlap certainly, but the Final Vote was more of a way for fans to get their favorite player in the game more than proof the All-Star game matters more than ever. So it seems there are quite a few people who voted for the final spot on the NL/AL team who probably won't end up watching the game.
Trending? Twitter? Cyberspace? There goes another myth that baseball doesn't keep up with the times.
Young people like baseball. Baseball doesn't always keep up with the times, but it certainly is a myth that there aren't fans of baseball who are younger. No doubt.
There is Interleague Play throughout the season. There is expanded replay. There even are lights in Wrigley Field. Mostly, there isn't a reason for folks to insist the game is operating in the dark ages, not unless they choose to ignore the several million people who spent much of this week typing things into their electronic devices such as #PickRick, #VoteJUP and #TargetSale.
I'll remember this statement the next time Terence Moore claims innovations and changes in baseball are ruining the sport. The sport is in great shape and there's no way the game is operating in the dark ages, much of this to the chagrin and against the will of the so-called "Traditionalists" like Terence Moore. The game of baseball is changing and innovating despite writers like Terence Moore who dig in their heels and refuse to budge when confronted with ideas they don't like.
Those hashtag items on Twitter represented Final Vote candidates. There was a group of five players from each the National and American Leagues, and much of the universe (at least the part that was tweeting, re-tweeting or sort of thinking about it) watched those several million folks push aside thoughts of LeBron's latest decision to study, then discuss and then pick the player they wanted for the last roster spot of that player's respective league at Tuesday night's All-Star Game in Minneapolis.
I didn't see a lot of discussion about these players and why one player deserved to be on the All-Star team over another player on Twitter. Mostly there were a lot of hashtags and statements simply made about who the respective Tweeter supports for the Final Vote. There was much more discussion (that I saw at least) on LeBron and his free agency decision.
I feel like Terence Moore is translating interest in a player from a certain team making the All-Star team to also mean those people Tweeting support of that player were very interested in the All-Star game as a whole. It may be true, but the last time I checked MLB didn't even release the final Final Vote counts. Perhaps I missed it. It seems the Final Vote is just a way to get more players from a fan's favorite team into the All-Star Game.
Contrary to the whispers that have become shouts over the decades among baseball bashers, the All-Star Game still matters, all right.
The All-Star Game matters only because MLB has tied the winner of the All-Star Game to the league that gets homefield advantage in the World Series. So the game matters in that it's forced to matter, rather than settle which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series by giving it to the team that has the best record on the season. That makes more sense to me. So the game matters because it's made to matter, but viewership is declining.
Two words: Derek Jeter.
(Starts screaming out of joy and eventually faints)
Officially, he is the Yankees' Captain.
Unofficially, he is the Lord Commander of All That is Right with Baseball.
Unofficially, he has been baseball's greatest ambassador inside and outside of the foul lines for most of his two decades in the Major Leagues. Come to think of it, Jeter has been more significant than that.
Definitely. He's also the Shining Example of Players Who Don't Use PED's and Would Never Dream of Benefiting from Using PED's *
*As long as you don't count the fact he's been teammates with multiple PED users and has won many games, including a few World Series, while benefiting from his teammates who have used PED's.
He is retiring after this season.
WHAT? I HAD NOT HEARD ABOUT THIS! DO ELABORATE IN NO LESS THAN 50,000 WORDS!
He already has been hugged in every city he has visited for the last time. So, since this is his last All-Star Game, more than a few folks will be clicking their remotes Tuesday night to view it all.
Oooooo....yeah, but Tuesday is "Shark Tank" night on CNBC and I also have started watching "House of Cards." So I'll just have to settle for watching Jeter play the 68 other games he will play in the regular season. See, I will be able to do that because it's not 1946 and his team is on television all the time. Welcome to the future.
Did I say baseball All-Star Games still matter?
Yeah, but it's true only in that it's forced to be true.
Think Jeter, and now think Cal Ripken Jr., whose farewell season was 2001, when he played his last All-Star Game in Seattle. There was two-fold drama for this noted iron man of the Orioles, and it began before the first pitch after AL shortstop Alex Rodriguez exchanged positions with Ripken at third base to bring Ripken back to his shortstop roots.
Well plus, A-Rod's steroids worked better when he was at third base. This is a scientifically accurate statement.
Jeter will become Ripken next week in his own way. I don't know when, and I don't know how.
Less insightful sentences will ever be written. Remember when this column was about the All-Star Game mattering and not about Derek Jeter?
Let's review this sentence briefly. Jeter will become Ripken "next week" in his own way. Terence doesn't know when, despite the fact he just said it will be "next week" when this occurs. So next week (but don't ask Terence when because he doesn't know) Derek Jeter will become a white balding man who plays third base for the Baltimore Orioles. Don't ask Terence Moore how, he knows, but he's working on a really original screenplay that will elaborate more on how Derek Jeter turns into Cal Ripken.
That's because everything around the All-Star Game still matters, along with the nearly 30-year-old Home Run Derby, which is an extension of the game itself.
The Home Run Derby is like cancer on the anus of the All-Star Game. It could easily go away and many people would feel better, especially those who have to hear Chris Berman constant bellowing "Back, back, back..." fifty million times as he randomly names cities and wonders why anyone who still has their hearing hates him.
Unlike the NBA that struggles to get stars to participate in the Slam Dunk Contest during its All-Star Game Weekend, baseball has many of its premier sluggers in the 2014 Gillette Home Run Derby. They include Giancarlo Stanton and Yasiel Puig, masters of rocket shots toward the farthest black hole, and Josh Donaldson, who joins Stanton (21) with at least 20 homers already in this Year of the Pitcher.
Except the Home Run Derby takes longer than actual game of baseball, it just has Chris Berman as the commentator and lacks any other type of exciting action. Even the most exciting part of the Home Run Derby, when a ball is hit far, is interrupted by the seal-like bellowing of Applebees' favorite shill.
The Home Run Derby needs a huge re-vamp. It's way too long. Outside of Chris Berman, the length of the Home Run Derby is outrageous. Players shouldn't be able to choose their pitcher and then stand at home plate and wait for the perfect pitch to hit. You chose the pitcher, hit what he throws you.
There is the Futures Game that showcases stars to come, the Legends and Celebrity Softball Game, a concert and the Red Carpet Show before the game.
And I know fans really love the Red Carpet Show before the Home Run Derby. Who are you wearing, David Ortiz?
But it's all about the primary game, and those who contend that it doesn't matter keep confusing baseball's All-Star Game with its historically irrelevant counterparts from the other four major professional leagues in North America.
In terms of being the best All-Star game, MLB's is the best, but this is like being the fastest kid at fat camp. The Pro Bowl is the jokiest of jokes, the NBA All-Star Game is just a bunch of scoring and I know nothing about the NHL All-Star Game so I probably should avoid commenting on it like I already have. At least baseball's All-Star Game has some semblance of similarity to a real baseball game. Still, ratings have been declining and the game only matters because MLB forces it to matter.
Quick: Name your favorite Pro Bowl.
The one where the punter got blown up by some defensive player.
Elsewhere, the All-Star Games associated with the NBA and NHL resemble the Pro Bowl in that they really aren't games. It's difficult to say what they are. Not only do they rarely feature defense, they lack true offense. The same goes for any sense of strategy, enthusiasm and charisma.
Again, it's like being the fastest kid at fat camp. Yes, MLB has the best All-Star Game, though it does lose in terms of ratings to the Pro Bowl. The audience for the MLB All-Star Game is declining and this can't be ignored when speaking about it's relevance. All the hashtags and Final Vote tallies can't cover up for the fact the All-Star Game is very popular, but not as popular as it used to be. It's an important event, but only through contrived circumstances, and the novel idea of the All-Star Game lacks relevance in 2014 when fans can see the participants in the All-Star Game play baseball almost any time they would like to.
Baseball's All-Star Game has all of that, and it began with the legendary likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx during the first one in 1933. They made the whole thing magical forever. Cal Hubbell striking out five consecutive Hall of Famers. Ted Williams skipping around the bases after a game-winning homer. Pete Rose slamming through Ray Fosse at home plate for an NL victory. Reggie Jackson's rocketing a shot off a light tower at Tiger Stadium. Dave Parker making a throw for the ages from right field.
Notice what all of those highlights have in common? I'll give you a hint, Mike Trout wasn't around to see them.
There always are moments at baseball's All-Star Games, and none surpasses that impromptu tribute to Williams before the 1999 All-Star Game at Fenway Park. Half of New England gathered around the pitcher's mound for a group hug of the Red Sox legend. Actually, it was just current baseball legends doing the honor, but it seemed like more.
This was a nice moment. It was also a moment that didn't really have anything to do with the game being played on the field that night. What did have to do with the product on the field was Pedro Martinez striking out five of the first six batters he faced.
More importantly, the ratings for that game were 17.64 million people, which is a number the All-Star Game hasn't hit since that time. That was 15 years ago, by the way. I think this ties in well with the idea that MLB has the best All-Star game of the four major sports, but this doesn't mean the game matters now more than it used to. It's still an exhibition game, just an exhibition game with an outcome tied to the World Series.
Then came last year, when Yankees closer Mariano Rivera played his last All-Star Game along the way to retirement. He didn't know he was about to produce moist eyes throughout Citi Field in New York. He was sent to the pitcher's mound to start the eighth inning, but nobody else took the field.
He was a man alone ... with endless cheers.
That was a good moment too. The All-Star Game isn't irrelevant, it's just not the exciting, defining moment of the season that Terence Moore seems to be believe it is. Terence claims the game matters because of the Final Vote and because the game decides World Series homefield advantage. The fact the game decides the World Series is a way contrived to give the game meaning, so I don't really include that as giving the All-Star Game meaning. I also think those people on Twitter who wanted fans to vote for a certain player for the final spot on the team did so out of love for their team, not necessarily as a shining example of how much they think the All-Star Game matters.
Baseball's All-Star Game still matters for those reasons and that other one: The winning league gets home-field advantage in the World Series.
And yet, this doesn't really mean the game matters in the eyes of the fans. Whether the game really matters to the general public is reflected in the ratings for the game, which reflects who was interested enough to watch the game. So the All-Star Game doesn't matter because of the insistence of tying homefield advantage into who wins the All-Star Game. It matters because fans enjoy and watch the game. By that metric, the game doesn't matter as much as it used to. Baseball isn't dying because it's a regional sport and the All-Star Game isn't dying. Pretending it still holds the relevance it used to is folly though.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
3 comments Yes, What WOULD Happen if an Exhibition Game Were Ruined by Steroids??
Bob Nightengale is very concerned, you guys. What would happen if steroid users played in the All-Star Game and made the difference in the outcome of the game, thereby making a difference in the outcome of which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series, thereby deciding who wins the World Series, thereby tainting baseball forever until we are all forced to stop watching sports entirely because we no longer believe in the magic of the game anymore? Do you want Evereth Cabrera to destroy sports as we know it? I thought not. Let's read about Bob ringing the alarm bell for all of humanity.
Just the thought turns your stomach, doesn't it?
Another holier-than-thou column about PED's? Yes, it does.
By the way, this column is entitled "Tainted players* dull All-Star Game." And yes, there is an asterisk beside "players" because there will be an asterisk next to the 2013 All-Star Game due to all the cheaters who participated in the game. That's Bob Nightengale for you.
Well, brace yourselves: We could have a tainted player win the All-Star Game MVP Award again.
And here I just got done crying about Melky Cabrera winning the All-Star Game MVP award last year. I would even still be upset about the player who won it the year before that, if I could remember his name without looking it up.
It happened last year when San Francisco Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera took home the trophy and a little more than a month later was suspended for 50 games for violating Major League Baseball's drug policy.
And because Cabrera helped the Giants secure homefield advantage in the World Series by helping the National League win the All-Star Game. Because homefield advantage was the deciding factor in the World Series where the Giants swept the Tigers. The Tigers would have had a chance to win the series if they only had gotten to start the series off at home rather than start the series off in San Francisco.
And now the possibility of a repeat exists.
(Shudders violently) Somehow MLB has to make sure the All-Star Game is an exhibition and doesn't count in the regular season standings at all.
They are Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers, Jhonny Peralta of the Detroit Tigers, Everth Cabrera of the San Diego Padres and Bartolo Colon of the Oakland Athletics, and they are at risk of being suspended by MLB at the conclusion of its investigation.
The odds of Bartolo Colon being voted MVP of the All-Star Game are not high. In fact, only six pitchers throughout All-Star Game history have been voted MVP and only Pedro Martinez has won the award as a pitcher since 1986. So let's not worry about Colon winning the All-Star Game MVP award.
I realize I'm not in enough of a panic here, but if any of Peralta, Cabrera, or Cruz do have an impact on the game then it doesn't really bother me. These guys are at risk of being suspended, but until they are suspended they should be free to participate in the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game, no matter how much MLB wants the game to "matter" is an exhibition game. It doesn't count in the regular season standings or statistics for these players. It determines homefield advantage in the World Series, but that's a contrived result of the game and is not necessary. I guess I don't take the All-Star Game seriously enough to get worried about the All-Star Game MVP being accused of using PED's.
Now, it would be ideal if MLB could announce its findings before next Tuesday's All-Star Game at New York's Citi Field, preventing any dirty player from defacing the showcase, but that's not going to happen. MLB investigators say they aren't quite done. They need more time. They aren't about to rush the process and risk a mistake just to avoid a potential embarrassment.
And God forbid MLB take the time to investigate Biogenesis and the claims that MLB players used PED's. In a situation like this, making sure an exhibition baseball game isn't ruined takes precedence over ruining a player's reputation by rushing through investigative work. Like I always say, it doesn't matter who gets convicted of a crime, just as long as someone gets convicted and quickly. It's just a player (or players) reputation at stake. Reputation is much less important than an exhibition All-Star game.
Yes, it's just that circumstances have left MLB exposed, so we are left to hope that the same guy who wins this year's All-Star Game MVP isn't back in the headlines in a couple of weeks with the rest of his Biogenesis buddies.
It would be the end of baseball as we know it. Which "as we know" baseball is as a sport filled with players who are mostly clean of steroids, but also as a sport that seems to be able to (eventually) root out the cheaters. A PED-using player being named MVP of an exhibition game is a small price to pay for fully investigating Biogenesis and determining which players are and are not truly linked to Biogenesis.
He tested positive for testosterone just before the All-Star Game. Yet since he planned to appeal, he was permitted to play in the game.
Fucking due process. They should have just hung Cabrera or deported him. Amirightorwhat?
If Cabrera wasn't cheating last season, the Giants might not have made the playoffs, let alone won the World Series.
This is pure speculation. The Giants won the World Series without Cabrera, so I find it difficult to say the Giants didn't deserve to win the World Series with or without Cabrera on the active roster. It seems to me the Giants proved they were the best team in baseball last year by winning the World Series without Cabrera. Maybe Bob Nightengale believes Cabrera gave the Giants team super-special PED assistance telepathically and that's how they won the World Series.
And if Cabrera wasn't cheating, maybe he no longer is even in the major leagues, let alone playing on a two-year, $16 million deal signed with the Toronto Blue Jays.
Jeff Francouer is still hanging around the fringes of the majors. A switch-hitter like Melky Cabrera who is in his late-20's with decent speed and is able to get on-base at a .330-.340 clip is going to stay in the majors. Again, Bob Nightengale is purely speculating and not even speculating in an intelligent fashion.
It sure makes you feel warm and fuzzy knowing that even if you get caught cheating, you still can get rewarded. Look no further than Texas to realize the insanity of this drug culture.
The only way a player could not get rewarded for being caught cheating is if the first offense resulted in a lifetime ban from the game. If that's what Bob Nightengale is suggesting without actually suggesting it, then he needs to just actually suggest this rather than be shocked that talented baseball players get a second chance after being caught using PED's.
The Rangers just brought back Manny Ramirez from the baseball graveyard, signing him to a minor league contract at age 41. The irony is that he's their insurance policy in the event Cruz is suspended,
Nothing like a cheat to replace a potential cheat.
Thankfully only regular season and World Series games were affected by Nelson Cruz and Manny Ramirez's PED usage. If the All-Star Game had been affected in any way by their PED usage then that would be more than Bob Nightengale could handle.
The last time we saw Ramirez in the major leagues, he was playing for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2011 before being suspended for the second time in four years for violating MLB's drug policy.
Now Ramirez is eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year Award.
"That's a tragedy," says Hooton, whose 17-year-old son, Taylor, committed suicide 10 years ago July 15 after using anabolic steroids.
Obviously it is sad that Taylor Hooton committed suicide after using anabolic steroids. I won't ever say it isn't a tragedy. I want to get that out of the way now. I'm sympathetic towards that. But...
No, your son committing suicide is a tragedy. Manny Ramirez being eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year award is not a tragedy. I'm amazed the father of a child who committed suicide would classify Manny Ramirez being eligible for a postseason award as "a tragedy."
"Come on, guys? How many strikes before you're out? What does it take?
Perhaps if you spent less time asking rhetorical questions and referring to non-tragedies as tragedies you would know it takes three strikes before a player is out and Manny Ramirez is on two strikes right now. So it would take another positive drug test before Manny would be out.
MLB can't stop Ramirez from seeking employment or a team desperate enough to give him another chance.
Even Alex Rodriguez, who has enough problems of his own, was incredulous last week when informed Ramirez had signed with the Rangers.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater who deserves a lifetime ban from baseball in the opinion of Bob Nightengale...well, until Rodriguez says something that Nightengale agrees with and then at that point we should all listen to A-Rod's opinion that now has merit.
"I'm fearing the worst and hoping for the best," Hooton says. "A lot of people have drawn their own conclusions, but MLB hasn't completed the investigation. I'm very fearful, and I just hope the worst doesn't happen with Alex.
"We've done so much work with him over the years, and I'm just terrified about the possibility that these things turn out to be true."
Wait, what? Hooton, who clearly doesn't pay very much attention to what is going on around baseball involving steroids, does realize A-Rod has already been busted once before for using PED's, right? When Hooton says (which he did in this very article),
"We continue to send crazy messages to kids that these things are OK. That's the horror of the whole thing."
he is talking about Alex Rodriguez sending a message that it is okay to use PED's. Does Hooton realize this? I'm confused because he is hoping "the worst" doesn't happen with Rodriguez, but Rodriguez's use of PED's has already turned out to be true. What the fuck is Hooton talking about? A-Rod is the guy sending the bad message to kids in the opinion of Hooton, but Hooton still acts like A-Rod's use of PED's is still up in the air. We know. We know A-Rod used PED's and he has admitted it. The worst has already happened and if A-Rod is linked to PED's again then he will be just as bad as Manny Ramirez...the same guy Hooton said it was "a tragedy" that he could win the Comeback Player of the Year award.
Maybe I'm crazy, but Hooton doesn't seem to know who has used PED's in the majors and what the MLB drug policy is, but he sure has strong feelings about the use of PED's.
Well, the good news is that Rodriguez won't be in the All-Star Game, so there's no fear of him walking away with the MVP trophy.
That's fantastic news. Rodriguez's PED use won't affect "the kids" as long as he doesn't win the All-Star Game MVP award.
"When you have a chance to win the rings, make the All-Star Games and make the money," Hooton says, "it's just one more signal sent to these kids that their favorite athletes and idols use drugs.
These athletes smoke pot too AND cheat on their girlfriends/wives. I know, we need to get Congress involved on this issue too. I feel bad for Mr. Hooton that he lost his son, but I lose a little sympathy when a person's drug use is blamed entirely on his role models. That seems to be what it happening here.
"We have 1.5 million kids using steroids today, and our federal government is doing nothing about it. You wonder what it's going to take to bring all of this to an end."
Nothing. Nothing will ever bring PED usage by athletes to an end. It's a reality of sports. Also, the federal government is pretty busy right now so I would rather they focus on the kids who don't have a home, hot food to eat, or are led into a life of violence that leads to prison. Honestly, kids taking steroids feels like the typical "white person problem" that should be a priority, but not a top priority like Mr. Hooton wants it to be. There are much bigger problems that affect a much larger population of children the federal government needs to spend their (our) time and money on.
Maybe another dirty MVP will help.
Dirty All-Star Game MVP. Melky Cabrera was the MVP of an exhibition game. Fortunately, I would bet few people even remember who won the All-Star Game MVP award from year-to-year. This is ignored by Bob Nightengale, much like any other factors surrounding Taylor Hooton's suicide are ignored to further the much simpler "PED's are bad" narrative.
Just the thought turns your stomach, doesn't it?
Another holier-than-thou column about PED's? Yes, it does.
By the way, this column is entitled "Tainted players* dull All-Star Game." And yes, there is an asterisk beside "players" because there will be an asterisk next to the 2013 All-Star Game due to all the cheaters who participated in the game. That's Bob Nightengale for you.
Well, brace yourselves: We could have a tainted player win the All-Star Game MVP Award again.
And here I just got done crying about Melky Cabrera winning the All-Star Game MVP award last year. I would even still be upset about the player who won it the year before that, if I could remember his name without looking it up.
It happened last year when San Francisco Giants outfielder Melky Cabrera took home the trophy and a little more than a month later was suspended for 50 games for violating Major League Baseball's drug policy.
And because Cabrera helped the Giants secure homefield advantage in the World Series by helping the National League win the All-Star Game. Because homefield advantage was the deciding factor in the World Series where the Giants swept the Tigers. The Tigers would have had a chance to win the series if they only had gotten to start the series off at home rather than start the series off in San Francisco.
And now the possibility of a repeat exists.
(Shudders violently) Somehow MLB has to make sure the All-Star Game is an exhibition and doesn't count in the regular season standings at all.
They are Nelson Cruz of the Texas Rangers, Jhonny Peralta of the Detroit Tigers, Everth Cabrera of the San Diego Padres and Bartolo Colon of the Oakland Athletics, and they are at risk of being suspended by MLB at the conclusion of its investigation.
The odds of Bartolo Colon being voted MVP of the All-Star Game are not high. In fact, only six pitchers throughout All-Star Game history have been voted MVP and only Pedro Martinez has won the award as a pitcher since 1986. So let's not worry about Colon winning the All-Star Game MVP award.
I realize I'm not in enough of a panic here, but if any of Peralta, Cabrera, or Cruz do have an impact on the game then it doesn't really bother me. These guys are at risk of being suspended, but until they are suspended they should be free to participate in the All-Star Game. The All-Star Game, no matter how much MLB wants the game to "matter" is an exhibition game. It doesn't count in the regular season standings or statistics for these players. It determines homefield advantage in the World Series, but that's a contrived result of the game and is not necessary. I guess I don't take the All-Star Game seriously enough to get worried about the All-Star Game MVP being accused of using PED's.
Now, it would be ideal if MLB could announce its findings before next Tuesday's All-Star Game at New York's Citi Field, preventing any dirty player from defacing the showcase, but that's not going to happen. MLB investigators say they aren't quite done. They need more time. They aren't about to rush the process and risk a mistake just to avoid a potential embarrassment.
And God forbid MLB take the time to investigate Biogenesis and the claims that MLB players used PED's. In a situation like this, making sure an exhibition baseball game isn't ruined takes precedence over ruining a player's reputation by rushing through investigative work. Like I always say, it doesn't matter who gets convicted of a crime, just as long as someone gets convicted and quickly. It's just a player (or players) reputation at stake. Reputation is much less important than an exhibition All-Star game.
Yes, it's just that circumstances have left MLB exposed, so we are left to hope that the same guy who wins this year's All-Star Game MVP isn't back in the headlines in a couple of weeks with the rest of his Biogenesis buddies.
It would be the end of baseball as we know it. Which "as we know" baseball is as a sport filled with players who are mostly clean of steroids, but also as a sport that seems to be able to (eventually) root out the cheaters. A PED-using player being named MVP of an exhibition game is a small price to pay for fully investigating Biogenesis and determining which players are and are not truly linked to Biogenesis.
He tested positive for testosterone just before the All-Star Game. Yet since he planned to appeal, he was permitted to play in the game.
Fucking due process. They should have just hung Cabrera or deported him. Amirightorwhat?
If Cabrera wasn't cheating last season, the Giants might not have made the playoffs, let alone won the World Series.
This is pure speculation. The Giants won the World Series without Cabrera, so I find it difficult to say the Giants didn't deserve to win the World Series with or without Cabrera on the active roster. It seems to me the Giants proved they were the best team in baseball last year by winning the World Series without Cabrera. Maybe Bob Nightengale believes Cabrera gave the Giants team super-special PED assistance telepathically and that's how they won the World Series.
And if Cabrera wasn't cheating, maybe he no longer is even in the major leagues, let alone playing on a two-year, $16 million deal signed with the Toronto Blue Jays.
Jeff Francouer is still hanging around the fringes of the majors. A switch-hitter like Melky Cabrera who is in his late-20's with decent speed and is able to get on-base at a .330-.340 clip is going to stay in the majors. Again, Bob Nightengale is purely speculating and not even speculating in an intelligent fashion.
It sure makes you feel warm and fuzzy knowing that even if you get caught cheating, you still can get rewarded. Look no further than Texas to realize the insanity of this drug culture.
The only way a player could not get rewarded for being caught cheating is if the first offense resulted in a lifetime ban from the game. If that's what Bob Nightengale is suggesting without actually suggesting it, then he needs to just actually suggest this rather than be shocked that talented baseball players get a second chance after being caught using PED's.
The Rangers just brought back Manny Ramirez from the baseball graveyard, signing him to a minor league contract at age 41. The irony is that he's their insurance policy in the event Cruz is suspended,
Nothing like a cheat to replace a potential cheat.
Thankfully only regular season and World Series games were affected by Nelson Cruz and Manny Ramirez's PED usage. If the All-Star Game had been affected in any way by their PED usage then that would be more than Bob Nightengale could handle.
The last time we saw Ramirez in the major leagues, he was playing for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2011 before being suspended for the second time in four years for violating MLB's drug policy.
Now Ramirez is eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year Award.
"That's a tragedy," says Hooton, whose 17-year-old son, Taylor, committed suicide 10 years ago July 15 after using anabolic steroids.
Obviously it is sad that Taylor Hooton committed suicide after using anabolic steroids. I won't ever say it isn't a tragedy. I want to get that out of the way now. I'm sympathetic towards that. But...
No, your son committing suicide is a tragedy. Manny Ramirez being eligible to win the Comeback Player of the Year award is not a tragedy. I'm amazed the father of a child who committed suicide would classify Manny Ramirez being eligible for a postseason award as "a tragedy."
"Come on, guys? How many strikes before you're out? What does it take?
Perhaps if you spent less time asking rhetorical questions and referring to non-tragedies as tragedies you would know it takes three strikes before a player is out and Manny Ramirez is on two strikes right now. So it would take another positive drug test before Manny would be out.
MLB can't stop Ramirez from seeking employment or a team desperate enough to give him another chance.
Even Alex Rodriguez, who has enough problems of his own, was incredulous last week when informed Ramirez had signed with the Rangers.
Alex Rodriguez is a cheater who deserves a lifetime ban from baseball in the opinion of Bob Nightengale...well, until Rodriguez says something that Nightengale agrees with and then at that point we should all listen to A-Rod's opinion that now has merit.
"I'm fearing the worst and hoping for the best," Hooton says. "A lot of people have drawn their own conclusions, but MLB hasn't completed the investigation. I'm very fearful, and I just hope the worst doesn't happen with Alex.
"We've done so much work with him over the years, and I'm just terrified about the possibility that these things turn out to be true."
Wait, what? Hooton, who clearly doesn't pay very much attention to what is going on around baseball involving steroids, does realize A-Rod has already been busted once before for using PED's, right? When Hooton says (which he did in this very article),
"We continue to send crazy messages to kids that these things are OK. That's the horror of the whole thing."
he is talking about Alex Rodriguez sending a message that it is okay to use PED's. Does Hooton realize this? I'm confused because he is hoping "the worst" doesn't happen with Rodriguez, but Rodriguez's use of PED's has already turned out to be true. What the fuck is Hooton talking about? A-Rod is the guy sending the bad message to kids in the opinion of Hooton, but Hooton still acts like A-Rod's use of PED's is still up in the air. We know. We know A-Rod used PED's and he has admitted it. The worst has already happened and if A-Rod is linked to PED's again then he will be just as bad as Manny Ramirez...the same guy Hooton said it was "a tragedy" that he could win the Comeback Player of the Year award.
Maybe I'm crazy, but Hooton doesn't seem to know who has used PED's in the majors and what the MLB drug policy is, but he sure has strong feelings about the use of PED's.
Well, the good news is that Rodriguez won't be in the All-Star Game, so there's no fear of him walking away with the MVP trophy.
That's fantastic news. Rodriguez's PED use won't affect "the kids" as long as he doesn't win the All-Star Game MVP award.
"When you have a chance to win the rings, make the All-Star Games and make the money," Hooton says, "it's just one more signal sent to these kids that their favorite athletes and idols use drugs.
These athletes smoke pot too AND cheat on their girlfriends/wives. I know, we need to get Congress involved on this issue too. I feel bad for Mr. Hooton that he lost his son, but I lose a little sympathy when a person's drug use is blamed entirely on his role models. That seems to be what it happening here.
"We have 1.5 million kids using steroids today, and our federal government is doing nothing about it. You wonder what it's going to take to bring all of this to an end."
Nothing. Nothing will ever bring PED usage by athletes to an end. It's a reality of sports. Also, the federal government is pretty busy right now so I would rather they focus on the kids who don't have a home, hot food to eat, or are led into a life of violence that leads to prison. Honestly, kids taking steroids feels like the typical "white person problem" that should be a priority, but not a top priority like Mr. Hooton wants it to be. There are much bigger problems that affect a much larger population of children the federal government needs to spend their (our) time and money on.
Maybe another dirty MVP will help.
Dirty All-Star Game MVP. Melky Cabrera was the MVP of an exhibition game. Fortunately, I would bet few people even remember who won the All-Star Game MVP award from year-to-year. This is ignored by Bob Nightengale, much like any other factors surrounding Taylor Hooton's suicide are ignored to further the much simpler "PED's are bad" narrative.
Monday, July 18, 2011
14 comments Bill Conlin Joins Joe Morgan As a Member of the Ryan Howard Excessive Fan Club
Two things before I break down Bill Conlin's vehement defense of Ryan Howard:
1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.
2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.
Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.
Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.
ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.
They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.
My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.
They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.
Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.
Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.
(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)
And egregiously stupid.
And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.
Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.
I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.
I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.
Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140
So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.
And RH is no longer one of them . . .
That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.
So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.
Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.
Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.
Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.
Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.
Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard.
Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.
But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in wins
This is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.
and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.
Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.
Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.
So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.
Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),
Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.
Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.
and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)
This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.
Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:
I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."
Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.
Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.
Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?
Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?
I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.
Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.
This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.
Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.
He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .
Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?
One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.
This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.
That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."
It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.
It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.
Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.
WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.
For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.
You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.
I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.
In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"
In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."
This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.
Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.
Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.
So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.
This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.
Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.
They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.
If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?
Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.
Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).
For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.
So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.
In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.
I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.
Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:
At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.
I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.
See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.
I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.
Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.
Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.
I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.
1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.
2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.
Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.
Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.
ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.
They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.
My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.
They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.
Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.
Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.
(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)
And egregiously stupid.
And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.
Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.
I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.
I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.
Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140
So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.
And RH is no longer one of them . . .
That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.
So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.
Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.
Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.
Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.
Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.
Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard.
Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.
But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in wins
This is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.
and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.
Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.
Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.
So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.
Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),
Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.
Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.
and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)
This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.
Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:
The Phillies are paying Howard more than the Sox are paying Adrian Gonzalez a professional hitter. That would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.
I do think this is a bit overboard. Howard isn't that bad, though at this point I would probably take Adrian Gonzalez over Howard.I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."
Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.
Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.
Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?
Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?
I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.
Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.
This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.
Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.
He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .
Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?
One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.
This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.
That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."
It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.
It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.
Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.
WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.
For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.
You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.
I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.
In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"
In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."
This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.
Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.
Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.
So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.
This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.
Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.
They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.
If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?
Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.
Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).
For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.
So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.
In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.
I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.
Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:
* The Chucker drove in 693 runs for an average of 138.6.
* Howard has driven in 680 runs for an average of 136.
* The Chucker hit 180 homers for an average of 36.
* Howard has hit 229 homers for an average of 45.8.
I am not sure anyone will argue Ryan Howard doesn't hit enough home runs or doesn't drive in enough runs. Using home runs and RBI's to prove...whatever the hell Bill is trying to prove isn't the end-all-be-all in discussing Ryan Howard. Using statistics from 1930 doesn't help the case much either.At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.
I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.
See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.
I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.
Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.
Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.
I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.
Friday, July 16, 2010
4 comments Bill. Plaschke. All-Star Game. Again.
Before I get to Bill Plaschke's article for the day about how much the All-Star Game sucks, even though the game didn't really suck (even though it got horrendous ratings), I wanted to talk about two things. First, I enjoyed Bill Simmons' mockery of LeBron James "decision." I was wondering who would be the first to do that and I am glad it was done fairly well. I thought it could have been done a little better, but I still give him kudos for what he did.
Second, I try to write on this blog 5-6 days every week and try to post something Monday through Friday. I enjoy writing here, but lately there hasn't been enough time for me to write the kind of posts I want to write. I am not shutting down the blog or anything, though I don't know if there is really anything to shut down, so keep visiting. I am just saying I don't know if I will be able to post something every day during the week for a while due to time constraints brought on by other shit I have to do during the day. So if the expectation is I post every day and I am not able to, don't fear I have been kidnapped. I have two staples I do every week. I do MMQB every week Peter King writes it and I do TMQ/Joe Morgan depending on whether it is baseball or football season. I don't want to stop doing that, but I also don't want that to be the sum total of what I write, so I still plan on posting frequently.
In conclusion, nothing is going to change, other than I may not be able to write everyday, but I just wanted everyone to know if I don't post something one day then I haven't quit writing here. I love writing here and enjoy the positive and negative comments I get, I just have to do a better balance in writing here and everything else I have going on right now. Basically, my mom is really hassling me to get the hell out of the attic and find a real job, so I have to make time to do that.
Okay, now that is out of the way, let's get to Bill Plaschke's latest whining about the All-Star Game that seems to stem from the fact he doesn't know all of the players who participated. Rather than figure out who these players are, he will just bitch they don't deserve to make the All-Star Game.
Two years ago, on a May day so full of promise, baseball Commissioner Bud Selig reverently announced that the 2010 All-Star game would be played at Angel Stadium.
It was a day of promise. Birds were singing, thousands of virgins were roaming the streets of California waiting to meet that special someone to share their life and love with, people smiled more, everyone shook hands and hugged when greeting each other and only "real" baseball players Joakim Soria, Joe Crede, Kosuke Fukudome, Carlos Marmol, Cristian Guzman, and Nate McLouth had been selected to the All-Star Game.
Times were much more innocent two years ago.
He fibbed.
What? But I just watched part of the game on Tuesday night. I thought the game took place at Angel Stadium? How did Bud Selig lie about the All-Star Game taking place at Angel Stadium. My life is changed forever. I am a person born anew.
(Bengoodfella emails apologies to Jay Mariotti and Peter King for all the things he has written about them...but still thinks Apolo Ohno is a son of a bitch who shouldn't have been on "Dancing with the Stars" dancing to shitty oldies music with a fourth-rate country singer like Julianne Hough)
I'll be a rally monkey's uncle before I'll believe that disparate group of 68 players coming to town next week is completely worthy of an All-Star game.
Plaschke is closer to a monkey's ass rather than in any other way related to a monkey.
Two years ago, Selig filled us with visions of Pete Rose crashing into Ray Fosse.
Instead, we could be getting Omar Infante crashing into John Buck.
Omar Infante crashing into John Buck at the All-Star Game doesn't count as real baseball in Plaschke's book. I think Plaschke took two of the names he didn't know on the All-Star roster and tried to make a comparison. I have $100 that says Plaschke thinks John Buck is related to Joe Buck in some fashion.
John Buck is having a decent year at the catcher position, so he may deserve to have been an All-Star Game.
Two years ago, Selig gave us the image of Reggie Jackson going off the light tower, Ichiro going inside the park, and Cal Ripken Jr. going deep into history.
I wish I knew what Plaschke was talking about here. I have no idea when Bud Selig said or indicated any of this stuff.
Instead, we're getting Michael Bourn going for . . . what exactly?
Being the "best" player on the Astros team. I'm not going to say I like that each team gets a representative or anything like that or that every player elected to the All-Star Game deserved it. This isn't the first year a player who didn't deserve to be on the team made it. It happens every year and will happen as long as MLB insists on having an All-Star Game played halfway through the season and having each team be represented.
A game once famous for Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden's six consecutive strikeouts is now populated with Evan Meek and Matt Thornton.
Of course Plaschke hasn't heard of these players so they must automatically be terrible baseball players. Everyone knows if Bill Plaschke hasn't heard of you then you are a complete nobody.
Evan Meek plays for the Pirates and has put up a 1.11 ERA, 1.84 BAA, 0.95 WHIP and a 3.2 K/BB ratio. He deserved the spot if every team gets a player on the squad.
Matt Thornton, though he gave up the winning runs, may have also deserved it. He has put up a 2.70 ERA, .200 BAA, 1.04 WHIP, and a 4.1 K/BB ratio.
Traditionally set-up guys didn't get a spot on the roster, but because they play such a large part in the games they appear in (or as much as a closer does), why shouldn't they be represented on the All-Star team?
If you don't know where those two guys play — heck, if you don't even know what position they play — don't feel bad.
Don't feel bad if you don't know where these guys play or what position these guys play, really don't feel bad...but also don't bitch and moan these players don't deserve to be in the All-Star Game. Your complete ignorance about the baseball players who made the All-Star Game does not mean these players didn't deserve the honor of making the team. I don't know the names of some of the players who make the NHL All-Star team, but that doesn't mean they aren't good players.
As I tell people at times and will tell Bill here, don't always assume people are as stupid as you are.
They were among three All-Stars whose names I announced Tuesday to a friend who is a longtime baseball fan. He whiffed on all three.
Again, this doesn't mean these players don't deserve to be in the All-Star Game. The attitude that "a player can't be good if I haven't heard of them" is a really bad way to think. Evan Meek deserved to be the representative for the Pirates, or at least deserved to be among those who merited consideration for the All-Star Game.
If there are people with baseball photos on their office walls unable to identify three players in the baseball All-Star game, then baseball is picking the wrong team, and, yeah, they've really mucked it up this time.
Absolutely incorrect. If there are people with baseball photos on their office walls unable to identify three players in the baseball All-Star game, then those people should pay more attention to baseball. The mere idea that because some players don't have name recognition also means they don't deserve to be on the All-Star team is stupid, dumb, retarded, backwards thinking.
Not only is it egotistical to assume that any player worth a shit is someone you have heard about. It is also the sign of a person who is just overall ignorant to believe he can't pay attention to the game of baseball during the season and everything will stay the same.
Thanks to a convoluted, ever-changing selection process that tries to make everyone happy, nobody should be happy with what may be the worst collection of All-Stars in the history of this once-proud game.
I don't believe the selection process is ever-changing over convoluted at all. I don't agree with the "super utility" position that has been created, but it very much disturbs me that Bill Plaschke being a member of the BWAA and the PFWA finds the All-Star selection process convoluted. His ability to vote for major baseball and football awards should be taken away if he can't understand the All-Star selection process.
The National League's leading power hitter, Cincinnati's Joey Votto, is thus far not on the team.
It doesn't matter if Joey Votto didn't initially make the All-Star team because he isn't a star nor a player that will turn the game into a carnival.
Neither is any San Diego pitcher, even though the Padres have the league's top staff.
Bill Plaschke from the column he wrote before this one:
Maybe it's not fair to the players, but it's not their game. So maybe San Diego's Clayton Richard or St. Louis's Jaime Garcia are left off the team to make room for Strasburg. No offense to those emerging talents, but so what?
So on July 3 it was perfectly fine to leave off a San Diego pitcher when it comes to Stephen Strasburg making the team because the All-Star Game isn't about statistics or which player is having the best year. On July 6, it is a sign the All-Star Game is stuck in a downward spiral that a San Diego pitcher hadn't been named to the team because the Padres have the best pitching staff in the National League.
Plaschke can't have it both ways. Is a Padres pitcher necessary for the game to be relevant as a showcase of the best players in MLB or is the All-Star Game about which players will get the best ratings?
The top strikeout pitcher in the American League, the Angels' Jered Weaver, is thus far not on the team.
Now Plaschke is just arbitrarily picking different statistics and saying the player that leads MLB in that statistic should be in the All-Star Game. Where is the MLB leader in holds? How did Mike Adams not make the All-Star team? It's a travesty!
Can you imagine how much Plaschke would bitch if Mike Adams had made the All-Star team? Not only doesn't he bring in great ratings, I bet Plaschke nor Bill's friend, who has a ton of baseball memorabilia on the wall of his office, have heard of him.
And don't even get me started about the arrogant snub of Stephen Strasburg.
We've heard Plaschke get started on Strasburg and he doesn't really have a point. How about this for arrogance? Bill Plaschke and his friend, who has a ton of baseball memorabilia on the wall, think that if they haven't heard of a baseball player then he isn't good enough to make the All-Star team. Isn't that pretty damn arrogant too?
Infante of the Atlanta Braves is an All-Star who doesn't even start for his own team.
I don't like the "super utility" position, but Infante can play 3B, 2B, SS, LF, and RF. He does fit the description required.
Bourn of the Houston Astros is an All-Star who doesn't hit for average (.260) or power (one homer) or run production (20 RBIs).
One Astros player had to be picked. Again, the rules of how the players are selected are the reason Bourn is on the team, not poor choosing by Charlie Manuel.
Meek of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Thornton of the Chicago White Sox are nice pitchers, but they are setup relievers in a game where the star power is in starters and closers.
No one gives a shit about "star power" when it comes to selecting an All-Star team. As I said in the last Plaschke column I took on, it doesn't matter when it comes to selecting the team if a player has star power or not. It matters whether that player deserves to be on the All-Star team for the first half of the 2010 season.
A Pittsburgh Pirate had to be chosen according to the rules and Evan Meek wasn't a terrible choice. Also, I don't understand how a pitcher who pitches one inning in the 9th inning (like a closer does) is incredibly more valuable than a pitcher who pitches one inning in the 7th or 8th inning (like a setup guy does). Sure, the closer is a sexier position, but closers also predominantly enter the game with no runners on base, while a setup guy doesn't always have this luxury. No offense to closers, but getting three outs in the 7th/8th inning is just as important as getting three outs in the 9th inning in many cases.
"We often talk about the importance of a sports property owning a day on the calendar," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon. "Baseball owns the midsummer classic, yet I think they often un-deliver on the opportunity. They are happy with what they have, where, instead, a little creativity would go a long way to engage the casual fan the rest of the summer."
Earlier Bill Plaschke was railing against the convoluted process to choose All-Stars and how the game has lost its luster over the years because not enough stars appear in the game. I am not sure getting more creative with the selection process would fix these problems. Getting less creative by trimming the rosters down and choosing the ten best pitchers and the fifteen best position players would be less creative and could get the game back to its roots. Whatever these "roots" really are.
In relation to this guy's quote about how MLB can engage the casual fan for the rest of the summer...I don't think the All-Star Game is intended to gain the interest of the casual fan, I think it is more of a showcase for the best players in MLB. The All-Star Game is a marketing opportunity, but if MLB thinks out of 162 games during the year, the All-Star Game is the best chance to engage and convert casual fans then I think they may be thinking incorrectly. I don't see what happens in an All-Star Game that would entice the casual fan that the World Series or any of the 162 other games wouldn't do.
Baseball is happy to continue the tradition of picking at least one player from each team. This was a good idea back when fans didn't have televised access to every team every night, but it's a bad idea now.
This is a statement by Bill Plaschke that I agree with. It's the first and only time this will happen.
Forcing a guy from a last-place team with no good candidates to play in this game diminishes the credibility of everyone else.
I agree with this, but I do have to say that Evan Meek has had a pretty good year so far. If we are going to accept setup guys as the important part of a MLB team that they are he may have deserved to make the team.
How can you introduce Thornton and not Weaver, even if the Angels pitcher's appearance would be symbolic because, if he throws Sunday as scheduled, he'd be ineligible to play in the All-Star game?
Fine then. Jered Weaver is a symbolic All-Star, but Matt Thornton needed to be on the team so the American League had as many pitchers as the National League. Thornton wasn't a replacement, so this doesn't pertain to him, but there is a reason replacement pitchers are put on the squad and that is because if there are too many symbolic All-Stars there wouldn't be enough pitchers on each squad.
Baseball is also happy to continue the practice of having the manager pick some of the players. That's another dumb idea. It's not the manager's game, and it's no longer cute to hear how a manager snubbed a worthy player to take care of his own player.
Like how Joe Morgan was complaining Jayson Werth got snubbed by his own manager for Matt Holliday?
Did you hear how the Phillies' Charlie Manuel explained taking Ryan Howard over Votto, who is having a better season? "He's my guy," Manuel said.
Wonderful. Baseball markets itself to the world on the basis of a back slap and a wink.
Based on Plaschke's article that was written on July 3 he should accept and love that Howard was picked over Votto because Ryan Howard has "star power" and that is what the All-Star Game is all about according to Bill Plaschke. Just three days before he wrote this article Bill Plaschke was arguing the All-Star Game should be about "stars" who will make the game a carnival and of immense important. The fans don't want to see Joey Votto play first base, they want to see Ryan Howard take big swings at pitches and try to hit home runs. That's what Bill Plaschke was arguing. Now he is jumping over to the other side of the argument and says the team should be chosen on merit and Ryan Howard didn't merit inclusion on the All-Star team over Joey Votto. It's not an incorrect argument necessarily, but it goes against what Plaschke argued before.
Manuel was even more impressive when he explained why he didn't pick the must-see phenom Strasburg, saying, ''What's he got, like five starts or something?"
At the time, Strasburg had six starts. Baseball is putting its showcase game in the hands of folks who aren't even paying attention, and that has to change.
Baseball is putting its showcase game in the hands of folks who aren't even paying attention? Plaschke from his July 3 column:
Then, can you imagine? Sixth inning, Strasburg on the mound, no American League hitter has ever seen him, the greatest bats in the world fearfully hacking like Little Leaguers, memory after memory.
Strasburg had pitched three out of his six starts against American League teams. Who isn't paying attention? Bill Plaschke certainly isn't.
Also earlier in this column, Bill Plaschke made reference to the fact he hasn't heard of some of these players selected to the All-Star Game:
A game once famous for Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden's six consecutive strikeouts is now populated with Evan Meek and Matt Thornton.
If you don't know where those two guys play — heck, if you don't even know what position they play — don't feel bad. They were among three All-Stars whose names I announced Tuesday to a friend who is a longtime baseball fan. He whiffed on all three.
I know the All-Star Game isn't in the hands of Bill Plaschke and his unnamed friend, but they don't seem to be paying attention enough to criticize some of the All-Star selections.
Allowing the fans to pick the starters is a wonderful idea. But get rid of the player voting, which is all based on reputation. Get rid of the manager selection, which is all based on fraternalism.
Let me get this straight...allow the fans to pick the starters because this is a "wonderful idea." The fans tend to vote the same players in year after year and stuff the ballot box for their favorite, potentially undeserving players. I have no problem with fan voting, and I think the All-Star Game is for the fans, but I wouldn't think keeping fan voting and getting rid of player voting and manager selection is a good idea. There isn't really a great way to put the players in the All-Star Game that merit inclusion without some sort of bias.
The perception of baseball's entertainment value is also at stake, which is more important considering it has fallen behind football and basketball as a national attraction.
I don't think baseball is going to be able to get past the NFL in entertainment value because they have improved how competitive and "worthy" the players in the All-Star Game are. I don't think MLB has fallen behind the NBA in popularity. I have no real proof of this, but I feel like MLB is more popular than the NBA. If MLB wants to increase it's popularity, I think there are other measures that can be taken that would have a great effect than improving the All-Star Game.
League officials should pick the reserves
That should fix the problems that Bill Plaschke sees in the All-Star Game...let MLB officials pick the players. This is a good way to ensure that the players are picked by people who probably have less knowledge than fans, managers, and players about which players are deserving of the All-Star Game.
and plan out the game like they plan out any other big marketing event.
But the All-Star Game is not a marketing event. It is a game that supposed to be an exhibition and for the fans. It's supposed to be fun, not another MLB marketing event.
Baseball's All-Star game is a midsummer classic, not a vacation frat party, and it needs to once again start acting like it.
I don't even understand how the All-Star Game as it is currently set up is a vacation frat party. Simply because Plaschke hasn't heard of some of the players selected doesn't mean the choices were bad. It's interesting to hear a person who gave out incorrect information about Stephen Strasburg having ever pitched to American League hitters and a person who admits to not knowing some of the 2010 All-Star's names give input on how to fix the All-Star game like he is an expert.
The MLB All-Star Game does have problems but simply because the players who were invited to play in the game aren't household names doesn't mean they didn't deserve to be in the All-Star Game.
Second, I try to write on this blog 5-6 days every week and try to post something Monday through Friday. I enjoy writing here, but lately there hasn't been enough time for me to write the kind of posts I want to write. I am not shutting down the blog or anything, though I don't know if there is really anything to shut down, so keep visiting. I am just saying I don't know if I will be able to post something every day during the week for a while due to time constraints brought on by other shit I have to do during the day. So if the expectation is I post every day and I am not able to, don't fear I have been kidnapped. I have two staples I do every week. I do MMQB every week Peter King writes it and I do TMQ/Joe Morgan depending on whether it is baseball or football season. I don't want to stop doing that, but I also don't want that to be the sum total of what I write, so I still plan on posting frequently.
In conclusion, nothing is going to change, other than I may not be able to write everyday, but I just wanted everyone to know if I don't post something one day then I haven't quit writing here. I love writing here and enjoy the positive and negative comments I get, I just have to do a better balance in writing here and everything else I have going on right now. Basically, my mom is really hassling me to get the hell out of the attic and find a real job, so I have to make time to do that.
Okay, now that is out of the way, let's get to Bill Plaschke's latest whining about the All-Star Game that seems to stem from the fact he doesn't know all of the players who participated. Rather than figure out who these players are, he will just bitch they don't deserve to make the All-Star Game.
Two years ago, on a May day so full of promise, baseball Commissioner Bud Selig reverently announced that the 2010 All-Star game would be played at Angel Stadium.
It was a day of promise. Birds were singing, thousands of virgins were roaming the streets of California waiting to meet that special someone to share their life and love with, people smiled more, everyone shook hands and hugged when greeting each other and only "real" baseball players Joakim Soria, Joe Crede, Kosuke Fukudome, Carlos Marmol, Cristian Guzman, and Nate McLouth had been selected to the All-Star Game.
Times were much more innocent two years ago.
He fibbed.
What? But I just watched part of the game on Tuesday night. I thought the game took place at Angel Stadium? How did Bud Selig lie about the All-Star Game taking place at Angel Stadium. My life is changed forever. I am a person born anew.
(Bengoodfella emails apologies to Jay Mariotti and Peter King for all the things he has written about them...but still thinks Apolo Ohno is a son of a bitch who shouldn't have been on "Dancing with the Stars" dancing to shitty oldies music with a fourth-rate country singer like Julianne Hough)
I'll be a rally monkey's uncle before I'll believe that disparate group of 68 players coming to town next week is completely worthy of an All-Star game.
Plaschke is closer to a monkey's ass rather than in any other way related to a monkey.
Two years ago, Selig filled us with visions of Pete Rose crashing into Ray Fosse.
Instead, we could be getting Omar Infante crashing into John Buck.
Omar Infante crashing into John Buck at the All-Star Game doesn't count as real baseball in Plaschke's book. I think Plaschke took two of the names he didn't know on the All-Star roster and tried to make a comparison. I have $100 that says Plaschke thinks John Buck is related to Joe Buck in some fashion.
John Buck is having a decent year at the catcher position, so he may deserve to have been an All-Star Game.
Two years ago, Selig gave us the image of Reggie Jackson going off the light tower, Ichiro going inside the park, and Cal Ripken Jr. going deep into history.
I wish I knew what Plaschke was talking about here. I have no idea when Bud Selig said or indicated any of this stuff.
Instead, we're getting Michael Bourn going for . . . what exactly?
Being the "best" player on the Astros team. I'm not going to say I like that each team gets a representative or anything like that or that every player elected to the All-Star Game deserved it. This isn't the first year a player who didn't deserve to be on the team made it. It happens every year and will happen as long as MLB insists on having an All-Star Game played halfway through the season and having each team be represented.
A game once famous for Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden's six consecutive strikeouts is now populated with Evan Meek and Matt Thornton.
Of course Plaschke hasn't heard of these players so they must automatically be terrible baseball players. Everyone knows if Bill Plaschke hasn't heard of you then you are a complete nobody.
Evan Meek plays for the Pirates and has put up a 1.11 ERA, 1.84 BAA, 0.95 WHIP and a 3.2 K/BB ratio. He deserved the spot if every team gets a player on the squad.
Matt Thornton, though he gave up the winning runs, may have also deserved it. He has put up a 2.70 ERA, .200 BAA, 1.04 WHIP, and a 4.1 K/BB ratio.
Traditionally set-up guys didn't get a spot on the roster, but because they play such a large part in the games they appear in (or as much as a closer does), why shouldn't they be represented on the All-Star team?
If you don't know where those two guys play — heck, if you don't even know what position they play — don't feel bad.
Don't feel bad if you don't know where these guys play or what position these guys play, really don't feel bad...but also don't bitch and moan these players don't deserve to be in the All-Star Game. Your complete ignorance about the baseball players who made the All-Star Game does not mean these players didn't deserve the honor of making the team. I don't know the names of some of the players who make the NHL All-Star team, but that doesn't mean they aren't good players.
As I tell people at times and will tell Bill here, don't always assume people are as stupid as you are.
They were among three All-Stars whose names I announced Tuesday to a friend who is a longtime baseball fan. He whiffed on all three.
Again, this doesn't mean these players don't deserve to be in the All-Star Game. The attitude that "a player can't be good if I haven't heard of them" is a really bad way to think. Evan Meek deserved to be the representative for the Pirates, or at least deserved to be among those who merited consideration for the All-Star Game.
If there are people with baseball photos on their office walls unable to identify three players in the baseball All-Star game, then baseball is picking the wrong team, and, yeah, they've really mucked it up this time.
Absolutely incorrect. If there are people with baseball photos on their office walls unable to identify three players in the baseball All-Star game, then those people should pay more attention to baseball. The mere idea that because some players don't have name recognition also means they don't deserve to be on the All-Star team is stupid, dumb, retarded, backwards thinking.
Not only is it egotistical to assume that any player worth a shit is someone you have heard about. It is also the sign of a person who is just overall ignorant to believe he can't pay attention to the game of baseball during the season and everything will stay the same.
Thanks to a convoluted, ever-changing selection process that tries to make everyone happy, nobody should be happy with what may be the worst collection of All-Stars in the history of this once-proud game.
I don't believe the selection process is ever-changing over convoluted at all. I don't agree with the "super utility" position that has been created, but it very much disturbs me that Bill Plaschke being a member of the BWAA and the PFWA finds the All-Star selection process convoluted. His ability to vote for major baseball and football awards should be taken away if he can't understand the All-Star selection process.
The National League's leading power hitter, Cincinnati's Joey Votto, is thus far not on the team.
It doesn't matter if Joey Votto didn't initially make the All-Star team because he isn't a star nor a player that will turn the game into a carnival.
Neither is any San Diego pitcher, even though the Padres have the league's top staff.
Bill Plaschke from the column he wrote before this one:
Maybe it's not fair to the players, but it's not their game. So maybe San Diego's Clayton Richard or St. Louis's Jaime Garcia are left off the team to make room for Strasburg. No offense to those emerging talents, but so what?
So on July 3 it was perfectly fine to leave off a San Diego pitcher when it comes to Stephen Strasburg making the team because the All-Star Game isn't about statistics or which player is having the best year. On July 6, it is a sign the All-Star Game is stuck in a downward spiral that a San Diego pitcher hadn't been named to the team because the Padres have the best pitching staff in the National League.
Plaschke can't have it both ways. Is a Padres pitcher necessary for the game to be relevant as a showcase of the best players in MLB or is the All-Star Game about which players will get the best ratings?
The top strikeout pitcher in the American League, the Angels' Jered Weaver, is thus far not on the team.
Now Plaschke is just arbitrarily picking different statistics and saying the player that leads MLB in that statistic should be in the All-Star Game. Where is the MLB leader in holds? How did Mike Adams not make the All-Star team? It's a travesty!
Can you imagine how much Plaschke would bitch if Mike Adams had made the All-Star team? Not only doesn't he bring in great ratings, I bet Plaschke nor Bill's friend, who has a ton of baseball memorabilia on the wall of his office, have heard of him.
And don't even get me started about the arrogant snub of Stephen Strasburg.
We've heard Plaschke get started on Strasburg and he doesn't really have a point. How about this for arrogance? Bill Plaschke and his friend, who has a ton of baseball memorabilia on the wall, think that if they haven't heard of a baseball player then he isn't good enough to make the All-Star team. Isn't that pretty damn arrogant too?
Infante of the Atlanta Braves is an All-Star who doesn't even start for his own team.
I don't like the "super utility" position, but Infante can play 3B, 2B, SS, LF, and RF. He does fit the description required.
Bourn of the Houston Astros is an All-Star who doesn't hit for average (.260) or power (one homer) or run production (20 RBIs).
One Astros player had to be picked. Again, the rules of how the players are selected are the reason Bourn is on the team, not poor choosing by Charlie Manuel.
Meek of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Thornton of the Chicago White Sox are nice pitchers, but they are setup relievers in a game where the star power is in starters and closers.
No one gives a shit about "star power" when it comes to selecting an All-Star team. As I said in the last Plaschke column I took on, it doesn't matter when it comes to selecting the team if a player has star power or not. It matters whether that player deserves to be on the All-Star team for the first half of the 2010 season.
A Pittsburgh Pirate had to be chosen according to the rules and Evan Meek wasn't a terrible choice. Also, I don't understand how a pitcher who pitches one inning in the 9th inning (like a closer does) is incredibly more valuable than a pitcher who pitches one inning in the 7th or 8th inning (like a setup guy does). Sure, the closer is a sexier position, but closers also predominantly enter the game with no runners on base, while a setup guy doesn't always have this luxury. No offense to closers, but getting three outs in the 7th/8th inning is just as important as getting three outs in the 9th inning in many cases.
"We often talk about the importance of a sports property owning a day on the calendar," said Paul Swangard, managing director of the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of Oregon. "Baseball owns the midsummer classic, yet I think they often un-deliver on the opportunity. They are happy with what they have, where, instead, a little creativity would go a long way to engage the casual fan the rest of the summer."
Earlier Bill Plaschke was railing against the convoluted process to choose All-Stars and how the game has lost its luster over the years because not enough stars appear in the game. I am not sure getting more creative with the selection process would fix these problems. Getting less creative by trimming the rosters down and choosing the ten best pitchers and the fifteen best position players would be less creative and could get the game back to its roots. Whatever these "roots" really are.
In relation to this guy's quote about how MLB can engage the casual fan for the rest of the summer...I don't think the All-Star Game is intended to gain the interest of the casual fan, I think it is more of a showcase for the best players in MLB. The All-Star Game is a marketing opportunity, but if MLB thinks out of 162 games during the year, the All-Star Game is the best chance to engage and convert casual fans then I think they may be thinking incorrectly. I don't see what happens in an All-Star Game that would entice the casual fan that the World Series or any of the 162 other games wouldn't do.
Baseball is happy to continue the tradition of picking at least one player from each team. This was a good idea back when fans didn't have televised access to every team every night, but it's a bad idea now.
This is a statement by Bill Plaschke that I agree with. It's the first and only time this will happen.
Forcing a guy from a last-place team with no good candidates to play in this game diminishes the credibility of everyone else.
I agree with this, but I do have to say that Evan Meek has had a pretty good year so far. If we are going to accept setup guys as the important part of a MLB team that they are he may have deserved to make the team.
How can you introduce Thornton and not Weaver, even if the Angels pitcher's appearance would be symbolic because, if he throws Sunday as scheduled, he'd be ineligible to play in the All-Star game?
Fine then. Jered Weaver is a symbolic All-Star, but Matt Thornton needed to be on the team so the American League had as many pitchers as the National League. Thornton wasn't a replacement, so this doesn't pertain to him, but there is a reason replacement pitchers are put on the squad and that is because if there are too many symbolic All-Stars there wouldn't be enough pitchers on each squad.
Baseball is also happy to continue the practice of having the manager pick some of the players. That's another dumb idea. It's not the manager's game, and it's no longer cute to hear how a manager snubbed a worthy player to take care of his own player.
Like how Joe Morgan was complaining Jayson Werth got snubbed by his own manager for Matt Holliday?
Did you hear how the Phillies' Charlie Manuel explained taking Ryan Howard over Votto, who is having a better season? "He's my guy," Manuel said.
Wonderful. Baseball markets itself to the world on the basis of a back slap and a wink.
Based on Plaschke's article that was written on July 3 he should accept and love that Howard was picked over Votto because Ryan Howard has "star power" and that is what the All-Star Game is all about according to Bill Plaschke. Just three days before he wrote this article Bill Plaschke was arguing the All-Star Game should be about "stars" who will make the game a carnival and of immense important. The fans don't want to see Joey Votto play first base, they want to see Ryan Howard take big swings at pitches and try to hit home runs. That's what Bill Plaschke was arguing. Now he is jumping over to the other side of the argument and says the team should be chosen on merit and Ryan Howard didn't merit inclusion on the All-Star team over Joey Votto. It's not an incorrect argument necessarily, but it goes against what Plaschke argued before.
Manuel was even more impressive when he explained why he didn't pick the must-see phenom Strasburg, saying, ''What's he got, like five starts or something?"
At the time, Strasburg had six starts. Baseball is putting its showcase game in the hands of folks who aren't even paying attention, and that has to change.
Baseball is putting its showcase game in the hands of folks who aren't even paying attention? Plaschke from his July 3 column:
Then, can you imagine? Sixth inning, Strasburg on the mound, no American League hitter has ever seen him, the greatest bats in the world fearfully hacking like Little Leaguers, memory after memory.
Strasburg had pitched three out of his six starts against American League teams. Who isn't paying attention? Bill Plaschke certainly isn't.
Also earlier in this column, Bill Plaschke made reference to the fact he hasn't heard of some of these players selected to the All-Star Game:
A game once famous for Fernando Valenzuela and Dwight Gooden's six consecutive strikeouts is now populated with Evan Meek and Matt Thornton.
If you don't know where those two guys play — heck, if you don't even know what position they play — don't feel bad. They were among three All-Stars whose names I announced Tuesday to a friend who is a longtime baseball fan. He whiffed on all three.
I know the All-Star Game isn't in the hands of Bill Plaschke and his unnamed friend, but they don't seem to be paying attention enough to criticize some of the All-Star selections.
Allowing the fans to pick the starters is a wonderful idea. But get rid of the player voting, which is all based on reputation. Get rid of the manager selection, which is all based on fraternalism.
Let me get this straight...allow the fans to pick the starters because this is a "wonderful idea." The fans tend to vote the same players in year after year and stuff the ballot box for their favorite, potentially undeserving players. I have no problem with fan voting, and I think the All-Star Game is for the fans, but I wouldn't think keeping fan voting and getting rid of player voting and manager selection is a good idea. There isn't really a great way to put the players in the All-Star Game that merit inclusion without some sort of bias.
The perception of baseball's entertainment value is also at stake, which is more important considering it has fallen behind football and basketball as a national attraction.
I don't think baseball is going to be able to get past the NFL in entertainment value because they have improved how competitive and "worthy" the players in the All-Star Game are. I don't think MLB has fallen behind the NBA in popularity. I have no real proof of this, but I feel like MLB is more popular than the NBA. If MLB wants to increase it's popularity, I think there are other measures that can be taken that would have a great effect than improving the All-Star Game.
League officials should pick the reserves
That should fix the problems that Bill Plaschke sees in the All-Star Game...let MLB officials pick the players. This is a good way to ensure that the players are picked by people who probably have less knowledge than fans, managers, and players about which players are deserving of the All-Star Game.
and plan out the game like they plan out any other big marketing event.
But the All-Star Game is not a marketing event. It is a game that supposed to be an exhibition and for the fans. It's supposed to be fun, not another MLB marketing event.
Baseball's All-Star game is a midsummer classic, not a vacation frat party, and it needs to once again start acting like it.
I don't even understand how the All-Star Game as it is currently set up is a vacation frat party. Simply because Plaschke hasn't heard of some of the players selected doesn't mean the choices were bad. It's interesting to hear a person who gave out incorrect information about Stephen Strasburg having ever pitched to American League hitters and a person who admits to not knowing some of the 2010 All-Star's names give input on how to fix the All-Star game like he is an expert.
The MLB All-Star Game does have problems but simply because the players who were invited to play in the game aren't household names doesn't mean they didn't deserve to be in the All-Star Game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)