2 comments Phil Mushnick Is Tired of These Showboats and Knows David Cone Agrees With Him On This Even Though He Says He Doesn't

Phil Mushnick is the crankiest of cranky-pant sportswriters. He hates everything. Well, he doesn't hate how things used to be back when athletes didn't show off (you know, show off in a way like pointing to centerfield when he was predicting he would hit a home run), didn't say things for attention (you know, like predict a Super Bowl victory while lounging at the pool), and certainly weren't me-first athletes like today's athlete is. Phil Mushnick misses those days that most certainly never actually occurred. Now it's just athletes out for themselves and the media looking to pander to these athletes. This just infuriates Phil. Much like everything outside of the existence of oxygen infuriates Phil. Mushnick knows David Cone agrees about how showboating is ruining sports, despite Cone actually saying that he does not agree. It's just "The Man" forcing Cone to say these things and that's why he doesn't agree with Phil, not because he really doesn't agree the modern athlete is too much of a showboat. After all, sports ARE NOT intended to be entertainment, so Phil doesn't know where these athletes get off trying to be entertaining.

In the discourse of a week, how much of what we’re told to believe by experts is not even believed by the experts?

42.35%. That's how much we are told to believe on the air by experts is not actually believed by these experts. Well actually, these experts don't actually tell us to believe these things they don't believe, but they simply don't spend most of a game's broadcast ignoring the game in favor of railing against showboating in sports. Phil Mushnick takes this to mean these experts LOVE showboating, because they do their job, which is to call the game and not interject personal opinions on the downfall of sports civility into the broadcast at every possible chance. 

John Madden, off air, claimed to dislike all the chest-pounding and trash-talking. He said he didn’t like show-offs. Who does?

It depends on your definition of a "show-off." I'd also like to add that John Madden coached the Raiders back when they were the hard-hitting and personality-driven Raiders teams, so the fact he claims to not like trash-talking and chest-pounding is kind of ironic given the teams Madden coached. Jack Tatum fucking paralyzed Darryl Stingley during a preseason game. But again, let's forget all this and paint John Madden as a guy who prefers straight-laced players. I like myths. 

Yet on the air, over forced laughs, he said he loved the biggest all-about-me guys — Deion Sanders and Randy Moss, for two — as great entertainers.

Because that's what they are, entertainers. It's sports. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not boring. I realize the fact sports are supposed to be entertaining causes Phil Mushnick to stare disapprovingly over the top of his glasses and shake his head. 

Of course, Madden’s big-selling video games were — still are — loaded with excessively brutal images and showboating, a primary come-on as seen in commercials and on the packaging. Madden made an added fortune encouraging the young to believe what he doesn’t believe.

I'm pretty sure John Madden never came out on telecasts and said he loved showboating and how players talk trash all the time. Also, Madden wasn't deeply involved with the "Madden" football games to where he probably has a clue what sort of in-depth imagery the game is showing. And one more thing, it's a fucking video game. Brutal images and showboating? It's a video game that is supposed to be fun. Put the pitchforks back to wherever the hell you got them from.

Friday, the Yanks were down, 5-0, in the first, when Alex Rodriguez took an inside first pitch that was called a strike. On YES, Rodriguez was seen questioning the umpire. Also on YES, Paul O’Neill said this about that:

A-Rod was questioning the umpire? What a terrible display of showboating from A-Rod to question the umpire. No old-school baseball player would EVER question an umpire's decision-making ability. These young kids (A-Rod is 40 years old) just don't know the respect that previous generations who absolutely refused to question the umpire knew.

(Phil Mushnick goes outside to get his paper and shakes his fist at the neighborhood kids who once again are playing near the curb, which is where his flowers are planted. Such a "me-first" attitude on these kids. Back in Phil's day, kids would stay as far away from flowers as possible, but these days because of video games, kids think it's perfectly fine to stand in close proximity to flowers.)

“That’s the count I don’t think umpires understand. Strike one or ball one changes the whole at bat.”

OK, but what was O’Neill suggesting? Umps should call the first pitch differently from all others?

I think it is very clear what O'Neill was suggesting. He's suggesting that the umpires pay great attention to making sure the call on the first pitch is the correct one. O'Neill isn't suggesting the umps call the first pitch differently, but wants them to pay extra special attention to making sure the call is correct on the first pitch. It would be nice if the home plate umpire would pay special attention to every pitch, but O'Neill was simply observing the first pitch sets up how the rest of the at-bat may go. There is a reason pitching coaches love their pitchers to throw first pitch strikes. I understand though. I understand Phil's job is to bitch about sports and not actually understand the sport he is bitching about. 

Wouldn’t he prefer that umpires “understand” all pitches the same — as balls or strikes?

Yes, he would. He was simply observing the first pitch is very important because it decides the direction of an at-bat in some ways and an umpire needs to be sure he doesn't miss a call on the first pitch. That's all. 

In the fourth, the Jays’ Edwin Encarnacion homered to make it 8-1. Instead of quickly circling the bases, he took his time, extending his right arm as if a bird were perched on it. “Walk-the-parrot” is the latest in ESPN-rewarded check-me-out attention-grabs.

I remember the time (okay, I don't remember it, but I remember the story about it) Babe Ruth pointed to center field and predicted he would hit a home run in the World Series. ESPN wasn't around, so why did Ruth do this? Of course, this isn't showboating, it's just a fun story about a great baseball player. 

“Does that bother you, Coney?” O’Neill asked David Cone.

And it likely bothered O’Neill, or he wouldn’t have asked.

Or it didn't bother O'Neill as an ex-hitter and he wondered if an ex-pitcher was also not bothered by Encarnacion's "parrot" walk. Phil Mushnick just makes the assumption that O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question of whether someone else was bothered. This is a potentially incorrect assumption. Perhaps O'Neill just wanted the perspective of an ex-pitcher on Encarnacion's walk.

But Phil Mushnick doesn't think like this. He assumes a conclusion and then fits his argument to fit that conclusion, even if the conclusion takes more assumptions to fit into the argument. Obviously O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question, obviously David Cone is bothered because Phil Mushnick wants him to be bothered and obviously when Cone says he isn't bothered then he is simply kowtowing to the corporate gods who he owes his broadcasting career to. So David Cone's opinion isn't his real opinion and Phil Mushnick knows this because he wants Cone's real opinion to agree with what he's writing in this column. Because any fan of the Braves knows the corporate gods who hand out broadcasting jobs would not immediately fire announcers who appear stodgy and behind the times. Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are so modern and allow their thoughts to be determined by what is currently popular. Mushnick is working under the assumption YES doesn't want their announcers sounding behind the times, while anyone who watches a baseball game on television and hears the announcers talk know this isn't true.

What we know personally and professionally about Cone is he must hate it; hate it as a former pitcher, a dad, a sportsman and a right-headed human.

The opinion Cone espouses on television to thousands watching and listening must not be his real opinion because it's not what Phil Mushnick wants David Cone to believe. Cone's own opinion isn't his real opinion. "The Man" is just keeping Cone down and Mushnick knows this is true because he wants it to be true so his opinion on showboating can be held as the correct opinion and not the opinion of an old man who needlessly complains about entertainment being too entertaining. 

But he couldn’t or wouldn’t say it for fear of condemnation as out-of-touch with an anything-goes, bereft-of-sport sports world, so he took the modern media path and pandered to it, blessed wrong as right:

Because, again, baseball announcers are never saying anything that seems out-of-touch during a baseball broadcast. This never happens. I like how Phil creates his own reality where even those things that others say which may seem to disagree with a position Phil holds are not truly the opinion that person holds. It's all because "The Man" is going to keep them down and prevent any deviation from the modern media path. That's the only real explanation for why a person affiliated with sports would disagree with Phil's opinion. "The Man" is forcing them to hold an opinion they don't agree with. You know sort of the same thing, except using the opposing point of view, that Phil Mushnick does by insisting those who don't agree with him must really agree with him. He forces his opinion on others and won't allow anyone with a different opinion from him to hold that opinion.

“Nowadays, it’s a different game. Buck Showalter had an interesting comment about it: Modern ballplayers are responsible for this, about governing their play. If they’re OK with it, he’s OK with it. …

David Cone thinks baseball players should police themselves, which is definitely an old-school mentality. Perhaps "The Man" allows Cone to say some old-school things, but admitting he doesn't like showboating crosses the line. Or maybe, Phil Mushnick is wrong and David Cone's opinion really is his opinion. 

“Some of it has been good for the game. The old days of keeping your head down and not showing anyone up — that’s a thing of the past. And in some ways, that’s a good thing. You still want to respect the game, but there’s a fine line there and you know when you cross it.

Oh yeah, this is a totally modern point of view. Look at David Cone sticking hard to the party line. He's talking about respecting the game and there being a line you don't cross in terms of celebrating. It sounds pretty much like Cone believes the old-school way of players policing themselves and a player not celebrating too much, except that can't be true, because "The Man" has Cone under his thumb and is forcing Cone to not agree with Phil Mushnick on whether Edwin Encarnacion's "parrot" celebration is too much showboating. It's a huge conspiracy.

“If you hit a home run into the upper deck and you want to ‘walk the parrot,’ go ahead, walk the parrot. … It’s definitely a more lenient attitude toward the display of emotions, which for, the younger generation is a good thing.”

Against every wish Phil Mushnick has, times change. Players display more emotions this day in age than they used to (or maybe they do, I'm not even sure this is true), so David Cone has come to terms with this and realizes it's not bad for the game. Of course, Phil Mushnick secretly thinks David Cone is lying. Or does he? Now, showing thorough senility, Phil manages to argue with the opinion that he doesn't truly believe David Cone holds. So Phil thinks Cone doesn't like celebrations like "walk the parrot," but then argues with Cone over an opinion he doesn't believe Cone really holds. 

Really? Immodesty — often rehearsed and planned — is a good thing?

Cone didn't say anything about "immodesty" and therein lies the issue. Phil thinks it is immodest to celebrate a home run with a "walk the parrot" celebration, but Cone sees it as just a part of the game that is acceptable as long as the players find it acceptable. Phil can label this "immodesty," but that doesn't mean it's true. 

The most conspicuous rewards such “natural enthusiasm” reaps are brawls, personal fouls and striking home-run poses — posing doubles and into singles.

Well, there are no personal fouls in baseball. Even in basketball, personal fouls are a part of the game and not always as a result of a player showboating. Also, baseball brawls were around well before Edwin Encarnacion started strutting around the bases like a parrot. So what was the reason for baseball brawls back in the good old days when athletes were modest and never celebrated? You know, those days that never existed which Phil clings so tightly to. Brawls happened then, but supposedly players didn't showboat. I wonder how Phil explains this. 

Forgive me, but I don’t believe a word of what Cone or Showalter said; I believe that they believe that it stinks, that showboating has no tangible or next-generation upside, leaving our sports in further decay.

I don't need to forgive you for being senile and trying to force your point of view on others. I realize that you realize your argument sucks and so you need to make many assumptions in order to even churn out 250 words on a topic. Regardless of your opinion on showboating, pretending someone agrees with you because you so desperately want them to is pathetic. In fact, just assuming people agree with your opinion is immodest isn't it?

4 comments Slate Wants to Get Rid of Youth Sports Leagues, Because This Will Totally Get Rid of Obnoxious Sports Parents

Baseball is dying, football will eventually die and now "Slate" wants to get rid of youth sports leagues. It appears that sports, while seemingly to be as popular as they have ever been, are in fact dying. Who knew? A columnist for "Slate" writes that it is time to get rid of youth leagues, specifically Little League, because it serves no purpose other than to allow parents to fill the void in their own soul through their children's sports activities. God knows if youth leagues went away parents would find no other way to fill that empty part of their soul where the crowning sports glories of the past that never happened reside. Get rid of Little League, get rid of obnoxious sports parents. Plus, one city has shown a decrease in sports participation and it may be a sign youth sports participation is declining everywhere. So rather than answer the question of whether this decline in youth league participation is just indicative of one specific area and not a worldwide trend, the author responds to this possibility with "Who cares," which probably sums up his attitude towards youth sports and affects his point of view that all youth sports should be eliminated. Because mostly, we can't have kids becoming stressed. Kids who become stressed become adults who haven't learned how to deal with stress and adults who don't know to handle stress are definitely the type of person the world needs more of. Parents would never find a way to stress their children out if it weren't for youth sports. No way. No how.

Is Little League participation on the wane? And, if so, should we care?

Who cares if Little League participation is on the wane? If you don't care for Little League like the author doesn't care for Little League then that's his point of view. End of column. The author doesn't care if Little League dies or not, while those who do care can continue to participate. Good talk. Let's move on to ano---

Those were two major questions raised by a Wall Street Journal piece from last week documenting the apparent decline of casual sporting leagues in a nation of kids who have either been bewitched by video games or encouraged to specialize in one sport year-round—or both, if the sport in which they specialize is competitive Minecraft.

Here's my issue with casual sporting leagues. It's not that I don't want my kids to participate, but it's a massive time suck. There are only so many hours in a day and one practice during the middle of the week for an hour, combined with games every Saturday morning can kill a family's free time. That's just for one kid. If a family has multiple children, that's multiple games during the weekend and multiple practices during the week. I don't think that's the entire reason why youth leagues have declined, but kids participating in sporting events all year round means all year round the kids will have to be somewhere at 6pm every single Tuesday evening and be free every Saturday from 8am to 11am (depending on the time of the game) nine months of the year. When there are two parents working and other kids in the household who have shit to do during the week, it becomes a time suck. No more do we live in a society where mommy can take the kids to soccer practice at 5:30 a couple times a week. Mommy sometimes doesn't get home until 5:45pm and then mommy wants to do shit that mommy wants to do, like stop doing work or eat a plate of food. I'm sure these were problems in the past as well, but from my personal experience, these leagues are a time suck, especially when practice takes place in the middle of the week. But there are parents who don't mind their child participating in one sport or participating in all sorts of sports throughout the year. They enjoy youth sports and that's good for them. I enjoyed youth sports as a kid, but I also used to ride my bike to tennis and baseball practice, and now parents are generally required to stand there while practice is going on. My parents didn't have to attend practice for two of the four sports I played because I went alone.

{I was thinking about this the other day. I rode my bike to school everyday...elementary school. I met my friends outside their house and we rode our bike three miles to school. I would go to school, come home, do my homework and then leave again. I would never let my kid do that. Same goes for tennis and baseball practice. My mom was not there for either practice. She just knew where I was (without a cell phone!) and trusted I would be home at some point or later tell her where I was going. Now if my son wants to play soccer, practice is on a field that is eight miles away from my house. It's just how it is I guess, but I think this has something to do with youth leagues being on the decline. Parents have less free time and don't feel right sending their kid out the door by themselves. If I sent my son out the door to go to the park by himself he would look at me like I was drunk. He's going to be nine years old in July. He can ride his bike 2.5 miles to the park, but the idea I would let him do that would blow his mind. I recognize this is anecdotal evidence, but I do believe time constraints are part of the reason for decline in youth sports league participation...assuming it is declining.}

Whether you find the WSJ report convincing and conclusive—and there are good reasons to be skeptical of it—it should raise in your mind an overwhelmingly important point: Little League and other youth sports leagues are terrible, and we should not be sad to see them go.

Nope. Not really. Perhaps the author doesn't care for youth sports, but they teach teamwork and are fun to play. I would play youth league sports if it weren't for the fact I'm not a youth. Some of the best memories of my childhood was playing youth sports. They can be terrible at times, but they can also be great. Much like everything else in the world.

the Journal reported that while 8.8 million children between the ages of 7 and 17 played baseball in 2000, only 5.3 million children in that age group did the same in 2013. It’s worth noting, though, that the study seems to document declining youth participation in almost all sports, not just baseball.

But of course the author only focuses on Little League, because baseball is dying and all of that. May as well just stick to the story.

By the way, the fact participation has declined around all sports (I believe) reflects the demographic changes more than it reflects declining interest in organized youth sports. Sports are very popular and more and more families just don't have the time for their kids to take part in multiple sports over a calendar year.

The only sport highlighted by the Journal with increased participation from 2000 to 2013 is tackle football,

And more and more kids are playing only one sport and it makes sense the kid's choice would be the most current most popular sport.

proving once again that Americans do not read the newspaper.

Or proving once again that kids like football and parents haven't gotten to the point they where they believe football can't be made reasonably safe at the youth league level.

The Journal also reported on the declining fortunes of a youth baseball league in Newburgh, New York, a city “on the front lines of the fight for baseball’s future.” Whereas 206 children played Little League in Newburgh in 2009, only 74 signed up to play this year

A sample size of one city. What could go wrong with extrapolating a larger trend out of this one city's fortunes?

Extrapolated to the wider world, this purported Little League participation crisis is bad news for Major League Baseball, given that the boy who plays baseball grows up to be the man who spends $149 on a Mark Trumbo jersey.

Baseball is dying at a much younger age now! Also, you can get a Mark Trumbo jersey for cheaper than $149. If a man spends that much on a jersey there is a chance he is getting ripped off.

Is the Newburgh Little League crisis truly indicative of broader Little League trends? Or is the Journal’s piece just a small-sample-size look at the amateur sporting fortunes of an impoverished city in a cold-weather region? 

Great question. Let's see i---

And does it matter?

Since this is the second time you have posed this question and this entire column is based around the premise that this one small sample size is indicative of a larger trend, then yes, I would say that it does matter. I do like how the author throws out potentially misleading information and then rather investigate whether the information is misleading or not he just throws his hands up and says, "Fuck it, let's pretend it's accurate." The author makes contentions and then tries to end the discussion with "And does it matter?" before these contentions can be proven correct or incorrect. 

Along with Mom and apple pie, Little League baseball symbolizes wholesome Americana. But just as apple pie is fattening and Mom won’t stop nagging you to come visit, neither is Little League an unalloyed good.

In your opinion, not on the whole. 

Little League was founded in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, in the 1930s by a man named Carl Stotz who grew to hate what his creation became. “Originally, I had envisioned baseball for youngsters strictly on the local level without national playoffs and World Series and all that stuff,” Stotz later said, according to Mark Hyman in his book on youth sports, Until It Hurts. Then, in the 1950s, businessmen essentially staged a hostile takeover, forced Stotz out of the league, and proceeded to turn it into the worldwide entity that it is today, with its international World Series and its ESPN affiliation.

So for the last 60 years Little League has been a corporate creation that takes the soul out of sports? Interesting that youth league participating is only now declining. Besides, someone is going to find a way to make a buck off almost anything sports related. It's nearly impossible to avoid.

I became utterly disgusted,” said Stotz. He died a bitter man.

I'm sorry this happened, but it doesn't mean that Little League doesn't serve some good.

Stotz found the bigness of Little League to be awful in part because it seemed like an exploitative ploy that used kids’ athletic ambitions to fill adult-sized voids. 

And if Little League didn't exist then these adults would have no other way to fill those voids. Is that what I am to believe? Outside of outlawing sports on the whole, there is really no way for society to prevent adults living their athletic ambitions through their children. And why is Little League getting picked on here, like there aren't other sports where adults live out their athletic fantasies? Spending time trying to prevent parents from living out their athletic fantasies through their children is a fool's errand. 

For children, Carriere argues, Little League served to reinforce social order; it was “a highly supervised activity that engendered in children a healthy respect for law and order, taught proper gender roles, and, most importantly, brought families together.”

It still can be this. For every parent who lives out their sports fantasy through their child, there are three parents who just enjoy watching their child play a sport. Okay, that's an estimate, but any person attends a youth league game in any sport knows the majority of parents attending are either (a) disinterested or (b) just hoping their child has fun. 

The league helped compensate for the denatured character of postwar corporate labor while simultaneously preparing boys to enter the workforce and “accept such dispositions as specialization, rationalization, and bureaucratization.” By formalizing unstructured youth sporting play, modeling it on professional leagues, putting adults in charge, and keeping score and maintaining league standings, Little League “began to be seen as simply one stop on the trajectory of young people’s professional lives.”

It's also a way to teach children to compete and get used to losing every once in a while. It still serves a purpose, even if there seems to be less and less participation. 

So why should this bother us? Because youth sports leagues are stressful and regimented at their worst, and even at their best, they promote the idea that organized, performative play is the most valid and important kind of play.

What? This is ridiculous. Kids can play in a spontaneous or organized fashion. It's not one or the other. Youth leagues promote the idea that an organized competition with rules, people enforcing those rules and families showing up to support the kids is a fun activity. It's not some regimented task. Anyone who thinks a youth sports league is a regimented task children are forced to perform hasn't been to any 5 or 6 year old youth league games. 

The mere fact that adults take such a keen interest in the sporting activities of children invests those activities with an importance that just screwing around in a vacant lot will never have.

Much like school. Adults showing interest in children doing their homework, getting good grades and being a high achiever says that learning is important and just randomly learning knowledge is not something that is valued. 

That’s a horrible attitude to promote. 

Exactly. Adults showing an interest in their child succeeding in school tells the kid that organized learning is the only learning that will be accepted and not encouraging learning outside of school is a horrible attitude to promote. 

I played organized youth baseball until I was 14 or so, and the fun moments I remember are vastly outnumbered by the terrible and stressful ones: botching a critical play and feeling horrible about it for a week, failing to make all-star teams because the coaches nominated their own kids, the tension and agita of pretending these games have actual stakes, and the sense that if you don’t perform at your best, you’re letting everybody down.

So basically, the author had a bad experience in Little League. The author thinks this means that every child had the same experience in Little League that the author had. While criticizing organized sports for imposing one worldview on children, the author is imposing his own worldview on organized sports. The author believes his experiences in organized sports are the experiences of every child in organized sports. Because he has these feelings, every child must have these feelings. Bill Simmons is that you? 

In contrast, the most fun I had in childhood was with ad hoc games with other kids from my neighborhood: basketball on my driveway until dark, baseball with maybe four other kids in a vacant lot.

Spontaneous play is better than organized play

Again, the irony of the author criticizing organized sports for imposing one view on how sports are supposed to be played, while imposing his own view on how sports are supposed to be played in wanting youth leagues to be eliminated is delicious.

"I had a bad experience in Little League. Little League tells children that organized sports are the only way that sports can be played. Little League, and youth leagues like it, should be left to die because there is only one way to play sports...spontaneously."

The two can coexist, of course.

Apparently not. This entire column is about how organized sports can not co-exist with spontaneous sports, because organized sports are part of an attempt to suck the fun out of sports to fulfill their parents' fantasies of athletic achievement. So apparently the author does not think organized sports can co-exist with spontaneous sports.

But spontaneous play allows children to be in charge of their worlds for a while, to set and explore their own rules and boundaries, to exercise their imaginations in addition to their bodies.

Children can do both. They can play sports with their friends sometimes and then play organized sports against other children at other times. The author says it doesn't have to be one or the other, but he doesn't mean it, because the premise of this column is that children can't play spontaneous sports due to the lessons organized sports teaches. 

So who cares whether youth baseball really is waning in Newburgh?

Obviously you do because this entire column is based around the idea youth baseball is declining in popularity, especially in Newburgh. You then use the waning of baseball in Newburgh as a reason why it would be fine if Little League just was eliminated all together. So it seems you deeply care if youth baseball is really waning in Newburgh, because it proves the point you want to prove. 

As long as they can play pickup games, the town’s children will be fine.

And they can play pickup games while playing organized sports. It's awful hard to find 18 kids that all can play baseball at the same time, so just playing pickup baseball is hard. The same goes for a pickup game of football. Organized sports have their place in society. If the reason for getting rid of organized sports is because there are parents who take it too seriously, well, these parents will just find something else to take too seriously. You can't get rid of Little League because a minority of parents live out their fantasies through their children. 

0 comments Why are Baseball Sportswriters So Terrified of MLB Teams Thinking Outside the Box?

Terence Moore had an issue with the idea of a six-man rotation a few years ago. He did not like the idea that the Atlanta Braves may use a six-man rotation for a limited period of time. Now it's Joel Sherman who is furious and confused as to why in the hell the Mets would dare use a six-man rotation until late August. Why does it matter? The Mets are thinking outside the realm of conventional thinking because they choose to do so. What's the issue with this? I can't figure out why the idea of a six-man rotation is so offensive to Joel Sherman that he believes the mere suggestion should not be proposed. The Mets want to give their pitchers extra rest. I can't figure out what is so wrong with a different type of thinking about how many starting pitchers the Mets will choose to use. In baseball, any new idea is immediately met with resistance from sportswriters and I can't figure out why. So many sportswriters cling so tightly to how things were always done.

The Mets insist the six-man rotation is about more than protecting Matt Harvey.

Why does it matter what the reasoning is? The Mets have six pitchers they think are starter-worthy and want to use all of them for the time being. Why is it a huge deal to use a six-man rotation in order to give a pitcher an extra day of rest? It's just a strategy the Mets are employing, not the idea which will end baseball forever. I'm always miffed at why new ideas or an idea that is old, but different, seems to always meet resistance.

They also want to throttle back on 42-year-old Bartolo Colon, recognize that neither Jacob deGrom nor Noah Syndergaard has ever pitched a full major league season, and even prep for having Steve Matz step into a forum in which his innings can be better regulated.

HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THE METS HAVE A LONG-TERM PLAN FOR THEIR PITCHERS AND TAKE MEASURES TO EXECUTE THIS PLAN AS THEY SEE FIT! THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO DO SOMETHING AND THAT IS THE WAY JOEL SHERMAN WANTS IT DONE!

I get it. Still, this is mostly about Harvey.

Which is why I don’t completely get it.

You don't have to get it. The Mets want to rest their young arms and not overextend Bartolo Colon's arm. Whether you think this is babying the pitchers or not, it's their plan. It's not the end of the world and if it doesn't work then they will change the plan. It's not the Mets plan for Harvey that Sherman has an issue with though, it's that the plan is a six-man rotation. The Mets are daring to try something different and that is not all right. It goes against what Joel Sherman thinks a team should do in order to keep young pitchers healthy. Also, this six-man rotation isn't simply being used for the benefit of Matt Harvey. It's for the benefit of all the Mets young starting pitchers.

Harvey is a client of Scott Boras, who is renowned for taking his best clients to free agency to seek peak market value. Remember, the Tigers offered Max Scherzer $144 million before last season, the Boras client rejected it and got $210 million from the Nationals. Harvey is due to be a free agent after the 2018 season. The Mets have a financially conservative general manager and ownership. The chances Harvey is pitching for the Mets in 2019 is what? Five percent?

The chances are actually 6.7%.

So the Mets should be building their rotational plans around the fact they believe they will lose Matt Harvey to free agency after the 2018 season, as opposed to building their rotational plans around helping the team win games between now and then? This doesn't make sense to me.

That being the case, shouldn’t the Mets be maximizing Harvey now?

Notice “maximizing,” not “abusing.”

Except the Mets are consciously keeping Harvey under 100 pitches as much as possible. Harvey is coming off major elbow surgery too. So when Harvey throws 110 pitches in three straight starts and blows his elbow out again, take a guess at who will be the one writing a column about how the Mets are "abusing" Matt Harvey and he thought the purpose of the six-man staff was to protect Harvey and not injure him? Joel Sherman, that's who. He'll be the one writing this column.

No one is suggesting Harvey throw 125 pitches regularly or be pushed extra innings within games. But I would want more starts, not fewer from Harvey for the next 3 ¹/₂ years.

I'm sure the Mets want more starts too. Here's the thing though...the idea of a six-man staff usually works itself out. One pitcher starts performing terribly or another pitcher gets injured. So it's not bad to aim for a six-man rotation, while knowing eventually the rotation will go back to a traditional five-man rotation out of necessity. If the Mets did use a six-man staff until August then that's not that many fewer starts for Harvey on the season. They have not indicated they plan on using a six-man staff for the next 3.5 years, just until late August. Let's simmer down a bit and gain some perspective. Maybe the Mets will go past that August date they want to "at least" go to with a six-man rotation, but again, starting pitchers are hard to find and usually a rotation goes back to five men due to injuries or ineffectiveness.

Both Terry Collins and Mets assistant GM John Ricco made the case this is a way of making sure you get those starts between now and the end of the 2018 campaign, by limiting Harvey’s innings and giving him five days’ rest regularly.

I am not wearing a hat, but I will eat my hat if the Mets regularly use a six-man rotation from now until the end of the 2018 season. I am betting the vast majority of the time, if he stays healthy, Harvey will make 30+ starts during a season from now until 2018. It's hard enough to find five quality starters, which is why it's no big deal that the Mets want to use six quality starters. It's a nice goal to aim for, but not reasonable to expect over a three year period.

Nevertheless, the baseball industry is still not at peace if workload is the be-all and end-all in causing arm injuries

And of course when writing "the baseball industry" Joel Sherman is referring to himself as not being at peace if workload is the end-all in causing arm injuries. He clearly feels this way and is just passing it off as the entire industry agreeing with him to make himself feel like he's in much better company than he possibly really is.

The Mets did not seem to be abusing Harvey before he needed Tommy John surgery, the same for Zack Wheeler. The reality is most pitchers — particularly power pitchers — will break.

Okay, so knowing this would it make sense for the Mets to aim for a six-man rotation, where they have six guys capable of starting a baseball game, while fully knowing they won't be able to use this six-man rotation over a full season? The Mets would have six guys ready and used to starting games, as opposed to having a guy coming out of the bullpen who gets long relief work only, then has to step in as a starter.

There is no magic formula to keep that from occurring

Other than robots replacing humans on each MLB team to where the game of baseball is played by computers instead of real, live players. At that point, only a hard drive crash or other technological issue would stop power pitchers from breaking. This is obviously what Sabermetericians like Andrew Friedman are hoping for in the future.

Stars such as Harvey are assets and do you begin to devalue your asset by going from a five-man rotation to six? Why not a seven-man rotation? You can’t put the pitchers in Bubble Wrap.

At least Joel Sherman isn't reacting so negatively to the idea of a six-man rotation that he is suggesting absurd ideas like a seven-man rotation. You can actually put the pitchers in Bubble Wrap. They just can't pitch on the mound that way or else Fredi Gonzalez will tell on them for using a foreign substance, since obviously the popping of the bubbles would cause so much glee for the batter that he couldn't focus on hitting the baseball.

You use them, you do it with the best practices for keeping them healthy and you hope for the best.

But see, that's what the Mets are doing. They are trying to keep their pitchers healthy by aiming to have a six-man rotation. The problem is that Joel Sherman, who is not a doctor or specialist of any kind in the medical field, thinks that using a six-man rotation is not the best way to keep young pitchers healthy. He may be right, he may be wrong. But his suggestion that a team use "best practices" to keep a pitcher healthy, as if this isn't what the Mets believe they are doing, is incorrect. 

“There is a big picture in this and that is even if we don’t have him [after free agency,] we want to make sure we have him the next three years,” Collins said. “And right now we think the best thing for Matt is to have the extra day.”

But again, reality will eventually probably creep in. The Mets won't trot a shitty starter out there every sixth day for the sake of a six-man rotation. I really doubt they would do that. So Harvey will most likely pitch for the majority of his Mets career as part of a five-man rotation. It's so hard to find five quality starters, much less six quality starters, I can't imagine the six-man rotation lasting for 3.5 years like Joel Sherman seems to believe it will.

Collins recently referred to Harvey enduring “a dead arm” phase and the stats show that after 100 pitches, Harvey morphs from Cy Young to Curt Young. 

So maybe keeping Harvey under 100 pitches in a game is a good thing? OF COURSE NOT! Joel Sherman thinks this is another example of the Mets babying their pitchers. Fuck stats. What do they mean anyway? 

But it also should be noted that in his 45-start career, Harvey has faced just 58 batters after 100 pitches. Translation: The Mets already have been babying him.

Babying him = Seeing his effectiveness greatly wanes after 100 pitches and removing him from the game so the Mets have a better chance of winning said game. 

Pitching coach Dan Warthen said he envisioned staying with a six-man rotation until at least mid-August. The Mets believe they will be in contention and that the conservative approach now will keep their starters strong for a six-week dash to the finish line — and perhaps into October.

It's funny how Sherman writes "at least" mid-August when Dan Warthen indicated in other articles that mid-August was when the six-man rotation would most likely stop. A little bit of semantics here, but to prove his point Sherman seems to have added "at least" when other news outlets report the six-man rotation would be "through" mid-August, "until" mid-August, and "until" the middle of August. Other news outlets have a sense of finality in August regarding the six-man rotation, while presumably in order to help prove the point he wants to prove, Joel Sherman uses a term with less finality when describing how long the six-man rotation would last. 

Warthen conceded none of the starters was enthused about this process and Collins told Harvey he is on an innings limit this year and the alternative to accepting the six-man rotation was to sit out September, go on the DL a time or two or be pulled constantly after five innings.

I'm guessing that Collins dressed it up better than this when talking to Matt Harvey. 

But, again, are we positive 180 innings is going to keep Harvey healthier than 200 or 210? It is well-intentioned guesswork, but guesswork nevertheless.

Yes, it is guesswork, but what isn't guesswork is that Matt Harvey is coming off elbow surgery and he becomes less effective after 100 pitches, thereby giving the Mets two reasons not to see if he stays healthier at 180 innings than 200 or 210 innings. I don't believe in babying pitchers, but I also don't pretend to know the best way to prevent Tommy John surgery. 

The same as in limiting Syndergaard, whose effort Wednesday made you want to see more — not less — of him. He was facing the woeful Phillies in a matinee after a night game.

Still, his 7¹/₃ shutout innings were impressive against any opponent, any time. He cranked two-seam fastballs he only refined last week that were scary — topping out at 100.7 mph (according to Brooks on Baseball data) and averaging 97.7.

Well of course Mets fans want to see more of Syndergaard. I wanted to see Craig Kimbrel throw every single night, but that doesn't mean his having 110 appearances in a season was a smart move. 

The Mets want to keep Syndergaard, Harvey, deGrom, eventually Matz and Wheeler healthy for the short and long term. I get it.

You say you get it, but then you claim to know the best way to keep these young pitchers healthy for the short and long term. It just so happens that way (in Joel Sherman's opinion) isn't to use a six-man rotation, which is an idea that is new and obviously won't work simply because new things are scary. Because a five-man rotation helped to keep Wheeler and Harvey so healthy and all.

And I respect their forward thinking in trying the six-man rotation.

The Braves tried a six-man rotation a few years ago (much to Terence Moore's chagrin) and it lasted two times through before an injury caused them to go to a five-man rotation again. I can completely see this happening again, which is why the Mets trying a six-man rotation isn't a reason for gnashing of teeth and questioning the sanity of the Mets' front office. 

But at full health, Gee should be used as a safety net, not an equal to the Mets’ best starters.

A safety net? Like a long reliever or a guy who can step into the rotation if an injury should occur? I don't get how it matters. If a pitcher gets injured, then the idea of the six-man rotation is kaput anyway. If anything, this six-man rotation negatively affects the bullpen and bench depth the Mets have as much as it affects their starting rotation. But I don't get why Sherman's next beef is with Gee being considered equal to the Mets' best starters. Gee projects as a pretty good fifth starter. Why can't he be a good fifth or sixth starter rather than relegated to the bullpen?

That is why this doesn’t make sixth sense to me.

What a horrible way to end the column. The point is that Dillon Gee should be treated as an equal to the Mets' best starters because the Mets' best starters haven't proven they can pitch 180 innings in a season on a consistent basis, partially due to their young age. This six-man rotation is going to be a short-term thing. Something always goes wrong with a starter that moves the six-man rotation back to a five-man rotation. Don't be afraid of new ideas and hide behind the illusion there is a certain way to prevent arm injuries to young pitchers. 

0 comments Jim Souhan Says He's Glad the Twins Hired Paul Molitor So The Coddling of Twins Players Can End; Then Eats An Entire Plate of Nachos From The Safety of the Press Box

Like his fellow Twins-watcher Tom Powers, Jim Souhan thinks the Twins have been coddling their players too much under Ron Gardenhire. Much like Tom Powers, Souhan states this as someone who doesn't make his living in athletics where he could suffer a severe injury, unless carpal tunnel counts as a severe injury. Fortunately, the Twins have hired Paul Molitor to end the coddling of the Twins players. Previously, Twins players have missed games with brain injuries and torn muscle parts, but that era has ended with Paul Molitor in town. Now there's no excuse for missing a game. Just rub some cocaine and marijuana on it like Molitor did and get out on the field. If a Twins player is thinking about sitting a game out, take it from a guy who had an article written about him stating,

The amazing thing about Paul Molitor's recent bat-o-rama is not that he has hit in 33 straight games but that he has played in 33 straight games.

I'm sure Molitor's injuries were just a result of him playing too hard and trying too hard not to coddle himself. The idea a player who was famous early in his career for being injured no longer allowing Twins players who are injured to be coddled is funny. From the first article I linked, here is a list of Paul Molitor's ailments from 1980-1986:

Molitor was voted to the American League's starting lineup for the 1980 All-Star Game but had to excuse himself. A pulled chest muscle forced the Milwaukee infielder to miss almost a full month of play, from June 24 to July 18.

In 1981, Molitor tore ligaments in his left ankle May 3 and was on the disabled list until July 12.

In 1983, a wrist injury bothered him all season, and his batting average, hit and RBI totals fell way off from the year before.

In 1984, Molitor hurt his right elbow in spring training, played 13 games before undergoing surgery May 21, and never came back.

In 1985, Molitor made the All-Stars again, but spent Aug. 13-29 on the disabled list with a sprained ankle.

In 1986, Molitor hurt his hamstring, was put on the disabled list from May 10-30, hurt it again three days later, and returned to the disabled list from June 2-17.

I'm sure Jim Souhan thinks all of these injuries were from trying too hard and trying to be gritty enough to continue playing. There is nothing wrong with being injured and I am smart enough to understand Molitor can't rub dirt on his injuries and come back in the game. Unfortunately, Jim Souhan forgets about Molitor's past and decides that the coddling of Twins players has to stop...and Molitor is the guy to do it, while conveniently ignoring that Molitor had his own injury issues. 

As a player, Paul Molitor demonstrated competitiveness not with gestures or celebrations, but with stone-faced, head-first slides into spikes.

He slid "into spikes" as a player? That seems unnecessary to prove his toughness. The bases don't even have spikes on them, yet Molitor slid into bases with spikes anyway. That's toughness.

In 2001, he hinted at the fires within. The baby Twins, having led the American League Central for most of the season, were ambushed by a veteran Indians team in Cleveland late in the season. Molitor, then coaching under Tom Kelly,

Tom Kelly, a known pussy who somehow managed to ride the grit of Jack Morris and Frank Viola to two World Series titles.

thought the opponents and umpires were displaying disrespectfulness to his team. It took multiple people to keep him from bursting onto the field to physically make a point.

Leadership is physically assaulting an umpire and the opponent.

Last season, as the Twins lost 92 games, Molitor — promoted from coach to manager on Tuesday — again tried to remain below boiling temperature.

“There were times last year when we’d get on the team bus after a loss and Paul would look over at me and just shake his head,” Twins assistant general manager Rob Antony said. “He had that look in his eye, like he was ready to explode. And I know that look, because I was sitting on that bus thinking, ‘That was a game we should have won.’

If it weren't for the group of nine human vaginas on the field who can't play through injuries, these games would have been won. This isn't ballet guys, it's baseball. Suit up and play baseball...unless you can't like Molitor couldn't earlier in his career in which case that was fine for him, but totally isn't fine the current Twins players.

“We won 70 games last year. I think we should have won 78. To go from 78 to 88, or something close, I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I think we should be competitive this year.”

At his first news conference as manager, Molitor said: “I’m coming here to win.”

BREAKING NEWS: A newly-hired manager states his intention is to win baseball games.

His first order of business should be introducing a new mentality to the clubhouse.

A mentality like cocaine use to work through any tired feeling or marijuana use to numb any pain the players may have?

During their four consecutive losing seasons, the Twins tried to exercise caution with injured or bruised players. Anyone complaining of an ache was given an extra day or two off. There is logic in that approach.

You mean an ache like an injured hamstring that Molitor had during the 1986 season? Or an ache like a pulled chest muscle that Molitor had during the 1981 season?

There is also danger.

Danger!

The Twins clubhouse became a place where you could collect a check without actually taking the field.

One of the early tests of Molitor’s tenure will be his handling of his best player, Joe Mauer.

The player for the Twins who is a catcher and has suffered many of the ailments that a catcher will traditionally suffer, including concussions and knee surgery? The same Joe Mauer who holds the Twins' record for most games played at catcher?

Both grew up in St. Paul. Both played baseball at Cretin High. Both had the early years of their careers defined by constant injuries. The difference between them is important. Molitor’s desire to play was obvious. Mauer’s is not.

This doesn't really make sense. How does Souhan know that Molitor's desire to play was obvious and Mauer's desire is not? Is Souhan also able to visually determine a player's desire, even going back 30 years? Or is he just writing this sentence in a weak attempt to push Molitor's injuries off as something he couldn't fight through in an effort to head off the obvious contradiction in painting an oft-injured ex-player-turned-manager as a guy who will force his players to fight through injuries.

When the guy making $23 million a year begs out of the lineup because of a bruise, it’s difficult for the manager to push others to play through pain.

Souhan is referring to Mauer leaving a game with a bruised right elbow. This happened on September 23 and he returned on September 25.

Molitor’s predecessor, Ron Gardenhire, believed in maintaining cordial relations with key players. That approach worked for most of a decade. It appeared to fail in recent years with Mauer.

Mostly playing catcher, Joe Mauer has played in at least 113 games in every year of his career except for 2011 and 2004 when he was called up from the minors. Catchers are banged up a lot and in 11 seasons Joe Mauer has played 210 games as the DH and 920 games as the catcher, while Molitor played 1173 games as the DH in 21 seasons. Just saying, it's a lot easier to get banged up as a catcher.

Can Molitor play the bad guy?

“Yes,” he said. “It is a necessary part of the job. But for me, it’s kind of like surgery. It’s kind of the last option. I want to reach people in different ways before that needs to be done. We all know that different players have different buttons that need to be pushed.

And hopefully Molitor can push the "Rub some dirt on it" button that his manager couldn't seem to be able to push for him early in his career.

“We can all talk nice and fluffy about, ‘Well, you can all get along, and then they’ll play for you.’ In reality, not everyone is going to fit into that mode. They’re going to challenge you along the way, and see where you stand. I will choose other things first, but yes, there will be times when you need to be tough.

Plus, winning. Paul Molitor will be trying to win games too. Don't forget that. It's a goal other managers tend to forget about.

Does Mauer expect to be managed differently? “Well, I’d like to think I don’t need a lot of managing, as long as I get in the lineup,” he said.

Which should happen since Mauer is still a really good hitter. That's getting lost in this discussion about how the Twins aren't a tough team and Joe Mauer left a game due to a bruise.

Does closer Glen Perkins, who is friends with Mauer and an admirer of Molitor’s, believe the new manager will have to push this group of players?

“I think that there’s an inherent respect for him that’s going to make guys do the things they have to do,” he said. “I don’t think there’s going to be any lackadaisicalness. With him, it’s the same thing as with Terry Ryan. When Terry walks into the room, you stand up and shake his hand. He commands respect. Paul Molitor is the same way. Nobody is going to feel right about trying to get away with certain things.

“The culture changes with just hiring him, and him being our leader. It’s a welcome change.”

"Pussies not allowed!" is what Glen Perkins is really saying. All of these Twins players who have been coddled are finally going to be forced to play through their injuries. Of course, Jim Souhan in typical talk-radio style only named one Twins player who he thinks has been coddled, but I'm sure there are many, many more that he just didn't have time to name in this column. After all, when indicating in the title there are multiple Twins players who are being coddled, it makes sense to only use the example one player, and for that one player to be the Twins catcher.

By the way, Yadier Molina (a guy I don't think anyone would state is not tough) has played in an average of 120 games per year in his career,  while Joe Mauer has played in an average of 118 games in his career. The man who upholds all that is great and right in baseball, Brian McCann, has averaged playing in 124 games per year in his career. So catchers get injured and can't play in every game during a season. Now that Mauer has been moved to first, maybe the bar is higher, but he still has almost a decade of wear from playing catcher on his body. Not that it matters to Jim Souhan as he eats a pre-game spread and tosses back a Diet Coke before the game safely in the press box, it's just that Mauer isn't tough enough. Paul Molitor is obviously the cure.

Jim Souhan also wrote an article where he thought that Molitor should maximize the grit and toughness of the Twins team by hiring an entire coaching staff of Twins legends. What could go wrong?
 

On Tuesday, the Twins, for the first time, hired a Hall of Fame player to be their manager.

Why stop there?

Why not surround Paul Molitor with other famous former Twins?

Greg Gagne for hitting coach! It's the only way to win. Jeff Reardon for pitching coach!

Why not hire coaches who will inspire admiration, if not fear, in the Twins clubhouse?

"Admiration, fear...they are pretty much the same thing," said the future dictator of a Communist country. 

Traditionally, major league coaches earn their jobs through years of minor league work and organizational loyalty.

The advantage Molitor has now, and has enjoyed as a minor league instructor and spring training coach, is that his reputation precedes him. If a young player doesn’t know who he is, someone like Glen Perkins or Brian Dozier will tell that player, “Listen to this guy. He’s in the Hall of Fame, and he got there with his brain.”

That's a great story, Jim. Actually Paul Molitor got in the Hall of Fame with his ability to hit a baseball, but it sounds much, much cooler to say he got there with his brain. 

In an otherwise empty Twins spring training clubhouse in 1996, I was interviewing Chuck Knoblauch when Ron Gardenhire, then a coach on Tom Kelly’s staff, came in and told Knoblauch he was wanted on the field. Knoblauch said, “In a minute,” and didn’t move.

Gardenhire, angry, left. Knoblauch said, “What’s he gonna do? He’s just a coach.”

Then Knoblauch went on the field and threw the baseball into the stands when trying to scoop the ball to the shortstop for a double play. 

Knoblauch was being a jerk. He was also correct: The average major league coach wields little actual power. The average major league coach is seen as part valet, part worker bee.

Now imagine a clubhouse filled with young players, run by a manager named Molitor, and coaches named — take your pick — Dan Gladden, Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven or Eddie Guardado.

Oh yeah, that's a great point. With guys like Gladden, Morris or Guardado in the locker room players will be like, "I don't know who the fuck that guy is because he isn't in the Hall of Fame like Paul Molitor is, but I am definitely going to respect that guy because they are the average major league coach that wields little power." 

My ideal Twins staff would be Molitor, Brunansky, Guardado as bullpen coach, Gladden as outfield coach and Morris or Blyleven as pitching coach.

Basically, Jim Souhan's ideal Twins staff has almost no experience actually being a coach at the major league level. I can't imagine how that wouldn't work out. 

The Twins would need to hire a Latin American former player who could communicate with the team’s Spanish-speaking players, and Molitor could use a veteran bench coach.

That's a great point. Who can speak to all the Mexicans? Perhaps Rick Aguilera? Sure, he ain't no Mexican, but as long as he can spit a few words of Spanish out I'm sure it will appease everyone. What are the Mexican players going to do anyway? Paul Molitor ain't having any bullshit in his clubhouse, including any bitching about the fact there ain't no Spanish-speaking coaches. Go home if you won't play hurt and or you think that you need a translator! Paul Molitor and Jack Morris never needed a translator and neither do you!

All of the above were known for mental and physical toughness as well as success. They are all capable of keeping a clubhouse loose, or getting in a sluggish player’s face.

And that's really what it is all about, getting in a player's face. Boy, Jim Souhan really wants to watch grown men get yelled at, doesn't he?

Just as Molitor can teach a young player the proper footwork required to steal bases in the majors,

"Run in that direction and then slide once you get close to the base."

Guardado could show his own game films

That sounds like a good use of time. "Hey everyone, come see how good I pitched! No bitching about watching me pitch for two hours or else Paul Molitor will get in your face. I'm keeping it loose now, but when Jack Morris comes in raging that you aren't watching my game film, it's on you to calm him down."

while demonstrating that velocity is not a prerequisite to pitching well in the big leagues.

"Throw slower and success will come."

Isn't that the direction baseball is headed? Softer throwing relievers?

Gladden can explain how he learned to expertly play left field,

"When the ball was hit to me, I used my legs to run and catch it. Here, now you try."

Morris and Blyleven can take apart games pitch by pitch.

And Morris will always complete every game he takes apart pitch by pitch, just like he completed every game he started in the majors...including GAME 7 OF THE 1991 WORLD SERIES.

Most big-league coaches are happy to have a job and hold little leverage. The Twins would have to woo Morris or Blyleven away from good broadcasting gigs offering scheduling flexibility. That would be expensive.

(Twins management) "Bert, you can fart in the clubhouse." 

(Bert Blyleven) "It's a deal."

(Twins management) "Jack, you can tell stories about GAME 7 OF THE 1991 WORLD SERIES and we will put a good word in for you to the Veteran's Commit---"

(Jack Morris) "It's a deal."

The organization strives to keep its best players close; they can’t get much closer than wearing a uniform in the dugout during games.

The dynasty would then begin. Now Paul Molitor is going to go get in someone's face which will cause fear in the player, followed by admiration.

2 comments Baseball Is Still Still Dying a Death So Hard and the Future is Bleak; Except This Isn't True

As I wrote a few weeks ago, it's almost a cliche to say that baseball is dying. I think it's becoming a running joke among baseball fans that dozens of "Baseball is dying" columns get written around the time of the World Series. This is due to the ratings that the World Series receives which aren't comparable to ratings that the World Series has gotten in the past. As I have written many times before, there is an easy explanation. No top-rated shows, outside of NFL games, receive the ratings that they used to receive 20-30 years ago. The top-rated show on television get lower ratings than the top-rated show from 20-30 years ago. There are more options available to consumers. It's a simple explanation. Baseball is becoming a regional sport and still does well regionally. Still, writers like Phil Sullivan can't seem to figure it out and want to churn out a lazy "Baseball and the World Series are dying" column. Hey, maybe there is just nothing else he knows to write about.

You can't judge a World Series by its ratings, but it's apparent many fans don't exactly consider the Royals-Giants matchup must-see TV.

The quality of the World Series can't be judged by the ratings that World Series receives. This is just like the quality of a television show can't be judged by the ratings that television show receives.

The annual storyline of the national pastime losing viewership during its premier event once again cropped up this week, despite a back-and-forth Series that was pushed to seven games Tuesday night with the Royals' 10-0 victory.

Yes, despite the fact viewers should be able to predict the future to know that the World Series would be a back-and-forth affair, every game of the World Series was only in the Top 20 of the Nielson ratings for the week that the game aired. There are network television shows that would kill to have "bleeding" ratings like the World Series receives. If only...

Is this just something baseball has to live with from now on, or are there things the sport can to do to recapture October from football?

Yes, this is just a fact of life now. Baseball has become an increasingly more regional sport and every World Series game will no longer be the #1 rated program on the night they air. The NFL is currently more popular. The sooner the baseball-loving media deals with this, the happier they are, and the sooner I won't read "baseball is dying" articles anymore. It will be a glorious day.

"There's a lot going on at this time of year," Giants general manager Brian Sabean said. 

Plus, baseball just isn't as popular to watch on television as it used to be. 

"Baseball is not the American sport. Football is, and especially pro football, which is followed by some family member in everybody's family. But that has evolved over time. It really has nothing to do with the World Series."

But no, Brian Sabean, it DOES have something to do with the World Series. That's the premise of this article and so that is the conclusion that must be reached, reality about whether the relative lack of interest is a baseball-specific issue or is a World Series-related issue be damned.

True, baseball no longer is "the American sport" and hasn't been for years. It's not likely to overtake football in popularity for the foreseeable future.

Copy and paste onto a piece of paper that can go on the computer of writers like Paul Sullivan, so the answer is right there when the question of "Why doesn't baseball have great ratings like it used to?" pops into their mind.

There are many theories to choose from for lackluster World Series ratings, though the late starting times and the long games are the reasons most cite.

Football games start late and are actually longer than most baseball games, so those are two logical, but probably not entirely accurate reasons for the decline in baseball's popularity. The fact baseball isn't perceived as a "fast" sport combined with the perceived amount of standing around done could also be part of the reason the sport has suffered a decline in popularity. It's nearly impossible to pinpoint one reason, but the fact the playoff games feel like they move at a slow pace probably doesn't help. Whatever tension the sport has feels broken by the pauses between pitches. Baseball isn't a sport to actively watch like football. Baseball can be actively watched, but viewers watch a baseball game in a different manner than they watch a football game.

This particular Series also is lacking in star power, outside of Fox reporter Erin Andrews.

This doesn't make sense. Last year's World Series did not lack star power and it didn't get ratings reminiscent of the 1980's World Series games. Not that Paul Sullivan would draw a conclusion that baseball is dying because one World Series didn't get great ratings or anything like that when he refers to "this particular Series" lacking star power.

Madison Bumgarner, the probable MVP if the Giants win, isn't as well-known as half the starting quarterbacks in the NFL.

I mean, okay, if that comparison is attempting to prove baseball's popularity compared to the NFL's popularity it feels like a fail to me. LeBron James is more well-known than half of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL. Does that mean the NBA is more popular than the NFL? David Ortiz was popular and well-known and his presence didn't catapult the 2013 World Series to 30+ million viewers.

The Royals' key players, their three late inning relievers, are more anonymous than many NFL backup quarterbacks.

Everybody is anonymous until they make a name for themselves. I don't know if the World Series would bring in fantastic ratings even if the Royals had Papelbon, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman in the bullpen. Again, Sullivan is assuming it is the lack of star power that is pushing the 2014 World Series ratings to being below those ratings of World Series games 20-30 years ago. It's not entirely true. 

The numbers are frightening. Heading into Game 6, the Series was averaging 12.1 million viewers per game. Game 1 in Kansas City was the lowest-rated World Series opener of all time with an average of 12.2 million viewers, while Game 4 in San Francisco only drew an average of 10.7 million.

And yet, these numbers were still in the Top 20 of television shows in primetime during that week. World Series ratings aren't as high as they used to be, but they are really aren't terrible considering they are still among the Top 20 shows during a given week.

Sunday's Game 5 rose to a 12.6 million average, but still lost out to Sunday Night Football, where the Saints trounced the Packers.

Football is more popular than baseball. Stop pointing out how World Series ratings can't match Sunday Night Football ratings. The World Series games will not match the ratings of Sunday Night Football games. It's just how it is now and there's no reason to say, "Derrrrrrrrrr....why is it the World Series can't match football in ratings? Is the sport dying? What's going on?"

Football ratings > Baseball ratings. Accept it, move on, and make no further comparisons of baseball to football.

Is FX dying? All shows on FX can't match the ratings that World Series games receive. Does this mean FX shows aren't popular and the network should fold? What about HBO? They rely on paid subscribers, but their shows can't keep up with baseball's ratings. Is HBO dying?

According to Variety, Sunday Night Football's ratings beat Game 5 by a 39 percent margin, the biggest difference since World Series games began competing against the Sunday night games on NBC in 2010.

Welp, some World Series game has to have the largest difference in ratings as compared to Sunday Night Football. I guess Game 5 of the 2014 World Series is that game.

While this year's Series has been captivating to most avid baseball fans, the rest of the country seemingly is not enamored.

Because baseball is becoming more and more of a regional sport. That is why. Local ratings for baseball are pretty good and MLB teams are securing lucrative regional contracts as well. The sport is simply becoming less and less national.

You can believe it has crossed the minds of incoming commissioner Rob Manfred, who is taking over the ship at a critical juncture, and Tony Clark, executive director of the MLB Players Association.

Yes, I could believe the commissioner wants baseball ratings to be as high as possible. As commissioner, this does seem like it would be one of Rob Manfred's concerns. Even if ratings were great, one of Manfred's concerns would still be to make sure fans all around the United States continue to enjoy watching the World Series.

Baseball's gross revenues reached a record $8 billion last year, according to Forbes, so the sport isn't exactly dying.

But yet, articles like this wondering why the World Series is bleeding ratings and sounding a death knell for the sport of baseball still get written. For a sport that doesn't get great ratings nationally, revenue records are still being set. Gee, what could that mean? Somebody somewhere must be enjoying watching the sport of baseball.

But if the millennials are tuning the game out, why would the following generation suddenly start tuning in?

That's a great question. If World Series ratings are decreasing and there is less perceived interest in the World Series and baseball in general, why would baseball have record gross revenues?

Of course, closer games would have helped this World Series, but four of the first five games were decided by five or more runs. Game 6 was highly anticipated because of the possibility of a Giants' clincher, but once the Royals scored those seven second-inning runs you almost could hear America brushing its teeth and getting ready for bed.

Specifically because it is not 1985 and there are quite a few options other than the World Series on television on a Tuesday evening. So a World Series game that lacks tension won't be viewed by those who don't have a rooting interest in either the Giants or the Royals. It's just how it is in 2014. There are more than five options in television shows.

There should be a surge in viewers for Game 7, whose main competition will be the Bulls-Knicks season opener on ESPN.

Game 7's traditionally get really, really good ratings. That's because there is tension and the stakes are higher than in Games 1-5 where a loss by one team would not have resulted in the opposing team winning the World Series. Viewers of sports like tension.

Derrick Rose vs. Carmelo Anthony, or Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie?

See, unfortunately Paul Sullivan is still missing the point. It's not Derrick Rose v. Carmelo Anthony, or Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie. It's Tim Hudson vs. Jeremy Guthrie, or shows on the DVR, or shows on basic cable, or a movie on a movie pay channel, or a television show on a cable network, or Derrick Rose vs. Carmelo Anthony. It's not the NBA versus MLB head-to-head, but is MLB versus every other program that's on television, which could be 200 other programs that are being shown at the same time as the World Series.

You make the call.

Well, since baseball is dying there was no need to watch the World Series was there? By the way, the ratings for Game 7 of the 2014 World Series were pretty good. 23.5 million people watched Game 7. 

3 comments Paul Daugherty Seems to Dislike the Sport He is Paid to Cover; Also Still Hates Adam Dunn

Some sportswriters seem to hate the sports they cover. Just off the top of my head I can think of guys like Jay Mariotti, Mike Lupica, and Phil Mushnick as three guys who just seem to hate sports, but enjoy the paycheck it provides to them. I think I can add Paul Daugherty to that list when it comes to covering baseball. It's not that he doesn't have a right to complain about the length of baseball games, it is that he treats the playoff games with such disdain as if the length of a playoff game is just one more reason to hate the sport of baseball. Daugherty makes the astute observation that baseball games are too long. Why hasn't anyone else complained about this before? This is totally new information to anyone who likes baseball! Also, as we will later learn, Paul Daugherty still hates Adam Dunn.

The Kansas City Royals aren't a baseball team. They're an unintentional rain delay.

But seriously, folks...

They haven't played an October baseball game in less than three hours, 38 minutes. Four of their six playoff games have consumed at least four hours.

And the games have mostly been exciting too! This only makes it worse though. Don't bore Paul Daugherty with exciting baseball games, just get them over with so he can get back to watching his "Criminal Minds" re-runs. 

Of course, until this year, the Royals hadn't played an October game of any sort since 1985. Maybe they're just taking it all in. 

Or maybe they had played four extra inning games when Paul Daugherty wrote this column. Pretty much any time a sporting event goes to extra time then that sporting event will last longer than it normally does. The Panthers-Bengals game that ended in a tie started at 1pm EST and ended around 5:00pm EST. That's a pretty long football game.

The Baltimore Orioles ought to be dog-tired. Maybe even as tired as baseball fans who've watched them play four hours, 37 minutes and four hours, 17 minutes in their last two games. 

Baseball games can be long, especially ones that goes into extra innings, and especially playoff games. Feel free to not watch them. 

Watching a manager think. What fun.  

Maybe you should go find another job that doesn't involve watching sports and watching a manager think. I can tell you the only thing worse than watching a manager think is hearing a sportswriter who makes his money from watching a manager think bitch about watching a manager think.  

In New York, Major League Baseball has appointed a committee to study why baseball games now take longer than trips to the moon.

Hey Paul, it's 2014. Trips to the moon don't happen anymore, so you may want to find a better comparison to how long baseball games last. Perhaps they last longer than my patience for dealing with your crotchety complaining about the time of baseball games. That's not a high threshold to clear though.

Committee members will spend lots of time walking around the room, adjusting their neckties, testing the wax buildup on the conference room floor, uttering practice words, shaking off others' practice words and staring blankly into space.

Of course, members will also have to take a few pitches, too. 

The irony of Paul Daugherty killing time and space in a column that has one basic premise which can be summed up in a paragraph, while complaining about how baseball players kill time while at-bat is delicious to me.

Look at it this way: Baseball is a game to enjoy while you're enjoying something else. A nap, for instance, or the detailed assemblage of a nuclear device.

How many times can Daugherty restate the same point? I guess we'll see. If you don't enjoy the sport of baseball then don't watch it. Few things are worse than hearing a sportswriter who hates the sports he covers bitch about covering that sport.

Theoretically, you could begin watching a postseason tilt at 8, take a break at 9 to hitch-hike across China, get a new lung, floss, carve a pumpkin and read a little Tolstoy and still be back to watch the last couple innings. 

Yes, the playoff baseball games are long, unlike the premise this column is built upon. I will flip channels while watching baseball games if I am at home, but mostly because I hate commercials. A better writer would offer several solutions to speed up the game he hates so much, as opposed to just bitching and moaning about how long the games are. A lesser writer, like a writer that Paul Daugherty seems to be, just complains and suggests an improvement that has already happened. What are suggestions to pick up the pace of the game? If you are bitching and not creating solutions then what's your point? 

What if you're not a fan?

Then I don't watch the whole game. The same thing I do if I am watching any sport and I'm not a fan of either participant in that game. 

What if your rooting interest trends more in the general direction of getting some sleep? 

Then I go the fuck to sleep and don't watch the game. See, there is nothing that says I have to watch an entire baseball game or watch any entire sporting event. It's fun to have control over my life and do what I want. 

I like baseball. I like it a lot. The older I get, the more I like it.

It's pretty clear you don't like baseball. Please don't lie. 

You actively watch the Bengals and Xavier or UC. The Reds? 

Actually, I find baseball to be more of a diversion than other sports because it moves at a slower pace. I can cook dinner, flip channels, do something else while watching it and don't feel like I constantly have to have my brain turned on when watching the game. So while I'm actually watching a baseball game, it's a diversion for me from the other stuff I have to do. Other sports I have to focus on entirely for a long period of time, so it doesn't feel as much like a diversion at times. I recognize I am weird in that way. 

There are nights, lots of them, between April and October when nothing else will do. 

That doesn't mean I'm not doing something else. 

Then do something else. That's the beauty of baseball. You can do something else while watching the game. It certainly sounds like you don't like the sport though. 

If you were a Bengals fan Sunday, can you imagine doing anything else between 1 and 5, when the game finally ended? That was four hours, too, just like a playoff baseball game. Those four hours were different than baseball's four hours.

If the Braves were in the playoffs, I would watch every minute of every playoff game. That's how it works when you love a sport and a team. I can't imagine doing anything different during those hours, unless the game conflicted with another sport, and then a decision has to be made. 

Baseball worries about losing young fans. It should. Kids whose attention spans are dictated by Twitter and Madden 2015 aren't hanging out by the flat screen for four hours for anything that doesn't come with a controller or a means to get on Facebook.

No, but young fans can get on Facebook while watching a baseball game. There's no doubt the game moves slow and improvements to pace of play should be made. Since Paul Daugherty gets paid to watch sports, it seems like a better column idea than simply bitching about pace of play is providing multiple suggestions to improve pace of play. 

And to think: Scoring is down in baseball. Fewer reasons to be excited, and more time not to be. Great job, baseball. 

Baseball writers when talking about PED users: "Steroids are ruining the integrity of the game! These steroid users have no place in baseball and shouldn't be earning money to play baseball. Get them out of the game forever! They are making a mockery of home run and scoring records!" 

Baseball writers when talking about how scoring is down: "Scoring is down! Baseball is losing the kids because no players are hitting home runs! Baseball needs to find a way to help teams score more runs and make the game more exciting like it used to be back in the Steroid Era!" 

More isn't better, unless chocolate is involved. More is just more.

Very deep. This should be inscribed on Paul Daughtery's tombstone when he dies of boredom from watching a baseball game.

Baseball needs to fix this. The logical answer is to shave commercial time, between innings and during the endless pitching changes. That won't happen.

Look, a solution! Not really, but this is about the best Daugherty can do. I think one of the best ways to speed up the pace of play is not give a pitcher warmup tosses when he enters the game, except in cases of injury to a pitcher. The pitcher is warmed up already from being in the bullpen, go out there and throw the baseball. It's a small improvement, but any improvement is an improvement. 

How about expanding the strike zone?

Actually Paul, that has already happened.

Way to make assumptions in lieu of research though. 

Better, how about enforcing it?

"Expand the strike zone, keep the strike zone like it is and just enforce the current strike zone, shrink the strike zone, don't have a strike zone and every pitch should be called a strike." 

Metrics have turned lots of hitters into ball-watching savants. Taking pitches, getting deep into counts, walking.

Obviously the pace of play issue is the fault of stat heads. Who else could be responsible? The same group who is constantly told, "What happens on the field matters, not your statistics! You can't measure what happens on the field!" are naturally responsible for what is happening on the field due to the use of the same metrics that can't measure or affect what happens on the field.

All have conspired to increase the number of pitches thrown. That by itself wouldn't be so bad, if batters and pitchers would stop preening, pondering and checking with their chiropractors between every pitch.

It's a conspiracy among stat heads to further ruin the game of baseball! Stat heads aren't satisfied with ruining the game by using metrics that suck the enjoyment out of the game, now they are brainwashing baseball players into taking a long time during each at-bat. 

Fattening the zone would make for more swings

The strike zone is already being fattened. 

Fewer walks, perhaps. Fewer strikeouts.

Wait, what? How would a more expanded strike zone result in fewer strikeouts? Wouldn't an expanded strike zone result in more strikeouts since more pitches will be called strikes? I know, I'm not as smart as Paul Daugherty, plus I actually like baseball, so perhaps I am completely incorrect. 

Fewer pitches. Fewer pitchers. Faster games. What we all want. Right?

I don't know if a large strike zone would result in fewer pitchers. But again, data shows (yes, data, so I understand that Daugherty may think this information is part of the conspiracy to ruin baseball) that the strike zone is expanding. 

Meantime, mainline that Monster, ballfan. Rev up the Rockstar. The playoffs are on. See you in four hours.

It's okay to just admit you don't like one of the sports you cover. Playoff games take forever and the games should be sped up, but there's no sense in complaining about it if you are only going to suggest an "improvement" that is already happening and hasn't sped games up.

It's well-known that Paul Daugherty isn't a fan of Adam Dunn. So of course he couldn't allow Dunn to retire without getting a few more shots at him in.

ADAM DUNN IS A GREAT GUY AND WAS A TERRIFIC PLAYER. . . I wasn't going to hold forth on this topic. Guy's retired, hasn't played here in years. Let it go, Doc.

But this is something that just can't be "let go." Something has to be said about Adam Dunn and how he seems like a great guy, but is really ruining baseball.

Then I read this latest God-ding up of the B.D., in Sports Illustrated, in reference to Dunn's prodigious ability to K:

And Daugherty KNEW something had to be done. No one can write anything positive about Adam Dunn without the real truth being stated. Someone had to be brave enough to take shots at Dunn after he has retired.

"Each time he swung and missed on strike three was agonizing for him, and he did everything he could to drag himself out there the next at-bat, hoping for better results.''

Oh, please.

Yeah, Adam Dunn didn't care. How dare anyone suggest otherwise!

Man played 14 years. Struck out at least 159 times in 12 of 'em. Never changed his approach. Never shortened his stroke. Never tried. He was just up there, agonizing and hoping.

His approach worked pretty well for him. He hit home runs, he got on-base, and struck out a lot. Dunn was paid to hit home runs and get on-base, so shortening his stroke to avoid strikeouts didn't seem like the best of ideas.

Had a natural ability to hit a baseball 400 feet. Never worked at doing anything else. Too busy reading car magazines. 

What else was Dunn supposed to work at doing? Was he supposed to learn to woodworking or some other skill? The things Dunn was bad at, defense and having speed aren't really things that he could have worked too hard at improving. He's not an agile guy, so he isn't going to magically become a faster runner and better outfielder, and I'm sure he worked at becoming a better fielder...just not to Paul Daugherty's satisfaction.

 The numbers crowd has tried to make the argument that there's nothing egregious about striking out. These are some of the same people who get all tingly upon hearing the phrase "on-base percentage.'' 

Probably because the way baseball teams can score runs is by getting men on-base. A double down the line can't score a run unless there is a runner on-base. So it's nice to have players who get on-base at a fairly high clip.

No sale. Put the ball in play, give yourself and your team a chance. 

There is something to be said for putting the ball in play as well, but when a player like Adam Dunn is at-bat and he is someone with poor speed then putting the ball in play can also result in more outs because he doesn't have the speed to leg-out infield singles. I love players who put the ball in play, but a guy like Adam Dunn doesn't need to just get the ball in play so he can run to first base. He is relied on to drive in runs, get on-base, and hit home runs.

I'm not sure why everyone else was so enamored with Dunn. He was self deprecating, sure. Rip yourself first, so no one else feels the need. But he never wanted to be anything more than what he was. I like athletes who get the most from their ability. Or more. 

Who is to say that Adam Dunn didn't get the most from his ability? Changing his approach at the plate could easily have cut down on strikeouts, but also cut down on home runs and walks. Is playing the game of baseball the way Paul Daugherty wants Dunn to play the game "getting the most of his ability" or simply reducing one strength of Dunn's game to improve a weakness in Dunn's game?

Have a good one, BD. I'm sure you will. You're free from the BS game that made you very, very rich.

I feel so much better now.

You should feel better. Finally, Adam Dunn is being treated like the real asshole he is and no positive words spoken about Dunn's career are written without the proper retort.

In this article, which was written three hours prior to Daugherty writing the above article about baseball's pace of play issues, Daugherty basically wrote the entire previous column on how playoff games are too slow in a single paragraph:

MORE ISNT BETTER. MORE IS JUST MORE. The cool thing about the MLB postseason, I guess, is that you can start watching a game at 8, take a break at 9 to hitch-hike cross-country, design a nuclear device, floss, carve a pumpkin and read a little Tolstoy and still be back to watch the last couple innings.

He uses the same jokes in this column he will later use in his column written three hours later. To be fair, it seems using the same jokes is Paul "getting the most out of his ability" to write.