Terence Moore likes to take on the real non-issues in baseball. He takes on the issues that seemingly no one else really has strong feelings about and tries to make them into issues, like the six man rotation, celebrations, and those days when the iron men didn't exist existed. As I have well-documented, Terence hates expanded replay as well. That of course is an actual issue and not something random that Terence just seems to dislike. Terence also doesn't like that Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux are going to enter the Hall of Fame without a team logo on their cap. In the realm of issues, this is pretty low on the totem pole. When Terence isn't railing against expanded replay, comparing any and everything to the Big Red Machine, or cursing at the clouds for the existence of rain he doesn't have much else to write about. So the small things are what he targets his ire at and then in his column he tends to contradict himself or accidentally point out why his point of view is wrong.
I'm a Braves fan. I really would have liked Greg Maddux to go into the Hall of Fame with a Braves logo on his hat. I was disappointed when I found out he would not have the Braves logo on his hat. Then I found out Maddux didn't want a logo on his hat and that was that. It's his career and his Hall of Fame bust, let him do what he wants. Who am I, and who is Terence Moore, to tell Greg Maddux what team's logo should go on his Hall of Fame hat? The same goes for Tony La Russa. If he doesn't want a certain team's hat on his bust, so be it. But hey, Terence Moore has a perception of how he wants the Hall of Fame to look and he'll be damned if the 86 other Hall of Fame members with blank logos on their hat will deter him from making a big deal out of La Russa/Maddux not having a logo on their hat.
I'm sorry, but Greg Maddux and Tony La Russa have to choose.
But see, they really don't. Shortly, Terence will point out 86 members of the baseball Hall of Fame do not have a logo on their hat, yet Terence insists Maddux and La Russa have to choose...even though Terence Moore has given a good example of why they don't have to choose. There is a precedent of certain Hall of Fame inductees not having a team's logo on their cap.
They announced Thursday that they've decided in conjunction with
Baseball Hall of Fame officials not to have a logo on the cap of their
bronzed plaque in Cooperstown, N.Y. Since they prospered for several
teams, they said it wouldn't be fair to pick one over the other for such
an honor.
I want Maddux to have a Braves logo, but I think he has the right to choose the logo on his Hall of Fame hat.
I hear them. I disagree, but I hear them.
But you don't hear them. They don't feel they can choose a logo and they don't have to choose a logo. It's their decision.
In recent times, Catfish Hunter had the same dilemma. He was among the
reasons the A's formed their dynasty during the early 1970s along the
way to three consecutive World Series championships. Hunter also helped
push the Yankees back into prominence later that decade. Hunter said he
cherished both A's owner Charlie Finley and Yanks owner George
Steinbrenner, so he became one of the 86 players without a logo on his
Hall of Fame cap.
Terence begins this sentence with, "In recent times..." as if Maddux and La Russa not choosing a logo on their hat happened fifty years ago and wasn't more recent than Catfish Hunter not choosing a logo. You can understand my inability to understand why Terence thinks Maddux/La Russa have to choose a logo when they really don't HAVE to choose a logo.
Yogi Berra was another one, but it had nothing to do with his feud with
Steinbrenner that kept the legendary Yankees catcher away from his old
team for nearly a decade.
You see how Terence Moore can submarine his own point? He seems to do this consistently when writing a column where he takes a certain viewpoint. He takes that viewpoint and then includes information that ruins his point or shows where the fallacy in his thinking may be. Obviously I would prefer he acknowledge an opposing viewpoint as opposed to being like Gregg Easterbrook and just lying to his readers, but Terence doesn't really do anything to counter the opposing viewpoint. So by not countering the opposing viewpoint or explaining where that view is wrong, he makes it look like he's making a poor argument.
Terence starts this column off stating Maddux/La Russa have to choose a logo for their Hall of Fame plaque, then proceeds to list a few of the 86 other baseball Hall of Fame inductees who don't have a logo on their cap. This shows, guess what, Maddux and La Russa DON'T have to choose a logo and it's no big fucking deal. End of story. Yet, Terence goes on.
"You have to remember that, back during that time, when Berra entered
the Hall of Fame, choosing a logo for your cap wasn't that big of a
deal," said Dave Kaplan, who runs the Yogi Berra Museum and Learning
Center at Montclair State University
Yes, and it is still not that big of a deal. If Yogi Berra, who spent every year but one of his MLB career with the Yankees, doesn't go into the Hall of Fame with a Yankees logo on his cap then it's not a big deal for Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux to enter the Hall of Fame with no team logo on their cap.
"If you look at Yogi's plaque, it's more of a profile, so it doesn't matter as much if his cap has a logo."
Well then make La Russa and Maddux's plaque into more of a profile. Problem fixed.
Actually, it does matter. When you say Yogi, you think pinstripes.
Which is exactly why it doesn't matter if Yogi Berra has a Yankees cap on or not. When you think of him, you think of the Yankees. No cap needed.
Honus Wagner. Rogers Hornsby. Johnny Mize. Nap Lajoie. They are among
the others joining Berra and Hunter without a logo for their Hall of
Fame cap, and they all have that distinction for various reasons.
I'm sure many are logical.
I would count "This manager/player spent a decade or more with two different teams " as a logical reason for no logo on their Hall of Fame cap. It makes sense, even if I as a Braves fan don't necessarily like it.
The ones that aren't? Well, either Hall of Fame officials, the inductees
(if they are still living) or the representatives of anybody in
Cooperstown without a logo on his cap should change the situation.
I find it interesting that Mr. "Don't Change Anything about Baseball Because Tradition is the Best" wants the Hall of Fame to change the plaques in order to put logos on the caps of those inductees who don't have logos on their caps. It's terrible to expand replay in any way to adjust to modern technology, but sure, let's change the plaques in the baseball Hall of Fame to represent the modern day thought.
If they really think about it, they'll discover that one team from a
Hall of Famer's past was either greatly or slightly superior than the
rest of them. Choose that one.
Of course this is a matter of opinion, but nonetheless I still like the idea Terence Moore wants to change the contents of a museum to fit modern thought.
Trying to rectify the past is difficult, but we have a splendid chance
to affect the present and the future. Which is why I'm urging Maddux and
La Russa to pick a logo for their Hall of Fame plaques between now and
the time they take the stage in Cooperstown in July.
It really doesn't matter at all. Terence Moore is excellent at picking out hot-button issues that aren't hot-button at all.
"I feel good [about picking nobody]," said Maddux, talking to reporters
in Arlington on Thursday between working at a pitching minicamp for the
Rangers. "I spent half my career in Chicago and half my career in
Atlanta. I came up a Cub, played there for six years and went back for
three more. I was in Atlanta for 11 years. It comes out to about the
same amount of time in both cities. Love both places. Obviously, I feel
like I had more success as a Brave."
Why shouldn't Greg Maddux be able to choose to have no logo on his Hall of Fame plaque? He certainly earned his Hall of Fame induction and I think that means he earned the opportunity to have some input on which team's logo will be on his cap or if there is a team's logo at all.
You've guessed it: Maddux is more Atlanta grits than Chicago pizza.
Except he doesn't consider himself to be more Atlanta postseason choking than Chicago postseason choking. I think this has to count for something. Plus, there are 86 other members of the Hall of Fame without logos on their cap and miraculously the baseball Hall of Fame has continued standing and the sun will rise to shine another day.
Just like La Russa is more Gateway Arch than Golden Gate Bridge, and we won't even talk about his White Sox years.
Yes, let's not talk about the third team that La Russa managed where he spent eight years of his career. That would just further muddy the waters and help to prove the point that La Russa may not have one definitive team he should be associated with when being inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.
In fact, the La Russa-led A's made three consecutive World Series trips
through 1990, and they won it all in 1989. He also reinvented Dennis
Eckersley as a closer. Now, the former Oakland starter is in
Cooperstown, where La Russa is headed -- without the logo of either the
White Sox or the A's on the cap of his plaque.
Oh my God, the horror! Now those people who visit the baseball Hall of Fame will have to read La Russa's plaque that describe his accomplishments as a manager and then be very confused as to which MLB team they must associate La Russa with the most. It's not enough the baseball Hall of Fame will list the teams and accomplishments of La Russa on the plaque, he must have a logo and be associated with one certain team or it's the end of baseball as we know it. It's like the advent of the designated hitter all over again.
While La Russa won three pennants and that World Series championship
with the A's, he captured three NL pennants and two Fall Classic titles
with the Cards. There also was the longevity factor: He spent 10 years
in Oakland compared to 16 in St. Louis.
So La Russa goes in as a Cardinal, and Maddux goes in as a Brave.
I still don't see how it matters. Their achievements with each team will be noted on their Hall of Fame plaque regardless.
See how easy that is?
It's almost as easy as an umpire viewing a replay to determine whether the runner's foot tagged first base before the ball got into the first baseman's glove.
Showing posts with label greg maddux. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greg maddux. Show all posts
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Friday, February 15, 2013
5 comments Jack Morris is a Winning Winner Who Just Wins
It should come as no shock that Jerry Green really likes Jack Morris and believes Morris should be in the baseball Hall of Fame. Jerry comes from the old school that says a pitcher who wins game is a very valuable pitcher because he "knows how to win" (as Joe Morgan used to say). Jerry also likes Jack Morris because Morris was super-clutch and had this one really great game that he pitched in the World Series and was otherwise great (but not Hall of Fame worthy) over the rest of his career. So because Jack Morris is a winner, had a lot of complete games, and pitched very well in this one World Series game he should be in the Hall of Fame. Even the title of the article sounds like a parody of those who champion Morris as a Hall of Fame pitcher. It is entitled "Former Tigers Ace Jack Morris Was a Complete Winner." It's like the article is asking to be posted here.
The article starts off with a picture of Lance Parrish and Jack Morris shaking hands. Naturally in Jerry Green's opinion, Lance Parrish should be in the Hall of Fame as well because he's a winner who catches winning pitchers and makes this pitcher win games.
All of baseball America fidgeted in suspense, all of us watching on television, all of those in the ballpark that night. Everybody but … the one guy who stood in the brightly lit middle of this World Series drama.
Wait, is Jerry Green summarizing the plot of "For the Love of the Game" again?
He managed to strike out the batter to end the top of the ninth, the score still zip-zip.
Jack Morris is a winning winner because Lonnie Smith is a dumbass and got confused by Chuck Knoblauch's deception and slowed down before he could score the eventual game-winning run to make the Braves win one-zip in nine innings.
And as he approached the dugout the manager waited, as managers do, with the hook. Their conversation is reconstructed something like this:
"Reconstructed" being a polite way of saying, "completely and utterly made up." Jerry Green is just creating this conversation from nothing to support his own contention. The conversation could have gone like Jerry said it did, as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You've pitched nine. You're done. If we don't get a run now, I'm going to the bullpen."
Pitcher: "No, you're not. It's my game. I started it, I'll finish it. I want the ball."
This type of conversation completely fabricated by Jerry Green supports his contention that Jack Morris is a gamer who refuses to leave the game until the job is done. Naturally, this merits his being in the Hall of Fame since he is the first and only pitcher ever to insist he stay in a World Series game while the game is tied.
But..................the conversation could have also gone as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You are staying in the game though. I'm not taking you out."
Pitcher: "I'm exhausted and Pierre and I have a party we need to get to later tonight. Please pull me."
Manager: "If you leave the game now I won't give you the shipment of cocaine I promised you after the game. I know how you and Pierre like to snort cocaine out of an underage boy's belly button. You leave the game, your blow leaves too."
Pitcher: "Fine, I'm staying in. This mustache does help keep the blow well-organized in my nose and catches any cocaine-related run-off though."
You know, the conversation could have gone either way. One way makes Jack Morris look like a hero and supports Jerry Green's point. The other way makes Jack Morris look like a homosexual pedophile with a cocaine problem. Hey, I can fabricate stories too.
So Jack Morris got his way, the only way he ever knew. Tom Kelly, the manager, relented, and Morris went out and pitched the 10th inning.
According to Jerry Green's story. According to my story, Jack Morris and his love Pierre did make it to the party to snort cocaine off an underage boy's belly button. Not coincidentally, Jerry Green's story is a desperate attempt to support the induction of Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. When you don't have facts, make shit up.
And in the bottom of the 10th, the Twins scored the one run necessary to win. To win the game 1-0. To win Game 7 of a grueling World Series with the Braves. To win for Morris, a 10-inning shutout. To win a monumental ballgame etched deeply into the history of baseball itself.
One big win in a World Series Game 7 does not a Hall of Fame career-make. I'm all for taking a player's postseason success into account in addition to using that player's regular season career statistics as a measure for his Hall of Fame-worthiness. It seems the Hall of Fame candidacy for Jack Morris boils down to Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (while ignoring all of his other postseason performances), labeling him as the ace of X amount of MLB teams and remarking on how many complete games he threw as a starter. Those who favor Morris for Hall of Fame induction have to use these measures because otherwise he would be a prime candidate for the proverbial "Hall of Very Good."
He did win this game though. He's a winner.
To win, dammit!
To win! See what Jack Morris' Hall of Fame resume makes Jerry Green do? It makes him use foul language. He's so passionate about letting very good pitchers into the Hall of Fame that is intended to honor only the best of the best.
When the ballgame is over — a World Series game or a Super Bowl or a Thursday game in mid-June — all that truly matters is which team won.
This is very true, but as I have detailed probably 100 times, whether a pitcher wins a game isn't completely dependent on how well he pitches. It also depends on his run support. If the Twins had scored 10 runs against John Smoltz in the first six innings then Morris wouldn't be seen as such a hero. Alas, they did not score 10 runs in the first six innings so Morris is a hero. But the perception of Morris' performance is partially based on the run support he received. Wins are not only measures of how well a pitcher pitched, but also how much run support that pitcher received.
And in this World Series classic in 1991, the Minnesota Twins won — and Jack Morris won — and Tom Kelly won — and Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek — they all won.
Everyone won. We get it. You play to win the game.
I challenge all 600-plus voting colleagues in the Baseball Writers Association of America to find any other purpose for playing these ballgames — above winning.
Simply because the purpose of the game is to win doesn't mean because Jack Morris won a Game 7 in the World Series he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Look, Jack Morris entire resume, including his playoff record, don't merit him making the Hall of Fame. Morris was a workhorse in the regular season and was very inconsistent in the postseason. He's been very good and very bad. Check out Morris' postseason statistics.
Not even for money, profits.
Don't be naive. The players also play for money. Always have and always will.
Shut out — not like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, their careers tainted — a total zero Hall of Fame election. Jack stood up for 18 major league seasons with the Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays and Indians untainted — and unelected.
Part of the reason Morris isn't in the Hall of Fame is that he doesn't deserve to be. There's that. I can't wait until next year when Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are up for Hall of Fame consideration. Those two pitchers are an example of what a Hall of Fame pitcher should look like. Their resumes make Jack Morris look like a hobo.
And that one shot next year is clouded by the first-year Hall of Fame eligibility of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. Plus Mike Mussina.
Don't you just hate it when deserving Hall of Fame candidates overshadow undeserving Hall of Fame candidates? It's just not fair (stomps feet on the ground).
In a re-analysis, it is obvious that the names of Bonds and Clemens and Sammy Sosa, along with Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, on the ballot caused the collected voting writers to shoot a blank.
"It threw all of us under the bus," Morris said during a telephone conversation the other day after he was shut out again.
No, they didn't Jack. You don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and that is the conclusion that can be drawn. Move along and I bid you a good day, sir.
Maddux and Glavine are certainly first-ballot worthy — if a sufficient number of my 600-plus voting colleagues decide not to continue to try to shut down the Hall of Fame.
Jerry Green doesn't get it, does he? This year's vote wasn't a case of every player on the ballot not getting inducted because of the steroid users. This year's vote was a case of steroid users not getting elected and the other borderline Hall of Fame candidates not being elected based on their own merit. It's easier and lazier to blame Jack Morris' condition on the steroid users. While we are at it, I'm sure it is Jay Cutler's fault too. Let's partially blame him.
But it was Jack himself who pointed out a hidden issue. Maddux and Glavine pitched exclusively in the National League. No designated hitter there. Weak-hitting pitchers are locked at No. 9 in every NL batting order.
If Jack Morris thinks he would have been as good as Maddux and Glavine if he played in the National League then he is delusional. All of this Hall of Fame support from guys like Jerry Green is clearly going to his head if he thinks Maddux won 101 more games because he pitched in the National League his entire career. The same thing goes for Glavine. He didn't win 51 more games than Morris because he pitched in the National League.
Maddux won 355 games and Glavine won 305 games against NL batting orders. In comparison, Morris won 254 games against batting orders with nine qualified hitters.
God, you are a moron if you think one additional hitter in the lineup equates to 51-101 more games won for Jack Morris. Actually, Jerry Green is on the right track. Imagine how many more games Jack Morris would have won if he managed to keep his career ERA a little further below 4.00 or actually managed to put up statistics that deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. If Morris really was a Hall of Fame pitcher he would have statistics like Glavine and Maddux. Good point by Jerry.
Maybe playing in the National League did have something to do with Maddux or Glavine having the low ERAs they did, but there was still a level playing field because Maddux and Glavine were pitching against other pitchers who pitched in the National League. So Glavine and Maddux didn't win more games because they played in the National League since it was an even playing field. It doesn't make sense to say Maddux or Glavine had an advantage in winning more games than Morris if you think logically or think at all. Perhaps playing right smack in the middle of the Steroid Era that Jerry Green rails so hard against cost Maddux and Glavine some wins. Wait, Jerry didn't think of that counterpoint did he? He didn't think perhaps Glavine and Maddux had to pitch against juiced up players while Jack Morris did not.
I lean more towards the seven years from 1992-1998 when Maddux never had an ERA below 3.00 and had an ERA below twice as why he won so many games.
"I pitched my entire career in the American League during the DH era," Jack said. "How do you justify for that?"
How do you justify for Maddux/Glavine pitching right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Shut up and sit down. You aren't a Hall of Fame pitcher no matter how much you whine otherwise.
The quibble many negative-oriented baseball writers have with Morris, supposedly, is his career earned-run average of 3.90. It compares with ERAs of 3.16 for Maddux on his four National League clubs and 3.54 for Glavine on his two NL clubs.
"The league ERA in the American League is 0.38 higher than the National League," Morris said — a preciously rare statistic.
"I'd be a lot lower if I pitched in the National League."
Do you need your binky now?
Imagine how high Jack Morris' ERA would have been if he pitched in the National League against Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds while they were juicing. I'm not sure Morris could have had an ERA under 5.00.
"My point is I took the ball into a game longer than anybody," he said.
My point is this isn't Hall of Fame-worthy criteria alone.
"I pitched against 17 Hall of Famers," Morris said. "Maddux, Glavine and Mussina can't say that.
Partly because many of the players they pitched against aren't in the Hall of Fame yet.
Morris is a long-distance winner in this category. He pitched 175 complete games in his 18 seasons. Maddux pitched 109 complete games in 23 seasons; Glavine pitched 56 in his 22 seasons.
Wow, if it was the "Hall of Complete Games" then Jack Morris would be a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher. Let's play the cherry-picked numbers game. The lowest ERA Morris had in a single season was 3.05. Maddux had a lower ERA in a single-season 11 times, including three years right in the middle of the Steroid Era, and Glavine had a lower ERA in a single-season 6 times, including two years right in the middle of the Steroid Era.
When winning counts the most, in the pennant playoffs and the World Series, Morris excelled.
Really? He had a career 3.80 ERA in the postseason (sound familiar? His career ERA was 3.90) and posted an ERA over 6.00 in a postseason series 3 times. Morris only pitched in 7 postseason series in his career by the way. So he really wasn't that big when it counted most. He was awful in the postseason at times.
"I want the ball," Morris would tell Sparky Anderson before opening days and before the World Series. And Sparky would hand it to him. And then Sparky would ride with Jack longer than he would with any of his other pitchers. There were times Sparky would head out to the mound with his hook, looking toward the bullpen — and Morris would chase his manager right back to the dugout.
That's a great story. It doesn't mean Morris needs to be in the Hall of Fame.
That night in San Diego, Game 1 of the World Series, the Tigers won 3-2, by grace of Larry Herndon's two-run home run. Jack went nine, with Sparky twitching the last three innings. Four days later at Tiger Stadium, the Tigers defeated the Padres, 4-2, by grace of Alan Trammell's two home runs. Jack again went nine.
Notice how Morris needed the benefit of the offense scoring runs in order to win these World Series games. It's almost like winning games as a pitcher is connected in some way to the offense scoring runs for that pitcher.
I'd love to know what happened in 1992 World Series where Morris had an ERA of 8.44. Notice Jerry isn't telling any inspirational and exciting stories about Morris in that World Series when he went up against Atlanta again.
Morris' accumulated World Series ERA for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays is 2.96.
His career ERA in the ALCS? 4.87. The cherry-picking of statistics is fun.
Maddux and Glavine were great pitchers. No dispute.
But they did not match Morris' record in playoffs and World Series. Morris went 4-2 in World Series starts with three complete games and 7-4 overall in postseason starts with five complete games. In contrast, Maddux was 2-3 in World Series starts and 11-14 overall in the postseason. Glavine was 4-3 in the World Series and 14-16 in all postseason performances.
I'm afraid reading this idiocy is actually making me dumber. Jerry Green needs to realize that more goes into a pitcher's Hall of Fame resume than how well he pitched in the postseason. Maddux and Glavine are better than Jack Morris in nearly every category when it comes to the larger sample size of the regular season.
Not to mention, if Jerry is going to cherry-pick statistics, I will do so as well. He is showing us wins and losses in the postseason and as I have said repeatedly wins and losses aren't exact measures of how well a pitcher pitched. Clearly Jerry disagrees. Check on the career postseason ERA of Maddux, Glavine, and Morris. Both Maddux and Glavine have a lower ERA than Jack Morris did in the postseason. So Jerry blindly and ignorantly throws out "wins and losses" as his ultimate measure of Morris' postseason superiority over Maddux and Glavine, but this could just be an example of Morris receiving more run support than Glavine and Maddux.
It doesn't matter if the numbers are spewed out by a new-styled Sabermetrics whiz or an old-fashioned codger as I am — winning trumps everything else.
Yes, winning trumps everything, but it doesn't tell you everything. Not to mention, if Jerry Green can only base Jack Morris' Hall of Fame candidacy on complete games and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, without even mentioning his regular season statistics, then that tells me all I need to know about whether Morris deserves to be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not.
The article starts off with a picture of Lance Parrish and Jack Morris shaking hands. Naturally in Jerry Green's opinion, Lance Parrish should be in the Hall of Fame as well because he's a winner who catches winning pitchers and makes this pitcher win games.
All of baseball America fidgeted in suspense, all of us watching on television, all of those in the ballpark that night. Everybody but … the one guy who stood in the brightly lit middle of this World Series drama.
Wait, is Jerry Green summarizing the plot of "For the Love of the Game" again?
He managed to strike out the batter to end the top of the ninth, the score still zip-zip.
Jack Morris is a winning winner because Lonnie Smith is a dumbass and got confused by Chuck Knoblauch's deception and slowed down before he could score the eventual game-winning run to make the Braves win one-zip in nine innings.
And as he approached the dugout the manager waited, as managers do, with the hook. Their conversation is reconstructed something like this:
"Reconstructed" being a polite way of saying, "completely and utterly made up." Jerry Green is just creating this conversation from nothing to support his own contention. The conversation could have gone like Jerry said it did, as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You've pitched nine. You're done. If we don't get a run now, I'm going to the bullpen."
Pitcher: "No, you're not. It's my game. I started it, I'll finish it. I want the ball."
This type of conversation completely fabricated by Jerry Green supports his contention that Jack Morris is a gamer who refuses to leave the game until the job is done. Naturally, this merits his being in the Hall of Fame since he is the first and only pitcher ever to insist he stay in a World Series game while the game is tied.
But..................the conversation could have also gone as follows:
Manager: "Nice job. You are staying in the game though. I'm not taking you out."
Pitcher: "I'm exhausted and Pierre and I have a party we need to get to later tonight. Please pull me."
Manager: "If you leave the game now I won't give you the shipment of cocaine I promised you after the game. I know how you and Pierre like to snort cocaine out of an underage boy's belly button. You leave the game, your blow leaves too."
Pitcher: "Fine, I'm staying in. This mustache does help keep the blow well-organized in my nose and catches any cocaine-related run-off though."
You know, the conversation could have gone either way. One way makes Jack Morris look like a hero and supports Jerry Green's point. The other way makes Jack Morris look like a homosexual pedophile with a cocaine problem. Hey, I can fabricate stories too.
So Jack Morris got his way, the only way he ever knew. Tom Kelly, the manager, relented, and Morris went out and pitched the 10th inning.
According to Jerry Green's story. According to my story, Jack Morris and his love Pierre did make it to the party to snort cocaine off an underage boy's belly button. Not coincidentally, Jerry Green's story is a desperate attempt to support the induction of Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. When you don't have facts, make shit up.
And in the bottom of the 10th, the Twins scored the one run necessary to win. To win the game 1-0. To win Game 7 of a grueling World Series with the Braves. To win for Morris, a 10-inning shutout. To win a monumental ballgame etched deeply into the history of baseball itself.
One big win in a World Series Game 7 does not a Hall of Fame career-make. I'm all for taking a player's postseason success into account in addition to using that player's regular season career statistics as a measure for his Hall of Fame-worthiness. It seems the Hall of Fame candidacy for Jack Morris boils down to Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (while ignoring all of his other postseason performances), labeling him as the ace of X amount of MLB teams and remarking on how many complete games he threw as a starter. Those who favor Morris for Hall of Fame induction have to use these measures because otherwise he would be a prime candidate for the proverbial "Hall of Very Good."
He did win this game though. He's a winner.
To win, dammit!
To win! See what Jack Morris' Hall of Fame resume makes Jerry Green do? It makes him use foul language. He's so passionate about letting very good pitchers into the Hall of Fame that is intended to honor only the best of the best.
When the ballgame is over — a World Series game or a Super Bowl or a Thursday game in mid-June — all that truly matters is which team won.
This is very true, but as I have detailed probably 100 times, whether a pitcher wins a game isn't completely dependent on how well he pitches. It also depends on his run support. If the Twins had scored 10 runs against John Smoltz in the first six innings then Morris wouldn't be seen as such a hero. Alas, they did not score 10 runs in the first six innings so Morris is a hero. But the perception of Morris' performance is partially based on the run support he received. Wins are not only measures of how well a pitcher pitched, but also how much run support that pitcher received.
And in this World Series classic in 1991, the Minnesota Twins won — and Jack Morris won — and Tom Kelly won — and Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek — they all won.
Everyone won. We get it. You play to win the game.
I challenge all 600-plus voting colleagues in the Baseball Writers Association of America to find any other purpose for playing these ballgames — above winning.
Simply because the purpose of the game is to win doesn't mean because Jack Morris won a Game 7 in the World Series he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Look, Jack Morris entire resume, including his playoff record, don't merit him making the Hall of Fame. Morris was a workhorse in the regular season and was very inconsistent in the postseason. He's been very good and very bad. Check out Morris' postseason statistics.
Not even for money, profits.
Don't be naive. The players also play for money. Always have and always will.
Shut out — not like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, their careers tainted — a total zero Hall of Fame election. Jack stood up for 18 major league seasons with the Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays and Indians untainted — and unelected.
Part of the reason Morris isn't in the Hall of Fame is that he doesn't deserve to be. There's that. I can't wait until next year when Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are up for Hall of Fame consideration. Those two pitchers are an example of what a Hall of Fame pitcher should look like. Their resumes make Jack Morris look like a hobo.
And that one shot next year is clouded by the first-year Hall of Fame eligibility of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. Plus Mike Mussina.
Don't you just hate it when deserving Hall of Fame candidates overshadow undeserving Hall of Fame candidates? It's just not fair (stomps feet on the ground).
In a re-analysis, it is obvious that the names of Bonds and Clemens and Sammy Sosa, along with Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, on the ballot caused the collected voting writers to shoot a blank.
"It threw all of us under the bus," Morris said during a telephone conversation the other day after he was shut out again.
No, they didn't Jack. You don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and that is the conclusion that can be drawn. Move along and I bid you a good day, sir.
Maddux and Glavine are certainly first-ballot worthy — if a sufficient number of my 600-plus voting colleagues decide not to continue to try to shut down the Hall of Fame.
Jerry Green doesn't get it, does he? This year's vote wasn't a case of every player on the ballot not getting inducted because of the steroid users. This year's vote was a case of steroid users not getting elected and the other borderline Hall of Fame candidates not being elected based on their own merit. It's easier and lazier to blame Jack Morris' condition on the steroid users. While we are at it, I'm sure it is Jay Cutler's fault too. Let's partially blame him.
But it was Jack himself who pointed out a hidden issue. Maddux and Glavine pitched exclusively in the National League. No designated hitter there. Weak-hitting pitchers are locked at No. 9 in every NL batting order.
If Jack Morris thinks he would have been as good as Maddux and Glavine if he played in the National League then he is delusional. All of this Hall of Fame support from guys like Jerry Green is clearly going to his head if he thinks Maddux won 101 more games because he pitched in the National League his entire career. The same thing goes for Glavine. He didn't win 51 more games than Morris because he pitched in the National League.
Maddux won 355 games and Glavine won 305 games against NL batting orders. In comparison, Morris won 254 games against batting orders with nine qualified hitters.
God, you are a moron if you think one additional hitter in the lineup equates to 51-101 more games won for Jack Morris. Actually, Jerry Green is on the right track. Imagine how many more games Jack Morris would have won if he managed to keep his career ERA a little further below 4.00 or actually managed to put up statistics that deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. If Morris really was a Hall of Fame pitcher he would have statistics like Glavine and Maddux. Good point by Jerry.
Maybe playing in the National League did have something to do with Maddux or Glavine having the low ERAs they did, but there was still a level playing field because Maddux and Glavine were pitching against other pitchers who pitched in the National League. So Glavine and Maddux didn't win more games because they played in the National League since it was an even playing field. It doesn't make sense to say Maddux or Glavine had an advantage in winning more games than Morris if you think logically or think at all. Perhaps playing right smack in the middle of the Steroid Era that Jerry Green rails so hard against cost Maddux and Glavine some wins. Wait, Jerry didn't think of that counterpoint did he? He didn't think perhaps Glavine and Maddux had to pitch against juiced up players while Jack Morris did not.
I lean more towards the seven years from 1992-1998 when Maddux never had an ERA below 3.00 and had an ERA below twice as why he won so many games.
"I pitched my entire career in the American League during the DH era," Jack said. "How do you justify for that?"
How do you justify for Maddux/Glavine pitching right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Shut up and sit down. You aren't a Hall of Fame pitcher no matter how much you whine otherwise.
The quibble many negative-oriented baseball writers have with Morris, supposedly, is his career earned-run average of 3.90. It compares with ERAs of 3.16 for Maddux on his four National League clubs and 3.54 for Glavine on his two NL clubs.
"The league ERA in the American League is 0.38 higher than the National League," Morris said — a preciously rare statistic.
"I'd be a lot lower if I pitched in the National League."
Do you need your binky now?
Imagine how high Jack Morris' ERA would have been if he pitched in the National League against Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds while they were juicing. I'm not sure Morris could have had an ERA under 5.00.
"My point is I took the ball into a game longer than anybody," he said.
My point is this isn't Hall of Fame-worthy criteria alone.
"I pitched against 17 Hall of Famers," Morris said. "Maddux, Glavine and Mussina can't say that.
Partly because many of the players they pitched against aren't in the Hall of Fame yet.
Morris is a long-distance winner in this category. He pitched 175 complete games in his 18 seasons. Maddux pitched 109 complete games in 23 seasons; Glavine pitched 56 in his 22 seasons.
Wow, if it was the "Hall of Complete Games" then Jack Morris would be a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher. Let's play the cherry-picked numbers game. The lowest ERA Morris had in a single season was 3.05. Maddux had a lower ERA in a single-season 11 times, including three years right in the middle of the Steroid Era, and Glavine had a lower ERA in a single-season 6 times, including two years right in the middle of the Steroid Era.
When winning counts the most, in the pennant playoffs and the World Series, Morris excelled.
Really? He had a career 3.80 ERA in the postseason (sound familiar? His career ERA was 3.90) and posted an ERA over 6.00 in a postseason series 3 times. Morris only pitched in 7 postseason series in his career by the way. So he really wasn't that big when it counted most. He was awful in the postseason at times.
"I want the ball," Morris would tell Sparky Anderson before opening days and before the World Series. And Sparky would hand it to him. And then Sparky would ride with Jack longer than he would with any of his other pitchers. There were times Sparky would head out to the mound with his hook, looking toward the bullpen — and Morris would chase his manager right back to the dugout.
That's a great story. It doesn't mean Morris needs to be in the Hall of Fame.
That night in San Diego, Game 1 of the World Series, the Tigers won 3-2, by grace of Larry Herndon's two-run home run. Jack went nine, with Sparky twitching the last three innings. Four days later at Tiger Stadium, the Tigers defeated the Padres, 4-2, by grace of Alan Trammell's two home runs. Jack again went nine.
Notice how Morris needed the benefit of the offense scoring runs in order to win these World Series games. It's almost like winning games as a pitcher is connected in some way to the offense scoring runs for that pitcher.
I'd love to know what happened in 1992 World Series where Morris had an ERA of 8.44. Notice Jerry isn't telling any inspirational and exciting stories about Morris in that World Series when he went up against Atlanta again.
Morris' accumulated World Series ERA for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays is 2.96.
His career ERA in the ALCS? 4.87. The cherry-picking of statistics is fun.
Maddux and Glavine were great pitchers. No dispute.
But they did not match Morris' record in playoffs and World Series. Morris went 4-2 in World Series starts with three complete games and 7-4 overall in postseason starts with five complete games. In contrast, Maddux was 2-3 in World Series starts and 11-14 overall in the postseason. Glavine was 4-3 in the World Series and 14-16 in all postseason performances.
I'm afraid reading this idiocy is actually making me dumber. Jerry Green needs to realize that more goes into a pitcher's Hall of Fame resume than how well he pitched in the postseason. Maddux and Glavine are better than Jack Morris in nearly every category when it comes to the larger sample size of the regular season.
Not to mention, if Jerry is going to cherry-pick statistics, I will do so as well. He is showing us wins and losses in the postseason and as I have said repeatedly wins and losses aren't exact measures of how well a pitcher pitched. Clearly Jerry disagrees. Check on the career postseason ERA of Maddux, Glavine, and Morris. Both Maddux and Glavine have a lower ERA than Jack Morris did in the postseason. So Jerry blindly and ignorantly throws out "wins and losses" as his ultimate measure of Morris' postseason superiority over Maddux and Glavine, but this could just be an example of Morris receiving more run support than Glavine and Maddux.
It doesn't matter if the numbers are spewed out by a new-styled Sabermetrics whiz or an old-fashioned codger as I am — winning trumps everything else.
Yes, winning trumps everything, but it doesn't tell you everything. Not to mention, if Jerry Green can only base Jack Morris' Hall of Fame candidacy on complete games and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, without even mentioning his regular season statistics, then that tells me all I need to know about whether Morris deserves to be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
4 comments Murray Chass Decides Tim Raines Is a Cheater Too
Murray Chass has taken the Internet by storm on his non-blog in the past by attacking Mike Piazza for being a cheater who used PEDs, he won't vote for Jeff Bagwell because somebody told him one time that Jeff Bagwell used PED's, and it is pretty much the fault of either (a) immoral assholes or (b) new-age statistics lovers if any accused, proven, or hinted-at steroid user ever is inducted into the Hall of Fame. Not satisfied with randomly attacking Mike Piazza for his bacne and using rumors to keep Jeff Bagwell out of the Hall of Fame, Murray has now decided Tim Raines is a junkie and that's why he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Don't get me wrong, Murray has a vote (for one more year, just one more year) and he can vote for or not vote for any player he wants. It's not about voting to Murray though. It's about being able to attack players publicly on his non-blog. Murray is all about being moral and if he doesn't considered a baseball player to be sufficiently moral than that person doesn't get a vote from Murray Chass...unless that player is named Jack Morris. Jack Morris could use steroids and then do cocaine off a hooker's ass and Murray Chass would still vote him to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
While this week’s results of the Hall of Fame election have prompted widespread discussion about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mike Piazza, I prefer to discuss Tim Raines.
Because the Hall of Fame waters aren't muddied enough, and with Murray Chass being bitter his second best friend forever (his first best friend forever is Fay Vincent) Jack Morris didn't get into the Hall of Fame, he takes a stab at pointing out why Tim Raines doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame either.
A 23-year major league outfielder, who had 70 or more stolen bases in six successive seasons in the 1980s,
I'm going to ruin it for everyone and tell you that Murray doesn't think Raines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he used drugs when he played in the majors. At a certain point, Murray is going to state a player doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he passed gas too often in the clubhouse and this hurt team chemistry.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Piazza, Raines was untainted by the admission or the suspicion that he used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. Raines, however, made a different admission and had his own special taint.
Other than his biggest taint being that he is not Jack Morris?
With Raines’ vote total rising, the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association are either forgetting or ignoring that Raines admitted in 1982 and in subsequent years that he used cocaine.
I would assume the voters are ignoring the fact Tim Raines used cocaine since it didn't have a positive effect on his baseball career and generally voters haven't considered a player's personal life as a reason why that player should not make the Hall of Fame. Mickey Mantle chased women and abused alcohol. I realize neither of these activities are illegal, but he is in the Hall of Fame and wasn't the most moral guy. Plenty of baseball players have used drugs or not been the model or morality off the field. This hasn't stopped Hall of Fame voters from voting these players into the Hall of Fame or using this off-the-field issue as a reason the player should not be in the Hall of Fame. Murray is going to try to lump Raines in with the steroid users and he shouldn't. Tim Raines' cocaine use was an off-the-field issue, and even if it bled on to the field periodically, it didn't necessarily enhance his performance.
At one of the drug trials in Pittsburgh in 1985, Raines testified that he kept cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games and that when he had to slide, he slid headfirst to make sure he didn’t break the glass vial in which he kept the illegal drug.
Very salacious and informative. So if Dock Ellis were good enough to be elected into the Hall of Fame should he be denied induction because he pitched while on LSD?
That was Raines himself saying that – on the witness stand under oath in a federal court room. That wasn’t Clemens denying to Congress that he used steroids. That wasn’t Bonds telling a federal grand jury that he thought the substances he was using were flaxseed oil and arthritic balm.
Exactly. This wasn't Bonds or Clemens being questioned about using a substance that would enhance his performance and inflate his statistics. This is a case of a player having a drug problem and testifying to this fact. I'm not sure if Raines' cocaine use made him play baseball better or run faster. Comparing Bonds and Clemens to Raines isn't exactly the most accurate or reasonable comparison.
It was 30 years ago that Raines confessed to using cocaine, but there’s no statute of limitations on using illegal drugs in Major League Baseball.
Well, naturally he should be immediately arrested.
Why aren’t the writers holding Raines as accountable for his transgression as they obviously are, and as they should, in the case of the steroids studs?
Mostly because these are two separate issues. Raines' use of drugs is an example of him having an off-the-field issue that didn't enhance his ability on the field and therefore most likely didn't have a positive effect on his statistics. Steroids arguably can make a baseball player's performance better and can positively affect his statistics. I say "arguably" because I have seen articles about how steroids may not really help baseball players, but either way in this situation these are two separate issues that should not be lumped together.
Raines first appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot for the 2008 election. He received 24.3 percent of the vote that year, then slipped to 22.6 percent the next year. But his numbers have risen every year since and now have more than doubled, from 30.4 to 37.5 to 48.7 to 52.2.
It seems to be obvious from his percentages in the last two elections that some voter who refused to mark their ballots for Bonds and Clemens put an “X” next to Raines’ name.
Right, and this isn't a contradiction or hypocritical because Bonds'/Clemens' steroid use is a different issue and problem from Tim Raines' cocaine abuse. And of course some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Raines. Some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, and Fred McGriff. Those are three players who haven't been shown to use steroids, but there are suspicions about 1-2 of these three guys. There is a diversity of players on a lot of Hall of Fame ballots.
Yeah, he used cocaine, those voters might argue, but cocaine doesn’t help a batter hit home runs or help a pitcher recover faster from his last start.
But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine.
I like how Murray dives deep into the BBWAA regulations to make sure Tim Raines doesn't enter the Hall of Fame. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I don't see the reasonableness of leaving Raines out of the Hall of Fame simply due to his drug use. It doesn't seem like Raines used drugs for fun, but had an actual drug problem that was difficult to kick. It's hard for me to hold this against him when it comes time for Hall of Fame voting.
“Voting,” reads rule No. 5, “shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines.
I'm not going to get in an argument over drugs and if someone who has integrity or character uses drugs. It's a losing argument with no winner. It sounds silly to me to point to Tim Raines and say, "You used drugs and have no character. Your contributions to the game will be ignored because you had a personal issue that shows you lacked character off-the-field."
Some people reject use of that clause, arguing that there are plenty of bad guys in the Hall of Fame and usually cite Ty Cobb as the poster boy for that group. But that’s not an excuse to put more bad guys in.
Very true. This is no excuse to put more "bad guys" in. This is proof the Hall of Fame voters have ignored the "morality clause" when a player has Hall of Fame-worthy statistics and made a big impact on the game of baseball. Tim Raines beat drugs nearly thirty years ago, but to Murray Chass he is still a "bad guy." Nice to see Murray is so forgiving and hasn't ever had any personal issues that would have kept him out of the "Crotchety and Bitter Old Sportswriters Hall of Fame."
I’ve never bought the argument that a player should be elected to the Hall because his statistics are as good as or better than a player who is a member.
That's not the case here. Tim Raines is comparable to several Hall of Fame members, including Lou Brock. It's fine if Murray doesn't think Tim Raines deserves induction, but the members of the Hall of Fame that Tim Raines is comparable to aren't among the worst players in the Hall of Fame.
Raines, the former Montreal Expos’ all-star is the last player left on the ballot who was involved with the Pittsburgh drug trials. Dave Parker’s last year of eligibility was 2011, when he received a meager 15.3 percent. Keith Hernandez fell off the ballot in 2004 when he didn’t gain the requisite 5 percent but a minuscule 4.3 percent.
Both Parker and Hernandez were judged for Hall of Fame induction based entirely on their merits on the field. It's not too much to ask that Raines also be judged by his play on the field and not be lumped in with steroid users simply because it is convenient for Murray to do so. I can't get in the head of Hall of Fame voters, thank God, but I would imagine Hernandez and Parker didn't make the Hall of Fame because their performance didn't merit induction as opposed to their participation in the Pittsburgh drug trials.
Incidentally, Kevin Koch has never made the BBWAA ballot. Koch was the Pittsburgh Pirates’ mascot, the man in the parrot costume, who moonlighted as the cocaine delivery man to the Pirates’ clubhouse.
Murray may not want to do a nationwide standup tour. Humor is not his strength.
In this election, Raines fared better than Clemens (37.6 percent) and Bonds (36.2) and much better than Sosa (12.5). I suspect the disparity among the three first-timers came from the view held by some writers that Clemens and Bonds had established their Hall of Fame credentials before they resorted to steroids.
Which, if I am being honest, I don't see as an entirely wrong viewpoint. It is difficult to determine when a player used steroids or not, but I can see why some voters would try to separate out the steroid and non-steroid years for a certain player.
The votes for first-timers Craig Biggio (a ballot-leading 68.2) and Mike Piazza (57.8) as well as third-timer Jeff Bagwell (59.6) indicate that writers either haven’t caught up to the latest reports of their alleged steroids use or, more likely, are willing to overlook the reports because the players were never caught using anything illegal.
Because God forbid there are open-minded sportswriters out there who refuse to convict Piazza, Bagwell and Biggio based on circumstantial evidence and their own personal belief these players used steroids. These writers probably have caught up to the latest reports but don't think it is fair to lump Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell in with Bonds/Clemens/Sosa. It is probably shocking for Murray to realize there are those willing to consider the idea their own preconceived notion about these players isn't a set-in-stone fact.
My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit from the absence of surefire first-timers on the ballot. With four fewer ballots cast, the pitcher gained three votes and only 1 percent to 67.7. Next year he could suffer with the addition of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the ballot,
I'm looking forward to next year's Hall of Fame vote because it is going to be absolutely clear what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to look like (Maddux and Glavine), while showing those pitchers who were just very good (Morris) probably don't deserve induction. The 2014 class is going to show the largest difference in guys like Jack Morris and real Hall of Fame pitchers.
or he could benefit if the voters say let’s put all the good pitchers in.
Here's the fundamental problem with Jack Morris being in the Hall of Fame. Even the strongest supporters of Morris will say he was a "good pitcher." Murray Chass is going to turn in a Hall of Fame ballot until Jack Morris is no longer eligibile. He is a huge supporter of Morris and even he says Morris was "good." Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux were great pitchers. So if the voters do anything they will see Glavine and Maddux's numbers and realize, "Holy shit, this is what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to be," and Morris will lose votes due to this.
I found the most intriguing to come from Michael Weiner, the head of the players’ union, who issued this statement:
...Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings – and others never even implicated – is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game.
The writers serve as judges of players’ careers but are not restricted as judges are in dealing with the law. We are free to use circumstantial evidence, and there is plenty of that with Bonds and Clemens, all of which points to them as cheaters.
Notice how Murray has absolutely nothing to say about the "others never even implicated" statement in regard to steroids. This is because Murray knows it is ridiculous to convict a guy like Jeff Bagwell based entirely on a rumor that he heard one time. Murray always glosses over why he won't vote for Bagwell because he hasn't seen his bacne and has no idea if Bagwell used steroids. He only relies on rumors when discussing Bagwell. Murray is not voting for Bagwell based on what somebody he trusts told him and I think that is wrong. It's easy to beat the drum against Bonds and Clemens, but Murray's reasoning in regard to Bagwell falls short in my opinion.
But the Hall of Fame voters don’t need any more proof than they used in this election.
I think you do. I think if you are stating Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio don't get your Hall of Fame vote because they lack "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" you better have a good reason for this claim other than bacne and a game of telephone with another sportswriter. To state a player lacks character and integrity isn't discussing his on-the-field exploits, but is criticizing him for his actions off-the-field. I think this is something there should be definitive proof of being true before not casting a ballot for these players. As I have said repeatedly, I think Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza used steroids, but I have no proof so I'm not so closed-minded as to think my opinion is right.
In searching for something I had written for The New York Times some years ago, I came across an article written by Alan Schwarz in spring training of 2004.
Schwarz talked to some young fans about the steroids mess that was just starting to emerge publicly.
“It’s cheating,” an 11-year-old Florida fan said while watching an exhibition game.
Because the opinion of an 11-year-old can never be wrong. That's why Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and One Direction are the greatest musicians in the history of music. That's why every boy band from the past 20 years is still going strong and selling millions of albums. That's why "Twilight" is going to win every Academy Award.
An 11-year-old's opinion is not an opinion I would strongly cite in support of nearly any argument.
”I’m angry,” said another young fan. “I don’t like people cheating in sports.”
”I’d feel bad if Barry Bonds used steroids,” the first fan said. ”Hank Aaron didn’t use steroids, did he?”
Therein lies Murray Chass' argument for why Tim Raines lacks integrity. Cocaine is the same thing as steroids. 11-year-old boys don't like cheaters and so grown adults shouldn't like cheaters. Because steroid users are cheaters and using cocaine is the same thing as steroids, then that means Tim Raines is a cheater and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame for this reason. How can the opinion of an 11-year-old boy from 9 years ago be wrong or not universally accepted?
While this week’s results of the Hall of Fame election have prompted widespread discussion about Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and Mike Piazza, I prefer to discuss Tim Raines.
Because the Hall of Fame waters aren't muddied enough, and with Murray Chass being bitter his second best friend forever (his first best friend forever is Fay Vincent) Jack Morris didn't get into the Hall of Fame, he takes a stab at pointing out why Tim Raines doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame either.
A 23-year major league outfielder, who had 70 or more stolen bases in six successive seasons in the 1980s,
I'm going to ruin it for everyone and tell you that Murray doesn't think Raines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame because he used drugs when he played in the majors. At a certain point, Murray is going to state a player doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because he passed gas too often in the clubhouse and this hurt team chemistry.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Piazza, Raines was untainted by the admission or the suspicion that he used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. Raines, however, made a different admission and had his own special taint.
Other than his biggest taint being that he is not Jack Morris?
With Raines’ vote total rising, the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association are either forgetting or ignoring that Raines admitted in 1982 and in subsequent years that he used cocaine.
I would assume the voters are ignoring the fact Tim Raines used cocaine since it didn't have a positive effect on his baseball career and generally voters haven't considered a player's personal life as a reason why that player should not make the Hall of Fame. Mickey Mantle chased women and abused alcohol. I realize neither of these activities are illegal, but he is in the Hall of Fame and wasn't the most moral guy. Plenty of baseball players have used drugs or not been the model or morality off the field. This hasn't stopped Hall of Fame voters from voting these players into the Hall of Fame or using this off-the-field issue as a reason the player should not be in the Hall of Fame. Murray is going to try to lump Raines in with the steroid users and he shouldn't. Tim Raines' cocaine use was an off-the-field issue, and even if it bled on to the field periodically, it didn't necessarily enhance his performance.
At one of the drug trials in Pittsburgh in 1985, Raines testified that he kept cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games and that when he had to slide, he slid headfirst to make sure he didn’t break the glass vial in which he kept the illegal drug.
Very salacious and informative. So if Dock Ellis were good enough to be elected into the Hall of Fame should he be denied induction because he pitched while on LSD?
That was Raines himself saying that – on the witness stand under oath in a federal court room. That wasn’t Clemens denying to Congress that he used steroids. That wasn’t Bonds telling a federal grand jury that he thought the substances he was using were flaxseed oil and arthritic balm.
Exactly. This wasn't Bonds or Clemens being questioned about using a substance that would enhance his performance and inflate his statistics. This is a case of a player having a drug problem and testifying to this fact. I'm not sure if Raines' cocaine use made him play baseball better or run faster. Comparing Bonds and Clemens to Raines isn't exactly the most accurate or reasonable comparison.
It was 30 years ago that Raines confessed to using cocaine, but there’s no statute of limitations on using illegal drugs in Major League Baseball.
Well, naturally he should be immediately arrested.
Why aren’t the writers holding Raines as accountable for his transgression as they obviously are, and as they should, in the case of the steroids studs?
Mostly because these are two separate issues. Raines' use of drugs is an example of him having an off-the-field issue that didn't enhance his ability on the field and therefore most likely didn't have a positive effect on his statistics. Steroids arguably can make a baseball player's performance better and can positively affect his statistics. I say "arguably" because I have seen articles about how steroids may not really help baseball players, but either way in this situation these are two separate issues that should not be lumped together.
Raines first appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot for the 2008 election. He received 24.3 percent of the vote that year, then slipped to 22.6 percent the next year. But his numbers have risen every year since and now have more than doubled, from 30.4 to 37.5 to 48.7 to 52.2.
It seems to be obvious from his percentages in the last two elections that some voter who refused to mark their ballots for Bonds and Clemens put an “X” next to Raines’ name.
Right, and this isn't a contradiction or hypocritical because Bonds'/Clemens' steroid use is a different issue and problem from Tim Raines' cocaine abuse. And of course some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Raines. Some voters who refused to vote for Bonds and Clemens voted for Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, and Fred McGriff. Those are three players who haven't been shown to use steroids, but there are suspicions about 1-2 of these three guys. There is a diversity of players on a lot of Hall of Fame ballots.
Yeah, he used cocaine, those voters might argue, but cocaine doesn’t help a batter hit home runs or help a pitcher recover faster from his last start.
But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine.
I like how Murray dives deep into the BBWAA regulations to make sure Tim Raines doesn't enter the Hall of Fame. He's entitled to his opinion of course, but I don't see the reasonableness of leaving Raines out of the Hall of Fame simply due to his drug use. It doesn't seem like Raines used drugs for fun, but had an actual drug problem that was difficult to kick. It's hard for me to hold this against him when it comes time for Hall of Fame voting.
“Voting,” reads rule No. 5, “shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines.
I'm not going to get in an argument over drugs and if someone who has integrity or character uses drugs. It's a losing argument with no winner. It sounds silly to me to point to Tim Raines and say, "You used drugs and have no character. Your contributions to the game will be ignored because you had a personal issue that shows you lacked character off-the-field."
Some people reject use of that clause, arguing that there are plenty of bad guys in the Hall of Fame and usually cite Ty Cobb as the poster boy for that group. But that’s not an excuse to put more bad guys in.
Very true. This is no excuse to put more "bad guys" in. This is proof the Hall of Fame voters have ignored the "morality clause" when a player has Hall of Fame-worthy statistics and made a big impact on the game of baseball. Tim Raines beat drugs nearly thirty years ago, but to Murray Chass he is still a "bad guy." Nice to see Murray is so forgiving and hasn't ever had any personal issues that would have kept him out of the "Crotchety and Bitter Old Sportswriters Hall of Fame."
I’ve never bought the argument that a player should be elected to the Hall because his statistics are as good as or better than a player who is a member.
That's not the case here. Tim Raines is comparable to several Hall of Fame members, including Lou Brock. It's fine if Murray doesn't think Tim Raines deserves induction, but the members of the Hall of Fame that Tim Raines is comparable to aren't among the worst players in the Hall of Fame.
Raines, the former Montreal Expos’ all-star is the last player left on the ballot who was involved with the Pittsburgh drug trials. Dave Parker’s last year of eligibility was 2011, when he received a meager 15.3 percent. Keith Hernandez fell off the ballot in 2004 when he didn’t gain the requisite 5 percent but a minuscule 4.3 percent.
Both Parker and Hernandez were judged for Hall of Fame induction based entirely on their merits on the field. It's not too much to ask that Raines also be judged by his play on the field and not be lumped in with steroid users simply because it is convenient for Murray to do so. I can't get in the head of Hall of Fame voters, thank God, but I would imagine Hernandez and Parker didn't make the Hall of Fame because their performance didn't merit induction as opposed to their participation in the Pittsburgh drug trials.
Incidentally, Kevin Koch has never made the BBWAA ballot. Koch was the Pittsburgh Pirates’ mascot, the man in the parrot costume, who moonlighted as the cocaine delivery man to the Pirates’ clubhouse.
Murray may not want to do a nationwide standup tour. Humor is not his strength.
In this election, Raines fared better than Clemens (37.6 percent) and Bonds (36.2) and much better than Sosa (12.5). I suspect the disparity among the three first-timers came from the view held by some writers that Clemens and Bonds had established their Hall of Fame credentials before they resorted to steroids.
Which, if I am being honest, I don't see as an entirely wrong viewpoint. It is difficult to determine when a player used steroids or not, but I can see why some voters would try to separate out the steroid and non-steroid years for a certain player.
The votes for first-timers Craig Biggio (a ballot-leading 68.2) and Mike Piazza (57.8) as well as third-timer Jeff Bagwell (59.6) indicate that writers either haven’t caught up to the latest reports of their alleged steroids use or, more likely, are willing to overlook the reports because the players were never caught using anything illegal.
Because God forbid there are open-minded sportswriters out there who refuse to convict Piazza, Bagwell and Biggio based on circumstantial evidence and their own personal belief these players used steroids. These writers probably have caught up to the latest reports but don't think it is fair to lump Piazza, Biggio and Bagwell in with Bonds/Clemens/Sosa. It is probably shocking for Murray to realize there are those willing to consider the idea their own preconceived notion about these players isn't a set-in-stone fact.
My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit from the absence of surefire first-timers on the ballot. With four fewer ballots cast, the pitcher gained three votes and only 1 percent to 67.7. Next year he could suffer with the addition of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the ballot,
I'm looking forward to next year's Hall of Fame vote because it is going to be absolutely clear what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to look like (Maddux and Glavine), while showing those pitchers who were just very good (Morris) probably don't deserve induction. The 2014 class is going to show the largest difference in guys like Jack Morris and real Hall of Fame pitchers.
or he could benefit if the voters say let’s put all the good pitchers in.
Here's the fundamental problem with Jack Morris being in the Hall of Fame. Even the strongest supporters of Morris will say he was a "good pitcher." Murray Chass is going to turn in a Hall of Fame ballot until Jack Morris is no longer eligibile. He is a huge supporter of Morris and even he says Morris was "good." Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux were great pitchers. So if the voters do anything they will see Glavine and Maddux's numbers and realize, "Holy shit, this is what a Hall of Fame pitcher is supposed to be," and Morris will lose votes due to this.
I found the most intriguing to come from Michael Weiner, the head of the players’ union, who issued this statement:
...Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings – and others never even implicated – is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game.
The writers serve as judges of players’ careers but are not restricted as judges are in dealing with the law. We are free to use circumstantial evidence, and there is plenty of that with Bonds and Clemens, all of which points to them as cheaters.
Notice how Murray has absolutely nothing to say about the "others never even implicated" statement in regard to steroids. This is because Murray knows it is ridiculous to convict a guy like Jeff Bagwell based entirely on a rumor that he heard one time. Murray always glosses over why he won't vote for Bagwell because he hasn't seen his bacne and has no idea if Bagwell used steroids. He only relies on rumors when discussing Bagwell. Murray is not voting for Bagwell based on what somebody he trusts told him and I think that is wrong. It's easy to beat the drum against Bonds and Clemens, but Murray's reasoning in regard to Bagwell falls short in my opinion.
But the Hall of Fame voters don’t need any more proof than they used in this election.
I think you do. I think if you are stating Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio don't get your Hall of Fame vote because they lack "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" you better have a good reason for this claim other than bacne and a game of telephone with another sportswriter. To state a player lacks character and integrity isn't discussing his on-the-field exploits, but is criticizing him for his actions off-the-field. I think this is something there should be definitive proof of being true before not casting a ballot for these players. As I have said repeatedly, I think Biggio, Bagwell, and Piazza used steroids, but I have no proof so I'm not so closed-minded as to think my opinion is right.
In searching for something I had written for The New York Times some years ago, I came across an article written by Alan Schwarz in spring training of 2004.
Schwarz talked to some young fans about the steroids mess that was just starting to emerge publicly.
“It’s cheating,” an 11-year-old Florida fan said while watching an exhibition game.
Because the opinion of an 11-year-old can never be wrong. That's why Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift and One Direction are the greatest musicians in the history of music. That's why every boy band from the past 20 years is still going strong and selling millions of albums. That's why "Twilight" is going to win every Academy Award.
An 11-year-old's opinion is not an opinion I would strongly cite in support of nearly any argument.
”I’m angry,” said another young fan. “I don’t like people cheating in sports.”
”I’d feel bad if Barry Bonds used steroids,” the first fan said. ”Hank Aaron didn’t use steroids, did he?”
Therein lies Murray Chass' argument for why Tim Raines lacks integrity. Cocaine is the same thing as steroids. 11-year-old boys don't like cheaters and so grown adults shouldn't like cheaters. Because steroid users are cheaters and using cocaine is the same thing as steroids, then that means Tim Raines is a cheater and shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame for this reason. How can the opinion of an 11-year-old boy from 9 years ago be wrong or not universally accepted?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
4 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of
I have got a few things on my mind today while I am trying to figure out why whenever an announcer mentions Fred Lane, who for some reason owns some Carolina Panther rushing records, that announcer always forget to mention the fact Fred Lane's wife blew his head off with a shotgun. Seems like they would mention that for some reason.
1. K-Rod is going to sign with the New York Mets.
Sports Illustrated and Newsday reported that the deal is worth about $37 million.
Three years at $37 million. An elite closer is very expensive and I guess this means Billy Wagner is never ever going to play for the Mets again. $12 million per year for a closer, that just seems like a lot of money, but it could be worth it for the Mets. At least they know they will have a lead to protect in the 9th inning. What was the Reds excuse for getting Francisco Cordero though?
Rodriguez's agent, Paul Kinzer, said, "I am more optimistic than I have ever been" about finalizing a deal between K-Rod and the Mets, according to the Post. "We will know more in the next 24 hours, but so far everything has been positive."
I love agents when are quoted about a potential contract. He is about to make $1.85 million dollars, if he gets 5% of the total amount of the contract, of course he is optimistic and everything is positive. He is about to be able to afford that third yacht that he wants.
The contract would pay Rodriguez about $3 million more than he was offered by the Los Angeles Angels in spring training and $6 million less than Wagner's deal with the Mets, according to SI.com.
Holy shit. This is very new information for me. I did not know that Billy Wagner was making almost $14 million dollars last year. So now the Mets have almost $27 million wrapped up in closers? That's how much Alex "The Big Rip Off/Choker/Mr. Unclutch" Rodriguez makes in a year. I know they need a closer but good grief that is a lot tied into that position.
2. Why does CBS Sportsline only hire writers who try and piss the general public off? Gregg Doyel does it and Mike Freeman, with his cheesy ass picture, tries to do it too.
There is increasing speculation among some NFL personnel men that if Meyer wins another title -- and Meyer will because he has built the college football equivalent of the 1990 UNLV basketball team -- he'll be one of the most pursued college coaches in recent memory.
I thought we all agreed college football/basketball coaches should not attempt to make the transition to the NFL/NBA. I really thought this was understood. This is just a red herring though in this paragraph, I would really love to know what the heck Mike Freeman is thinking calling Florida the 1990 UNLV basketball team.
The 1990 UNLV basketball team was an absolute powerhouse but they only won one National Championship and faded into oblivion after that...well actually after the 1991 National Semi-finals they faded but they did not even make the championship game that year. It's not like there is no competition for Florida among programs who would be seen as the 1990 UNLV team. I am so confused and tired, I don't even come close to getting this comparison, but I think the entire purpose of building a great college program is to try and dominate every single year and Meyer has done that for basically two years. Mission not quite accomplished and this in no way makes him qualified to be an NFL head coach.
According to the Palm Beach Post, Meyer's contract allows him a limited window in which he is allowed contact with other teams. That window is basically now, the newspaper said, until the Gators' bowl game. So that means teams can basically talk to Meyer between now and Jan. 8 (or thereabouts).
You have to love what a class act these college head coaches are. Meyer put in his contract he would be allowed contact, not after the season, but while his team of young adults are preparing for what may be the biggest game of their life. What if he reaches an agreement? Is he going to quit as head coach before or after the National Championship? Either way, this is a very Bill Parcells-esque move and makes him seem like an asshole.
The only risk for Meyer is the NFL is the big boy league.
Ask Steve Spurrier. The other risk is that if/when he fails, he will have given up a position as head coach for one of the top 10 programs in the nation and those don't come around all that often. I am sure Butch Davis and Steve Spurrier are happy where they are right now, but would they rather rebuild UNC and South Carolina or be coaching Miami (bad example...but they were good after David left) and Florida right now? I would rather play in January against Texas, rather than Missouri in some third tier bowl.
I think Meyer has always been a more masterful program builder than strategic coach.
Wonderful point. He is not someone who has brought the spread option offense to three different conferences with great success each time. Not an innovator though, not at all. Shitty point.
Yet Meyer is close friends with New England coach Bill Belichick and he has seen Belichick do great things in the sport.
But not in Cleveland, his first head coaching stop. If Meyer fails his first time, he won't get another shot.
A title game win will be seen by Meyer as accomplishing everything he can at Florida and the NFL will be viewed by him as territory to be conquered.
Before he can reap his wonderful rewards he has to beat a pretty good Oklahoma offense. They may not have a great defense but they can score with anyone in the country and that includes Florida.
He is dumb to even think about going to the professional level to coach.
3. I have never really covered Bill Plaschke all that much here but let it be known his Lou Holtz-esque Daffy Duck lisp annoys the crap out of me on Around the Horn. He is also does bad sportswriting in his spare time.
The Trojans miss Norm Chow. They miss him bad. They miss him historically bad.
Oh yeah, USC has absolutely stunk since Chow left to go run the Tennessee Titans' high powered offense so well he got fired this past offseason.
Chow left in 2004 and USC has lost a total of 6 games. That would be 1 in 2005, 2 in 2006, 2 in 2007, and 1 game in 2008. It's not like they have fallen off the face of the earth during that time period and they have had zero offensive problems in that time span that lasted longer than one game. I think a lack of focus in games against Oregon State and Stanford has been their major problem and that could be because Pete Carroll runs an extended daycare and the players get too loose sometimes before a game and probably do not take their opponent as seriously as they should.
The truth is, if Chow did not leave USC in 2005 after a personality clash with Carroll, they could have played for three more national titles.
The truth is, Chow's play calling would not have necessarily led to the Trojans executing his game plans any better than they already did. The truth is, you are a moron.
With Chow in the booth, there is no way Reggie Bush would not have been on the field on that infamous fourth-and-two play on the Texas 45-yard line. If Bush is on the field, at least one more defender is occupied, and LenDale White probably gains the extra yard that would have clinched the victory.
Yeah maybe. What happens though if Bush is in the game at that point and he tries to cut block a receiver to ensure LenDale White gets the first down, breaks his back and is unable to ever play football again? Kim Kardashian would never date him if he is in a back brace. She doesn't like handicapped people. What if the surgeon was up late in the night celebrating USC's national championship caused by Bush's ill fated block/Chow's wonderful play call and screws up trying to repair Bush's spine and Bush becomes a vegetable and wants to be killed so he is not in any more pain and agony? Well I can tell you George Bush would not allow this, so what if he has the government step in to prevent it, and in response a wack job left wing group has Cheney and Bush killed and now Nancy Pelosi is the President of the United States? What if she begins to get the country back on the right track and there are never any bailouts so she is elected President of the United States in 2008? What if Barack Obama becomes so depressed he is going to have wait four more years to become President he chooses to take his life rather than have to run against Hillary Clinton in four years? Basically by not having Reggie Bush in the game at that point, Lane Kiffen/Steve Sarkasian could have saved Barack Obama's life. Obama can thank them later because they have college teams to coach.
You think Chow would have screamed when Booty tried to play the second half against Stanford with a broken finger?
Absolutely, he would have screamed and then he would have broken Booty's leg so he could definitely not play in the second half. Then he would play quarterback. He can do this because he is Norm "Fuckin'" Chow.
One of the themes this week is that, since leaving USC, Chow has fallen from grace. He was fired from a Tennessee Titans team that has only lost once. He has joined a UCLA team that has won only four times.
This seems to undermine your point that Norm Chow is awesome.
After the victory over Oklahoma for their second consecutive national title, Carroll intimated to Chow that he was going to be calling more of the plays, or at least giving more authority to young Kiffin, who was being created in Carroll's image.
Thing is, Pete Carroll is the head coach, he can do this. If he wants to name Grimace, the fictional character from McDonald's, the offensive coordinator and a midget gymnast from Lithuania the defensive coordinator, he can do it. He is the head coach and has the magical powers to make these types of decisions.
4. I have focused on this a whole lot last week so I will not belabor the point but did anyone catch the fact Duke lost on Saturday to Michigan, a team they manhandled a week earlier? Surprisingly I could not find any articles that talked about how the 110 articles written last Wednesday about how awesome Duke was going to be were potentially wrong. Doesn't matter because online articles now consistently deal with reactionary journalism. The Carolina Panthers beat Tampa Bay last night, now they are the team to beat in the NFC. Forget the fact they still can't throw the ball and the Giants have played only one bad game, now they have ordained Carolina the team to beat.
It drives me crazy. After one victory, journalists act as if the entire landscape has changed overnight. I wanted to wait until February/March to determine if this Duke team is different and I still do. Why any journalist who wants the slightest credibility would write flip flop articles for the next three months based on the last game played is beyond me. I guess that is where journalism is at now.
5. I am beyond pumped up to read how my preseason predictions for the NFL panned out, I am sure I am going to look like an idiot, but I really, really enjoy being wrong/right. I don't remember the exact records I predicted, but I do remember loving Jacksonville this year. Ouch.
6. Woody Paige writes a Brandon Marshall puff piece.
The cocky, irresponsible kid seems to have grown up to be a humble, responsible adult at 24 1/2. Instead of hanging out late at night in disreputable clubs, he is hanging out on off days at youth centers. He is staying in bounds and out of trouble. The young man who had needed help is helping others.
If you think I am not 100% confident this kid has become a living example of a saint in the past four months since he last caused the Broncos problems, then you are probably right.
Marshall once ripped the Broncos fans for leaving. On Sunday, he thanked them for staying.
This isn't a change at all. He wanted them to stay and they stayed so he thanked them. Seems to make sense to me. I am not sure the crowd doing exactly what Brandon Marshall wanted them to do is a sign of maturity.
"Harvey and his family have done a lot for me over the past few months, and I really appreciate it. I promised him a game ball," Marshall said.
It is not necessarily a sign of maturity when a player gives the game ball to the attorney that has helped him with all of his legal problems.
And because of that makeover, Marshall has become a better man — and can become The Man.
Fortunately Woody Paige knows nothing about maturity but he does know a thing or two about how to write a puff piece for a man who hurt himself slipping on a McDonald's bag.
7. Greg Maddux has retired.
CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Derek Lowe, who will sign contracts this winter for something more than $250 million, have a combined 330 career wins, 25 fewer than Maddux alone.
He was amazing at one time. I know I am biased because he played for my favorite MLB team for a long time but I am not sure I have ever seen a pitcher set up hitters like he did. I think he had a patent on soft one hoppers back to the pitching mound. Not to go all Bill Simmons on you, but when he gave up a couple of runs I was surprised and actually angry with him because I expected him to be perfect all of the time. To put up the numbers he did is amazing, since he pitched in the steroid era.
Look at his numbers. Even if you think you know them, look at 1994-2002 and just remember that was right in the middle of the steroid age. I personally think he is the greatest pitcher of this era. I know others can say Clemens or Pedro but I think Maddux's numbers really back it up.
8. Here is my big question...does Maddux go in the Hall of Fame as an Atlanta Brave or a Chicago Cub? He came up to the majors as a Cub and played for them for 9.5 years. He had most of his success as an Atlanta Brave and played for them for 11 years. I have my opinion on the matter, but I am surprised this question has not been posed by more people.
9. I always get really excited for bowl season but doesn't it always seem like many of the major bowls are massive disappointments and not that interesting? Last year Hawaii got picked apart, LSU ran away with the game in the second half, WVU won big and it just seems to go on from there. I try not to get too excited because I know the good games are going to be the early games and not necessarily the BCS bowl games. Sure, you do have your Oklahoma v. Boise St. games but for the most part you never get four quality BCS bowl games and end up with a couple of blowouts. I guess it is inevitable but I still wish the games were all a little closer.
10. The Timberwolves fired Randy Wittman and Kevin McHale is now going to wear sweaters on the bench every night and hope his team can win 1 out of 5 games.
"If this doesn't work, it'll be on me," McHale said. "The thing I told Glen is that nothing changes with the plan. The plan stays the same. We have a lot of cap room in the future. We have multiple [draft] picks. Nothing's going to change. The only change is that I'm going to spending all my time coaching."
So the Wolves are 4-15 currently, the new coach guarantees nothing is changing, he is banking on cap room and brags about the fact they have tons of new draft picks to choose even worse players. I am sure everyone in Minnesota is rushing out to buy season tickets right now. These promises are from the same guy who relieved the Timberwolves' fans of having to watch OJ Mayo turn into a real NBA player and traded him for a guy who will crowd the lane so Al Jefferson has less room to move and is 20 years old but still has baby fat. I am glad I am not a Timberwolves fan.
1. K-Rod is going to sign with the New York Mets.
Sports Illustrated and Newsday reported that the deal is worth about $37 million.
Three years at $37 million. An elite closer is very expensive and I guess this means Billy Wagner is never ever going to play for the Mets again. $12 million per year for a closer, that just seems like a lot of money, but it could be worth it for the Mets. At least they know they will have a lead to protect in the 9th inning. What was the Reds excuse for getting Francisco Cordero though?
Rodriguez's agent, Paul Kinzer, said, "I am more optimistic than I have ever been" about finalizing a deal between K-Rod and the Mets, according to the Post. "We will know more in the next 24 hours, but so far everything has been positive."
I love agents when are quoted about a potential contract. He is about to make $1.85 million dollars, if he gets 5% of the total amount of the contract, of course he is optimistic and everything is positive. He is about to be able to afford that third yacht that he wants.
The contract would pay Rodriguez about $3 million more than he was offered by the Los Angeles Angels in spring training and $6 million less than Wagner's deal with the Mets, according to SI.com.
Holy shit. This is very new information for me. I did not know that Billy Wagner was making almost $14 million dollars last year. So now the Mets have almost $27 million wrapped up in closers? That's how much Alex "The Big Rip Off/Choker/Mr. Unclutch" Rodriguez makes in a year. I know they need a closer but good grief that is a lot tied into that position.
2. Why does CBS Sportsline only hire writers who try and piss the general public off? Gregg Doyel does it and Mike Freeman, with his cheesy ass picture, tries to do it too.
There is increasing speculation among some NFL personnel men that if Meyer wins another title -- and Meyer will because he has built the college football equivalent of the 1990 UNLV basketball team -- he'll be one of the most pursued college coaches in recent memory.
I thought we all agreed college football/basketball coaches should not attempt to make the transition to the NFL/NBA. I really thought this was understood. This is just a red herring though in this paragraph, I would really love to know what the heck Mike Freeman is thinking calling Florida the 1990 UNLV basketball team.
The 1990 UNLV basketball team was an absolute powerhouse but they only won one National Championship and faded into oblivion after that...well actually after the 1991 National Semi-finals they faded but they did not even make the championship game that year. It's not like there is no competition for Florida among programs who would be seen as the 1990 UNLV team. I am so confused and tired, I don't even come close to getting this comparison, but I think the entire purpose of building a great college program is to try and dominate every single year and Meyer has done that for basically two years. Mission not quite accomplished and this in no way makes him qualified to be an NFL head coach.
According to the Palm Beach Post, Meyer's contract allows him a limited window in which he is allowed contact with other teams. That window is basically now, the newspaper said, until the Gators' bowl game. So that means teams can basically talk to Meyer between now and Jan. 8 (or thereabouts).
You have to love what a class act these college head coaches are. Meyer put in his contract he would be allowed contact, not after the season, but while his team of young adults are preparing for what may be the biggest game of their life. What if he reaches an agreement? Is he going to quit as head coach before or after the National Championship? Either way, this is a very Bill Parcells-esque move and makes him seem like an asshole.
The only risk for Meyer is the NFL is the big boy league.
Ask Steve Spurrier. The other risk is that if/when he fails, he will have given up a position as head coach for one of the top 10 programs in the nation and those don't come around all that often. I am sure Butch Davis and Steve Spurrier are happy where they are right now, but would they rather rebuild UNC and South Carolina or be coaching Miami (bad example...but they were good after David left) and Florida right now? I would rather play in January against Texas, rather than Missouri in some third tier bowl.
I think Meyer has always been a more masterful program builder than strategic coach.
Wonderful point. He is not someone who has brought the spread option offense to three different conferences with great success each time. Not an innovator though, not at all. Shitty point.
Yet Meyer is close friends with New England coach Bill Belichick and he has seen Belichick do great things in the sport.
But not in Cleveland, his first head coaching stop. If Meyer fails his first time, he won't get another shot.
A title game win will be seen by Meyer as accomplishing everything he can at Florida and the NFL will be viewed by him as territory to be conquered.
Before he can reap his wonderful rewards he has to beat a pretty good Oklahoma offense. They may not have a great defense but they can score with anyone in the country and that includes Florida.
He is dumb to even think about going to the professional level to coach.
3. I have never really covered Bill Plaschke all that much here but let it be known his Lou Holtz-esque Daffy Duck lisp annoys the crap out of me on Around the Horn. He is also does bad sportswriting in his spare time.
The Trojans miss Norm Chow. They miss him bad. They miss him historically bad.
Oh yeah, USC has absolutely stunk since Chow left to go run the Tennessee Titans' high powered offense so well he got fired this past offseason.
Chow left in 2004 and USC has lost a total of 6 games. That would be 1 in 2005, 2 in 2006, 2 in 2007, and 1 game in 2008. It's not like they have fallen off the face of the earth during that time period and they have had zero offensive problems in that time span that lasted longer than one game. I think a lack of focus in games against Oregon State and Stanford has been their major problem and that could be because Pete Carroll runs an extended daycare and the players get too loose sometimes before a game and probably do not take their opponent as seriously as they should.
The truth is, if Chow did not leave USC in 2005 after a personality clash with Carroll, they could have played for three more national titles.
The truth is, Chow's play calling would not have necessarily led to the Trojans executing his game plans any better than they already did. The truth is, you are a moron.
With Chow in the booth, there is no way Reggie Bush would not have been on the field on that infamous fourth-and-two play on the Texas 45-yard line. If Bush is on the field, at least one more defender is occupied, and LenDale White probably gains the extra yard that would have clinched the victory.
Yeah maybe. What happens though if Bush is in the game at that point and he tries to cut block a receiver to ensure LenDale White gets the first down, breaks his back and is unable to ever play football again? Kim Kardashian would never date him if he is in a back brace. She doesn't like handicapped people. What if the surgeon was up late in the night celebrating USC's national championship caused by Bush's ill fated block/Chow's wonderful play call and screws up trying to repair Bush's spine and Bush becomes a vegetable and wants to be killed so he is not in any more pain and agony? Well I can tell you George Bush would not allow this, so what if he has the government step in to prevent it, and in response a wack job left wing group has Cheney and Bush killed and now Nancy Pelosi is the President of the United States? What if she begins to get the country back on the right track and there are never any bailouts so she is elected President of the United States in 2008? What if Barack Obama becomes so depressed he is going to have wait four more years to become President he chooses to take his life rather than have to run against Hillary Clinton in four years? Basically by not having Reggie Bush in the game at that point, Lane Kiffen/Steve Sarkasian could have saved Barack Obama's life. Obama can thank them later because they have college teams to coach.
You think Chow would have screamed when Booty tried to play the second half against Stanford with a broken finger?
Absolutely, he would have screamed and then he would have broken Booty's leg so he could definitely not play in the second half. Then he would play quarterback. He can do this because he is Norm "Fuckin'" Chow.
One of the themes this week is that, since leaving USC, Chow has fallen from grace. He was fired from a Tennessee Titans team that has only lost once. He has joined a UCLA team that has won only four times.
This seems to undermine your point that Norm Chow is awesome.
After the victory over Oklahoma for their second consecutive national title, Carroll intimated to Chow that he was going to be calling more of the plays, or at least giving more authority to young Kiffin, who was being created in Carroll's image.
Thing is, Pete Carroll is the head coach, he can do this. If he wants to name Grimace, the fictional character from McDonald's, the offensive coordinator and a midget gymnast from Lithuania the defensive coordinator, he can do it. He is the head coach and has the magical powers to make these types of decisions.
4. I have focused on this a whole lot last week so I will not belabor the point but did anyone catch the fact Duke lost on Saturday to Michigan, a team they manhandled a week earlier? Surprisingly I could not find any articles that talked about how the 110 articles written last Wednesday about how awesome Duke was going to be were potentially wrong. Doesn't matter because online articles now consistently deal with reactionary journalism. The Carolina Panthers beat Tampa Bay last night, now they are the team to beat in the NFC. Forget the fact they still can't throw the ball and the Giants have played only one bad game, now they have ordained Carolina the team to beat.
It drives me crazy. After one victory, journalists act as if the entire landscape has changed overnight. I wanted to wait until February/March to determine if this Duke team is different and I still do. Why any journalist who wants the slightest credibility would write flip flop articles for the next three months based on the last game played is beyond me. I guess that is where journalism is at now.
5. I am beyond pumped up to read how my preseason predictions for the NFL panned out, I am sure I am going to look like an idiot, but I really, really enjoy being wrong/right. I don't remember the exact records I predicted, but I do remember loving Jacksonville this year. Ouch.
6. Woody Paige writes a Brandon Marshall puff piece.
The cocky, irresponsible kid seems to have grown up to be a humble, responsible adult at 24 1/2. Instead of hanging out late at night in disreputable clubs, he is hanging out on off days at youth centers. He is staying in bounds and out of trouble. The young man who had needed help is helping others.
If you think I am not 100% confident this kid has become a living example of a saint in the past four months since he last caused the Broncos problems, then you are probably right.
Marshall once ripped the Broncos fans for leaving. On Sunday, he thanked them for staying.
This isn't a change at all. He wanted them to stay and they stayed so he thanked them. Seems to make sense to me. I am not sure the crowd doing exactly what Brandon Marshall wanted them to do is a sign of maturity.
"Harvey and his family have done a lot for me over the past few months, and I really appreciate it. I promised him a game ball," Marshall said.
It is not necessarily a sign of maturity when a player gives the game ball to the attorney that has helped him with all of his legal problems.
And because of that makeover, Marshall has become a better man — and can become The Man.
Fortunately Woody Paige knows nothing about maturity but he does know a thing or two about how to write a puff piece for a man who hurt himself slipping on a McDonald's bag.
7. Greg Maddux has retired.
CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Derek Lowe, who will sign contracts this winter for something more than $250 million, have a combined 330 career wins, 25 fewer than Maddux alone.
He was amazing at one time. I know I am biased because he played for my favorite MLB team for a long time but I am not sure I have ever seen a pitcher set up hitters like he did. I think he had a patent on soft one hoppers back to the pitching mound. Not to go all Bill Simmons on you, but when he gave up a couple of runs I was surprised and actually angry with him because I expected him to be perfect all of the time. To put up the numbers he did is amazing, since he pitched in the steroid era.
Look at his numbers. Even if you think you know them, look at 1994-2002 and just remember that was right in the middle of the steroid age. I personally think he is the greatest pitcher of this era. I know others can say Clemens or Pedro but I think Maddux's numbers really back it up.
8. Here is my big question...does Maddux go in the Hall of Fame as an Atlanta Brave or a Chicago Cub? He came up to the majors as a Cub and played for them for 9.5 years. He had most of his success as an Atlanta Brave and played for them for 11 years. I have my opinion on the matter, but I am surprised this question has not been posed by more people.
9. I always get really excited for bowl season but doesn't it always seem like many of the major bowls are massive disappointments and not that interesting? Last year Hawaii got picked apart, LSU ran away with the game in the second half, WVU won big and it just seems to go on from there. I try not to get too excited because I know the good games are going to be the early games and not necessarily the BCS bowl games. Sure, you do have your Oklahoma v. Boise St. games but for the most part you never get four quality BCS bowl games and end up with a couple of blowouts. I guess it is inevitable but I still wish the games were all a little closer.
10. The Timberwolves fired Randy Wittman and Kevin McHale is now going to wear sweaters on the bench every night and hope his team can win 1 out of 5 games.
"If this doesn't work, it'll be on me," McHale said. "The thing I told Glen is that nothing changes with the plan. The plan stays the same. We have a lot of cap room in the future. We have multiple [draft] picks. Nothing's going to change. The only change is that I'm going to spending all my time coaching."
So the Wolves are 4-15 currently, the new coach guarantees nothing is changing, he is banking on cap room and brags about the fact they have tons of new draft picks to choose even worse players. I am sure everyone in Minnesota is rushing out to buy season tickets right now. These promises are from the same guy who relieved the Timberwolves' fans of having to watch OJ Mayo turn into a real NBA player and traded him for a guy who will crowd the lane so Al Jefferson has less room to move and is 20 years old but still has baby fat. I am glad I am not a Timberwolves fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)