Don't worry, the podcast is back. Take a listen as we discuss Big Ben's recent marriage, the NFL Lockout's resolution and the Carolina Panthers. Not to mention a host of other topics that were at the whim of our non-focused minds.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
5 comments This Just In: Peter Bourjos Is Fast, Probably Not Great at Baseball
Bill Plaschke wants us to know that Peter Bourjos is fast. This seems to be the only positive characteristic worth describing when it comes to Bourjos from Bill Plaschke's point of view. Plaschke also does his best to frame Pourjos as a baseball Peter Pan of sorts who hasn't quite grown up. He wants us to believe this is an admirable quality. So Bill and his ever-so-slight lisp will now write one sentence paragraphs desperately killing space in an effort to let us know just how fast Peter Bourjos truly is.
In the comments on Monday we were discussing the scrappiest players in the majors now that Lord Scrapstein Von Gritt has retired---I mean, refused to play if he can't start for a team. I submitted Peter Bourjos' name as one of the scrappiest players because he is so fast and he shows the correct amount of grit to performance required. See, a scrappy player can't be too good at baseball or else he isn't considered a scrappy player who gets the most out of his ability. I'm not sure why this is.
How fast is Peter Bourjos?
So fast he just took your sister's virginity and had a sandwich while you read this sentence?
(The sandwich will be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as we will later learn)
In the first at-bat of his life, he singled to center, caught the ball and tagged himself out.
Why Bill, that could never happen! Do explain further! Is this a true story?
True story. It was his T-ball debut, and he was accustomed to chasing down his own hits when playing at the park with his father. So when he knocked the ball into the gap, he sprinted into the outfield, picked it up, and ran it back to the infield.
That's some scrappy shit right there. I like how Plaschke says he "knocked the ball in the gap." This is T-ball. The kids out there are generally 4-8 years old. The entire field is a gap to them.
"I gave the ball to some kid on the other team and he was like, um..." said Bourjos.
"Um...I'm six years old, I don't get the irony of this. Can I go home and watch 'Star Wars' now?"
How fast is Peter Bourjos?
Oh, so we are doing this again huh? This is a one sentence paragraph that is a repeat from a previous one sentence paragraph. I say this just in case anyone thinks Bill Plaschke is an incredibly creative writer.
So fast that this little-known Angels center fielder has pulled up alongside that famous Dodgers center fielder as one of the two most exciting players in Southern California this summer.
This is measured on the Plaschke Excitement Scale 3001. Bill will watch a certain player's best ten plays and scream encouragement as he watches each play with a basin at his feet. At the end of the 10 highlights, whichever basin ends up with the most spittle from Bill slightly lisping and screaming is one of the most exciting players in Southern California. Just in case you were wondering how the two most exciting players in Southern California were determined.
Let's look at Peter Bourjos line as of the All-Star break to see how he and Matt Kemp are the two most exciting players in Southern California:
.272/.323/.397 with 79 strikeouts and 18 walks...but he does have 6 triples. This is one exciting player, especially if you lower your expectations for "an exciting player in Southern California" tremendously.
Here are some other non-exciting Anaheim Angels players...
Jered Weaver 11-4 with a 1.86 ERA, 0.912 WHIP and 199 ERA+
Dan Haren 10-5 with a 2.61 ERA, 0.953 WHIP and a 142 ERA+
Jordan Walden 20 saves with a 2.84 ERA
Despite the fact Weaver is the All-Star Game starter for the American League, he just isn't as exciting as a guy who is superfast and is better suited as a fourth outfielder. That's what Bill wants us to believe.
Actually, Bourjos isn't even the most exciting centerfielder on the Angels team. That would be top prospect Mike Trout. Of course actual performance doesn't matter to Bill Plaschke or else Howie Kendrick or one of the four pitchers on the Angels pitching staff (including Scott Downs) would be exciting players. But no, it is Peter Bourjos because he is fast, while these other players are just good at the game of baseball.
So fast that his game rhymes with the pronunciation of his last name — gorgeous —
His game is not gorgeous. Unless someone finds a lot of beauty in a guy with leadoff hitter ability who manages to strikeout a lot and get on-base at a 32% clip.
He leads the league in highlight video catches. And he surely leads the league in causing a middle-aged columnist's daughters to scream.
So he's like a boy band member who plays baseball. I got it. This is irrelevant to his ability to play baseball. Jeff Francoeur had the ladies screaming for him because of his looks. A few years later in his career, he had both ladies and men screaming at him because he was terrible at the game of baseball.
Bourjos walked off the field, took off his cap and smiled into the crowd with messy black hair and the cherubic face of a 12-year-old who had just left an ice cream truck.
What's the deal with Plaschke writing about how Bourjos plays like a kid, talking about the sex appeal of Bourjos and then comparing Bourjos to a pre-teen with a cherubic face? This concerns me. There are other columnists who do this sort of things as well. Talk about how an athlete "plays the game like a kid."
At some point do some sports columnists develop a fascination with pre-teen boys playing baseball? Is that why Plaschke led off the story about Bourjos playing T-ball? I wonder if he asked for a T-ball team picture from Bourjos? If so, that's some creepy shit. Many players who seem to enjoy playing the game of baseball get compared to a pre-teen child playing the game of baseball, as if this is the highest form of a compliment an athlete can receive. Would Bill Plaschke rather be covering a Little League game rather than an Angels/Dodgers game? If so, why? To stare at the boys and how much fun they are having?
What if I wrote Abby Wambach played the game of soccer like a 12 year old girl? Then I mentioned it in another column how another female athlete played the game like a pre-teen girl and how Wambach had a doll face like a 12 year old girl would. At some point, you would wonder, "Does Ben want to watch a group of pre-teen girls play sports? If so, why?"
Among the thousands standing and cheering were my two daughters who were shrieking, "Who is that?"
I imagine both of Bill Plaschke's daughters don't have goatees nor a ever-so-slight lisp...though I guess I can't guarantee this.
I figured I should eventually get back down to Angel Stadium to find out.
Well naturally. It's not like you could spend this time writing a quality column.
I met Bourjos in an empty dugout Thursday afternoon for an interview that began with him thanking me.
Bourjos probably thanked Plaschke because he couldn't believe merely being fast, tickling Plaschke's pre-teen fetish and having a low OBP could get him such attention.
I explained to him that it is Angel fans who are having fun, especially all those young women who congregate on the field-level seats before the game to cheer Bourjos while he stretches, girls holding up signs such as, "You Have My Dad's Permission To Marry Me!"
How cute!
Just once, I'd like for a baseball player to take a fan up on this offer. I would like to see the player accept the women's proposal and move all of his stuff into her house the next day and then start helping her plan their wedding. The player should just be a general pest around the house and leave all of his clothes and other stuff everywhere and have his friends over after games to make her life pretty much a living Hell. That'll teach her to make random marriage proposals. I think I would pay to see this happen. Maybe then the people who make the cutesy "Marry Me" signs will think twice before bringing into the stadium. Probably not though.
Not really. Bourjos has a chance to one day become one of the symbols of baseball's post-steroid era, a sandlot kid who actually looks and acts like a kid.
I am 17% sure Bill Plaschke has a pre-teen boy fetish. Stop saying he plays like a kid. It's stupid and nonsensical. Also, it really is becoming creepy to me. I know the whole idea behind this thought is kids play the game just for the fun and it is pure and all of that crap. But, Peter Bourjos is a grown man who gets paid to play baseball. Stop comparing him to child for kicks.
I also greatly dislike all of this "symbol of baseball's post-steroid era crap" for players who just try really, really hard. The best symbol of baseball's post-steroid era are the following players:
Albert Pujols
Prince Fielder
Dustin Pedroia
Kevin Youkilis
Ryan Howard
Carl Crawford
Evan Longoria
Ryan Braun
Josh Hamilton
Matt Kemp
Troy Tulowitzki
Andrew McCutchen
Adrian Gonzalez
Brian McCann
Mike Stanton
Jose Bautista
Jay Bruce
Joey Votto
Mark Teixeira
Robinson Cano
These are all batters who hit the baseball really well and haven't been linked to steroids. These are the players who are the model for the post-steroid era. Not Sam Fuld. Not Peter Bourjos. Not any player who seems to try really hard, but players who put up great offensive numbers and haven't been linked to steroids.
How about Howie Kendrick? He plays for the Anaheim Angels. Why isn't he exciting to watch? Why isn't he a model for the post-steroid era?
He is a baseball junkie who literally lives across the street from the Anaheim stadium. His pregame meal includes a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich.
Does he drink milk with his peanut butter and jelly sandwich? I bet he does. Then he has macaroni and cheese as a snack between innings, not just any macaroni and cheese, but the special kids size servings that are in the shape of Toy Story 3 characters or Lightning McQueen. Then he stares at the "Fresh Beat Band" poster in his locker.
Are we sure Peter Bourjos isn't mentally handicapped? The only grown men I know that act like children are either emotionally stunted men or men who have some sort of mental handicap that doesn't allow them to function as an adult in society. Either way, I'm still uncomfortable with Bill Plaschke's (and other sportswriters) fetish that involves celebrating a player who has child-like qualities. It's creepy and if I were Peter Bourjos I would believe it to be a bit demeaning as well.
His destination on a recent day off in Southern California? Where else? Disneyland.
Where else? How about a place adults go...or at least a place adults without children may go? Disneyland is great, but the fact Peter Bourjos goes to Disneyland in his spare time has little to nothing to do with his ability to play baseball nor does it have much to do with how he plays the game of baseball. It does meet Bill Plaschke's need to make Bourjos seem like a child though.
Since his recall to the major leagues last August, it is the Angels who have been thankful, for an energy and athleticism reminiscent of past Angels center fielders Gary Pettis and Devon White.
I think I know what will make the Angels even more thankful. The fact Mike Trout has now been called up to the majors and he brings the ability to be very, very good at baseball to the Angels. Not that they need skill on the roster any more than energy of course.
"There have been times where I've been so focused on watching him chase down a ball, I realize I'm not standing in the right place," said first baseman Mark Trumbo, grinning.
One time Trumbo was watching Bourjos chase down a fly ball and realized he was standing in the women's bathroom. Bourjos has that type of ability. Like a child. Like a kid. Like a little kid playing on a swing, his hair waving in the wind, a big smile on his face, his small little hands gripping the swing. It's almost too much for Bill Plaschke to handle.
It's not always good, as Bourjos left the field with an apparent hamstring injury Thursday after an eighth-inning RBI double against the Seattle Mariners. He hurt himself after stopping suddenly between second and third base, the right decision also proving to be a painful one, the roaring crowd suddenly silenced.
Shit! Now we have to call up the best minor league player, Mike Trout! What are we going to do if he comes on the roster and only provides home runs and RBI's? We need to teach him to have energy and run really fast so he can learn to be one of the two most exciting players in Los Angeles. What a disaster!
The Angels are hoping the injury isn't serious, because they are serious about chasing a championship with a guy who used to practice wild catches while flying off a diving board into swimming pool.
Wow, that is some super specific criteria for what the Angels are looking for in a player to help them chase a championship. Actually...that's perfect. Because my cousin Tim used to do that off diving boards as well. He loves to practice wild catches off the diving board, so maybe the Angels could give him a tryout to replace Bourjos. He doesn't jump off the diving board and make wild catches like a little kid, which could be a huge drawback in the eyes of the Angels.
The biggest problem in Bourjos' game is the game itself.
Read that again. We have gone 75% of this column with how great Bourjos is for the Angels and how the Angels can't be serious about chasing a championship with him not being healthy. Then it turns out the biggest problem with Bourjos is that he isn't a good baseball player. It's like my biggest weakness when it comes to playing in the NBA is that I am not good enough to play in the NBA. Otherwise, I'm golden.
It requires more than catching and running. It also requires hitting.
But...he plays like a kid. Child-like. Disneyland. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Diving boards. Kid. Child. Fast. Bengoodfella sad.
Entering Thursday, Bourjos had a flailing career on-base percentage of .286 with 119 strikeouts and just 24 walks.
Yet according to Plaschke, the Angels are serious about trying to get a championship with him in the lineup. Yet, it seems his playing everyday with Vernon Wells in the lineup would do nothing but hurt the Angels chances at a championship. So everything Bill has told us so far while fawning over Bourjos seems to be pretty incorrect. Bourjos is fast, but is he really THAT important to the Angels? This is why this is bad journalism. It's like journalistic fluff piece self-pleasure. Plaschke writes and writes, but in the end this is just a fluff piece. It's just a useless piece of writing.
For him to maximize his Angels career, he has to eventually bat leadoff, but those numbers make that impossible.
So Bourjos is a scrapper who doesn't even get the most out of his talent? David Eckstein and Darin Erstad laugh in your face. Faker.
So Bourjos is a fast guy who doesn't get on-base and can't walk enough to hit leadoff, but also doesn't have enough power to hit anywhere in the middle of the order? Sounds like it is a real shame he got injured and the Angels had to call up Mike Trout.
"I know this, and I'm working on it all the time," he said. "Every day, shortening my swing, being more selective, I'll just keep working."
The joy in his voice makes him difficult to doubt.
That's why you don't listen to the joy in his voice and see the results on the field. We can't do that, it may ruin the illusion Plaschke has tried to create.
The serenity in his father's voice confirms it.
Oh dear God. Bourjos may very well improve because he is only 24 years old, but it's just really weird to talk about the joy in Bourjos voice and the serenity in his father's voice. I don't know why, it just is. I wonder if Plaschke has conversations with other sportswriters and talks about a player's child-like qualities...
(Bill Plaschke calling T.J. Simers) "You know T.J., that Peter Bourjos has a cherubic face and the cutest little hands."
(T.J. Simers sitting on Marcus Thames' front lawn) "I don't know much about Bourjos, but (starts yelling in the direction of Thames who is getting in his car) I KNOW MARCUS THAMES SUCKS!"
(Plaschke) "It is just like Bourjos is so fast, like a kid. A little blonde-haired kid that doesn't care about anything, but having fun and playing the game. It's just inspiri---"
(Simers) "HOW'S IT FEEL TO GET CUT THAMES. HUH?---WHAT? TRESPASSING? UP YOURS, I'M NOT TRESPASSING! I'M A JOURNALIST, JACKASS!"
(Plaschke) "Sounds like you are having real trouble T.J. Everything okay?"
(Simers) "Yeah, I just approached Marcus Thames to do an interview and he refused again. All I did was tell him how bad he sucked, what's his problem?"
(Plaschke) "Thames doesn't play like a little boy. I doubt Thames was good at T-ball too. His little feet probably didn't run around the bases with his 6 year old tongue hanging out as he ran---"
(Simers) "Bill, you are scaring me just a---NO FUCK YOU, THAMES! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOUR KIDS ARE AROUND. THEY ARE JUST LITTLE PIECES OF SHIT WHO CAN'T PLAY THE FIELD LIKE YOU! WHY WON'T YOU DO AN INTERVIEW WITH ME?"
(Plaschke) "Kids? There are kids there?" (gets in his car and drives to Marcus Thames house while still talking on the phone with Simers)
(Simers talking to Plaschke en route) "Bill, we have been concerned about you for a while. You talk about children way too much and how grown men play the game like children."
(Plaschke) "But, Bourjos plays the game like a kid and eats peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, like a child does. It's precious and cute to see a man act like a kid. It makes you want to dress him up like a 10 year old boy and---"
(Simers seeing Plaschke's car pulling up to the Thames house) "Bill, I am calling the police. I can see from here you aren't wearing a shirt. Why not? You talk about players playing like children way too much and it concerns everyone. HEY MRS. THAMES, YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T FIELD A BASEBALL WELL ENOUGH TO PLAY ON A CONSISTENT BASIS! CAN HE FIELD HIS POSITION IN BED? PROBABLY NOT! ONE INTERVIEW IS ALL I WANT. BE FAIR TO ME."
(Plaschke starts crying) "I want to watch men play like kids. It just isn't fair more players don't play like children. I want to go back to junior high school and not get chosen last in softball...just once...so I could have played like I was a child."
(Simers calls the police to pick up Plaschke and follows the Thames family to the grocery store while yelling out the window) "HEY THAMES, JUAN RIVERA REPLACED YOU! ASSHOLE! ONE INTERVIEW IS ALL I ASK AND YOU WON'T DO IT. WHY?"
"The thing that I like most about Pete's game is how he handles failure," said Chris.
I guess once you've gotten used to the failure, it becomes easier to handle. Rim shot!
"To him, every day is a new day, a new challenge, a chance to start over again."
Like a child. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Thus supplying the definition of fast forward.
Umm, no. That's not the definition of fast forward. The definition of fast forward in this context is "a rapidly changing situation or series of events."
This quote is actually supplying an example of a tired cliche. Much like talking about a player and how he "plays the game like a kid" and overstating a player's importance to a team because the fans like him are also tired cliches.
In the comments on Monday we were discussing the scrappiest players in the majors now that Lord Scrapstein Von Gritt has retired---I mean, refused to play if he can't start for a team. I submitted Peter Bourjos' name as one of the scrappiest players because he is so fast and he shows the correct amount of grit to performance required. See, a scrappy player can't be too good at baseball or else he isn't considered a scrappy player who gets the most out of his ability. I'm not sure why this is.
How fast is Peter Bourjos?
So fast he just took your sister's virginity and had a sandwich while you read this sentence?
(The sandwich will be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as we will later learn)
In the first at-bat of his life, he singled to center, caught the ball and tagged himself out.
Why Bill, that could never happen! Do explain further! Is this a true story?
True story. It was his T-ball debut, and he was accustomed to chasing down his own hits when playing at the park with his father. So when he knocked the ball into the gap, he sprinted into the outfield, picked it up, and ran it back to the infield.
That's some scrappy shit right there. I like how Plaschke says he "knocked the ball in the gap." This is T-ball. The kids out there are generally 4-8 years old. The entire field is a gap to them.
"I gave the ball to some kid on the other team and he was like, um..." said Bourjos.
"Um...I'm six years old, I don't get the irony of this. Can I go home and watch 'Star Wars' now?"
How fast is Peter Bourjos?
Oh, so we are doing this again huh? This is a one sentence paragraph that is a repeat from a previous one sentence paragraph. I say this just in case anyone thinks Bill Plaschke is an incredibly creative writer.
So fast that this little-known Angels center fielder has pulled up alongside that famous Dodgers center fielder as one of the two most exciting players in Southern California this summer.
This is measured on the Plaschke Excitement Scale 3001. Bill will watch a certain player's best ten plays and scream encouragement as he watches each play with a basin at his feet. At the end of the 10 highlights, whichever basin ends up with the most spittle from Bill slightly lisping and screaming is one of the most exciting players in Southern California. Just in case you were wondering how the two most exciting players in Southern California were determined.
Let's look at Peter Bourjos line as of the All-Star break to see how he and Matt Kemp are the two most exciting players in Southern California:
.272/.323/.397 with 79 strikeouts and 18 walks...but he does have 6 triples. This is one exciting player, especially if you lower your expectations for "an exciting player in Southern California" tremendously.
Here are some other non-exciting Anaheim Angels players...
Jered Weaver 11-4 with a 1.86 ERA, 0.912 WHIP and 199 ERA+
Dan Haren 10-5 with a 2.61 ERA, 0.953 WHIP and a 142 ERA+
Jordan Walden 20 saves with a 2.84 ERA
Despite the fact Weaver is the All-Star Game starter for the American League, he just isn't as exciting as a guy who is superfast and is better suited as a fourth outfielder. That's what Bill wants us to believe.
Actually, Bourjos isn't even the most exciting centerfielder on the Angels team. That would be top prospect Mike Trout. Of course actual performance doesn't matter to Bill Plaschke or else Howie Kendrick or one of the four pitchers on the Angels pitching staff (including Scott Downs) would be exciting players. But no, it is Peter Bourjos because he is fast, while these other players are just good at the game of baseball.
So fast that his game rhymes with the pronunciation of his last name — gorgeous —
His game is not gorgeous. Unless someone finds a lot of beauty in a guy with leadoff hitter ability who manages to strikeout a lot and get on-base at a 32% clip.
He leads the league in highlight video catches. And he surely leads the league in causing a middle-aged columnist's daughters to scream.
So he's like a boy band member who plays baseball. I got it. This is irrelevant to his ability to play baseball. Jeff Francoeur had the ladies screaming for him because of his looks. A few years later in his career, he had both ladies and men screaming at him because he was terrible at the game of baseball.
Bourjos walked off the field, took off his cap and smiled into the crowd with messy black hair and the cherubic face of a 12-year-old who had just left an ice cream truck.
What's the deal with Plaschke writing about how Bourjos plays like a kid, talking about the sex appeal of Bourjos and then comparing Bourjos to a pre-teen with a cherubic face? This concerns me. There are other columnists who do this sort of things as well. Talk about how an athlete "plays the game like a kid."
At some point do some sports columnists develop a fascination with pre-teen boys playing baseball? Is that why Plaschke led off the story about Bourjos playing T-ball? I wonder if he asked for a T-ball team picture from Bourjos? If so, that's some creepy shit. Many players who seem to enjoy playing the game of baseball get compared to a pre-teen child playing the game of baseball, as if this is the highest form of a compliment an athlete can receive. Would Bill Plaschke rather be covering a Little League game rather than an Angels/Dodgers game? If so, why? To stare at the boys and how much fun they are having?
What if I wrote Abby Wambach played the game of soccer like a 12 year old girl? Then I mentioned it in another column how another female athlete played the game like a pre-teen girl and how Wambach had a doll face like a 12 year old girl would. At some point, you would wonder, "Does Ben want to watch a group of pre-teen girls play sports? If so, why?"
Among the thousands standing and cheering were my two daughters who were shrieking, "Who is that?"
I imagine both of Bill Plaschke's daughters don't have goatees nor a ever-so-slight lisp...though I guess I can't guarantee this.
I figured I should eventually get back down to Angel Stadium to find out.
Well naturally. It's not like you could spend this time writing a quality column.
I met Bourjos in an empty dugout Thursday afternoon for an interview that began with him thanking me.
Bourjos probably thanked Plaschke because he couldn't believe merely being fast, tickling Plaschke's pre-teen fetish and having a low OBP could get him such attention.
I explained to him that it is Angel fans who are having fun, especially all those young women who congregate on the field-level seats before the game to cheer Bourjos while he stretches, girls holding up signs such as, "You Have My Dad's Permission To Marry Me!"
How cute!
Just once, I'd like for a baseball player to take a fan up on this offer. I would like to see the player accept the women's proposal and move all of his stuff into her house the next day and then start helping her plan their wedding. The player should just be a general pest around the house and leave all of his clothes and other stuff everywhere and have his friends over after games to make her life pretty much a living Hell. That'll teach her to make random marriage proposals. I think I would pay to see this happen. Maybe then the people who make the cutesy "Marry Me" signs will think twice before bringing into the stadium. Probably not though.
Not really. Bourjos has a chance to one day become one of the symbols of baseball's post-steroid era, a sandlot kid who actually looks and acts like a kid.
I am 17% sure Bill Plaschke has a pre-teen boy fetish. Stop saying he plays like a kid. It's stupid and nonsensical. Also, it really is becoming creepy to me. I know the whole idea behind this thought is kids play the game just for the fun and it is pure and all of that crap. But, Peter Bourjos is a grown man who gets paid to play baseball. Stop comparing him to child for kicks.
I also greatly dislike all of this "symbol of baseball's post-steroid era crap" for players who just try really, really hard. The best symbol of baseball's post-steroid era are the following players:
Albert Pujols
Prince Fielder
Dustin Pedroia
Kevin Youkilis
Ryan Howard
Carl Crawford
Evan Longoria
Ryan Braun
Josh Hamilton
Matt Kemp
Troy Tulowitzki
Andrew McCutchen
Adrian Gonzalez
Brian McCann
Mike Stanton
Jose Bautista
Jay Bruce
Joey Votto
Mark Teixeira
Robinson Cano
These are all batters who hit the baseball really well and haven't been linked to steroids. These are the players who are the model for the post-steroid era. Not Sam Fuld. Not Peter Bourjos. Not any player who seems to try really hard, but players who put up great offensive numbers and haven't been linked to steroids.
How about Howie Kendrick? He plays for the Anaheim Angels. Why isn't he exciting to watch? Why isn't he a model for the post-steroid era?
He is a baseball junkie who literally lives across the street from the Anaheim stadium. His pregame meal includes a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich.
Does he drink milk with his peanut butter and jelly sandwich? I bet he does. Then he has macaroni and cheese as a snack between innings, not just any macaroni and cheese, but the special kids size servings that are in the shape of Toy Story 3 characters or Lightning McQueen. Then he stares at the "Fresh Beat Band" poster in his locker.
Are we sure Peter Bourjos isn't mentally handicapped? The only grown men I know that act like children are either emotionally stunted men or men who have some sort of mental handicap that doesn't allow them to function as an adult in society. Either way, I'm still uncomfortable with Bill Plaschke's (and other sportswriters) fetish that involves celebrating a player who has child-like qualities. It's creepy and if I were Peter Bourjos I would believe it to be a bit demeaning as well.
His destination on a recent day off in Southern California? Where else? Disneyland.
Where else? How about a place adults go...or at least a place adults without children may go? Disneyland is great, but the fact Peter Bourjos goes to Disneyland in his spare time has little to nothing to do with his ability to play baseball nor does it have much to do with how he plays the game of baseball. It does meet Bill Plaschke's need to make Bourjos seem like a child though.
Since his recall to the major leagues last August, it is the Angels who have been thankful, for an energy and athleticism reminiscent of past Angels center fielders Gary Pettis and Devon White.
I think I know what will make the Angels even more thankful. The fact Mike Trout has now been called up to the majors and he brings the ability to be very, very good at baseball to the Angels. Not that they need skill on the roster any more than energy of course.
"There have been times where I've been so focused on watching him chase down a ball, I realize I'm not standing in the right place," said first baseman Mark Trumbo, grinning.
One time Trumbo was watching Bourjos chase down a fly ball and realized he was standing in the women's bathroom. Bourjos has that type of ability. Like a child. Like a kid. Like a little kid playing on a swing, his hair waving in the wind, a big smile on his face, his small little hands gripping the swing. It's almost too much for Bill Plaschke to handle.
It's not always good, as Bourjos left the field with an apparent hamstring injury Thursday after an eighth-inning RBI double against the Seattle Mariners. He hurt himself after stopping suddenly between second and third base, the right decision also proving to be a painful one, the roaring crowd suddenly silenced.
Shit! Now we have to call up the best minor league player, Mike Trout! What are we going to do if he comes on the roster and only provides home runs and RBI's? We need to teach him to have energy and run really fast so he can learn to be one of the two most exciting players in Los Angeles. What a disaster!
The Angels are hoping the injury isn't serious, because they are serious about chasing a championship with a guy who used to practice wild catches while flying off a diving board into swimming pool.
Wow, that is some super specific criteria for what the Angels are looking for in a player to help them chase a championship. Actually...that's perfect. Because my cousin Tim used to do that off diving boards as well. He loves to practice wild catches off the diving board, so maybe the Angels could give him a tryout to replace Bourjos. He doesn't jump off the diving board and make wild catches like a little kid, which could be a huge drawback in the eyes of the Angels.
The biggest problem in Bourjos' game is the game itself.
Read that again. We have gone 75% of this column with how great Bourjos is for the Angels and how the Angels can't be serious about chasing a championship with him not being healthy. Then it turns out the biggest problem with Bourjos is that he isn't a good baseball player. It's like my biggest weakness when it comes to playing in the NBA is that I am not good enough to play in the NBA. Otherwise, I'm golden.
It requires more than catching and running. It also requires hitting.
But...he plays like a kid. Child-like. Disneyland. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Diving boards. Kid. Child. Fast. Bengoodfella sad.
Entering Thursday, Bourjos had a flailing career on-base percentage of .286 with 119 strikeouts and just 24 walks.
Yet according to Plaschke, the Angels are serious about trying to get a championship with him in the lineup. Yet, it seems his playing everyday with Vernon Wells in the lineup would do nothing but hurt the Angels chances at a championship. So everything Bill has told us so far while fawning over Bourjos seems to be pretty incorrect. Bourjos is fast, but is he really THAT important to the Angels? This is why this is bad journalism. It's like journalistic fluff piece self-pleasure. Plaschke writes and writes, but in the end this is just a fluff piece. It's just a useless piece of writing.
For him to maximize his Angels career, he has to eventually bat leadoff, but those numbers make that impossible.
So Bourjos is a scrapper who doesn't even get the most out of his talent? David Eckstein and Darin Erstad laugh in your face. Faker.
So Bourjos is a fast guy who doesn't get on-base and can't walk enough to hit leadoff, but also doesn't have enough power to hit anywhere in the middle of the order? Sounds like it is a real shame he got injured and the Angels had to call up Mike Trout.
"I know this, and I'm working on it all the time," he said. "Every day, shortening my swing, being more selective, I'll just keep working."
The joy in his voice makes him difficult to doubt.
That's why you don't listen to the joy in his voice and see the results on the field. We can't do that, it may ruin the illusion Plaschke has tried to create.
The serenity in his father's voice confirms it.
Oh dear God. Bourjos may very well improve because he is only 24 years old, but it's just really weird to talk about the joy in Bourjos voice and the serenity in his father's voice. I don't know why, it just is. I wonder if Plaschke has conversations with other sportswriters and talks about a player's child-like qualities...
(Bill Plaschke calling T.J. Simers) "You know T.J., that Peter Bourjos has a cherubic face and the cutest little hands."
(T.J. Simers sitting on Marcus Thames' front lawn) "I don't know much about Bourjos, but (starts yelling in the direction of Thames who is getting in his car) I KNOW MARCUS THAMES SUCKS!"
(Plaschke) "It is just like Bourjos is so fast, like a kid. A little blonde-haired kid that doesn't care about anything, but having fun and playing the game. It's just inspiri---"
(Simers) "HOW'S IT FEEL TO GET CUT THAMES. HUH?---WHAT? TRESPASSING? UP YOURS, I'M NOT TRESPASSING! I'M A JOURNALIST, JACKASS!"
(Plaschke) "Sounds like you are having real trouble T.J. Everything okay?"
(Simers) "Yeah, I just approached Marcus Thames to do an interview and he refused again. All I did was tell him how bad he sucked, what's his problem?"
(Plaschke) "Thames doesn't play like a little boy. I doubt Thames was good at T-ball too. His little feet probably didn't run around the bases with his 6 year old tongue hanging out as he ran---"
(Simers) "Bill, you are scaring me just a---NO FUCK YOU, THAMES! I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOUR KIDS ARE AROUND. THEY ARE JUST LITTLE PIECES OF SHIT WHO CAN'T PLAY THE FIELD LIKE YOU! WHY WON'T YOU DO AN INTERVIEW WITH ME?"
(Plaschke) "Kids? There are kids there?" (gets in his car and drives to Marcus Thames house while still talking on the phone with Simers)
(Simers talking to Plaschke en route) "Bill, we have been concerned about you for a while. You talk about children way too much and how grown men play the game like children."
(Plaschke) "But, Bourjos plays the game like a kid and eats peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, like a child does. It's precious and cute to see a man act like a kid. It makes you want to dress him up like a 10 year old boy and---"
(Simers seeing Plaschke's car pulling up to the Thames house) "Bill, I am calling the police. I can see from here you aren't wearing a shirt. Why not? You talk about players playing like children way too much and it concerns everyone. HEY MRS. THAMES, YOUR HUSBAND CAN'T FIELD A BASEBALL WELL ENOUGH TO PLAY ON A CONSISTENT BASIS! CAN HE FIELD HIS POSITION IN BED? PROBABLY NOT! ONE INTERVIEW IS ALL I WANT. BE FAIR TO ME."
(Plaschke starts crying) "I want to watch men play like kids. It just isn't fair more players don't play like children. I want to go back to junior high school and not get chosen last in softball...just once...so I could have played like I was a child."
(Simers calls the police to pick up Plaschke and follows the Thames family to the grocery store while yelling out the window) "HEY THAMES, JUAN RIVERA REPLACED YOU! ASSHOLE! ONE INTERVIEW IS ALL I ASK AND YOU WON'T DO IT. WHY?"
"The thing that I like most about Pete's game is how he handles failure," said Chris.
I guess once you've gotten used to the failure, it becomes easier to handle. Rim shot!
"To him, every day is a new day, a new challenge, a chance to start over again."
Like a child. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Thus supplying the definition of fast forward.
Umm, no. That's not the definition of fast forward. The definition of fast forward in this context is "a rapidly changing situation or series of events."
This quote is actually supplying an example of a tired cliche. Much like talking about a player and how he "plays the game like a kid" and overstating a player's importance to a team because the fans like him are also tired cliches.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
5 comments Basketball Pickup Diaries
Basketball, really, is my wife. Steady with exciting and sometimes frustrating wrinkles. Even if I have moments of doubt in the summer, I always come back to my greatest love. With the lockout upon us, I thought about pouring part of my now partially empty soul into baseball. But I just can’t make the switch because baseball has always been my on-the-side fling. In small doses, it’s great. But 90% of the time I’m left wanting more. That rush of knowing every play matters because the clock is ticking. Dig yourself in a hole and there might not be enough time to crawl your way out. (Cut to Dirk and the Mavs shaking their heads and pointing to their championship rings. Well, bracelets. Or anklets. I don’t know.)And then it hit me. I may have given up on my NBA dreams years ago, but that doesn’t stop me from unleashing my competitive drive on unsuspecting street ballers (More often than not it’s my opponent that does the unleashing, but we’ll ignore that for a second). If following basketball can’t do the trick, I might as well play the game a bit more. So that’s what I’m trying to do.
I think I speak for everyone in my pickup crew when I say that our basketball-writing skills surpass our on-the-court aptitude. But there’s a certain pride that pickup elicits – actually, it’s more like anger. The shame of defeat is compounded by having to sit out at least the next game. And by the time you do get back on the court, you’re probably tired, stiff and cold. Not to mention the anger that has been festering inside after the loss.
But losing isn’t the worst part. It’s losing to that one guy – the one who’s beyond frustrating because he’s just doing something that’s not kosher. Everyone knows that there are certain unwritten rules of pickup that must be followed: no charges, no tic-tac fouls, no cherry picking, no excessive smack talking or gear. (Only NBA players are good enough for headbands, finger tape, arm bands, etc.) When that anger boils, there’s nothing more I’d like to do than send the offender packing. It’s not even about dropping buckets. It’s the knowledge that he’ll be at the end of the line if I beat him. Watching him sulk and bicker gives me shameless amusement and satisfaction. I’m happy and he’s pissed. I’m still playing, he’s not. And with that victory comes a sliver of respect from the next opponent. And let me tell you, it’s nice to be respected on the basketball court. There’s nothing worse than someone loudly explaining to his teammate why you suck and don’t need to be guarded tightly – talk about a confidence killer. And that’s really all pickup is - a game of confidence. There’s a reason why everyone is playing in that gym with you. They’re not going anywhere in the basketball-playing lives either. It took me years to acknowledge and accept that revelation. But once I did, it made my basketball life that much easier.
As a group, we’re strong defensively. Because in pickup, that’s all it takes. Most refuse to play offense unless the ball is in their hands. So we’re physical. We push, we shove, we foul. Nothing’s easy. And most importantly, we box out. None of us have Dwight Howard hops or strength, so we go the Kevin Love route – positioning, positioning, positioning.
We started out our run of five games with a 14-12 loss (the game was to 11). I personally couldn’t get going because my defender was simply too quick, strong and physical for me to handle. I got some buckets here and there, but nothing consistent. I’m just glad that no one had the box score, because my line would have probably resembled something straight out of the Larry Hughes/New York Knicks era. Relying on our bread and butter (jumpers), everyone else was knocking down shots. But they had that guy I’m preconditioned to hate. He cherry picked and he called weak fouls. And then he had the audacity to go nose-to-nose with my teammate Scott (wearing an Oregon Ducks t-shirt) and blurt out, “no easy buckets in New York.”
That put us over the top, anger-wise. So when we lost, we slouched down against the bleachers, pissed beyond belief and ready to go again. But our next opponents were weak and we coasted to victory. If we’re Kirk Hinrich on the athleticism scale, then they were Mike Bibby. But no one was in the gym, so we built up our confidence by hammering our overmatched opponent twice in a row.
Next up was a game were amped for. Led by a jersey wearing, muscle-bulging screamer who emphatically celebrated every positive play by his team (I’m all for positive energy, but this was bordering on Jon Gruden on Monday Night Football territory), the adversary seemed strong. But that’s lesson No. 1 of pickup: never judge an opponent based on looks. Well, we were guilty of just that, except they were way worse than advertised. So we cruised to an easy victory, complemented by defeating my favorite pickup player: the surprise guy. He’s the one that’s utterly shocked when he puts up a brick. Confusing himself for Dirk, he just can’t believe that he missed a contested 20-foot turnaround fadeaway. But it’s not his irrational confidence that confuses me most. It’s that his surprise at the miss is purely genuine. The best NBA players make 50% of their shots – but this guy is better and will not tolerate anything less. Anyway, we thankfully managed to win that game.
By our 5th game (against the screamer and the surprise guy, plus three newbies), we were exhausted, although it could’ve just been me. It probably has something to do with the fact that I’m in the same shape as Eddy Curry, but I like to think that it’s because I was giving my all on every play. Anyway, we got killed. It felt like Game 4 of the Lakers/Mavs series. They countered our every punch with a jab, right hook, upper-cut, then kick to face while we were down. Every miss turned into a fast break. Every rebound went their way. So we lost 11-4, but ultimately proud of our 3-2 record.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
3 comments Let's Review Some Bleacher Report Craziness
Anytime I go to Bleacher Report I get hit with a massive amount of lists and headlines that read something like, "The Top 25 reasons the Mets are the worst franchise in MLB history," "The Top 10 Ways the NFL Is a Communist League," or Bleacher Report has linked a report from another site with a headline that reads "Top NFL quarterback may require surgery again," when the story is about Peyton Manning undergoing a minor surgery from CBSSports.com. I can't figure out what the site is really about. It doesn't really contain breaking information nor does it contain really a report on anything. I think Bleacher Report exists mostly for people who enjoys lists and enjoying readings lists in the form of a slideshow.
I have approximately 102 articles linked from Bleacher Report and I thought I would review the lists and articles today of some of those. It is just a whole lot of crazy. But first, you have to take off your thinking caps.
The first list/article is "James Jones and 10 Backups Ready to Start." The key point is these are backups ready to start. I am assuming start doesn't mean "be a role player," but the author doesn't seem to understand his own title, as you will see. Of course the title also sounds like a children's book about a Pee-Wee upstart football team, but that's beside the point.
If he becomes an unrestricted free agent, Jones will command much attention on the open market. The 27-year-old has progressed steadily in the Packers offense in his three years, catching a combined 10 touchdowns for 1,119 yards over the last two years.
That's like almost 600 yards per year! For a 27 year old? Where I can sign to overpay this James Jones guy?
Let's begin the slideshow!
Darren Sproles- running back
Darren Sproles will never be a starter in the NFL. He is too small to be a starter for an NFL team. He has never shown on a consistent basis he can handle being the major ball carrier for a team.
The 27-year-old has long been a special teams star for the San Diego Chargers but has been completely underutilized on offense.
He turned 28 four days after this got posted. Over the last four seasons Sproles has averaged 6 touches on offense per game. Perhaps he is underutilized.
In his 204 rushing attempts since earning a semi-prominent role in 2008, Sproles has averaged 4.3 yards a carry.
This is probably Sproles ceiling and why he should be used as a change-of-pace back and not a starter. There is a point where a team gets diminished returns on a running back, especially for a smaller back like Sproles. Sproles has had 204 carries in four years. Imagine him getting 204 carries in a season, which is a little less than an NFL starter at running back would probably get. I would guess the yards per carry average would dip, so I don't think he is ready to start for an NFL team...unless he still isn't getting the majority of the carries.
Sproles certainly doesn't have the size or strength necessary to be a lead back or a between the tackles type of guy who you can continuously feed it too,
So Sproles isn't a backup who is ready to be a starter? So why the hell is he on a list of players who are backups that are ready to be starters? Please tell me why.
but he's been far undervalued playing for the Chargers to this point.
Which is fine, if this were a slideshow of "Players who are undervalued," but this is a list of backups who are ready to be starters and Sproles isn't ready to be a starter. So why is he on the list? Only at Bleacher Report...
When given the rock in Oakland, Bush has shown flashes of brilliance.
Now the author, Aaron Dodge, moves on to Tarvaris Jackson...another player who is "ready to start."
I'm just not sold on this guy's potential being shot, and I believe he's worth a look by a team in need of a quarterback who could apply pressure to their incumbent.
Apply pressure to the incumbent, but not take the job of the incumbent possibly. So is he ready to be an NFL starter or not? Yes, I'm probably nitpicking, and yes, I am enjoying it.
Then Marc Bulger is mentioned. Which is just laughable since Bulger used to be a starter in the NFL and isn't anymore. I'm not sure how a guy who was a starter in the NFL and is now 34 years old can be listed as a backup ready to start. Whatever, this is a list that includes players which are admittedly (by the author) not capable of starting so my expectations are too great anyway.
Now we discuss Lance Moore a little bit.
Moore combined for 145 receptions, 1,691 yards and 18 touchdowns in the Drew Brees led offense. He's the perfect target for quarterbacks and a great target for teams looking for a down field threat.
Lance Moore is the perfect down field threat as long as a team isn't looking for a receiver who is a threat down field. See, because Moore hasn't shown he is capable of that. In 2010, Moore had 15.8% of his targets classified as deep attempts. It was 20.0% in 2008. That's very near the bottom on a list of receivers who had as many passes targeted to him as Moore did. He is a good receiver, but a team looking for a deep threat should look another way.
Here is another great Bleacher Report article entitled "Why Cam Newton's Ceiling is Higher Than You Think."
So not only am I going to learn what Cam Newton's ceiling truly is, but I will also learn the author, Chris G., can read my mind and knows exactly what I believe Cam Newton's ceiling is. I hadn't even thought about Cam Newton's ceiling, yet it is higher than I didn't think it was.
Now that I have thought about Cam Newton's ceiling, I think of it as being around what Daunte Culpepper was in his prime in Minnesota or he can be a quarterback similar to Ben Roethlisberger. I'm not saying Newton will be Culpepper nor am I saying he will ever win a Super Bowl, but I think that's about what Newton can be as his ceiling, which he probably will never reach. He is a big quarterback like Roethlisberger and can scramble like Culpepper could. I don't see how Newton could have a higher ceiling than that. So, let's see why Newton's ceiling is actually higher than what I think.
Spoiler alert: We need never find this out.
The naysayers will bring up all of the concerns and ignore his accomplishments while in college,
Considering he is a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback, the odds of him succeeding aren't very good based just on that. Throw in the fact he didn't play in a pro-style offense in college, didn't stick at one college for a long period of time and he has some character concerns and the naysayers have a lot to naysay about.
Jason White, Gino Torretta, Eric Crouch, and Ken Dorsey all accomplished a lot of things in college as well. Naysayers aren't ignoring Newton's college accomplishments, just correctly recognizing this doesn't mean he will be successful in the NFL.
Who could blame them? He is the prototypical quarterback.
He is able to stand tall behind his line and make throws from the pocket. But if things break down, he can also make a play while on the run. Of course, he can also make plays with his feet, and has the ability to power through defenders or outrun them with his 4.58 speed.
All of the physical traits in the world will not win football games, though, as best summed up in the movie Little Giants:
Football is a mental game, and that is Newton’s shortfall so far, even though the physical aspects are already there. If he can get his mental makeup to equal his physical prowess, the sky is the limit.
So Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think because Cam Newton lacks the traits that makes a great quarterback and if he ever gets these traits then he will be a great NFL quarterback. That's not a question posed by me, it appears to be a statement by the author. Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think because if he ever gets the mental part of the game down he will be a competent NFL quarterback. Chris G. must think I have a low opinion of Newton's ceiling.
Newton is a charismatic leader in the huddle, and thrives for the moment under the spotlight. He is calm and collected under pressure, and is willing to play through pain to win.
So why does Cam Newton have a higher ceiling than I think? Isn't the argument being made just an argument he will be a good NFL quarterback?
These intangibles cannot be measured,
Mostly because intangibles can't be measured. That's why their intangible.
and they set Newton apart from other rookie quarterbacks.
So the intangibles that can't be measured set him apart from other rookie quarterbacks. What if, and I am just pretending here, the NFL didn't just consist of teams with rookie quarterbacks. I know that is a pure fantasy, but let's say a team had a veteran quarterback. How would Newton stack up against them, since those proven veterans are who he will be compared to in order to be thought of as an elite quarterback and to exceed what I believe to be his ceiling?
Newton will be able to get by on physical talent at first, and once he comprehends the intricacies of the NFL, he will join the elite and take his Panthers to the next level.
Great. I guess this leaves me with the basic question of "Why didn't you tell me why Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think?" Saying he will be a great quarterback in the NFL because of factors we already know, doesn't address the issue of expectations and how Newton will exceed those.
Before I get to the next article, the good part about Bleacher Report is I could probably do a post per day about stuff written on the site. There are tons of articles under each category for every major sports team. So I am just scratching the surface, though I don't plan on covering Bleacher Report all that often, so don't worry about this blog turning into "Fire Bleacher Report."
Let's look at some trades the Lakers could make to improve their squad for next season. The best part is these are "non-rumored" trades the Lakers should make. Whatever that means. Does this column count as a "rumor?" I love Bleacher Report potential trade columns. It is rosterbation at its finest and least eloquent. Please know the guy who wrote this is a Lakers fan, so we should just be happy he doesn't have Dwight Howard and Chris Paul coming to Los Angeles in a three team deal for Steve Blake, a first round pick and Lamar Odom.
These are trades I think the team should seriously consider. They could prove to be the slight tweak that this stellar club needs to get it back into serious contention next fall.
Right now, an intern for the Lakers is surfing through Bleacher Report and sees this article. He prints the article---I'm sorry, slideshow---and then runs down to Mitch Kupchak's office telling him the Lakers should seriously consider these trades. This intern then gets fired, though he wasn't getting paid for interning and there was no reason other than this to fire him.
Aaron Afflalo, Denver Nuggets
Absolutely. The first player the Lakers should trade for is Aaron Afflalo. The only small speed bump in this plan is that Afflalo is a restricted free agent, so Afflalo would have to sign with the Nuggets before they could trade him. It's a small problem the Nuggets don't currently have the rights to Afflalo to be in a position to trade him, I do realize this, but it sounds so cool for the Lakers to trade for him.
Still, if they get something solid in return (Ronn Artest and one of the two guards the Lakers drafted), Denver may agree to such a trade.
I'm guessing Ronn Artest is Ron Artest's younger and less expensive brother. Also, I'm not sure the Nuggets would have an interest in a point guard drafted in the second round (besides the fact it is a player drafted in the second round who they could have taken in the NBA Draft if they wanted to) considering they have Ty Lawson and just traded for Andre Miller.
Jrue Holiday, Philadelphia 76ers
We all know the 76ers are eager to give up a young point guard who seems to have a ton of potential.
He averaged over 35 minutes of playing time and 14 points per game on shooting of 45 percent from the field and a very respectable 37 percent from beyond the arc.
Lamar Odom has been rumored as a piece to send to Philadelphia in exchange for Andre Iguodala. How about L.O. and one of the draft picks for Holiday and veteran forward Andres Nocioni?
How about not? The Odom for Iguodala trade would make sense (to an extent) because the Sixers would be getting rid of a small forward and could get back a more versatile forward in return. Still, that trade doesn't make too much sense because then the Sixers have the same problem they had with Iguodala. They would have an expensive forward and still haven't fixed the fact they need a center.
So Odom and Holiday would probably be the worst trade possible for the Sixers because they would gain another forward and lose a guard. So now they have more forwards than they originally had and need more guard help. Small details, I know, the fact the other team may not want to make this trade with the Lakers.
Holiday has the potential to be really good. Philadelphia knows that, and so it could be a tough one to pull off.
I would venture to say any trade that doesn't include Bynum for Holiday is a no-go for Philadelphia.
Jameer Nelson, Orlando Magic
Nelson makes just under $8 million a year, a lot in Orlando, but not too bad in Los Angeles.
?????
Don't NBA teams all play by the same cap rules? Or are there separate cap rules for the Lakers I haven't heard about?
What's most interesting is the author of this slideshow doesn't suggest what the Lakers should give up for this trade. He just says the Lakers should trade for Jameer Nelson. Isn't part of suggesting trades that could be made, actually suggesting the trade that should be made? I can't just say, the Celtics should trade for Player X and not say who the Celtics should give up on their roster for Player X and expect it to be a serious trade thought.
Devin Harris, Utah Jazz
With a salary of over $9.3 million this coming season and $8.5 million in 2012-13, Harris for Lamar Odom and one of the Lakers draft pick guards would seem to make a lot of sense for both teams,
It would make sense for both teams, except for the Jazz. They would have another forward to compete with Paul Millsaps, Derrick Favors and Al Jefferson for playing time and they wouldn't really have a point guard. Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, NO ONE WANTS YOUR SHITTY SECOND ROUND PICK POINT GUARDS RIGHT NOW. STOP SUGGESTING THIS.
although it could leave the Jazz a bit thin at the point. Their two other guards, Earl Watson and Ronnie Price, become free agents on Friday,
So other than the trade wouldn't work out for the Jazz, they wouldn't have a point guard on the roster, and would have too many forwards, this trade is just splendid.
The last slideshow is another exercise in rosterbation. This one is titled "Atlanta Braves: 5 Trades That Could Improve the Team at Trade Deadline." The important part is "improve" the team. You will find this is a concept the author continuously struggles understanding since he only suggests minor adjustments to the team's bench mostly.
Despite their best efforts, the Braves are having trouble chipping away at the Phillies' division lead. Much of that could be blamed on the middling offensive production from positions like 2B, SS and CF.
Much of the failures of the offense, thus far, can be pointed towards the lack of adequate backups at the positions listed previously.
So let me get this straight. The problem doesn't lie in the sub 0.700 OPS from three starters in the Braves lineup, but the problem lies in the backups to these players? You know, the guys who don't play as often...those are the guys to blame for the lack of offense? I'm not buying this bullshit. The problem is the starters at those positions.
So already this column starts off on a faulty premise. Apparently the idea is if the Braves upgrade their backups, the starters will begin playing well by default. I don't buy this idea.
Trade Scott Linebrink to the Rangers
You may ask, "but what if the Rangers don't want Scott Linebrink?" That's completely irrelevant. They're getting Scott Linebrink whether they want him or not.
I have been quite pleased with his contributions, not only in tight spots, but also when the team needs him to eat a couple of innings to save other arms.
Linebrink has pitched two or more innings exactly three times this year. He averages less than an inning per appearance.
Scott Linebrink, having a solid season, should have a decent amount of value to teams not willing to pay premium prices for other veteran relievers like Heath Bell or perhaps K-Rod.
See, the solution to making the Braves offense better is to weaken the strength of the bullpen. This will show the Braves hitters that there is no longer a cushion and they will immediately begin scoring runs. No worries though, this reliever problem is addressed...
If we are to make this trade, it would open up a spot for a reliever—a spot we could use to promote Cory Gearrin back to the major leagues. It would also relieve the Braves payroll of approximately $680,000.
So the Braves could save money! That would make the team better? What great reward would the Braves get in return for weakening their bullpen and saving money?
Potential Return: A mid-level prospect with some decent upside, but needs a few more years.
Sounds tempting doesn't it? Not only will the Braves get to weaken their bullpen, but they will get a prospect in return that will not help the Braves offensive woes at all! It's a lose-lose proposition.
Acquire Reed Johnson from the Chicago Cubs
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do know that he is currently playing well beyond his skill set in Chicago where he is hitting .337, .382, .584.
Despite that disclaimer, Reed Johnson is a career .283, .342, .415 hitter, so there shouldn't be too much of a drop off when he starts to slow down.
Actually yes, that is a large drop off back to his career averages. His current average is 19% higher than his career average, his OBP is 12% higher than his career average, and his slugging percentage is nearly 41% higher than his career average. Those are pretty notable increases. It's the difference in a hitter OPSing 0.966 and a hitter OPSing 0.757. It is the difference in having Ryan Braun in the outfield versus having Kosuke Fukodome in the outfield.
He's not your typical defensive-minded fourth outfielder, and he's really best used in left field.
Which doesn't do much for the whole center field problem (in terms of offensive) the Braves are experiencing.
Trade Nate McLouth to the Seattle Mariners
First, the Braves will have to pitch in a good amount of Nate McLouth's remaining salary. At the trade deadline, Nate McLouth's remaining salary will be approximately $2.2 million. To move him, the Braves will have to pay at least half of the salary.
Depending on what they got in return, the Braves would pay half of the salary or all of the salary. Still, why trade McLouth and pay his remaining salary when he is a free agent after this year? You aren't going to get much in return for him and then it leaves a gaping hole in centerfield even more gaping. Let's think before we rosterbate so we don't end up hurting someone.
Second, the Braves shall expect nothing of worth or value in the trade. This is simply a move geared towards relieving themselves of a little bit of salary.
I'm not sure I agree with the author, Bryce Sumida, and his idea of a salary dump. Why would the Braves trade a centerfielder, and pay most of his salary, when he is going to be a free agent after this year and he is the best centerfielder on the roster AND the Braves have a hole in centerfield? So it makes sense to just make centerfield even more terrible to save a few million on a player whose contract runs out after this season.
The Braves have a $1.65 million buyout if they don't pick up McLouth's option for 2012, which would be nice to avoid, but he is a free agent after this year which means they don't have to pay him anymore than that. So the added benefit of trading McLouth to save a maximum of $3.85 million (that's if the Mariners took on all of his salary for the rest of the year and the Braves didn't have to buyout McLouth), and making the Braves worse at the trade deadline, is you get a worthless player in return. So weakening the team in centerfield is going to make the team better at the trade deadline? Not unless the money is used to trade for another centerfielder.
Spoiler alert: This is where Michael Bourn will come into play. Don't act like this isn't really exciting.
As odd as it sounds, McLouth could provide them an upgrade over their current situations. At the very least, he gives them more options.
As well as give the Braves fewer options in centerfield if the Braves can't move a trade for another centerfielder.
Moving McLouth in the prescribed deal would alleviate the Braves of $1 million on the payroll.
And we all know playoff contending teams are often seen dumping salary in an effort to make their team better that year. Isn't that something teams that aren't playing for a playoff spot do? How would this make the Braves a better team at the trade deadline?
Acquire Michael Bourn from the Houston Astros
Bourn is the prototypical "speedster" that I have come to despise, at least in terms of giving up good prospects and money for.
I'll be honest. I'm not that big of a Michael Bourn fan, as I feel he will become overpaid through arbitration in 2012.
You are not doing a very good job of convincing me this is a smart move by reinforcing my exact feelings on why trading for Michael Bourn isn't a great idea. The best part is Sumida doesn't ever refute these feelings, he just basically says, "fuck it, the Braves should make the trade anyway."
However, I am a fan of improving the club in whatever way possible.
Which apparently Bourn will not do in the author's opinion.
I can't deny Bourn would provide an improvement over our current options in center field without sacrificing good defense.
Bourn is fast. That's a great attribute. He still only has an OPS around .750, which would be a career high by the way, and is due for arbitration next year. So because the bar is lowered, Bourn is a huge upgrade and that's why the Braves should overpay for him.
He uses his speed to get on, get over and run down fly balls in the outfield. If Bourn's speed were to take a step backwards at any point, his value would nose dive.
Good thing he isn't turning 29 years old after this season! Wait, he is?
I don't have a huge problem with Bourn, it is what Sumida wants to give up for Michael Bourn. Remember, Bourn is (admitted by the author) as a one-dimensional player whose entire value is in his ability to steal bases.
However, as a 1.5 season rental, that should be none of our concern as we'll be employing Bourn at the peak of his usefulness.
Bourn, however, will be the one they likely move, dangling him for a lower price tag than the one that would be required to land Pence.
A lower price? I wonder what that suggested lower price would be?
Potential Cost: Randall Delgado, Jordan Schafer and Brett Oberholtzer.
The Braves would only have to give up their #2 pitching prospect, and the #35 rated prospect by Baseball America prior to this year, who is only 21 years old for a 1.5 year rental outfielder whose main (only) positive attribute? You would think a pitching prospect who is less than a year from being MLB-ready would fetch more than a one-dimensional speedster, but you would be wrong!
So this is the lower price? The #2 prospect in the Braves system?
That's not all everyone! The Braves would also then give up two more prospects (though Jordan Schafer isn't a prospect at this point) for the rights to Bourn for 1.5 years.
Maybe the Braves should throw in Tommy Hanson as well, to sweeten the deal for the Astros.
It may be unlikely to have so many moving parts at the deadline, but it's both plausible and feasible.
Read that sentence again and see how it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. So it may not be likely these trades could happen, but it is reasonable and likely these trades could happen. I think Sumida needs access to a dictionary in order to understand he just wrote a sentence saying it was unlikely this many moving parts could happen at the trade deadline, but that it was likely this many moving parts could happen at the trade deadline. This makes not of sense.
Bleacher Report everyone! It's here to make you feel smarter.
I have approximately 102 articles linked from Bleacher Report and I thought I would review the lists and articles today of some of those. It is just a whole lot of crazy. But first, you have to take off your thinking caps.
The first list/article is "James Jones and 10 Backups Ready to Start." The key point is these are backups ready to start. I am assuming start doesn't mean "be a role player," but the author doesn't seem to understand his own title, as you will see. Of course the title also sounds like a children's book about a Pee-Wee upstart football team, but that's beside the point.
If he becomes an unrestricted free agent, Jones will command much attention on the open market. The 27-year-old has progressed steadily in the Packers offense in his three years, catching a combined 10 touchdowns for 1,119 yards over the last two years.
That's like almost 600 yards per year! For a 27 year old? Where I can sign to overpay this James Jones guy?
Let's begin the slideshow!
Darren Sproles- running back
Darren Sproles will never be a starter in the NFL. He is too small to be a starter for an NFL team. He has never shown on a consistent basis he can handle being the major ball carrier for a team.
The 27-year-old has long been a special teams star for the San Diego Chargers but has been completely underutilized on offense.
He turned 28 four days after this got posted. Over the last four seasons Sproles has averaged 6 touches on offense per game. Perhaps he is underutilized.
In his 204 rushing attempts since earning a semi-prominent role in 2008, Sproles has averaged 4.3 yards a carry.
This is probably Sproles ceiling and why he should be used as a change-of-pace back and not a starter. There is a point where a team gets diminished returns on a running back, especially for a smaller back like Sproles. Sproles has had 204 carries in four years. Imagine him getting 204 carries in a season, which is a little less than an NFL starter at running back would probably get. I would guess the yards per carry average would dip, so I don't think he is ready to start for an NFL team...unless he still isn't getting the majority of the carries.
Sproles certainly doesn't have the size or strength necessary to be a lead back or a between the tackles type of guy who you can continuously feed it too,
So Sproles isn't a backup who is ready to be a starter? So why the hell is he on a list of players who are backups that are ready to be starters? Please tell me why.
but he's been far undervalued playing for the Chargers to this point.
Which is fine, if this were a slideshow of "Players who are undervalued," but this is a list of backups who are ready to be starters and Sproles isn't ready to be a starter. So why is he on the list? Only at Bleacher Report...
When given the rock in Oakland, Bush has shown flashes of brilliance.
He led to the Raiders to a victory with 177 yards on 27 carries with two touchdowns in the final game of the 2008 season which denied the Tampa Bay Buccaneers a playoff spot.
Whoever lands him has a massive breakout candidate on their roster.
He is talking about Michael Bush. His college statistics are quoted and then one game FROM THREE YEARS AGO is the full reasoning for why Bush is ready to be a starter. That's it. That's all we get. So the reasoning goes, "Bush was a great running back his junior year in college and had one good game in the NFL, so he should be a starter somewhere."Now the author, Aaron Dodge, moves on to Tarvaris Jackson...another player who is "ready to start."
I'm just not sold on this guy's potential being shot, and I believe he's worth a look by a team in need of a quarterback who could apply pressure to their incumbent.
Apply pressure to the incumbent, but not take the job of the incumbent possibly. So is he ready to be an NFL starter or not? Yes, I'm probably nitpicking, and yes, I am enjoying it.
Then Marc Bulger is mentioned. Which is just laughable since Bulger used to be a starter in the NFL and isn't anymore. I'm not sure how a guy who was a starter in the NFL and is now 34 years old can be listed as a backup ready to start. Whatever, this is a list that includes players which are admittedly (by the author) not capable of starting so my expectations are too great anyway.
Now we discuss Lance Moore a little bit.
Moore combined for 145 receptions, 1,691 yards and 18 touchdowns in the Drew Brees led offense. He's the perfect target for quarterbacks and a great target for teams looking for a down field threat.
Lance Moore is the perfect down field threat as long as a team isn't looking for a receiver who is a threat down field. See, because Moore hasn't shown he is capable of that. In 2010, Moore had 15.8% of his targets classified as deep attempts. It was 20.0% in 2008. That's very near the bottom on a list of receivers who had as many passes targeted to him as Moore did. He is a good receiver, but a team looking for a deep threat should look another way.
Here is another great Bleacher Report article entitled "Why Cam Newton's Ceiling is Higher Than You Think."
So not only am I going to learn what Cam Newton's ceiling truly is, but I will also learn the author, Chris G., can read my mind and knows exactly what I believe Cam Newton's ceiling is. I hadn't even thought about Cam Newton's ceiling, yet it is higher than I didn't think it was.
Now that I have thought about Cam Newton's ceiling, I think of it as being around what Daunte Culpepper was in his prime in Minnesota or he can be a quarterback similar to Ben Roethlisberger. I'm not saying Newton will be Culpepper nor am I saying he will ever win a Super Bowl, but I think that's about what Newton can be as his ceiling, which he probably will never reach. He is a big quarterback like Roethlisberger and can scramble like Culpepper could. I don't see how Newton could have a higher ceiling than that. So, let's see why Newton's ceiling is actually higher than what I think.
Spoiler alert: We need never find this out.
The naysayers will bring up all of the concerns and ignore his accomplishments while in college,
Considering he is a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback, the odds of him succeeding aren't very good based just on that. Throw in the fact he didn't play in a pro-style offense in college, didn't stick at one college for a long period of time and he has some character concerns and the naysayers have a lot to naysay about.
Jason White, Gino Torretta, Eric Crouch, and Ken Dorsey all accomplished a lot of things in college as well. Naysayers aren't ignoring Newton's college accomplishments, just correctly recognizing this doesn't mean he will be successful in the NFL.
Who could blame them? He is the prototypical quarterback.
Newton is big (think Roethlisberger), standing at 6'5" and weighing 248 pounds. His size allows him to beat defenders almost effortlessly.
Newton being big and being the prototypical quarterback in size doesn't mean he will succeed nor does it mean his ceiling is higher than I expected.He is able to stand tall behind his line and make throws from the pocket. But if things break down, he can also make a play while on the run. Of course, he can also make plays with his feet, and has the ability to power through defenders or outrun them with his 4.58 speed.
All of the physical traits in the world will not win football games, though, as best summed up in the movie Little Giants:
"Just remember, football is 80 percent mental and 40 percent physical."
"You know all those positive things about Cam Newton's size and how it will translate well to the NFL? Forget about them because I am going to use a quote saying they aren't the majority of what makes a quarterback great. I have successfully just proven nothing."Football is a mental game, and that is Newton’s shortfall so far, even though the physical aspects are already there. If he can get his mental makeup to equal his physical prowess, the sky is the limit.
So Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think because Cam Newton lacks the traits that makes a great quarterback and if he ever gets these traits then he will be a great NFL quarterback. That's not a question posed by me, it appears to be a statement by the author. Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think because if he ever gets the mental part of the game down he will be a competent NFL quarterback. Chris G. must think I have a low opinion of Newton's ceiling.
Newton is a charismatic leader in the huddle, and thrives for the moment under the spotlight. He is calm and collected under pressure, and is willing to play through pain to win.
So why does Cam Newton have a higher ceiling than I think? Isn't the argument being made just an argument he will be a good NFL quarterback?
These intangibles cannot be measured,
Mostly because intangibles can't be measured. That's why their intangible.
and they set Newton apart from other rookie quarterbacks.
So the intangibles that can't be measured set him apart from other rookie quarterbacks. What if, and I am just pretending here, the NFL didn't just consist of teams with rookie quarterbacks. I know that is a pure fantasy, but let's say a team had a veteran quarterback. How would Newton stack up against them, since those proven veterans are who he will be compared to in order to be thought of as an elite quarterback and to exceed what I believe to be his ceiling?
Newton will be able to get by on physical talent at first, and once he comprehends the intricacies of the NFL, he will join the elite and take his Panthers to the next level.
Great. I guess this leaves me with the basic question of "Why didn't you tell me why Cam Newton's ceiling is higher than I think?" Saying he will be a great quarterback in the NFL because of factors we already know, doesn't address the issue of expectations and how Newton will exceed those.
Before I get to the next article, the good part about Bleacher Report is I could probably do a post per day about stuff written on the site. There are tons of articles under each category for every major sports team. So I am just scratching the surface, though I don't plan on covering Bleacher Report all that often, so don't worry about this blog turning into "Fire Bleacher Report."
Let's look at some trades the Lakers could make to improve their squad for next season. The best part is these are "non-rumored" trades the Lakers should make. Whatever that means. Does this column count as a "rumor?" I love Bleacher Report potential trade columns. It is rosterbation at its finest and least eloquent. Please know the guy who wrote this is a Lakers fan, so we should just be happy he doesn't have Dwight Howard and Chris Paul coming to Los Angeles in a three team deal for Steve Blake, a first round pick and Lamar Odom.
These are trades I think the team should seriously consider. They could prove to be the slight tweak that this stellar club needs to get it back into serious contention next fall.
Right now, an intern for the Lakers is surfing through Bleacher Report and sees this article. He prints the article---I'm sorry, slideshow---and then runs down to Mitch Kupchak's office telling him the Lakers should seriously consider these trades. This intern then gets fired, though he wasn't getting paid for interning and there was no reason other than this to fire him.
Aaron Afflalo, Denver Nuggets
Absolutely. The first player the Lakers should trade for is Aaron Afflalo. The only small speed bump in this plan is that Afflalo is a restricted free agent, so Afflalo would have to sign with the Nuggets before they could trade him. It's a small problem the Nuggets don't currently have the rights to Afflalo to be in a position to trade him, I do realize this, but it sounds so cool for the Lakers to trade for him.
Still, if they get something solid in return (Ronn Artest and one of the two guards the Lakers drafted), Denver may agree to such a trade.
I'm guessing Ronn Artest is Ron Artest's younger and less expensive brother. Also, I'm not sure the Nuggets would have an interest in a point guard drafted in the second round (besides the fact it is a player drafted in the second round who they could have taken in the NBA Draft if they wanted to) considering they have Ty Lawson and just traded for Andre Miller.
Jrue Holiday, Philadelphia 76ers
We all know the 76ers are eager to give up a young point guard who seems to have a ton of potential.
He averaged over 35 minutes of playing time and 14 points per game on shooting of 45 percent from the field and a very respectable 37 percent from beyond the arc.
More importantly, Holiday is a true point guard; he averaged 6.5 assists last year, which means that he accounted for close to 30 points a game between his scoring and passing for points.
Why would any NBA team want a player like that when they can take an aging forward-hybrid to add to their already large stable of forwards?Lamar Odom has been rumored as a piece to send to Philadelphia in exchange for Andre Iguodala. How about L.O. and one of the draft picks for Holiday and veteran forward Andres Nocioni?
How about not? The Odom for Iguodala trade would make sense (to an extent) because the Sixers would be getting rid of a small forward and could get back a more versatile forward in return. Still, that trade doesn't make too much sense because then the Sixers have the same problem they had with Iguodala. They would have an expensive forward and still haven't fixed the fact they need a center.
So Odom and Holiday would probably be the worst trade possible for the Sixers because they would gain another forward and lose a guard. So now they have more forwards than they originally had and need more guard help. Small details, I know, the fact the other team may not want to make this trade with the Lakers.
Holiday has the potential to be really good. Philadelphia knows that, and so it could be a tough one to pull off.
I would venture to say any trade that doesn't include Bynum for Holiday is a no-go for Philadelphia.
Jameer Nelson, Orlando Magic
Nelson makes just under $8 million a year, a lot in Orlando, but not too bad in Los Angeles.
?????
Don't NBA teams all play by the same cap rules? Or are there separate cap rules for the Lakers I haven't heard about?
What's most interesting is the author of this slideshow doesn't suggest what the Lakers should give up for this trade. He just says the Lakers should trade for Jameer Nelson. Isn't part of suggesting trades that could be made, actually suggesting the trade that should be made? I can't just say, the Celtics should trade for Player X and not say who the Celtics should give up on their roster for Player X and expect it to be a serious trade thought.
Devin Harris, Utah Jazz
With a salary of over $9.3 million this coming season and $8.5 million in 2012-13, Harris for Lamar Odom and one of the Lakers draft pick guards would seem to make a lot of sense for both teams,
It would make sense for both teams, except for the Jazz. They would have another forward to compete with Paul Millsaps, Derrick Favors and Al Jefferson for playing time and they wouldn't really have a point guard. Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, NO ONE WANTS YOUR SHITTY SECOND ROUND PICK POINT GUARDS RIGHT NOW. STOP SUGGESTING THIS.
although it could leave the Jazz a bit thin at the point. Their two other guards, Earl Watson and Ronnie Price, become free agents on Friday,
So other than the trade wouldn't work out for the Jazz, they wouldn't have a point guard on the roster, and would have too many forwards, this trade is just splendid.
The last slideshow is another exercise in rosterbation. This one is titled "Atlanta Braves: 5 Trades That Could Improve the Team at Trade Deadline." The important part is "improve" the team. You will find this is a concept the author continuously struggles understanding since he only suggests minor adjustments to the team's bench mostly.
Despite their best efforts, the Braves are having trouble chipping away at the Phillies' division lead. Much of that could be blamed on the middling offensive production from positions like 2B, SS and CF.
Much of the failures of the offense, thus far, can be pointed towards the lack of adequate backups at the positions listed previously.
So let me get this straight. The problem doesn't lie in the sub 0.700 OPS from three starters in the Braves lineup, but the problem lies in the backups to these players? You know, the guys who don't play as often...those are the guys to blame for the lack of offense? I'm not buying this bullshit. The problem is the starters at those positions.
So already this column starts off on a faulty premise. Apparently the idea is if the Braves upgrade their backups, the starters will begin playing well by default. I don't buy this idea.
Trade Scott Linebrink to the Rangers
You may ask, "but what if the Rangers don't want Scott Linebrink?" That's completely irrelevant. They're getting Scott Linebrink whether they want him or not.
I have been quite pleased with his contributions, not only in tight spots, but also when the team needs him to eat a couple of innings to save other arms.
Linebrink has pitched two or more innings exactly three times this year. He averages less than an inning per appearance.
Scott Linebrink, having a solid season, should have a decent amount of value to teams not willing to pay premium prices for other veteran relievers like Heath Bell or perhaps K-Rod.
See, the solution to making the Braves offense better is to weaken the strength of the bullpen. This will show the Braves hitters that there is no longer a cushion and they will immediately begin scoring runs. No worries though, this reliever problem is addressed...
If we are to make this trade, it would open up a spot for a reliever—a spot we could use to promote Cory Gearrin back to the major leagues. It would also relieve the Braves payroll of approximately $680,000.
So the Braves could save money! That would make the team better? What great reward would the Braves get in return for weakening their bullpen and saving money?
Potential Return: A mid-level prospect with some decent upside, but needs a few more years.
Sounds tempting doesn't it? Not only will the Braves get to weaken their bullpen, but they will get a prospect in return that will not help the Braves offensive woes at all! It's a lose-lose proposition.
Acquire Reed Johnson from the Chicago Cubs
I want to make it perfectly clear that I do know that he is currently playing well beyond his skill set in Chicago where he is hitting .337, .382, .584.
Despite that disclaimer, Reed Johnson is a career .283, .342, .415 hitter, so there shouldn't be too much of a drop off when he starts to slow down.
Actually yes, that is a large drop off back to his career averages. His current average is 19% higher than his career average, his OBP is 12% higher than his career average, and his slugging percentage is nearly 41% higher than his career average. Those are pretty notable increases. It's the difference in a hitter OPSing 0.966 and a hitter OPSing 0.757. It is the difference in having Ryan Braun in the outfield versus having Kosuke Fukodome in the outfield.
He's not your typical defensive-minded fourth outfielder, and he's really best used in left field.
Which doesn't do much for the whole center field problem (in terms of offensive) the Braves are experiencing.
Trade Nate McLouth to the Seattle Mariners
First, the Braves will have to pitch in a good amount of Nate McLouth's remaining salary. At the trade deadline, Nate McLouth's remaining salary will be approximately $2.2 million. To move him, the Braves will have to pay at least half of the salary.
Depending on what they got in return, the Braves would pay half of the salary or all of the salary. Still, why trade McLouth and pay his remaining salary when he is a free agent after this year? You aren't going to get much in return for him and then it leaves a gaping hole in centerfield even more gaping. Let's think before we rosterbate so we don't end up hurting someone.
Second, the Braves shall expect nothing of worth or value in the trade. This is simply a move geared towards relieving themselves of a little bit of salary.
I'm not sure I agree with the author, Bryce Sumida, and his idea of a salary dump. Why would the Braves trade a centerfielder, and pay most of his salary, when he is going to be a free agent after this year and he is the best centerfielder on the roster AND the Braves have a hole in centerfield? So it makes sense to just make centerfield even more terrible to save a few million on a player whose contract runs out after this season.
The Braves have a $1.65 million buyout if they don't pick up McLouth's option for 2012, which would be nice to avoid, but he is a free agent after this year which means they don't have to pay him anymore than that. So the added benefit of trading McLouth to save a maximum of $3.85 million (that's if the Mariners took on all of his salary for the rest of the year and the Braves didn't have to buyout McLouth), and making the Braves worse at the trade deadline, is you get a worthless player in return. So weakening the team in centerfield is going to make the team better at the trade deadline? Not unless the money is used to trade for another centerfielder.
Spoiler alert: This is where Michael Bourn will come into play. Don't act like this isn't really exciting.
As odd as it sounds, McLouth could provide them an upgrade over their current situations. At the very least, he gives them more options.
As well as give the Braves fewer options in centerfield if the Braves can't move a trade for another centerfielder.
Moving McLouth in the prescribed deal would alleviate the Braves of $1 million on the payroll.
And we all know playoff contending teams are often seen dumping salary in an effort to make their team better that year. Isn't that something teams that aren't playing for a playoff spot do? How would this make the Braves a better team at the trade deadline?
Acquire Michael Bourn from the Houston Astros
Bourn is the prototypical "speedster" that I have come to despise, at least in terms of giving up good prospects and money for.
I'll be honest. I'm not that big of a Michael Bourn fan, as I feel he will become overpaid through arbitration in 2012.
You are not doing a very good job of convincing me this is a smart move by reinforcing my exact feelings on why trading for Michael Bourn isn't a great idea. The best part is Sumida doesn't ever refute these feelings, he just basically says, "fuck it, the Braves should make the trade anyway."
However, I am a fan of improving the club in whatever way possible.
Which apparently Bourn will not do in the author's opinion.
I can't deny Bourn would provide an improvement over our current options in center field without sacrificing good defense.
Bourn is fast. That's a great attribute. He still only has an OPS around .750, which would be a career high by the way, and is due for arbitration next year. So because the bar is lowered, Bourn is a huge upgrade and that's why the Braves should overpay for him.
He uses his speed to get on, get over and run down fly balls in the outfield. If Bourn's speed were to take a step backwards at any point, his value would nose dive.
Good thing he isn't turning 29 years old after this season! Wait, he is?
I don't have a huge problem with Bourn, it is what Sumida wants to give up for Michael Bourn. Remember, Bourn is (admitted by the author) as a one-dimensional player whose entire value is in his ability to steal bases.
However, as a 1.5 season rental, that should be none of our concern as we'll be employing Bourn at the peak of his usefulness.
Bourn, however, will be the one they likely move, dangling him for a lower price tag than the one that would be required to land Pence.
A lower price? I wonder what that suggested lower price would be?
Potential Cost: Randall Delgado, Jordan Schafer and Brett Oberholtzer.
The Braves would only have to give up their #2 pitching prospect, and the #35 rated prospect by Baseball America prior to this year, who is only 21 years old for a 1.5 year rental outfielder whose main (only) positive attribute? You would think a pitching prospect who is less than a year from being MLB-ready would fetch more than a one-dimensional speedster, but you would be wrong!
So this is the lower price? The #2 prospect in the Braves system?
That's not all everyone! The Braves would also then give up two more prospects (though Jordan Schafer isn't a prospect at this point) for the rights to Bourn for 1.5 years.
Maybe the Braves should throw in Tommy Hanson as well, to sweeten the deal for the Astros.
It may be unlikely to have so many moving parts at the deadline, but it's both plausible and feasible.
Read that sentence again and see how it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. So it may not be likely these trades could happen, but it is reasonable and likely these trades could happen. I think Sumida needs access to a dictionary in order to understand he just wrote a sentence saying it was unlikely this many moving parts could happen at the trade deadline, but that it was likely this many moving parts could happen at the trade deadline. This makes not of sense.
Bleacher Report everyone! It's here to make you feel smarter.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
3 comments In-Game Tweeting Would Be Cool, I Think
People are funny. People are angry. That’s basically everything Twitter has taught me. I can’t say that I’m a regular tweeter. Of course I provide my loyal followers (I’m damn proud of all 85 of you) with the run-of-the-mill, read my article spam that populates the Twitterverse. But my life instincts aren’t Twitter-oriented. Nor am I that clever. It just seems that all my tweets are one-upped by someone else - like @JayBilas and @EricStangel (two of my favorites to follow). For the rest of us non-famous tweeters, we must submit to the inalienable twitter standard: unless you can wow us with your unmatchable intellectual wit, shut up. We already knew that chicken parmigiana tastes good. It doesn’t warm our hearts knowing that you’re listening to Rick Ross.
The professional athletes and sports personalities subscribe to a different set of rules. And by rules, I mean anything goes. They market their brands, tweet about their awful dates (see Arenas, Gilbert - @agentzeroshow) and generally update us on their lives. And thus they create the perfect irony of the entire social networking nexus – by tossing us these scraps of information, they insulate themselves even further. We feel connected, even if we’re not. But that feeling, that’s all that matters.
Access. That’s all we’ve ever wanted, but that’s what athletes will forever deny. We want volatile statements, personality and enthusiasm. We want to know these guys appreciate their positions atop the “what do I want to be when I grow up?” hierarchy. But then we want them to abide by society’s PC rules. In case we’re wondering, you can’t have it both ways. People may be PC, but the person is not.
The sports sect of Twitter, to me, should just be a transposed version of dimemag.com’s comments section. Or any comments section of a sports blog, for that matter. Because that’s all it is. A very public comments section. Assuming people abide by the Twitter rules, you’re left with the cream of the crop – intelligent sports discussion devoid of defiant stubbornness and angry, unwilling-to-compromise ranting. But those who follow, comment and indulge in the delights of the internet, they’re not the ones on Twitter. My generation – the generation that doesn’t convulse in frustration when the internet stops working – has yet to fully embrace Twitter’s giant purview. Sure, many of us are on it and tweeting our little hearts away. But we’re still caught up with Facebook – everyone I know has Facebook, but only about 20% of them have a Twitter. Their resistance simply stems from a simple question: why tweet when you can do essentially that and 100x more? Twitter, then, is just the lazy man’s public Facebook. Or really, the this-is-too-complicated to handle alternative.
Maybe Twitter will fully encapsulate the younger generation. Considering how fast it has exploded, we know it’s going somewhere. But I’m thinking more about how it’s used as opposed to by whom. More specifically, I’m thinking about in-game basketball tweets.
I know David Stern would never endorse it. He’d slap players with a fine faster than Nate Robinson could tweet about it. But what are players on the bench really doing? You’ve got the overly enthusiastic “I’m never going to play” end of the bench guys, injured players dressed in street clothes (I’ll never understand the term “street clothes.” I don’t wear Armani suits in my down time.), and random assistants/ball boys. And have you ever sat in the stands and watched a huddle during a timeout? Half the players are looking at the jumbotron or the incredibly attractive dancers. If the players are not going to pay attention anyway, we might as well arm one “street clothes” player with Twitter (assuming there’s a device out there that only allows Tweets, and no other type of contact with the outside world). Mark Titus, owner of the Club Trillion (clubtrillion.blogspot.com) blog and former 12th man on Ohio State, provided us with that insight. The blog’s purpose answers an often-asked but seldom answered question: what is it like to be the 12th man on a famous basketball tem? So he gave us that access. Inside the locker room, inside practices and inside the mindset and goings on of the team. On the B.S. Report with Bill Simmons, he told a story about how Evan Turner was an a**hole when he first got to Columbus. These are the things, as fans, that we want to know about. We want the scoop. Maybe in-game tweeting is that next step.
Monday, July 18, 2011
14 comments Bill Conlin Joins Joe Morgan As a Member of the Ryan Howard Excessive Fan Club
Two things before I break down Bill Conlin's vehement defense of Ryan Howard:
1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.
2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.
Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.
Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.
ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.
They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.
My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.
They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.
Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.
Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.
(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)
And egregiously stupid.
And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.
Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.
I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.
I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.
Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140
So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.
And RH is no longer one of them . . .
That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.
So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.
Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.
Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.
Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.
Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.
Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard.
Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.
But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in wins
This is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.
and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.
Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.
Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.
So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.
Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),
Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.
Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.
and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)
This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.
Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:
I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."
Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.
Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.
Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?
Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?
I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.
Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.
This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.
Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.
He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .
Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?
One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.
This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.
That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."
It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.
It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.
Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.
WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.
For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.
You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.
I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.
In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"
In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."
This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.
Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.
Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.
So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.
This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.
Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.
They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.
If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?
Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.
Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).
For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.
So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.
In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.
I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.
Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:
At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.
I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.
See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.
I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.
Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.
Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.
I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.
1. We don't have a "Ryan Howard" tag on this blog? How is that possible? I'm pretty sure there were entire portions of Joe Morgan chats that dealt with Ryan Howard and Morgan's love of Howard. Very disappointing.
2. I think Ryan Howard is a great first baseman and one of the best first basemen in the National League. Nothing that follows is an indictment of how great of a first baseman he is. What follows is an indictment of Bill Conlin and his defense of Ryan Howard in light of Howard not making the All-Star team. Is that really worth getting worked up over Howard not making the All-Star team? It is an exhibition All-Star game. Granted he probably wants to play in it because, it is the best exhibition All-Star game in major sports, but that's another discussion.
Bill Conlin defends Ryan Howard against the evil doers in Philadelphia and he uses the most modern comparison to Howard, a player from the 1930's, as well as the non-all-encompassing statistic RBI's to help prove the point that Conlin may not know what decade it is. I'm shocked by the amount of comments who liked his methods and that were agreeing with Bill. You can agree with his sentiment, but his method was shockingly poor. A great example of this poor methodology to prove what a great player Howard is by going back to the 1930's.
Thanks to Matt for emailing me about this article. I always appreciate a good head's up on a bad article.
ON THE DAY AFTER the All-Star Game was played in Phoenix without Ryan Howard, this column is directed at the haters and bashers who have been coming out of the woodwork in larger numbers than usual.
They are predictable as smog in a heat wave.
My state is currently having a heat wave. The heat index was 108 a few days ago. It is currently sitting at a temperature in the 90's as I sit in my mom's attic and type this. (checks window) There's no smog. I'm confused now. Perhaps I should be a meteorologist so I can understand this reference better.
They pretend to be knowledgable baseball fans, but trip themselves up every time because they are dead wrong.
Bill Conlin misspelled the word knowledgeable in a sentence criticizing people for not being as smart as they think they are. Some would call this ironic.
Bill Conlin pretends to know who these haters are and pretends to know they aren't knowledgeable baseball fans, but he tripped himself up because he is dead wrong.
(There is nothing like a writer who takes a sentence containing an opinion and tries to pass it off as fact. It's like me saying, "There are people who think Albert Pujols isn't the best player in baseball. Those people are stupid and dead wrong." It's an opinion for God's sake, not a fact! I think maybe someone spit in Conlin's oatmeal the morning he wrote this, he's very angry)
And egregiously stupid.
And Bill is a poor speller. I will let you decide his level of egregious stupidity on this.
Boy, talk about a shot across the bow. Calling these Howard-haters not real knowledgeable (except misspelling this word) and then calling them egregiously stupid. It sounds like he took personal offense to Howard not making the All-Star game. Which, because it is an exhibition game, is egregiously stupid.
I hear the reason why he was not voted into the All-Star Game by the fans - and Phillies fans basically ignored him while stuffing the ballot box for an injured Shane Victorino - is because the National League has all these great first basemen.
I like how Bill puts "great" in parenthesis. It's not like the reigning NL MVP or All-Star game MVP play first base or anything. The National League does have some great first basemen, even Albert Pujols didn't make the All-Star game this year. Let's look at the NL first basemen using basic easy statistics that Bill Conlin prefers (he LOVES RBI's) and some more advanced statistics that more reasonable humans use. All stats are as of the All-Star break.
Gaby Sanchez: .293/.374/.472, 13 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 132
Ryan Howard: .257/.353/.475, 18 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 127
Prince Fielder: .297/.418/.575, 22 home runs, 72 RBI's and an OPS+ of 169
Joey Votto: .324/.438/.507, 13 home runs, 55 RBI's and an OPS+ of 159
Albert Pujols: .280/.357/.500, 18 home runs, 50 RBI's and an OPS+ of 140
So I know Bitter Bill is being sarcastic, but there was some competition for first base in the All-Star game this year. Fielder and Votto deserved to make it and perhaps Howard got snubbed in favor of Gaby Sanchez, but someone had to represent the Florida Marlins in the game, so that makes some sense to have him on the team. Adding Howard and having 4 first basemen on the roster probably doesn't make sense. So basically, shut the hell up and quit crying.
And RH is no longer one of them . . .
That's not at all what is being said. Bill is taking this a bit personal. What is being said is three first basemen in the National League are playing better than Howard through the first half of the year. It is easier for Conlin to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion rather than just accept this isn't a dig at Howard from now until the future, but just the facts based on his first half performance. Bill prefers to make a big hysterical, dramatic conclusion because then it makes it sound like those who are critical of Howard are that much more unreasonable. Bill passes this criticism of Howard as a complete indictment of his play when that may not be entirely true.
So, chew on this: Prince Fielder went to the All-Star Game and captained a Home Run Derby team that was blown out of the water by a couple of real hitters named Adrian Gonzalez and Robinson Cano, who put on one hell of a show.
Chew on this: The Home Run Derby doesn't fucking matter when pertaining to this discussion. So which league won is irrelevant.
Chew even harder on this: You don't put players on the All-Star team simply to participate in the Home Run Derby. Maybe Bill Conlin would, but a reasonable person wouldn't.
Chew even harder on this and try not to choke: Prince Fielder won the MVP award and hit a home run in the All-Star game. Clearly, he deserved to be there regardless of how his team performed in the Home Run Derby.
Chew even harder on this and I hope it eventually gives you the shits: The performance of a player in the Home Run Derby (which I don't watch for one reason...Chris Berman. The fat turd who pretty much makes all things unwatchable) isn't indicative of how well that player performed during the first half of the season. So Howard's hypothetical performance in the Home Run Derby doesn't support his case for making the All-Star team.
Not that Fielder is chopped liver. He is, after all, tied for the league RBI lead with some slipping, already over-the-hill guy named Ryan Howard.
Nobody said Ryan Howard was over-the-hill. He didn't make one All-Star team. Stop crying about it and just accept there were three better first basemen (or one first baseman who needed to represent his team on the squad) in the National League.
But let me mention that Howard bats cleanup for a first-place team that leads the majors in wins
This is so very, very irrelevant. Unless Ryan Howard started pitching, hitting and fielding with no other players on the Phillies team and I just happened to miss it. There is no one player that causes a team to lead the majors in wins. I'm guessing the Phillies pitching staff may have had something to do with the Phillies leading the majors in wins.
and has the biggest division lead at the break in either league.
Yet again, incredibly irrelevant. What always interests me is sportswriters who hate advanced statistics tend to use statistics like RBI's, wins, and (in this case) division leads to try and prove a point. What's interesting about this is these can be misleading statistics. Basically, I think Bill Conlin hates advanced statistics because they don't allow him to easily mislead his readers.
Based on Conlin's statement you would think, "Man, the Phillies are really dominating their division" when this is true, but the lead is only 3.5 games. The other divisions are really close at this point. So while acknowledging how dominant the Phillies are, having the biggest lead in a division at the All-Star break shows how close the other divisions are. In fact, the second place team in their own division has the third best record in all of baseball.
So while is factually correct and the conclusion he wants you to reach, the Phillies are a great team, is also correct, they haven't run away with the division quite yet. I'm getting way off-topic because none of this really has much to do with Ryan Howard not making the All-Star game and the Howard-haters that Bill Conlin spits venom at. So regardless of the Phillies division lead, it doesn't necessarily contribute to Howard's All-Star worthiness.
Oh, but he's a butcher with the glove (all of four errors),
Errors aren't the best way to determine how good a player is at a position. If I never go out of a five foot radius from my position then I may never commit a lot of errors, but I am also not getting to a lot of balls, which means I may not be a great defensive player. I'm not saying Ryan Howard is a bad defensive first baseman. I'm saying basing his defensive prowess only on how many errors he has committed is just so incredibly short-sighted. There's more to it, even if Bill Conlin wishes there weren't.
Therein lies the problem. Bill Conlin wants to continue to use some misleading statistics to back up his argument, while others (me) would prefer he supplement his argument with other statistics. That's the entire problem with the whole Sabermetrics v. Traditional statistics argument. We are yelling at each other in different languages, so there's no chance of an understanding being reached. Bill doesn't like UZR supplementing how many errors a player commits because he doesn't understand UZR and doesn't care to. I don't like just using errors because I know of other statistics which can supplement the "errors" statistics to determine a player's true defensive worth. Bill won't hear any of this and I dislike willful ignorance.
and is not providing close to acceptable return for the $125 million salary. (And since that contract just kicked in and he's on pace for 140 RBI, maybe you should wait a while on that.)
This tells me that Bill Conlin doesn't even understand the criticism of Howard's contract and why some people project it to end up being a poor contract. The entire point of much of the criticism of the contract is that it did just kick in and he turns 32 years old in the offseason. So while it is hard for any player to justify this large of a contract, the fact it just kicked in is what makes people question the intelligence of the contract. These people project Howard won't age well as when evaluating he is going to be paid $125 million for 5 years. So saying the contract just kicked in and telling us how many RBI's, as if this proves anything of value, is misunderstanding the criticism of Howard. It's not this year the critics have a huge problem with Howard's contract, but it is years 3-5 which seem to be their concern.
Here's a typical email from a regular who has been on Howard's case since Day 1. He posted it just as the Phillies were about to explode for that 14-1 destructo of the Braves Sunday:
The Phillies are paying Howard more than the Sox are paying Adrian Gonzalez a professional hitter. That would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.
I do think this is a bit overboard. Howard isn't that bad, though at this point I would probably take Adrian Gonzalez over Howard.I replied: " . . . There's not one [censored] player worth what he's being paid . . . That's why there should be a statue of Marvin Miller in front of the MLPA headquarters."
Actually, this is completely wrong. It is all relative to how much other players are paid to play the game of baseball professionally of course, but there are players on every MLB team worth what they are paid.
Jose Bautista makes $8 million this year. He has 31 home runs and an OBP of 0.468. I think he's worth what he is being paid.
Jair Jurrjens is paid $3.25 million to go 12-3 with a 1.87 ERA and 1.066 WHIP. He's not worth that amount of money?
Jacoby Ellsbury gets paid $2.4 million to hit .316/.377/.490 with 28 steals and 11 home runs. He's not worth that amount?
I could go on and on, but it is all relative to how much other players get paid for playing the game of baseball professionally, not to other professions. Bill Conlin is probably not worth as much as he gets paid if you compared his salary to every other profession. So the defense that "there's not one damn player worth what's he paid," isn't a great defense of Ryan Howard because it probably isn't true.
Didn't Bill Conlin just semi-defend Howard's contract by saying he was on pace for 140 RBI's? Now, Howard is like every other player and not worth this contract.
This was the generic chant from the Tab-and-Scrapple Choir.
Let's keep the references to the post-Richard Nixon era please.
He doesn't hit for high enough average, he never hits in the clutch (See Mike Schmidt abuse files from the 1970s). He needs to bunt or slap the ball to left against the shift. Yada, yada, yada . . .
Who are these people to criticize a player who Bill Conlin just said isn't worth his contract?
One guy even invoked the despicable, undecipherable WAR stat.
This despicable WAR stat is just so much worse than the completely misleading RBI stat that Bill Conlin will base his entire defense of Ryan Howard upon. We all know a statistic is only useful unless it is really, really easy to figure out how to calculate that statistic. You know, that's why Calculus and any higher math over basic algebra isn't taught in high schools anymore. Numbers used in Calculus are SO HARD to figure out, so the entire course is despicable and undecipherable.
That's a totally bogus acronym for "Wins Above Replacement."
It's not a bogus acronym. It actually is the acronym.
It presents a patentedly unsupported hypothesis that measures the "projected" performance of an "average" Triple A player called up to replace Major League regular A . . . I'm laughing too hard to continue.
Translation: I'm too old and lazy to figure this statistic out so it must be terrible.
WAR isn't perfect, but what it does is compared players to a baseline other player. It sets a definite standard upon which to compare two or more players. RBI's does not do that. This is an incredibly basic thing to understand. RBI's has other variables that impact it when comparing two players, or even the same player between two years, while WAR tries to measure a player's performance using the baseline of a replacement player. The replacement player may be hard to understand, but it is a consistent baseline being used, which is very helpful when objectively comparing two or more players.
For example, Adrian Gonzalez had 101 RBI's in San Diego last year and he currently has 77 RBI's. Is he just that much better of a hitter this year or has his RBI total increased because he's had more players on-base to drive in while playing for the Red Sox? I would argue he has more runners to drive in and that's why his RBI's have increased. He's on pace to smash his career record for RBI's in a season and that has to do with the amount of runners on-base he had the opportunity to drive in. Using only RBI's, you could come to the conclusion Gonzalez is a better hitter this year. This is because RBI's depends on how many runners are on-base, so comparing Gonzalez's RBI's to Jose Bautista's RBI's isn't going to be an easy comparison due to each player having had different RBI opportunities presented to them while at-bat.
You saw what happened last season when Howard missed 19 games with an ankle sprain and was off-form the rest of the season, yet still managed 31 homers and 108 RBI.
I will give the home runs to Conlin, but how many RBI's would Howard have had if he came up to the plate with no runners on-base? What if he came to the plate every at-bat with runners on-base? His RBI total would be affected by the variable of how many runners were available to drive in. This is an easy concept to understand, unless you are willfully ignorant about learning new things.
In the words of Edwin Starr at Woodstock: "WAR, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin.' [Hunh!]"
In the words of Bengoodfella: "You are factually inaccurate yet again."
This another reason Bill Conlin probably hates new-age statistics, because they prove his pre-conceived notions or his assumptions incorrect. See, Bill is too fucking lazy to do research or learn new statistics. He is also too lazy to be accurate in his pop culture references. In this case, he quotes Edwin Starr who he claims was at Woodstock singing the hit "War." Bill passes up factual correctness in an attempt to be cute. He fails.
Edwin Starr was not only NOT at Woodstock, but the song "War" came out in June 1970. Woodstock was in 1969. The song was released by the Temptations, but not sung by Edwin Starr at Woodstock. So unless Edwin Starr has a time machine we haven't heard about and he was able to go back in time and play on-stage at Woodstock and erase all evidence of his appearance, then Bill Conlin is not only making a dated cultural reference, but he is also factually inaccurate...which is par for the course.
Sure, this is a nitpicky point, but it goes to the heart of what irritates me with sportswriters who hate new-age statistics. I think they hate them because it would prove many of that sportswriter's assumptions to be wrong.
So let's move on to some serious power hitting by the man considered to be the greatest all-around hitter in franchise history. That would be Hall of Famer Chuck Klein.
This is idiocy. Bill Conlin is comparing Ryan Howard to a guy who played 81 years ago. Jackie Robinson had not even broken the color barrier in 1944 when Chuck Klein retired.
Klein had a 1930 for the ages. So did the Phillies. He batted .386, but failed to win the batting title in a National League consumed by an orgy of offense. He scored 158 runs, flogged 250 hits, ripped 59 doubles, eight triples and 40 homers for a gargantuan 170 RBI.
They must have been playing slo-pitch softball because the Phillies' team batting average was an incredible .315. That offensive juggernaut managed to lose 102 games in a 154-game schedule.
If I had the time, I would say this is another reason why "wins" are a misleading statistic. How terrible was the Phillies pitching in 1930? It turns out it was pretty bad. Ray Benge won 16 games with a 4.78 ERA. Ray Benge won 11 games with a 5.70 ERA. I wish Joe Morgan and Murray Chass could see how these wins were completely dependent on the amount of offense the Phillies had. If the Phillies didn't hit the shit out of the ball, how many games would this team have lost? 120 games?
Howard is tied for the NL RBI lead despite being an island in the stream. Until Chase Utley came back after missing 2 months, there was a mostly inept revolving No. 3 hole in front of him and a No. 5 hole committee that underperformed.
Howard has 208 plate appearances with runners on-base out of 397 plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position 133 of those plate appearances. So Howard seems to have had plenty of opportunities to drive runs in. In fact, I read somewhere he led the majors in at-bats with runners on-base, but I don't have the data to support this (or couldn't find it).
For the sake of comparison, Adrian Gonzalez has 403 plate appearances with runners on-base in 217 of those plate appearances. He's had runners in scoring position in 131 of those plate appearances. So Gonzalez and Howard have fairly similar plate appearances with runners on-base. I wouldn't say Howard has lacked for RBI opportunities.
So Howard has played very well, there's no doubt about that, but he's had plenty of opportunities to drive runners in, so it isn't like he was performing RBI miracles or anything.
In 1930, Klein had the best protection since the invention of the kevlar vest. He batted No. 3 with Lefty O'Doul hitting .383 in front of him. The cleanup hitter was third baseman Pinky Whitney, who batted .342.
I see what Bill Conlin is trying to prove here, that Klein had great numbers with great protection, while Howard has great numbers without protection. Ignoring the idea lineup protection is somewhat of a myth, Bill Conlin is still trying to compare Ryan Howard's modern day statistics to those of a player in a season 81 years ago. I'm not sure this comparison holds up at all. It was just a different game of baseball in the 1930's.
Klein was traded to the Cubs after his fifth full season:
* The Chucker drove in 693 runs for an average of 138.6.
* Howard has driven in 680 runs for an average of 136.
* The Chucker hit 180 homers for an average of 36.
* Howard has hit 229 homers for an average of 45.8.
I am not sure anyone will argue Ryan Howard doesn't hit enough home runs or doesn't drive in enough runs. Using home runs and RBI's to prove...whatever the hell Bill is trying to prove isn't the end-all-be-all in discussing Ryan Howard. Using statistics from 1930 doesn't help the case much either.At this point, I really have no idea what Bill Conlin is trying to prove, other than everyone who criticizes Ryan Howard sucks.
I'd rest the defense right there, but feel compelled to add that Klein spent most of his seasons here on teams in or near last place.
See, here is another part of the problem. If we are comparing a single player against another single player we want to compare these two players based on their performance and try not to count in how well the rest of the team performed. So comparing two players based simply on RBI's is misleading because it drags in the team's performance when the comparison should be made based on the performance of each individual player.
I don't have to tell you where Ryan Howard has spent his five seasons.
Which this leads me to respond that Howard has had better players around him than Chuck Klein. Which means more players on-base, which means more RBI's for Howard, which means using only RBI's to justify his greatness may not be completely accurate. The Phillies lineup does contain two ex-MVP's hitting in front of Howard for the past couple of years, so that has to be acknowledged as well if Conlin insists on comparing him to Chuck Klein.
Ryan Howard is a great first baseman, but justifying his contract by saying no player is worth that much money, mentioning his contract is just kicking in and he hasn't declined yet, and then basing the entire defense of Howard on the number of RBI's he has doesn't do a defense of Howard very much justice.
I still have no idea, other than to suckle at Howard's teat and stop all criticism of Howard by fans, what Conlin wanted to prove in this article.
Friday, July 15, 2011
6 comments Buzz Bissinger Thinks We Need a Hero
Buzz Bissinger is getting all nostalgic on us. I know usually Buzz's idea of getting nostalgic probably involves some form of yelling or talking about Tony LaRussa, but in this case Buzz looked at a recent Sports Illustrated cover and got sad. This cover took him back to the past when players were characters and they were true heroes who had their misdeeds covered up by the media---I mean when the players didn't have every little thing they said scrutinized to death until they realize the best thing to say is absolutely nothing---sorry, I what I meant to say was Buzz remembers when players weren't only heroes but also characters. It's not like this now in his mind.
Of course, Buzz never considers in this article the major reason for this, which is the 24/7 news cycle and how any player that may be somewhat of a character has this surgically removed from his personality. There are exceptions of course, like Charles Barkley, Chad Johnson and Shaq. Still, Buzz wonders what happened to athletes who are heroes and personalities and doesn't even think the reason may be due the saturated media coverage of athletes.
I picked up the most recent copy of Sports Illustrated a couple of days ago. I rarely pay much attention to the cover, but this particular one enticed and would not let go.
(cue the theme to "The Way We Were"...if there was a theme to that movie)
It was a picture of Yogi Berra taken in his prime as a New York Yankee catcher, highlighted with the singular American beauty of a Rockwell portrait. One knee scraped the ground, the other one upright.
(begins tearing up)
The chest protector was paper-thin with the faded mark of “Spalding” in the top left hand corner. The leg guards were equally humble. So was the face mask.
These inanimate objects were humble, much unlike the face masks and leg guards today, which are always vying for the fan's attention during a game. I remember that time Brian McCann's right leg guard began smoking a cigarette mid-game in last year's National League Division Series. Why? Just for attention. That's what it has come to now for these non-humble pieces of equipment players are wearing.
How about Russell Martin's chest protector? The same one that got caught in bed with a prostitute? Not a humble chest protector, unlike Yogi Berra's chest protector which just hugged his rib cage and prevented tipped balls from cracking Yogi's ribs for the love of the game, not just to get special attention.
Maybe I was just in a mood of syrup-stricken nostalgia, but what I saw was the portrait of a hero who not only played the game with relentless competitiveness but was also one of sport’s greatest characters with the witticisms that floated out of his mouth.
Here goes the usual talk of, "Players today have no personality, they are just speak about their endorsements and don't really say anything of value, unlike players in the past who said a bunch of really funny things and boy I miss those days."
You know what though? Buzz is right. Players today have learned to have zero personality in an interview or involving any comments that player may make during/after/before a game or about any situation. I wonder why this is? Actually, I don't have to wonder. It is because any little comment out of the ordinary made by a player about a team/other player/fan/object will be blown up into a huge deal by the 24/7 sports news cycle. The introduction of SportsCenter at least 1-2 times a week involves some variation of "Hear what Player X said about Player Y" or "Hear what Player X said Player Y helped him with."
I think players today do show some personality. For example, Ray Rice publicly criticizes Hines Ward for his recent DUI and it turns into a public affair? Isn't that showing some personality? Ray Rice doesn't like players who drink and drive. At the bottom of the article linked is this comment from the writer:
I'll rank this exchange somewhere around 6,829th on the list of why Ravens/Steelers games are compelling. Nice try, though, fellas.
Nice try for what? Rice made a comment, the comment went public and now he is "trying" to do something? He was just commenting about a player who got a DUI, showing some personality, and the author seems to believe it was created for the purposes of controversy. I don't know why Ray Rice made the comment on Twitter about Hines Ward, but I really doubt it was to create a Steelers/Ravens controversy. That's my point. Any comment, no matter how little or big, will get in the public eye and dissected. The best thing for a player to say is absolutely nothing.
Let's say after the Mavericks won the NBA Finals, Dirk Nowitzki had gotten interviewed after the game about beating the Heat and what it meant to him. Here is some variation of what he probably did say at the time:
"The Heat are a great team with a bunch of great players. They played hard and we were fortunate to beat them like we did. They play tough defense and any time you go up against Bosh, Wade and LeBron you know you are in for a fight."
Here's what Buzz would want him to say and what Dirk would (hypothetically) like to say if he wasn't afraid of his words taking away from the Mavericks championship:
"It feels good to beat them since the focus was on them all year and all we heard was how many championships they will win. It was like they expected to win, and everyone else expected them to win, just by stepping on the court. When you get that many great players on one team, there's going to be holes on the roster and we beat the Heat because of this. I feel like I stepped up when I needed to and the guys on the Heat team who got more recognition than me stepped back."
What's the point of saying this? What can be gained? The media would possibly agree with Dirk's sentiments, but they would also play these comments on an endless loop for the next 24 hours. When/If the next NBA season begins, LeBron would be asked about the comments, Dirk would be asked about the comments, and a candid moment would be creating "controversy." It's better to just be non-specific and not create a distraction in the future.
But the athletes they chose all stood for something. They were characters—maybe naughty such as Joe Namath and Sonny Jurgensen, maybe fiercely proud such as Jim Brown, maybe tough as nails such as Jim Taylor and Sam Huff.
Athletes today stand for something. There are tough characters, naughty characters (naughty? Is Buzz British now?), and there are proud characters. Athletes today have charity foundations and do a ton of work helping out others in need. I know the perception is there aren't tough athletes now, but that can't be further from the truth.
They weren’t afraid to show their personalities, what made them more than flesh and bone.
I don't personally care about an athlete's personality. It's always nice for an athlete to have some sort of personality, but I don't require feeling like I "know" an athlete to cheer for that athlete and his team. To be perfectly honest, much of what we know about athletes back in "the day" is sugar-coated and so affected by our nostalgia for that athlete our perception may not even be accurate.
Back in "the day," athletes could make a comment and it wouldn't necessarily be mainstream media fodder for the next 24 hours and discussed on "Around the Horn," "Pardon the Interruption," every SportsCenter, and "Baseball Tonight." This happens today. Athletes would love to show their personality and there are a few that can break through and do this. Really, there isn't a whole lot of reward in being a character. You say or do something wrong, the 24/7 media cycle eats you alive.
Each of the athletes in the issue was featured in two pictures, one taken during their playing days, the other one in the modern day taken by Walter Iooss Jr. In a short interview in the magazine, he mentioned that he went to the players directly for the project as opposed to the method that is pretty much universal today, endless negotiation with the agent.
This statement is ignoring the fact the players who had their photos taken are all 65 years or older, so it is most likely they either (a) don't have an agent or (b) aren't used to having an agent. Concerning modern day players, then Iooss WOULD probably have to go through the player's agent to take a picture because there are a lot of people vying for that athlete's time. Concerning a 76 year old man like Sonny Jurgensen who is retired, you probably don't need an agent to take his picture. A more accurate comparison would be comparing the method of taking a picture of Peyton Manning as a 34 year old and a picture of Manning as a 75 year old. I'm betting when he is 75 years old you won't have to call Peyton's agent to get him to pose for a picture.
He is right. Getting to sports figures is like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire.
Getting to actors is also like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire. Getting to high level executives with a corporation is like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire. Nearly any highly paid celebrity or near-celebrity is a person who will not be easily accessed. This really isn't exclusive to sports figures. Also, easy accessibility doesn't mean a player has more personality.
And given the wishy-washy personality mush of gray pudding that is the athlete today, all of them sounding the same with those soporific, somnolent sound bites, I am not sure the effort of getting their cooperation is even worth it.
Again, I would argue the reason for this has less to do with the lack of personality in players, but more to do with the fact personality isn't encouraged on the field and off the field there isn't much advantage in having a personality because of the media coverage.
For example, the NFL has pretty much done all they can to ensure players like Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens and Steve Smith (Carolina) don't show personality in the form of touchdown celebrations. The NFL fined these players and outlawed celebrations on the field. This goes for defensive players as well. If they celebrate or do some form of a prepared celebration after a sack, out comes a flag and perhaps a fine. Teams can't do a prepared or coordinated celebration after an offensive or defensive touchdown either or out comes the flag and possibly a fine as well. The NFL has sucked the personality out of the players while on the field.
As far as players who speak and show personality, if you aren't Charles Barkley or Shaquille O'Neal then you probably can't get away with saying anything interesting. Rashard Mendenhall gave his thoughts after the death of Osama Bin Laden and because they didn't reflect the majority thought or opinion of the public, he was forced to apologize (somewhat). What's interesting to me is there are more outlets for athletes to interact with the public and be "real," but less incentive for them to interact in a "real" way with the public. Anything and everything that is said can be pulled into the news cycle as "news" and judged accordingly. There is really no incentive to say very much of substance.
“I loved football the most when you could see the players’ faces when there was mud on them,” Iooss went on to say. “Now they wear plastic masks and play on artificial turf.
Every player doesn't wear a plastic mask, so this is an untrue blanket statement. You can still many NFL player's faces under the mask. I also find it interesting in regard to the safety mandate the NFL seems to be attempting to achieve, I would think a safer helmet (and thereby one that has more protection for the face) would be something everyone, including Iooss wants. Yeah, it was great for a player in the 50's or 60's to have most of their face showing, but it isn't so great when a player takes a hit to the chin and bites his tongue in half or breaks his face.
Sports are bigger than ever. It occupies us more than ever. It is ever exploding. There are still routinely great performances. But behind those performances there is less and less human dimension, either colorful or heroic.
This is nothing but pure opinion being passed off as fact. I still think there are instances of the human dimension in a player's performance. It hasn't all gone away. I don't even really know what to say about the performance not being colorful enough. I'm not sure that is required for a great performance. This just sounds like incoherent whining from a person who misses the way he views sports in hindsight, but may not have viewed these sports that way at the time.
For example, there are so many moments I watched at the time and thought it was a great moment, but that moment's importance and drama has been magnified greatly in retrospect. David Tyree's catch against the Patriots was just a great catch at the time, while four years later it is one of the best plays in Super Bowl history. The Kobe Bryant-Shaquille O'Neal pairing with the Lakers was just annoying to me a decade ago, but now it is representative of two great players playing together at their peak before their relationship completely fell apart. Our opinion of a player/moment changes over time like this.
No men and women who speak with conviction, or are willing to take a stand regardless of risk,
Not Luke Scott, right? That's right, he doesn't count because we don't agree with him. Luke Scott speaks freely and is criticized accordingly for his views.
How about Steve Nash? Was his statement not definitive enough?
How about John Rocker? Again, we don't agree with him, so his speaking with conviction isn't the type of speaking with conviction Buzz wants to hear.
Carl Everett? What a nut job! He doesn't believe dinosaurs existed? Clearly, he's crazy then.
Actually, I'm not sure what Buzz wants to hear. I'm doing my best to remember older athletes, other than Jim Brown, that took a political stand or spoke with conviction while they were playing sports. I'm having trouble remembering too many. I'm sure there were quite a few, but especially given the social changes that have taken place over the last 60 years where athletes in the past had more reason to speak with conviction about injustice, I am not sure I believe today's athlete speaks with less conviction. If today's athletes do speak with less conviction, it is because speaking with conviction is craved by the media, mostly just so they have a chance to write easy stories and attack that athlete if they don't like that athlete's point of view. So unless it is a non-controversial issue, there isn't a reason to speak out with conviction for fear of criticism.
or are just delightfully funky and insane.
Again, this has been sucked out of athletes by agents because there is no advantage to being funky or insane. Still, a lot of this funk and insanity would not be seen that way now, but would be met with criticism. I bet Buzz thinks it is so fucking cute that Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter while he says he was tripping on acid. How funky AND insane!
Imagine if Tim Lincecum says he won a NLCS game stoned or he pitched in any game stoned. The reaction from the media, and probably Buzz, would be swift that this is not acceptable and is a terrible message to children. Funky and insane is now dangerous and a harm to society as a whole.
Babe Ruth's carousing with women and drinking is just a personality characteristic we loved about him. That Babe loved women and loved to do some drinking!
If a famous quarterback goes out and gets drunk and dates attractive women, well the media thinks he should just focus a little bit more on his job and less time being a lush. What was a personality characteristic for Babe Ruth is detrimental to the team now.
Athletes do occasionally post interesting and provocative tweets on Twitter, only to immediately retract them by claiming post-traumatic Twitter syndrome once there is the slightest whiff of controversy.
I love how Buzz is acting like these athletes get a little negative feedback and then get scared and retract the Tweet. In the case of Rashard Mendenhall, his employer actually came out and distanced himself from Mendenhall's opinion, which may have influenced the backtracking. Many outrageous comments wouldn't simply be blurbs at the bottom of a newspaper page anymore, which is only viewable to those who subscribe to the paper. The outrageous comments would be discussed and disseminated over the Internet in no time, with the appropriate judgments being made about that player and his comments.
I can't blame a player for holding back a little on the controversial comments. Assuming people even care about his/her opinion, why share your thoughts with a world when you can't control where those thoughts end up? If you can't control your own message and how it is interpreted, what's the point of the message? Especially in the case of athletes, who fair or not, probably don't have a hell of a lot of important and relevant things to teach me about life in general. So even if an athlete becomes outspoken on a topic he/she knows, his/her sport, there is a chance someone will be offended by the comments and let that athlete's employer, or another influential figure in that athlete's life, know it.
On MLB.com you can see highlights of any baseball game you want almost instantly after they have occurred, not to mention watching your favorite team in stunning clarity on your iPhone.
Not only is complaining about progress like this kind of stupid, but it is also completely off topic.
Sports are not color and character today. Sports are content, endless reams and reels of it. Athletes are also carefully trained in the Zen of nothingness.
This is because when athletes actually say something, it gets them in trouble. Buzz is about to rattle off cliches athletes use, these are cliches I hate, but I will put below them what the athlete wants to say and let's think how the 24/7 sports news cycle would run with these comments.
I was just lucky today.
AJ Burnett hasn't ever been able to get me out. I feel like I can get a hit off him anytime I want.
No player on that team can guard me.
I just came out feeling good today.
Really? You think Andrew Bynum can guard me? He's never been able to do before, why start now?
My opponent put up a heck of a fight today.
The Dolphins defense tried to stop me, but our offense is miles ahead of their defense. They really tried, but the fact we were able to score with ease should tell you how good the Dolphins defense really is.
This honesty and personality would not be a positive thing in the long run. The media loves loud mouth players because they create news stories.
I took time off from this column for a few weeks to finish the first draft of a book. What took place in Sportsworld in my writing absence?
I think Buzz has ADD. What took place in his absence really isn't relevant to the lack of characters and personalities in sports. We all know if nothing exciting happens in sports while Buzz is working on a book, then that must mean there aren't enough heroes in sports.
The lockout of the players in the National Basketball Association, the continuing lockout in the National Football League,
Yes, these lockouts are depressing, but let's not make the NFL and NBA lockouts into anything more than what they truly are. Disagreements among wealthy owners and players over how much money they will have to share in the next bargaining agreement. Both lockouts are only indicative that each side can't agree on how the money should be split and has nothing to do with a lack of heroes in sports.
an absolute snore of a Major League Baseball season in which the only excitement has been the soap opera of Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt versus baseball Commissioner Bud Selig,
This has been a pretty good baseball season if you ask me. I think the only people who criticize baseball every year are those who haven't paid enough attention to the season or just doesn't like to watch a lot of baseball.
and somebody whose name nobody in America can honestly pronounce winning Wimbledon.
If it ain't American, Buzz don't want to hear nothing about it! All these foreigners winning American sports is why there ain't no heroes anymore.
This would probably be a good to be bring up the fact Novak Djokovic is a tennis player with a pretty interesting personality and is successful in his sport, but I guess that doesn't count because to Buzz he is a foreigner.
Are there any athletes in the modern-day era of sports either truly heroic or just truly colorful?
Novak Djokovic. I know, I know, this doesn't count because Buzz doesn't like to watch sports. I don't see how his ignorance about the personalities in a certain sport can be ignored while he is lamenting the lack of colorful personalities in sports.
I can think of Pat Tillman, who left a budding pro football career to join the military and so tragically died in the mountains of Afghanistan from friendly fire. I can think of New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter on the basis of how he has played the game with the quiet intensity and class reminiscent of DiMaggio.
Oh, that's such bullshit. Buzz Bissinger really just compared Pat Tillman, who died while serving his country, to Derek Jeter because he plays the game of baseball with class. This is just ridiculous. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous though. The comparison of Jeter to a war hero or the cliche use of Jeter as a baseball player who plays the game with quiet intensity and class reminiscent of another Yankee who used to spend his time banging celebrities.
Actually the indirect comparison or putting in the same category of Jeter and Pat Tillman is easily the most ridiculous part of these two statements.
I can think of New York Jets football coach Rex Ryan, who has one of those brains missing the section that deals with self-censorship. But that’s about it. And in the same league with Yogi or Namath or Ali? Not even close.
And your point? Plaxico Burress guaranteed a Giants victory before the Super Bowl against the Patriots much like Joe Namath did in Super Bowl III. I guess that's not the same thing because it doesn't make Buzz nostalgic.
Maybe the lack of zest and spontaneity and heroism in sports doesn’t really matter. The recent NBA playoffs were marvelous.
So the current baseball season is a snore, but the NBA playoffs, where very few series (only 1 if I am not wrong) went to seven games and wasn't generally overly exciting was "marvelous?" I'm confused now.
Also, the zest and spontaneity has been taken out of athletes, so they don't really lack if, they just don't display it. Athletes also aren't heroic on a grand scale necessarily, but many athletes do great things for charities and those who are needy on a more micro-level. You known, "The NBA Cares" and stuff like that.
But LeBron is also hated because he did not turn out to be the throwback hero we wanted him to be. We loved the fact that he was a hometown kid playing for his hometown team. We loved the thought of him staying there forever and winning the championship.
It would have also been nice if he hadn't publicly announced where he was playing this past season during an hour long special, complained in Cleveland he needed a better supporting cast and then not stepped up when he did have one, and seemed to have bought the hype about his own greatness.
He has also left us searching for another hero, someone out there unique, someone out there refusing to follow the same lemming flow, someone out there willing to stay true to his roots.
Or maybe not seem like such a dick.
Everything seems to go back to LeBron James for Buzz Bissinger doesn't it?
You will be far better off buying the new Sports Illustrated and staring into the cover, looking for every crevice of detail in that picture of Yogi Berra, drinking in the nobility and the toughness and the eyes of lurking mischief.
Here's another reason why we don't seem to have as many heroes in sports nowadays. Sportswriters used to follow the players around, like they do now, except they covered up or did not report many of the athlete's misdeeds. Mickey Mantle was a great player, but with his drinking and off the field adventures how do you think he would do in today's game in dealing with the media? I'm guessing he wouldn't fare as well in the nostalgia department.
I would submit part of the reason many of these older players are seen as heroes is because that's the public perception fans were given of these players. Not that baseball players in the 50's and 60's were terrible people, but in the 24/7 sports media cycle of today, I would bet many of these heroic players would have even their smallest misdeeds or comments made public. The media seemed to view these players are heroes years ago, which is very much not true in today's sports. The media has a much more jaded view of players now I believe.
I have a feeling if he looked back in 15-20 years, Buzz Bissinger will be missing characters like Shaquille O'Neal, Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens, while wishing there were players who were outspoken and stood up for things like Steve Nash and Drew Brees did.
Of course, Buzz never considers in this article the major reason for this, which is the 24/7 news cycle and how any player that may be somewhat of a character has this surgically removed from his personality. There are exceptions of course, like Charles Barkley, Chad Johnson and Shaq. Still, Buzz wonders what happened to athletes who are heroes and personalities and doesn't even think the reason may be due the saturated media coverage of athletes.
I picked up the most recent copy of Sports Illustrated a couple of days ago. I rarely pay much attention to the cover, but this particular one enticed and would not let go.
(cue the theme to "The Way We Were"...if there was a theme to that movie)
It was a picture of Yogi Berra taken in his prime as a New York Yankee catcher, highlighted with the singular American beauty of a Rockwell portrait. One knee scraped the ground, the other one upright.
(begins tearing up)
The chest protector was paper-thin with the faded mark of “Spalding” in the top left hand corner. The leg guards were equally humble. So was the face mask.
These inanimate objects were humble, much unlike the face masks and leg guards today, which are always vying for the fan's attention during a game. I remember that time Brian McCann's right leg guard began smoking a cigarette mid-game in last year's National League Division Series. Why? Just for attention. That's what it has come to now for these non-humble pieces of equipment players are wearing.
How about Russell Martin's chest protector? The same one that got caught in bed with a prostitute? Not a humble chest protector, unlike Yogi Berra's chest protector which just hugged his rib cage and prevented tipped balls from cracking Yogi's ribs for the love of the game, not just to get special attention.
Maybe I was just in a mood of syrup-stricken nostalgia, but what I saw was the portrait of a hero who not only played the game with relentless competitiveness but was also one of sport’s greatest characters with the witticisms that floated out of his mouth.
Here goes the usual talk of, "Players today have no personality, they are just speak about their endorsements and don't really say anything of value, unlike players in the past who said a bunch of really funny things and boy I miss those days."
You know what though? Buzz is right. Players today have learned to have zero personality in an interview or involving any comments that player may make during/after/before a game or about any situation. I wonder why this is? Actually, I don't have to wonder. It is because any little comment out of the ordinary made by a player about a team/other player/fan/object will be blown up into a huge deal by the 24/7 sports news cycle. The introduction of SportsCenter at least 1-2 times a week involves some variation of "Hear what Player X said about Player Y" or "Hear what Player X said Player Y helped him with."
I think players today do show some personality. For example, Ray Rice publicly criticizes Hines Ward for his recent DUI and it turns into a public affair? Isn't that showing some personality? Ray Rice doesn't like players who drink and drive. At the bottom of the article linked is this comment from the writer:
I'll rank this exchange somewhere around 6,829th on the list of why Ravens/Steelers games are compelling. Nice try, though, fellas.
Nice try for what? Rice made a comment, the comment went public and now he is "trying" to do something? He was just commenting about a player who got a DUI, showing some personality, and the author seems to believe it was created for the purposes of controversy. I don't know why Ray Rice made the comment on Twitter about Hines Ward, but I really doubt it was to create a Steelers/Ravens controversy. That's my point. Any comment, no matter how little or big, will get in the public eye and dissected. The best thing for a player to say is absolutely nothing.
Let's say after the Mavericks won the NBA Finals, Dirk Nowitzki had gotten interviewed after the game about beating the Heat and what it meant to him. Here is some variation of what he probably did say at the time:
"The Heat are a great team with a bunch of great players. They played hard and we were fortunate to beat them like we did. They play tough defense and any time you go up against Bosh, Wade and LeBron you know you are in for a fight."
Here's what Buzz would want him to say and what Dirk would (hypothetically) like to say if he wasn't afraid of his words taking away from the Mavericks championship:
"It feels good to beat them since the focus was on them all year and all we heard was how many championships they will win. It was like they expected to win, and everyone else expected them to win, just by stepping on the court. When you get that many great players on one team, there's going to be holes on the roster and we beat the Heat because of this. I feel like I stepped up when I needed to and the guys on the Heat team who got more recognition than me stepped back."
What's the point of saying this? What can be gained? The media would possibly agree with Dirk's sentiments, but they would also play these comments on an endless loop for the next 24 hours. When/If the next NBA season begins, LeBron would be asked about the comments, Dirk would be asked about the comments, and a candid moment would be creating "controversy." It's better to just be non-specific and not create a distraction in the future.
But the athletes they chose all stood for something. They were characters—maybe naughty such as Joe Namath and Sonny Jurgensen, maybe fiercely proud such as Jim Brown, maybe tough as nails such as Jim Taylor and Sam Huff.
Athletes today stand for something. There are tough characters, naughty characters (naughty? Is Buzz British now?), and there are proud characters. Athletes today have charity foundations and do a ton of work helping out others in need. I know the perception is there aren't tough athletes now, but that can't be further from the truth.
They weren’t afraid to show their personalities, what made them more than flesh and bone.
I don't personally care about an athlete's personality. It's always nice for an athlete to have some sort of personality, but I don't require feeling like I "know" an athlete to cheer for that athlete and his team. To be perfectly honest, much of what we know about athletes back in "the day" is sugar-coated and so affected by our nostalgia for that athlete our perception may not even be accurate.
Back in "the day," athletes could make a comment and it wouldn't necessarily be mainstream media fodder for the next 24 hours and discussed on "Around the Horn," "Pardon the Interruption," every SportsCenter, and "Baseball Tonight." This happens today. Athletes would love to show their personality and there are a few that can break through and do this. Really, there isn't a whole lot of reward in being a character. You say or do something wrong, the 24/7 media cycle eats you alive.
Each of the athletes in the issue was featured in two pictures, one taken during their playing days, the other one in the modern day taken by Walter Iooss Jr. In a short interview in the magazine, he mentioned that he went to the players directly for the project as opposed to the method that is pretty much universal today, endless negotiation with the agent.
This statement is ignoring the fact the players who had their photos taken are all 65 years or older, so it is most likely they either (a) don't have an agent or (b) aren't used to having an agent. Concerning modern day players, then Iooss WOULD probably have to go through the player's agent to take a picture because there are a lot of people vying for that athlete's time. Concerning a 76 year old man like Sonny Jurgensen who is retired, you probably don't need an agent to take his picture. A more accurate comparison would be comparing the method of taking a picture of Peyton Manning as a 34 year old and a picture of Manning as a 75 year old. I'm betting when he is 75 years old you won't have to call Peyton's agent to get him to pose for a picture.
He is right. Getting to sports figures is like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire.
Getting to actors is also like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire. Getting to high level executives with a corporation is like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire. Nearly any highly paid celebrity or near-celebrity is a person who will not be easily accessed. This really isn't exclusive to sports figures. Also, easy accessibility doesn't mean a player has more personality.
And given the wishy-washy personality mush of gray pudding that is the athlete today, all of them sounding the same with those soporific, somnolent sound bites, I am not sure the effort of getting their cooperation is even worth it.
Again, I would argue the reason for this has less to do with the lack of personality in players, but more to do with the fact personality isn't encouraged on the field and off the field there isn't much advantage in having a personality because of the media coverage.
For example, the NFL has pretty much done all they can to ensure players like Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens and Steve Smith (Carolina) don't show personality in the form of touchdown celebrations. The NFL fined these players and outlawed celebrations on the field. This goes for defensive players as well. If they celebrate or do some form of a prepared celebration after a sack, out comes a flag and perhaps a fine. Teams can't do a prepared or coordinated celebration after an offensive or defensive touchdown either or out comes the flag and possibly a fine as well. The NFL has sucked the personality out of the players while on the field.
As far as players who speak and show personality, if you aren't Charles Barkley or Shaquille O'Neal then you probably can't get away with saying anything interesting. Rashard Mendenhall gave his thoughts after the death of Osama Bin Laden and because they didn't reflect the majority thought or opinion of the public, he was forced to apologize (somewhat). What's interesting to me is there are more outlets for athletes to interact with the public and be "real," but less incentive for them to interact in a "real" way with the public. Anything and everything that is said can be pulled into the news cycle as "news" and judged accordingly. There is really no incentive to say very much of substance.
“I loved football the most when you could see the players’ faces when there was mud on them,” Iooss went on to say. “Now they wear plastic masks and play on artificial turf.
Every player doesn't wear a plastic mask, so this is an untrue blanket statement. You can still many NFL player's faces under the mask. I also find it interesting in regard to the safety mandate the NFL seems to be attempting to achieve, I would think a safer helmet (and thereby one that has more protection for the face) would be something everyone, including Iooss wants. Yeah, it was great for a player in the 50's or 60's to have most of their face showing, but it isn't so great when a player takes a hit to the chin and bites his tongue in half or breaks his face.
Sports are bigger than ever. It occupies us more than ever. It is ever exploding. There are still routinely great performances. But behind those performances there is less and less human dimension, either colorful or heroic.
This is nothing but pure opinion being passed off as fact. I still think there are instances of the human dimension in a player's performance. It hasn't all gone away. I don't even really know what to say about the performance not being colorful enough. I'm not sure that is required for a great performance. This just sounds like incoherent whining from a person who misses the way he views sports in hindsight, but may not have viewed these sports that way at the time.
For example, there are so many moments I watched at the time and thought it was a great moment, but that moment's importance and drama has been magnified greatly in retrospect. David Tyree's catch against the Patriots was just a great catch at the time, while four years later it is one of the best plays in Super Bowl history. The Kobe Bryant-Shaquille O'Neal pairing with the Lakers was just annoying to me a decade ago, but now it is representative of two great players playing together at their peak before their relationship completely fell apart. Our opinion of a player/moment changes over time like this.
No men and women who speak with conviction, or are willing to take a stand regardless of risk,
Not Luke Scott, right? That's right, he doesn't count because we don't agree with him. Luke Scott speaks freely and is criticized accordingly for his views.
How about Steve Nash? Was his statement not definitive enough?
How about John Rocker? Again, we don't agree with him, so his speaking with conviction isn't the type of speaking with conviction Buzz wants to hear.
Carl Everett? What a nut job! He doesn't believe dinosaurs existed? Clearly, he's crazy then.
Actually, I'm not sure what Buzz wants to hear. I'm doing my best to remember older athletes, other than Jim Brown, that took a political stand or spoke with conviction while they were playing sports. I'm having trouble remembering too many. I'm sure there were quite a few, but especially given the social changes that have taken place over the last 60 years where athletes in the past had more reason to speak with conviction about injustice, I am not sure I believe today's athlete speaks with less conviction. If today's athletes do speak with less conviction, it is because speaking with conviction is craved by the media, mostly just so they have a chance to write easy stories and attack that athlete if they don't like that athlete's point of view. So unless it is a non-controversial issue, there isn't a reason to speak out with conviction for fear of criticism.
or are just delightfully funky and insane.
Again, this has been sucked out of athletes by agents because there is no advantage to being funky or insane. Still, a lot of this funk and insanity would not be seen that way now, but would be met with criticism. I bet Buzz thinks it is so fucking cute that Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter while he says he was tripping on acid. How funky AND insane!
Imagine if Tim Lincecum says he won a NLCS game stoned or he pitched in any game stoned. The reaction from the media, and probably Buzz, would be swift that this is not acceptable and is a terrible message to children. Funky and insane is now dangerous and a harm to society as a whole.
Babe Ruth's carousing with women and drinking is just a personality characteristic we loved about him. That Babe loved women and loved to do some drinking!
If a famous quarterback goes out and gets drunk and dates attractive women, well the media thinks he should just focus a little bit more on his job and less time being a lush. What was a personality characteristic for Babe Ruth is detrimental to the team now.
Athletes do occasionally post interesting and provocative tweets on Twitter, only to immediately retract them by claiming post-traumatic Twitter syndrome once there is the slightest whiff of controversy.
I love how Buzz is acting like these athletes get a little negative feedback and then get scared and retract the Tweet. In the case of Rashard Mendenhall, his employer actually came out and distanced himself from Mendenhall's opinion, which may have influenced the backtracking. Many outrageous comments wouldn't simply be blurbs at the bottom of a newspaper page anymore, which is only viewable to those who subscribe to the paper. The outrageous comments would be discussed and disseminated over the Internet in no time, with the appropriate judgments being made about that player and his comments.
I can't blame a player for holding back a little on the controversial comments. Assuming people even care about his/her opinion, why share your thoughts with a world when you can't control where those thoughts end up? If you can't control your own message and how it is interpreted, what's the point of the message? Especially in the case of athletes, who fair or not, probably don't have a hell of a lot of important and relevant things to teach me about life in general. So even if an athlete becomes outspoken on a topic he/she knows, his/her sport, there is a chance someone will be offended by the comments and let that athlete's employer, or another influential figure in that athlete's life, know it.
On MLB.com you can see highlights of any baseball game you want almost instantly after they have occurred, not to mention watching your favorite team in stunning clarity on your iPhone.
Not only is complaining about progress like this kind of stupid, but it is also completely off topic.
Sports are not color and character today. Sports are content, endless reams and reels of it. Athletes are also carefully trained in the Zen of nothingness.
This is because when athletes actually say something, it gets them in trouble. Buzz is about to rattle off cliches athletes use, these are cliches I hate, but I will put below them what the athlete wants to say and let's think how the 24/7 sports news cycle would run with these comments.
I was just lucky today.
AJ Burnett hasn't ever been able to get me out. I feel like I can get a hit off him anytime I want.
No player on that team can guard me.
I just came out feeling good today.
Really? You think Andrew Bynum can guard me? He's never been able to do before, why start now?
My opponent put up a heck of a fight today.
The Dolphins defense tried to stop me, but our offense is miles ahead of their defense. They really tried, but the fact we were able to score with ease should tell you how good the Dolphins defense really is.
This honesty and personality would not be a positive thing in the long run. The media loves loud mouth players because they create news stories.
I took time off from this column for a few weeks to finish the first draft of a book. What took place in Sportsworld in my writing absence?
I think Buzz has ADD. What took place in his absence really isn't relevant to the lack of characters and personalities in sports. We all know if nothing exciting happens in sports while Buzz is working on a book, then that must mean there aren't enough heroes in sports.
The lockout of the players in the National Basketball Association, the continuing lockout in the National Football League,
Yes, these lockouts are depressing, but let's not make the NFL and NBA lockouts into anything more than what they truly are. Disagreements among wealthy owners and players over how much money they will have to share in the next bargaining agreement. Both lockouts are only indicative that each side can't agree on how the money should be split and has nothing to do with a lack of heroes in sports.
an absolute snore of a Major League Baseball season in which the only excitement has been the soap opera of Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt versus baseball Commissioner Bud Selig,
This has been a pretty good baseball season if you ask me. I think the only people who criticize baseball every year are those who haven't paid enough attention to the season or just doesn't like to watch a lot of baseball.
and somebody whose name nobody in America can honestly pronounce winning Wimbledon.
If it ain't American, Buzz don't want to hear nothing about it! All these foreigners winning American sports is why there ain't no heroes anymore.
This would probably be a good to be bring up the fact Novak Djokovic is a tennis player with a pretty interesting personality and is successful in his sport, but I guess that doesn't count because to Buzz he is a foreigner.
Are there any athletes in the modern-day era of sports either truly heroic or just truly colorful?
Novak Djokovic. I know, I know, this doesn't count because Buzz doesn't like to watch sports. I don't see how his ignorance about the personalities in a certain sport can be ignored while he is lamenting the lack of colorful personalities in sports.
I can think of Pat Tillman, who left a budding pro football career to join the military and so tragically died in the mountains of Afghanistan from friendly fire. I can think of New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter on the basis of how he has played the game with the quiet intensity and class reminiscent of DiMaggio.
Oh, that's such bullshit. Buzz Bissinger really just compared Pat Tillman, who died while serving his country, to Derek Jeter because he plays the game of baseball with class. This is just ridiculous. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous though. The comparison of Jeter to a war hero or the cliche use of Jeter as a baseball player who plays the game with quiet intensity and class reminiscent of another Yankee who used to spend his time banging celebrities.
Actually the indirect comparison or putting in the same category of Jeter and Pat Tillman is easily the most ridiculous part of these two statements.
I can think of New York Jets football coach Rex Ryan, who has one of those brains missing the section that deals with self-censorship. But that’s about it. And in the same league with Yogi or Namath or Ali? Not even close.
And your point? Plaxico Burress guaranteed a Giants victory before the Super Bowl against the Patriots much like Joe Namath did in Super Bowl III. I guess that's not the same thing because it doesn't make Buzz nostalgic.
Maybe the lack of zest and spontaneity and heroism in sports doesn’t really matter. The recent NBA playoffs were marvelous.
So the current baseball season is a snore, but the NBA playoffs, where very few series (only 1 if I am not wrong) went to seven games and wasn't generally overly exciting was "marvelous?" I'm confused now.
Also, the zest and spontaneity has been taken out of athletes, so they don't really lack if, they just don't display it. Athletes also aren't heroic on a grand scale necessarily, but many athletes do great things for charities and those who are needy on a more micro-level. You known, "The NBA Cares" and stuff like that.
But LeBron is also hated because he did not turn out to be the throwback hero we wanted him to be. We loved the fact that he was a hometown kid playing for his hometown team. We loved the thought of him staying there forever and winning the championship.
It would have also been nice if he hadn't publicly announced where he was playing this past season during an hour long special, complained in Cleveland he needed a better supporting cast and then not stepped up when he did have one, and seemed to have bought the hype about his own greatness.
He has also left us searching for another hero, someone out there unique, someone out there refusing to follow the same lemming flow, someone out there willing to stay true to his roots.
Or maybe not seem like such a dick.
Everything seems to go back to LeBron James for Buzz Bissinger doesn't it?
You will be far better off buying the new Sports Illustrated and staring into the cover, looking for every crevice of detail in that picture of Yogi Berra, drinking in the nobility and the toughness and the eyes of lurking mischief.
Here's another reason why we don't seem to have as many heroes in sports nowadays. Sportswriters used to follow the players around, like they do now, except they covered up or did not report many of the athlete's misdeeds. Mickey Mantle was a great player, but with his drinking and off the field adventures how do you think he would do in today's game in dealing with the media? I'm guessing he wouldn't fare as well in the nostalgia department.
I would submit part of the reason many of these older players are seen as heroes is because that's the public perception fans were given of these players. Not that baseball players in the 50's and 60's were terrible people, but in the 24/7 sports media cycle of today, I would bet many of these heroic players would have even their smallest misdeeds or comments made public. The media seemed to view these players are heroes years ago, which is very much not true in today's sports. The media has a much more jaded view of players now I believe.
“It ain’t over till it’s over,” Yogi once said so famously.
If an athlete today were quoted as using the word “ain’t,” he would have his agent announce through Twitter that he was suing for libel.
Oh yeah, because athletes today are very uptight in making sure they use correct grammar in all things they do or say.I have a feeling if he looked back in 15-20 years, Buzz Bissinger will be missing characters like Shaquille O'Neal, Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens, while wishing there were players who were outspoken and stood up for things like Steve Nash and Drew Brees did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)