Hungry Hungry HIPAAs

I love a good play on words, especially when it takes a federal law regarding personal health care privacy and relates it to a silly game involving marbles. Fun!

Why am I doing such a thing? Because of the good people on tonight's Chicago Tribune Live broadcast on Comcast SportsNet. Our participants: host David Kaplan and his three "panelists:" writers Fred Mitchell and Phil Rogers of the Tribune, and John Crist, publisher of Bear Report Magazine (the football team, not the large woodland animal).

Anyway, the panel was discussing the recent injuries to Cubs' pitchers Carlos Zambrano and Rich Harden and the apparent secrecy and lack of disclosure to the media. Kaplan made the point that the sports media don't trust the Cubs because of their handling of Mark Prior's injury a few years ago. Then, this exchange:

Kaplan: "Baseball is less forthcoming with injury info. Some of it is the federal government and HIPAA, but generally, they've come to think that's their business and why should they talk about it?"

Crist: "This is not exclusive to baseball...this is an epidemic across sports. These teams act like they are protecting government trade secrets, and that's just not the case." (emphasis mine)

I like how Kaplan mentions HIPAA, and the panel just dismisses it like it's a minor inconvenience. An "epidemic across sports"??? HIPAA is a federal law protecting patients from having their health care information shared without their consent. Is MLB--or in this case, the Cubs--doing something wrong by not disclosing injury information about two players? Or, are they merely upholding a federal law??

Crist's statement is especially dumb. Johnny, they're not "protecting government trade secrets;" they are following a federal government law. Just because you think you're Richard Thornburg and that the public has a right to know everything, it doesn't mean a team is above federal law.

Look, I get that fans want to know the status of important players on their favorite teams. But you can't fault the teams for doing the right thing, even if you think the teams are merely doing it to be secretive. It doesn't matter--it's the law.

****BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!!****

On the same show, the panel decided to preview Sunday's Bears/Colts game. The discussion turned to the new stadium, and how Lucas Oil Stadium will be different than the RCA Dome during the game:

Rogers: "What do you think about Lucas Oil Stadium? Are they (the Colts) giving up an advantage that they had playing in that dome, where they would pipe in the noise and do some goofy stuff?" (again, emphasis mine)

Pipe in the noise.

Pipe in the noise.

Pipe in the noise.

People still think this.

Pipe in the noise.

Fucktards.

The No-No That Wasn't...And Still Isn't

Was CC Sabathia robbed of a no-hitter in Monday's game versus the Pittsburgh Pirates? I'm sure people will be arguing this question for a while. I cannot fault Bob Webb for calling the play a hit and not an error. It was a judgement call and could have been called either way. He's been an official scorer for 20 years, so I think he knows what he is doing.

I understand that you might think that your teammate or player may have been robbed of a no-hitter and you want to help make his case for a no-hitter. However, I have to laugh at some of the quotes that came out after the game, particularly, a quote from Brewers manager Ned Yost:

"That's a joke. That wasn't even close. Whoever the scorekeeper was absolutely denied baseball a nice no-hitter right there."

First of all, the "hit" occurred in the fifth inning. It may have been the first hit of the game, but no one knew at the time that it would be the only hit of the game for the Pirates.

Secondly, after the "hit", Sabathia believed that he no longer had a no-hitter going and was able to pitch more relaxed than if the no-no was still in effect. When a pitcher gets into the late innings still holding on to the no-hitter, you know his sphincter has to be tight enough to turn a charcoal briquette into a diamond during the ninth inning. There is a mindset that you have to take into account here.

Lastly, the Pirates believed that the no-hitter was gone. Again when you get into those late innings, players will be pressing to break it up. Granted, they may try too hard and have a more adverse effect, but the game would have been much different even if the play had been scored an error.

A difference in the scoring during the MIDDLE of a game does not mean the outcome of the game would be the same!

MLB of course did not over turn the scorekeeper's ruling of a hit and Sabathia's no-no will forever be a never-was.

You Mean Someone's Gonna Die?

Remember this about Gritty McGritterson?

Seems that he may make the postseason after all.

David Eckstein traded from Toronto to Arizona

Pretty straightforward article by AP writer Mike Fitzpatrick, but there are the normal gems:

David Eckstein quickly called his wife, then finished a fast interview and bounced around the clubhouse exchanging hugs with ex-teammates. The scrappy infielder always hustles, but this was a little different.

Scrappy McGritstein always "bounces" because he is made of rubber.

The trade, made just before the deadline for playoff eligibility, gives Arizona a late-season spark plug with impressive October credentials.

A "late-season spark plug?" That would be great if he was joining a NASCAR team. On second thought, that's a bad idea since his feet wouldn't reach the pedals.

The 2006 World Series MVP with St. Louis, Eckstein batted .277 with a homer, 23 RBIs and a .354 on-base percentage in a part-time role for Toronto. Known for his all-out effort at 5-foot-7, he also helped the Angels win the 2002 World Series.

You ever notice that baseball writers only cite on-base percentage when they are either (a) making fun of new-fangled stats, or (b) using it to justify the acquisition of a decidedly mediocre hitter?

(I think I was channeling Andy Rooney there).

"Known for his all-out effort." It is well known that no other major league baseball player runs....ever. Some amble, some mosey, some even sashay. But only Tiny Mckecklestein runs--with itty-bitty little legs that sound like the wings of a hummingbird.

In all honesty, this isn't a bad trade. The Diamondbacks gave up a class-A pitcher, which isn't a lot. As mentioned already, Eckstein has a .354 OBP, which isn't awful (though his .358 SLG won't turn any heads). And while Eckstein is overpaid, Arizona only has to pay him for a month. Plus, the D-backs plan on playing him at second base rather than shortstop, so his anemic arm won't be as much of a liability.

Of course, one reason he was acquired is because he's played pretty well in two World Series. And if that happens a third time, well...we may all see Zinglebert's wrath.

That alone is something to fear.

Save Me

It's time for some minor rewriting of the Rules of Baseball, specifically Rule 10.19 dealing with saves. I want to know why a pitcher can receive a save when the team wins 18-3.

Here is the offical rule on saves from MLB.com:

10.19 Saves For Relief Pitchers

A save is a statistic credited to a relief pitcher, as set forth in this Rule 10.19.
The official scorer shall credit a pitcher with a save when such pitcher meets all four of the following conditions:

(a) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
(b) He is not the winning pitcher;
(c) He is credited with at least a third of an inning pitched; and
(d) He satisfies one of the following conditions:
(1) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning;
(2) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batters he faces); or
(3) He pitches for at least three innings.

Last week the Cardinals defeated the Braves 18-3. Joel Pineiro came in to pitch in the 7th inning and finished the game for the Cards. He pitched three innings and by the rules, did earn a save. And yes, he did hold the lead that was give to him. But come on! The team was up by 14 runs (15-1) when Pineiro came in and extended the lead from there.

Personally, I find it absurd that a pitcher can receive a save just because he pitched three innings. If you pitch three innings in a close game, then you should get a save. But when your team wins by more than five or six runs, you should not get a save. I do not know what that threshold should be, but I will leave that up to better minds than myself. But 15 runs is definitely above any threshold I could ever come up with.

I just think it is time for a little common sense to be added to the rule. I may be way off base on this, but it just rubs me a little raw.

Cubbies - Love 'em or Hate 'em

Joe Posnanski feels that while the Cubs are the "feel good" team of 2008, they are not loved by all.

Maybe the Cubbies aren't so lovable after all

Say it ain't so, Joe!

There are certain things you learn when you move to the Midwest. For instance, there doesn't have to be a technical reason (like, say, construction or an accident) for a long traffic jam. No matter how hot it may get -- and a Heartland July can melt Volkswagens -- people will still wonder if it's hot enough for you. Slow-moving tractors are always looking for a spot in front of you on two-lane highways.

Along with the dreaded Orangeconea Detourous which creates havoc on roadways.

And lots of people hate the Chicago Cubs.

No fucking way! You mean to tell me that there are baseball fans who DO NOT LOVE the Cubs? I cannot fucking believe it!

Having lived in the Northeast and South for all my life, this came as an utter shock to me. I had assumed everyone loved the Cubs, at least a little bit. In fact, that was their name, right? The Lovable Cubbies. The Cubs meant shirtless beer guts in the sun. The Cubs meant 15-13 games when the wind was blowing out. The Cubs meant "Let's Play Two." The Cubs meant delightful Shawon Dunston scooping routine grounders and rifling 97-mph throws into the 19th row. The Cubs meant losing and heartbreak and 1908. The Cubs meant all the bluster and joy of the late announcer Harry Caray, whether he was blatantly rooting on the Cubbies or making one of his beautifully cynical statements, such as "Manny Trillo is coming in to pinch run. You know, for a lot of teams, you would pinch run for Manny Trillo."

The bleachers of Wrigley Field are one of the best places to watch a baseball game. Yet, you do not have to be a Cubs fan to enjoy it. Nothing like drinking a beer an inning and betting the over-under on the number of fans to be ejected during the game.

And Trillo spelled backward is “Ollirt!”

Seriously, how could you not love the Chicago Cubs?

Oh, I don’t know. I had to pick a team to hate. Many people despise the Yankees and I did not want to jump on that bandwagon. Kind of the same thing with the Red Sox. The Reds suck, but I liked Ken Griffey, Jr. Now, who can I hate…Ooo, I know, I’ll hate the Cubs!

Or one of the reasons listed below.

Well, as it turns out, there are a lot of ways. You could grow up on the Southside of Chicago, where Cubs fans are viewed as a whole tribe of spoiled Ferris Buellers. You could be a St. Louis Cardinals fan raised to believe the Cubs are only cute and cuddly to the people who see them from afar. You could be from the greater Milwaukee area, only two hours north of Chicago, where maybe you have had the whole lovable Cubs thing rammed down your throat all your life to the point of bursting.

Our you might be a sadist and enjoying watching a team continue to fail for nearly 100 years now.

The shocking thing isn't that these people don't love the Cubs -- it is that their hatred can border on pathological. I have in completely random ways met three people -- THREE -- who still feel frightening hostility toward Ryne Sandberg. I mean, seriously, Ryne Sandberg. The guy retired more than 10 years ago and, from afar, he never seemed like an especially disagreeable or threatening player. But one friend from St. Louis told me she doesn't believe in the devil, "except, of course, Ryne Sandberg."

OH…MY…GOD! There are THREE people who totally hate Ryno. It’s not possible. It’s not fucking possible! I don’t believe it. Say it isn’t so!!!!

I believe this falls under the small statistical sample category. I’m sure I can find three Colts fans in five minutes who probably hate Peyton Manning because he’s been over-commericalized the past few years. Baseball is America’s pastime. People grow up with a favorite team and develop a connection with that team. They begin to say “we” and “us” when referring to their teams. The arch rivals become the “enemy” and are despised. It can get to the point where the rivals are truly hated. So finding three baseball fans who do not like Ryne Sandberg is not a stretch. Especially when you are from the state of Missouri!

This is all relevant right now because something unusual is happening in baseball. There's a chance that for the first time since Bill Clinton told military personnel not to ask and not to tell, we might have a postseason without the usual villains. Yes, times are tough these days in Boston and New York. The Yankees and Red Sox are playing their final series ever at beloved Yankee Stadium*, and all that is at stake is a place closer to the exhaust of the Tampa Bay Rays and a little better standing in the wildcard battle with the Minnesota Twins. The Bronx bursts with excitement.

*Officially declared "beloved" when New Yorkers realized how much tickets would cost at the new place next year.

While I cannot stand the Yankees and do not care for the Red Sox, it is usually a good thing for baseball and TV ratings when they do make the playoffs. Personally, I hope neither team makes the playoffs.

Yes, after all these years of having Yankees and Red Sox interrupt our regularly scheduled programming and jam our car radios and stock our bookstores and overwhelm our Octobers with talk of the guts of Jeter and the quirky charms of MannyBManny, it looks like we finally might get a break. The Yankees are beat up and not much good. The Red Sox seem oddly disinterested. One or both could still make it. But one or both might not.

Put it this way: For the middle game of their final Yankee Stadium series, New York sends out longtime pinstripe favorite Sidney Ponson to defend the honor of Ruth, Mantle and Reggie. Red Sox Nation counters with Boston icon Paul Byrd. Times are tough in Metropolis and Beantown.

Just because it is the “final” regular season series between these two, I do not see why you would expect either team to suddenly rearrange their pitching rotation to try and make up some fantasy-desired pitching match ups. Both teams are still trying to make the playoffs. Both may not make it, but they are not going to reshuffle the lineups just to please you!

That means this postseason should be all about the Chicago Cubs. Oh, sure, if the Rays make it to the playoffs, everyone will be curious, at least for a little while. There could be some moderate interest in trying to figure out the magic card trick the California Angels* keep pulling off -- they can't hit, and they keep winning. The Milwaukee Brewers have a 260-pound slugger and a 250-pound pitching ace (or at least that's how Prince Fielder and CC Sabathia are listed), which makes them an inspiration for those of us on the South Beach Diet dying for one ice cream sundae. The New York Mets could be interesting if they don't fold in September again.

This postseason should be about the eight teams that make the playoffs. Every team will have some kind of story to bring to the table. The Cubs and their 100 years of futility. The Brewers have not been back to the Series since ’82. The Rays first trip to the post season. The Mets and their total collapse last year. The NL West and their mediocrity. The fact the Yankee AND Red Sox missing the playoffs.

The Cubs may be the biggest story if they make it, but it is not the only story.

*I went with the Angels, regretfully, when they became the Anaheim Angels. I didn't want to, but, yeah, I went along. When they became the Los Angeles Angels at Anaheim, no, that's when they lost me. I'll accept one name change, but not two. They're back to being the California Angels.

I think the Braves suck too. I’m still pissed that they moved from Boston to Milwaukee. But after moving from Milwaukee to Atlanta, fuck them. (Sorry, Slut.)

OK, changing from the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was ludicrous, stupid and moronic. I can vaguely understand why they did it and it has definitely brought attention to the team. Not the right kind of attention, however.

But, no, the baseball postseason needs a center, a soul, someone to root for, someone to root against, or else the whole thing just descends into one of those boring and never ending mini-series that lead inevitably to champagne pouring over Florida Marlins.

The post season “soul” will depend on who makes the playoffs. If your team makes the playoffs, then that is generally the “soul” you care about. Some people just like watching the game, regardless of who is playing.

The team at the heart of this thing probably will be the Chicago Cubs. They have won nine regular-season series in a row for the first time since 1907, which you probably noticed is one year before 1908. They've got the ferocious manager Lou Piniella, they've got the National League's highest scoring offense, they've got the National League's best ERA. They've got their former closer Ryan Dempster pitching like an ace, and they've got their former ace Kerry Wood dominating as a closer. They've got a moody Carlos Zambrano pitching great as usual, and they've got the wildly underrated Aramis Ramirez putting up his usual terrific numbers, and they've got the unhittable Rich Harden striking out sides and racing against the arm injury that every good and counting-to-doomsday Cubs fan knows is coming.

Unless you are a Brewers, Mets, D’backs, Rays, White Sox, Twins or Angels fan.

This looks to be their postseason, for good or bad, for joy or for curses. If they win, after exactly 100 years of comedy and errors, there will be a celebration, not only in Chicago but, you have to figure, on both coasts and throughout the South and in all those places where the Lovable Cubbies have penetrated people's hearts.

So did 2003. We saw what happened there.

But that's not everywhere. I asked one friend, a lifelong Cardinals fan, a lifelong Cubs hater, a sensitive soul who admits bawling like a baby during Brian's Song, if maybe he could feel glad if the Cubs finally win. After all, it has been a 100 years. He looked at me as if I had asked him if he felt any sympathy at all for Attila the Hun. "I hope they lose for another 100 years," he said. "At least by then, I'll be dead."

As a nearly lifelong Cardinals fan, I do hope that the Cubs can actually end the “curse” and win the Series after a 100-year absence. Unless the Cardinals make the playoffs, and then all bets are off and will be "Death to the Cubs!"

Bob Kravitz Is Wrong Even When He's Right

It's been awhile, Bobby:

Americans, softball eliminated at same time

Here's the mocking irony of Thursday's shocking U.S. softball loss to Japan in the Olympic gold medal game: Maybe if the heretofore unbeatable Americans had lost this game four years ago, maybe if they were just a little bit less dominant than they were while winning gold in 1996, 2000 and '04, maybe softball wouldn't be getting the boot from the Olympic menu.

Actually, I agree with Kravitz's point here: USA softball's dominance has led in part to the International Olympic Committee dropping the sport.

It was a tough night, then, for the American softballers, who not only got upset 3-1 by Japan in the title game, not only failed to win gold for the first time in Olympic history, but they lost their sport as an Olympic participant -- at least for the time being.

Yes, the US lost softball as an Olympic sport, but that was decided months ago. Even though the title game was the last Olympic softball game, they did not "lose their sport" that night. Everyone--except Kravitz, probably--knew it was coming.

Baseball and softball are out of the games, but can petition their way back in for the 2016 Games. In the meantime, the International Olympic Committee is considering rugby, karate, roller sports -- what? -- golf and squash.

Talk about your NBC ratings gold mine: Coming up after gymnastics, a Tajik and a Togolese battle for squash supremacy. Tom Hammonds on the call . . .

So, the IOC should decide on whether or not a sport belongs in the Olympics based on NBC's ratings? You do realize that the Olympics are viewed worldwide, right?

This is not an American decision, obviously.

Then why did you write the thing about ratings? Do you do know your keyboard has a "delete" key?

But there is rampant anti-American sentiment within the IOC. And there's some residue from the tortured relationship between Major League Baseball and the IOC. MLB is not willing to suspend its season for Olympic play, and the IOC finds baseball's shoddy drug history distasteful -- although drug cheating hasn't inspired it to run track and field out of the Olympics.

Bottom line, the primary reason softball is getting the boot is the Americans are too danged dominant. Check that, were too dominant.

Is that the reason? For sure? You know this? The IOC says its because softball doesn't have "international appeal."

Back in June, HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel did a story about this. One theory presented in this story is that the IOC wants to get rid of baseball, and most of the IOC members link baseball and softball together, despite being pretty different sports.

Bob would know this if he he actually watched and read about sports, since, you know, it's his job.

We had come to hail America's softball coronation, and then to write the epitaph of a sport that is getting the ejection at precisely the wrong time. What would have happened in London? The U.S. would have put together a softball Redeem Team.

"Precisely the wrong time?" The Beijing title game was the first time the US has not won a softball gold medal at the Olympics. Yes, now that Japan has beaten the US, it would seem more parity has come to softball, but the decision was made months ago.

Four years ago after the Americans won the gold medal in Athens, outscoring opponents 51-1, American catcher Stacey Nuveman considered the shaky Olympic future of her sport.

"It's hard to believe that being good is a bad thing,'' she said at the time. "In table tennis, you see China, China, China. Softball is dominated by the USA. That's just the way it is."

If one team dominates a competition by outscoring its opponents 51-1, then there is no parity. Period.

Also, table tennis has been around for a long time. Countries have had plenty of chances to improve. Softball, by comparison, is very young. Should the IOC give it more of a chance to grow as an Olympic sport? Certainly. But a comparison of USA dominance in softball to China's dominance in table tennis is illogical.

The problem with softball isn't that too few nations are playing the game. Seriously, how many archery zealots are out there, besides bow hunters and summer campers? This is a U.S.-related thing, pure and simple.

Oh, yeah? Just for shits and grins, here are the results of the round of 16 for the men's archery event in Beijing. Out of 16 competitors, 11 countries are represented. Not bad. Here are the results of the round of 8. How many countries do you think are represented among the 8 athletes? That took a whopping .35 seconds to find, by the way.

Nothing like data to get in the way of a dumb point.

It's a moronic decision, not unlike the one IOC president Jacques Rogge made earlier in the day when he took issue with sprint champion Usain Bolt's post-race celebration.

For the record, at first I was annoyed at Bolt's antics in the 100m. Then, after watching him in other events, it was clear he wasn't showing anyone up, but having fun. My only problem with Bolt celebrating is that I just want to know by how much more he would have destroyed the world record!

Bolt's actions upset Rogge, but he had no problem with China's decision to revoke Joey Cheek's visa,

Um, completely unrelated...

or the underaged Chinese gymnast controversy,

Which is now under investigation...

or the fact that 77 groups have petitioned to protest in various protest zones, and all have been denied.

Why does Kravitz expect the head of the IOC to make political statements now after repeatedly avoiding politics?

If the IOC wants to get rid of a sport, how about the equestrian events? Four riders were booted Thursday when it was determined their horses -- their horses -- had performance-enhancing drugs in their systems.

We never knowingly took drugs . . . Somebody spiked our hay . . . They told us it was linseed oil . . . Where's my lawyer?

So that's why the horses had long faces!

(rim shot)

Try the veal, people.

There's just no good argument for upholding the decision to toss softball. The Olympics need as many good women's team sports as it can get. Almost without fail, women's teams in basketball, softball and soccer have provided the world -- and specifically the American viewers -- with some of the best theater in the Olympics.

It's utterly amazing to me how someone who is arguing for the right result can be so wrong in doing it. Kravitz is right--there should be many women's sports in the Olympics. The reason is that more women are playing more sports worldwide, and they should get the opportunity to compete at the highest level. However, the fact that women's basketball and soccer have provided "the best theater" has nothing to do with softball and whether or not it should be kept (and I'm not sure I agree with Kravitz that women's softball has provided the best theater, when until 2008 the USA had dominated the sport).

By the way, why does Kravitz single out American viewers? If he's right about his point that the IOC has an anti-American bias, doesn't that hurt his argument?

My head hurts.

If softball can't make the cut but roller sports do, it's fair to wonder what's next:

Croquet. It's not your Aunt Gertrude's sport anymore.

I don't think anyone has suggested this, but I'll go along with you. Have you seen curling in the winter Olympics? Not exactly running, jumping, or climbing trees, either (I do love watching it, though).

Beer pong. Finally, a sport I've been training for all of my adult life.

Stupidity is, too. Will that be a sport?

Bowling. Let's bump up the Hoosier presence.

The beer pong would do that. Look, there has been a movement to get bowling added for a long time, and it's not all that far-fetched. Why not bowling? (See curling comment above). To use another Kravitz example, archery doesn't have a lot of running, either.

Softball belongs in the Olympics.

True, despite your feeble-minded argument...

If that wasn't clear before Thursday night's gold-medal upset, it should be abundantly obvious now.

No, based on your argument, it's less obvious then ever. Let's hope Kravitz isn't the one chosen to make softball's case before the IOC.

This Really Happened

Fuck the heck?



This was on the website today at approximately 4pm (it has since been changed).

You think the headline may be a bit in appropriate for the Olympics in Beijing...CHINA??

Fucktards.

An Olympic Grab Bag

Ah, the Olympics.

NBC's coverage has had its moments. Here are some of the bad ones:

1. Go U.S.A.! Can the NBC announcers root any more openly for the American athletes? I understand that the primary audience is America, but announcers should be at least a little bit objective. It almost got to the point where the NBC announcers started using personal pronouns like "we" and "us," which is the ultimate no-no.

2. Go U.S.A.! And if the U.S.A. doesn't win, we were screwed! This has been dreadful, especially in gymnastics. In the finals of the uneven bars, Tim Daggett and Elfi Schnagel could not have whined any more if they were five year-olds. To refresh your memory, American Nastia Liukin and Yang Yilin of China ended up tied. Because of the tiebreaker rules, Yilin ended up with the gold medal. Initially, Daggett made few, if any, comments criticizing the scoring of both Liukin's and Yilin's routines. After the scores were announced, however, Daggett became more and more bold in saying that Liukin should have won. It was if he was told to be more pro-American.

Also, it took Daggett and Schnagel more than an hour to adequately explain the tiebreaking procedure used, which made it seem pretty clear they didn't know the procedure (they kept referring to "what the computer came up with," which made no sense once the procedure was explained since it's merely dropping an additional score). Back in the studio, Bob Costas then criticized the tiebreaking procedure as being "confusing" and "unclear." This was especially true when the men's vault event also needed a tiebreaker. Costas made a huge point to talk about that tiebreaker being more straightforward. Could it be he thought that because there was no American affected by the tie?

Here are the tiebreaking procedures for the women's uneven bars. You be the "judge":

Gymnasts are judged by 6 judges. Top and bottom score is dropped.

If two gymnasts are tied, the next lowest score is dropped for each. If this does not resolve the tie, the next lowest score is dropped until tie is resolved.

Each gymnast then must make her best attempt at drawing an aardvark freehand (Okay, I made that part up).

Pretty confusing, eh?

3. Go U.S.A.! If you don't win the gold, then you're a complete fucking failure! I'm going to let the video do the talking here. Context: American gymnast Alicia Sacramone fell off the balance beam, which may or may not have cost the U.S.A. the all-around gold medal. Andrea Joyce, remind Alicia over and over how much she sucks!

And for good measure, we have Lolo Jones in the 100m hurdles. The race starts at about 3:20. Note how long it takes NBC to show a replay that actually includes the winner.

I know that these failures were part of the story, and of course they should be told. But the overall attitude that the Americans "lost" the gold (instead of winning the silver) has permeated throughout NBC's Olympic coverage. And in the case of Lolo Jones, another American won the gold, but NBC wanted to focus on someone's failure rather than someone else's triumph. They interview Dawn Harper almost as an afterthought, and not until they'd already spoken to Jones (who, by the way, was extremely classy in a tough moment).

I don't want to get all Kumbaya on you, but winning any medal at the Olympics is an amazing feat, even if you were favored to do better. Winning a bronze means you're the third best athlete in the world in your particular event. Is that not an accomplishment? The Olympic ideal is to do your best. If you do and that results in a medal, great. If not, you should still be proud. The U.S.A women's swim team gets it, after their performance in the medley relay (interview with team starts at 10:10).

Perhaps NBC should take notes.

Best of Both Worlds

No, this is not a Hannah Montana entry.

Personally, one part of the Olympics I have enjoyed the most is the fact that Bob Kravitz has been in China reporting on the games for The Indianapolis Newspaper Monopoly and has taken a break from his spot on the Kravitz and Eddie show on WFNI 1070. While I do not listen to that show as much as another local sports talk show, I have listened more since he is not on the air. Its been nice.

The second best thing is that Bob is half a world away in China. Unfortunately, his columns are still being printed, albeit only every two or three days.

Since we have Yao Ming in the States, is there any chance China can keep Kravitz???

Ahhh, one can only hope.

Baseball Tonight: Scrubs Edition

There's nothing like preseason football. Watching 4th, 5th, and 6th stringers play one another in a game that doesn't count is quite exciting--if you like meaningless games. I'd prefer the starters and backups on my favorite team not play at all during the preseason. (Actually, it would be even better if there were no such thing as preseason games, but the NFL likes the automatic revenue.)

But isn't it fun to watch scrubs for both teams play each other after the starters play the requisite quarter or two? I get that there are a lot of players fighting for jobs, but it isn't exactly the highest quality football.

So what does this have to do with ESPN's Baseball Tonight? Watching BBTN on Saturday night is like watching NFL preseason in that ESPN is down to its 4th or 5th-string hosts for the program.

Tonight's lineup: Mike Hill, Chris Singleton, and Buster Olney. Singleton and Olney appear pretty regularly on the show, but aren't used as much as John Kruk, Eduardo Perez, and Tim Kurkjian, for example. The Hill/Singleton/Olney lineup is comparable to the Colts having Jared Lorenzen playing QB with Anthony Gonzalez as the #1 WR and Dominic Rhodes as the #1 RB (important note: if the Lorenzen/Gonzalez/Rhodes scenario happens any time after August 28th, riots will ensue in Indianapolis).

Anyway, on tonight's episode of BBTN (10 p.m. EDT edition), Mike Hill was at his 4th-string best. Highlights:

1. In trying to highlight Roberto Clemente's volunteer efforts, Hill could not say the word "humanitarian." Instead of just going forward, he explained that he's "not a good orator."

There are many broadcasters who are probably not good orators. But they are broadcasters, which would indicate that they can handle the English language. At least partially, anyway.

2. In reading Clemente's bio, Hill tried to read the last line, which ended with something like, "humanitarian efforts that went along with his illustrious career." However, "illustrious" came out "ill-us-troy-us," with the accents on "ill" and "troy."

3. Little League World Series highlights: Mexico vs. Curacao. Hill couldn't pronounce Curacao. The sad part was that he tried to sound it out on the air. Chris Singleton said it for him, then preceded to do the highlights for Hill when he couldn't pronounce any of the names.

Look, foreign pronunciations are difficult. And people have off days. But you'd think the Worldwide Leader in Sports would have production meetings and pronunciation guides to help their anchors, not to mention producers whose job it is to get the information to the anchors. My guess is that the producers did their jobs, but Hill just didn't get it. And this isn't the first time Hill has butchered the English language on BBTN.

I think Hill's in trouble when the rosters get cut to 75 players.

Cincinnati is over-Dunn

The sportswriters of the baseball world all seem to be against Adam Dunn. The man just cannot seem to overcome his high strike out rate even though he is tied for the NL lead in home runs and is in the top 20 for OBP, SLG and OPS. Yes, the man strikes out once in every three at-bats, but he also gets on base more than he strikes out.

Paul Daugherty is the latest to trash on Dunn and his trade to the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Dunn too much to afford
Defense, demeanor, salary too costly

The Reds, who are exciting only when they're not playing, traded Adam Dunn to the Arizona Diamondbacks Monday for a 23-year-old Class-A starting pitcher named Dallas Buck who, in another life, died in old Western movies. Cincinnati also will receive two players as yet unnamed. Unless the pair throw like Seaver or hit like Perez, you have to wonder what's up.

As insignificant as Dunn was to winning here, 40 homers and 100 RBI don't appear magically every March. After the club traded Ken Griffey Jr., the brass wanted to see if Dunn would emerge as a clubhouse presence. Apparently, after 11 days, the brass had seen enough.

No, you don't have to wonder. The Reds suck and have for a while. Just because the Reds have traded away Griffey and Dunn does not mean the team's atmosphere meter will suddenly swing to the winning side and the Reds will start winning.

Griffey and Dunn were high-priced players that the Reds felt they were not getting their money for and sent them away for cheaper players and open up payroll for upcoming years to sign players that might, emphasis on might, turn the Reds' fortunes around. The question should be, did anyone step up in those 11 days? I've seen the sorry state of this team and I really did not see anyone who would really fit the bill as leader.

As insignificant as Dunn was to winning here, 40 homers and 100 RBI don't appear magically every March. After the club traded Ken Griffey Jr., the brass wanted to see if Dunn would emerge as a clubhouse presence. Apparently, after 11 days, the brass had seen enough.

What is wrong with 40 HRs and 100 RBI per year? The Reds had been shopping Dunn around longer than Griffey. I'm pretty sure that even if Dunn had stepped up as the leader of the team, he would have been traded away. We all know he "clogged" the bases and Dusty Baker does not like base cloggers.

Regardless, Dunn's tax bracket didn't match his production, at least not here. He'd have wanted too much money for what he provided. Dunn was who he was: a guy who could hit a baseball 400 feet more often than almost anyone else, but couldn't produce a two-out RBI single.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Daugherty did not do his statistical homework on this one. Lets take a look at Dunn's stats for two outs and RISP:

# of singles - 1

Fuck. One fucking single. But wait...let's check the rest of his stats for shits and giggles:

AB: 37
BA: .216
OBP: .453
SLG: .730!
OPS: 1.183!!!!!!!!!!

6 HR, 20 RBI, 15 R, 13 BB!

Holy shit, dude. Do you fucking homework!

He was slow, he had a mediocre arm, he played a dangerous left field. He was a big man whose bigness could give the impression he wasn't trying. Baseball wasn't his passion. It was his job. He played it that way.

Just because he didn't ooze passion, like say, Ken Griffey, Jr., doesn't mean he wasn't trying. So Paul, are you passionate about your job or do you just work?

"Another day closer to retirement," Dunn said once a few years ago, around the batting cage before a game. That was Dunn. His teammates liked him, but he didn't lead. Laid back should be a character trait, not a career choice. Not when you're making $13 million.

This paragraph makes me want to compare Dunn to Marvin Harrison. All of his teammates like him, but he does not come off as a leader (albeit due to Peyton Manning). He is super laid back and makes a fortune, at least compared to me. Laid back is not necessarily a bad trait.

It's doubtful Arizona will keep him after this season. Dunn will be the prototypical DH in '09, when his adventures in Left Field Land won't be duplicated.

If I had the time I would mock-up a Left Field Land and I am enough of a dork to go all on it too. Stay tuned, it might just happen.

Did you really want the Reds to lock up $60 million for Adam Dunn? Did you want them to offer him arbitration and hope he'd decline it, so the club would get two draft picks? What if he accepted? (Hint: More of the same.)

Which is why he was put up on waivers in the first place.


The optimum would have been for the Reds to move Dunn before the trade deadline. Nobody wanted him. That's why Mark Teixeira was dealt, and Jason Bay and Manny Ramirez and Xavier Nady, while the Big Donkey stayed a Red.

How do you know nobody wanted him? How do you know if the Reds got offers but asked for too much in return?

Dunn's value was always seen as greater in Cincinnati than elsewhere. To be dealt to Arizona, Dunn had to clear waivers. Any other club could have claimed him and the trade would not have been made. None did. Because J.P. Ricciardi was wrong to say what he said about Dunn doesn't mean what he said was wrong.

Once again, Daugherty shows his ignorance of baseball, even though he IS a baseball writer for a newspaper.

The waiver wire works this way as I understand it:

Team A puts Player Z on waivers.

Any team can claim Player Z before the waiver deadline.

If a team claims Player Z, Team A can arrange a trade, rescind the waiver, or let the player go to the claiming team.

If more than one team claims Player Z, then the team with the weakest record has the claim on Player Z.

Just because the D-backs won the claim, if the Cardinals, Cubs or Phillies had tried to claim Player Z as well, the D-back would get the claim since they have a worse record than those above.

Bravo to the Reds to actually get a few players in return.

You could say the rest of Major League Baseball was being nice to the Reds and the Diamondbacks. Or you could suggest Dunn ain't all that.

Or I can suggest you are a fucktard extraordinaire and are enamored only by batting average, wins and ERA.

I suggest the latter. More to the point: Dunn never improved. He went through a steady stream of hitting coaches, none of whom could change his style or approach. After coach No. 3 or 4, you start to believe it was the hitter, not his coach.

Those enamored with numbers couldn't get enough of Adam Dunn. Stat freaks genuflected at the foot of Dunn's on-base percentage, while dismissing his detractors as ill-informed hacks.

You are an ill-informed hack as I have demonstrated more than once in this article alone! He gets on base, he hits HRs and he knocks runs in more than most on his team!

Forty Homers! Hundred RBI! Hundred Runs! Look at that man ... Walk! The standard argument was, and is, "How do you replace numbers like those?" We're about to find out.

Based on the current Reds roster, with more than one player. See previous comment on enamorement with hack statistics.

This is further evidence that Walt Jocketty evaluated the '08 Reds and became ill. He has, in 11 days, removed the twin heads of the patient. Griffey and Dunn are elsewhere. Will the Reds be better without them? Could they be any worse?

Well, we are about to find now, aren't we. The Reds will be able to see how their younger players work out and see if a "leader" can actually emerge. Or, they will implode and we will all get to watch the majestic fallout from it.

Time now for the clubhouse culture to undergo a sea change. Who wants to win? Who wants to prepare to win? Anyone? Elvis and his sidekick have left the building. Who wants the footlights now?

So which one was Elvis? Your team is still shitty and will continue to be shitty until your big wigs can put a respectable team on the field and you get rid of Dusty Baker.

Seg Dennison : Sports talk radio :: Turd : Rose

After attending the Reds' game last night versus the Brewers, Slut and I listened to the Reds' post-game show on WLW-700AM, Extra Innings. The usual hosts were off, probably trying to get better jobs, so the show had Seg Dennison, the "Seg-man", filling in.

As Slut mentioned in a previous blog, most sports talk radio anymore is atrocious and you get what you deserve when you listen. However, I don't think it is outside the realm of expecting too much to have a Reds post-game show that talked about the Reds, even if the callers or host wanted to bash the team, even though the Reds actually did win last night.

For the hour and a half or so that we listened to the show on the way back to our respective mothers' basements, the Seg-man spent maybe ten minutes on the Reds team. Here is the list of topics that Seg-man would rather discuss on the REDS post-game show:

Whether it was a good thing that the Reds had a $5 ticket/$1 hot dog game special for last night's game?

No you fucktard, I would rather pay the $20+ for a ticket and $4 for the hot dog. I enjoy seeing 27,000 fans dressed as empty seats. Supposedly there were 24,705 fans at the game. It definitely didn't look like it.

OK...your team is in last place in the NL Central...you just traded away Mr. Red, Ken Griffey, Jr....your team has been shitty for too long...and its a Monday night game.

The Reds want to put butts in the seats, so short of giving away tickets, $5 tickets sound pretty good to me. Plus, they still make money on a $1 hot dog!

I shutter to think what the attendance would have been if the Reds had not offered the discounted tickets and doggies.

Brewers shoving match between Prince Fielder and Manny Parra.

Yes, the shoving match between Fielder and Parra was a noteworthy topic. However, all Seg did was rehash the same bit over and over and over. Ned Yost did not give any additional insight during his news conference and so all we heard was the same information ten different ways and no one called in to talk about it either.

Red attendance versus the Nationals attendance

Seg was disgusted with Cinci fans for having less attendance at the Reds' Monday night game (24,705) compared with the attendance at the Washington Nationals' games over the weekend (~30,000), even thought the Nats are the worst team in the NL.

Well, shit for brains, let's look at why this could be:

1) Population of Washington, D.C. = 588,000; Population of Cincinnati, OH = 332,000.
2) Nationals games - Friday, Saturday and Sunday; Reds game - Monday night
3) Nationals - newer team, new stadium; Reds - shitty team, newer, plain stadium

The Nats are a lousy team this year, but as you can see above, my four-year old daughter could probably tell you why Washington had a better attendance than the Reds!

Chad Johnson

OK, the Extra Innings post-game show is a sports show, I can understand having someone call in on another sports topic. However, the topic of Chad Johnson was not what we expect out of Ocho-Cinco this season or what stunt he will pull after a TD this year. Its -

That Chad was yucking it up with the fans but still giving the press the cold shoulder!

Oh, for fucks sake.

I guess I'm spoiled being a Colts fan.

---------------

And the piece de resistance!

Cow Tipping

Yes folks, cow tipping! I'm not quite sure what that has to do with sports today, but the Seg-man spent a good three segments discussing and asking listeners to call in to discuss cow tipping.

Sadly, people from as far away as Iowa and Florida were calling in to talk about it.

So to recap last nights events, we listened to discussions on cheap tickets and hot dogs - good or bad, the Brewers mini-brawl, Reds' attendance, Chad Johnson and cow tipping.

Sigh...what a sad state the world of sports talk radio has succumbed to.

Oh, BTW, the Reds are still shitty!

Goodbye, Skip

Thanks for being a great example of what a sportscaster should be.

You'll be missed.

Trading for Dummies

Murray Chass' latest article focuses on the recent trades at the trade deadline. Chass feels that teams are stupid for trading their stars or superstars for prospects or platoon players. Among the trades he mentions over the past couple of years, the recent Pirates-Yankees trade caught my attention.

The Pirates gave the Yankees an established good-hitting outfielder (Xavier Nady) and a serviceable reliever (Damaso Marte), and what did they get in return? Three minor league pitchers, two of whom have spent time with the Yankees but didn’t stick, and a-once-but-no-longer-touted outfield prospect, Jose Tabata.

Let's look at this trade a little closer.

The Pirates gave up Xavier Nady ($3.35 million for 2008) and Damaso Marte ($2.15 million) and in return got minor leaguers Jeff Karstens, Dan McCutchen, Ross Ohlendorf and Jose Tabata.

So the small-market Pirates gave us $5.5 million in payroll for 4 minor leaguers, one of which is currently pitching for the lowly Pirates, whose payroll that combined is under $1 million.

Most teams that make a trade like this are either trying to (1) get rid of a problematic player (i.e. Manny Ramirez) or (2) lower their payroll. Since the Pirates are once again fighting for cellar rights in the NL Central, management has decided to raid the locker room and slash payroll. Obviously, a team prefers to get something in return in a trade, so if you are slashing payroll, you get prospects in return.

On a team with a total payroll of about $40 million, knocking $5.5 million of that number and adding less than $1 million is a good chunk.

The trade prompted a friend of mine to ask if the Pirates have become the modern-day Kansas City team that years ago served as a major league feeder for the Yankees.

Between 1955 and 1960 the Yankees and the Athletics completed 16 trades involving about 60 players, including Roger Maris, Clete Boyer, Ryne Duren and Ralph Terry, all of whom went to the Yankees.

Whether Nady and Marte help the 2008 Yankees win anything will be seen in the next couple of months, but more interesting to watch will be the teams that benefited from the Athletics, now of Oakland, and their trading practices.

Over five years the A's and the Yankees had 16 trades involving roughly 60 players, per Murray.

How many have the Pirates and Yankees had over the past five years? Two. Yessiree, a whopping two trades involving a total of 8 players between both teams.

How is that a fucking pipeline to the Yankees?!?!?!?!? Just because you think one trade maybe lopsided for a team, it does not make them rival the Athletics-Yankees major league pipeline of the 50's.

I also enjoy that fact that his friend asked the question about the Pirates and Yankees, Murray informs the audience about the A's-Yankees trades, in case the reader didn't know, and then proceeds to not answer the question. What's the matter Murray, did you get distracted by shiny object and forget about the question at hand? Joe Morgan will at least give us some drivel or a "consistent" answer.

---

The article goes on to bash Billy Beane for getting trading away three of the A's starters over the past 8 months and getting a measly 13 players in return. What the hell was he thinking!

Well, Billy was probably thinking that I have few or no prospects in my organization and I have three good pitchers that will start commanding big payrolls when their contracts expire. Let's see how many players I can fill my major and minor league teams with for only a few of my good players. Billy understands that he is in the middle of a rebuilding process and is will to sacrifice a year in order to have several strong years and hopefully a playoff run or two.

Chass also states that the Cubs and Brewers were brilliant in their trades because they gave up prospects in exchange for Harden and Sabbathia, respectively. Yes, in the short run those trades could make the difference in winning a World Series. Or, you could be an injury away from a Mets'-like flame out should those players get hurt. What happens if your teams starts racking up the injuries? I bet you wish you had some prospects to fill their place, huh?

Please, Stop the Madness

I wish I hadn't seen this.

Bill Plaschke, on ESPN's SportsCenter, explaining why Manny Ramirez will help the Dodgers:

"...he's been to 2 World Serieses..."

Plaschke thinks the plural of "series" is "serieses."

...

...

And he writes for the Los Angeles Times.

...

...

And people wonder why we do this blog.

Writers Believe In Curses, Not Bad Managing

Yes, this is a week old. But it has relevance into the second half of the baseball season, especially with this being the "Cubs' year."

Hurray for Harden, misery for Marmol

For those of you not playing along, Mike Nadel's article refers to the Cubs' 8-7 victory over the Giants in 11 innings last Saturday.

Rich Harden's pitch count was monitored closely, lest he get an owwie on his arm. A boo-boo on his finger made Kerry Wood unavailable.

I love it when sportswriters or fans trivialize injuries--or the possibility of injury--like the players are all a bunch of wusses. Yes, Rich Harden has been injured quite a bit in the past 3 years, and he's only had one season with 20 starts or greater. But throwing a curveball is notoriously hard on a pitcher's arm--which is why so many pitchers get injured.

I'm digressing a bit. What I meant to write is that Nadel's opening two lines are going to make my point for me.

And the Chicago Cubs felt compelled to protect Carlos Marmol from a bunch of bullies. Jeesh. Is the team running a pitching staff or a day-care center?

Yeah, we get it--the Cubs are a bunch of babies.

Was the team really "protecting" Marmol? We'll see...

That the Cubs defeated San Francisco 8-7 in 11 innings Saturday seemed trivial in light of the performances of Harden (brilliant, albeit somewhat brief, for the team’s newest hero) and Marmol (another in a series of train wrecks for the once-untouchable, now-combustible reliever). The Cubs led 7-0 when Harden left his Cubs debut to a raucous standing ovation...He didn’t get credit for the victory, however, because Marmol spit the bit.

According to Nadel: Harden didn't get the win because of Marmol's performance. Period.

Do you know how hard it is to give up five runs in one inning to the Giants’ collection of has-beens and never-will-bes? Marmol managed to do it in the ninth, displaying a variety of ills and a vivid imagination: a line-drive double, three soft singles, a hit-by-pitch, a base-on-balls and a booted infield chopper.

Marmol had used his great imagination to blow the lead! Did you see how Marmol used his mind to force Ryan Theriot to make a bone-headed error to allow the tying run to score? I also thought that is was wildly creative of Marmol to have a unicorn score two runs in the inning.

And it's true that the Giants were 13th in the NL and 27th in all of MLB in runs scored heading into the game. But part of that is because the Giants play in a very pitching-friendly ballpark. The Giants are exactly middle-of-the-pack 16th in MLB in runs scored on the road, so five runs in an inning isn't an impossible task. Never mind that any major league team is capable of scoring a bunch of runs, but that's beside the point.

Afterward, just as Marmol turned to face the vultures of the press, media-relations assistant Jason Carr stepped in and said: “We’re going to give Carlos the day off today.’’ If only Lou Piniella had done the same, the day’s theme would have been “How ’bout that Harden?’’ instead of “What’s wrong with Marmol?’’ The manager contributed to the angst by staying too long with Marmol.

"Vultures of the press" includes you, sweetheart.

If Piniella had given Marmol the day off, the Cubs might very well have run out of pitchers. As Nadel already pointed out, Kerry Wood was unavailable, and Harden was on a strict pitch count and only got one out into the 6th inning. Piniella used newly-acquired Chad Gaudin for only 2/3 of an inning to end the 6th. Piniella did allow Kevin Hart to start the 8th after a good showing in the 7th, but Piniella then wasted lefty-specialist Neal Cotts by having him face only one batter in a 7-2 game. Bob Howry finished the 8th, and instead of letting him go out for the 9th, Piniella went with Marmol (you can see for yourself here).

Wood couldn’t pitch due to a blister on his index finger (an ailment also likely to keep the closer out of the All-Star Game), but Piniella had left-hander Sean Marshall warmed up in the bullpen. Nevertheless, Lou didn’t go to Marshall even when lefty-batting John Bowker came up with the lead already cut to 7-4. Nor did Lou take out Marmol two batters later, when the trainer went out to make sure Carlos was OK.

Nadel said it himself at the beginning of the article: Harden was on a strict pitch count and Wood was unavailable. So why did Piniella blow through his bullpen like he was managing the All-Star Game and trying to get everyone into the game (before "it mattered")? The reason Piniella had to stay with Marmol was because if he went to Marshall, he would have had only one pitcher left (Jon Lieber).

Look, Marmol definitely pitched poorly last Saturday at Wrigley. But the criticism of Piniella shouldn't be just that he stayed too long with Marmol. Piniella knew he was short-handed going in to the game, yet still wasted his relievers--and it nearly cost him the game. By the time Marmol was struggling in the 9th, Piniella was trapped by his own mistakes.

Let's count the questionable Piniella moves (for the record, I was at this game and I made all of these comments as the game progressed, so this isn't second guessing):

1. Harden's pitch count. It was 7-0 in the 6th with two runners on when Piniella lifted Harden at 96 pitches. I get the fact that Harden is fragile, but Piniella could have given Harden a chance to get out of the inning. Basically, if the next batter gets on, you pull him, and if Harden can get the final two batters out, he's done after the inning. I doubt that 8-10 more pitches would have been so damning for Harden, especially since he'd averaged 97 pitches per start coming in to this game. A 105 pitch or so game wouldn't have been so bad.

2. Chad Gaudin only working 2/3 of an inning. It was a 7-0 game when Gaudin left after the 6th. This would have been a great opportunity to get some work out of him, since Gaudin is durable and he hadn't pitched the day before. In fact, Gaudin has started six games this year, so getting two or three innings out of him wouldn't have been an issue. Also, Piniella compounded the error by double-switching and having Reed Johnson replace Jim Edmonds, who had homered already. With as few position players as the Cubs have on their bench, making the needless double switch in a 7-0 game made no sense.

3. Using your LOOGY in a five-run game. A term borrowed from our good friends at FJM, "LOOGY" stands for "Lefty One Out Guy:" basically, the dude you have in your bullpen to face the other team's left handed batter, usually at a crucial point in the game. Evidently, Piniella thinks that point is in the 8th inning when your team leads 7-2; he used his LOOGY (Neal Cotts) in that situation. To be honest, the main thing Piniella did wrong was only use Cotts for one batter--in a five-run game, it's not uncommon to have your LOOGY stay in after he gets the left hander you wanted him to face. That way, you don't wear out your bullpen. By using Cotts only for one batter, Piniella then had to use Bob Howry in the 8th, which pretty much made Howry unavailable for the 9th.

4. Using Marmol at all. I know that Piniella wanted to build Marmol's confidence by letting him finish the game, and a 9th inning 7-2 lead seemed to be a pretty safe place to do that. But, without having Wood available, Piniella was forced to have Marmol get himself out of the 9th. Yes, Piniella had Sean Marshall ready, but if he'd used Marshall in the 9th, Piniella would have been left with only Jon Lieber in the bullpen if the game went into extra innings.

The better solution might have been to use Marshall to start the 9th and to only have used Marmol if Marshall got into trouble, or not at all. In another article that asks no questions of how Piniella handles his bullpen, Jay Mariotti points out that Marmol was near the top of the league in appearances going into the All Star Break. Perhaps Piniella should not have used Marmol when it wasn't necessary, instead allowing Marmol a day off. It's not an overstatement to say that the Cubs will need Marmol in September and October if it really is "their year;" if Piniella uses him another 45 times after the All-Star Break, Marmol won't have anything left.

It's a good thing the Cubs were carrying 13 pitchers (!!!) at the time of this game. With Piniella thinking his bullpen is the reincarnation of the 1990 Reds, he may need to carry 15.

Wait--there's more:

Piniella let Marmol throw 36 pitches to 10 batters. Compare that to the Cubs’ stated commitment to coddling Harden, who threw 96 pitches over 51/3 innings.

It’s hard to blame Piniella for being ultra-cautious, given that Harden has spent more of the last four years on the disabled list than on the mound. He was just so dominant Saturday (five hits, no runs, 10 strikeouts), it left everybody wanting more.Although it’s a stretch calling San Francisco a big-league team — after watching ancient Rich Aurilia and decrepit Omar Vizquel take their hacks, I wondered when the Giants would activate Willie Mays — Harden’s performance was impressive.

Oh, boy. Hacky, hacky, hacky. Nadel's right: Vizquel has been awful (.399 OPS; OPS+ of 8. 8!?!?!!), but Nadel's comment about the rest of the Giants' hitters is just a hack-job. The stats show the Giants have been remarkably average when they're playing in a park smaller than Yellowstone.

Piniella went to the mound with two on and nobody out in the sixth and was cheered loudly for leaving Harden in the game. Harden struck out Bowker and then departed, feeling the love of 41,555 fanatics.“Pretty cool,’’ Harden said. “I never really had anything like that in Oakland (where empty seats outnumber paying customers). You’ve got the crowd into every pitch. It’s good to see how passionate they are.’’

Nadel is apparently a high school senior at a school that is too small to have a newspaper, so he is allowed to work for the Springfield State Journal Register. Here is Journalism 101: when quoting someone in your story, everything in quotation marks should be something that person actually said. I am 100% sure that Harden did not say that "empty seats outnumber paying customers." I know that Nadel wanted to add that cute line as both a slam to Oakland and a positive for Wrigley, but come on. And incidentally, the statement itself is not true--Oakland is averaging about 23,000 per game, while McAfee stadium's baseball capacity is 37,000. If you use the football capacity of 63,000, then you might be on to something.

Also, the journalistic convention of including parentheticals inside of quotations is overused. Sometimes, it's done so poorly that it changes the meaning of what is being quoted. Other times, it is simply a crutch for poor writing.

Soon enough, those passionate people viciously turned against a struggling kid with a bruised psyche. For more than six weeks, Marmol was baseball’s best reliever; his earned-run average on May 14 was 1.04.

Small Sample Size Alert!!!

He then had several outings during which he couldn’t find the strike zone, followed by a decent stretch, followed by three consecutive games in which he allowed home runs...

Which happens to any reliever at some point...

...followed by another decent stretch, followed by Saturday’s meltdown. His ERA now: 4.13.

And his WHIP now: 1.04. And his Ks/9 inn.: 12.05. Even with the bad outings, he's pretty good. Yes, Saturday against the Giants wasn't so good, but some of that was luck (the three "soft singles") and a defensive letdown.

No wonder Sweet Lou took his sweet time getting his thoughts together between the end of the game and his arrival in the interview room. “Sorry I’m late,’’ Piniella said. “I had to have a nice, cold beer before I came down here.’’ He then professed complete lack of concern about Marmol, saying: “I think he’s been on his way back.’’ Was that Lou talking … or the hops and barley?

Neither--it was the weed Piniella smokes in the clubhouse runway between innings.

Piniella is right far more often than he’s wrong — a good thing, given how much he’s paid to be right. The Cubs’ hopes this season might depend upon him being right about Carlos Marmol.

Marmol needs to pitch well for the Cubs to be successful--no question. But Piniella needs to better effectively use his bullpen, or the Cubs will be in trouble late in the season.

And if this trouble happens during the playoffs, I'm sure there will be someone or something that will be blamed other than Piniella or the players--i.e. a goat, a black cat, or a fan (among 5 or 6) who "interferes" with a potential catch on a foul ball. The "curse" will have reared its ugly head again. But the truth is that the real cause of the failure will likely be in the Cubs' dugout.

Chris Hagan = Mouth Breather

Look, I know that you pretty much get what you deserve when you listen to sports talk radio. Most of it, if not all of it, sucks. Period. Whether it's Jim Rome insulting someone and showing his complete ignorance of anything having to do with actually playing a game, or Bob Kravitz and Eddie White reinforcing the Indiana stereotype of white-trash idiocy, or Mike Tirico taking 5 minutes to tell a 20 second story, we expect that going in. Sports talk radio is bad--very bad. Anyone with a brain knows this.

That being said, I should have known better than to listen to the afternoon drive show on WNDE 1260AM. Especially since the normal host, JMV, is on vacation all week. In his place, alleged sports reporter/anchor Chris Hagan from the local Fox affiliate.

Some of the wonderful items discussed on the show include how Chris used to work at a movie theater but couldn't handle the math and what Christian Bale's voice sounds like as Batman (these were in different segments). Hagan also talked about how the Fox 59 staff really was annoyed that they had to do a newscast after the All Star Game ended so late (their 10 o'clock news started at something like 1:50AM). You know: LOTS of non-sports content...on sports talk radio!

The sports content that did make it on the air was pretty weak, including a listener threatening to kill Dan Uggla for making 3 errors in the ASG. I wish I was making that part up.

What's remarkable about Hagan's performance on WNDE is that he came off as an even bigger idiot than he does on television--which is a very difficult task for anyone associated with Fox 59 News.

Murray Chass...(an idiot)...On Baseball

So what kind of conundrum is created when a person who hates blogs and bloggers creates his own blog? Murray Chass, writer for the NY Times, has created his own baseball blog and proceeds to tell us that he hates blogs. I guess he circumvents that by stating that his site is for baseball columns, not blogs. You can say that cow manure is fertilizer, but it is still cow shit.

FJM did an excellent job of reviewing Mr. Chass' blog site and had some insightful thoughts on what his page is about.

However, I am not here to rehash what his site is about. I am here to bash Murray Chass on his first blog, er...column or whatever he wants to call it, regarding the All-Star Game. Murray does not like the All-Star Game format in which the winning league receives home-field advantage in the World Series. The "added" significance to the All-Star Game has not had much influence on the television ratings since its inception after the tie game in 2002. Murray has some better ideas than the "silly scheme" of awarding home-field advantage for the All-Star Game winner.

One way would be to reward the team with the better won-lost record. But that idea wouldn't work logistically. Baseball can’t wait until days or even a week before the World Series is scheduled to start to determine where Series game will be played. Airlines and hotels don’t work that way.

Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure I could reserve a flight and a hotel room a couple of days before I leave.

So let me get this straight. This would not work for baseball even though this is how the finals NBA and NHL determine home-field advantage? Even with the current format in baseball, MLB officials can only narrow down which team will host games 1 and 2 in the World Series to two teams prior to the completion of the Championship Series. If they used the better won-lost record that would only expand the possibility to four teams.

As a Cardinals fan, if I wanted to go to a World Series game in 2006, I new that if the Cardinals won the NLCS, they would be playing in either Detroit or Oakland for the first two games. Since the Tigers swept the A's and the Cards took seven games to beat the Mets, I would have known where the Cards were playing before the end of the NLCS. However, I would have either had to take a chance that the Cards would win and make my flight and hotel reservations early or wait until the end of series knowing that game 1 would start in only a couple of days.

I think MLB officials would be able to handle the additional strain of coordinating everything with four possibilities versus the current two possibilities. I just think you are an absurd idiot for thinking this would not be possible.

Chass has another idea for awarding home-field advantage...

If baseball, on the other hand, based homefield advantage on the outcome of interleague games, the winning league this season would have been known before the end of June, leaving three months, or half the season, to make travel plans.

Using interleague games may actually be a slightly better idea for determining World Series home-field advantage as it uses a bigger statistical sample than one exhibition game and can show which league is better (at that time). However, Chass is either The Amazing Kreskin or an amazing, fucking retard if he knows where the World Series would be played using interleague games results! Yes, you would know if the American or National league pennant winner would have home-field advantage, BUT YOU DON"T KNOW WHICH TEAM, ASSHOLE!!!

Man, what a fucktard!

But the outcome of the interleague schedule would do nothing for Fox and its ratings for the All-Star game. Don’t let a sound idea get in the way of greed.

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", or at least it was in Wall Street.

It may be a sound idea, Chass, but those greedy little networks are what help MLB pay the bills. So if Fox or ESPN want to have some input on the game and will put up some extra dough along with that input, MLB may agree.

There is a reason why you receive so many emails from angry readers. When you are wrong, people like to point that out to you, just like I am doing now. That does not mean you are doing some thing "ri