I'm Probably The Only Person in the World Bothered By This, But I've Got the Microphone In My Hand, and Goddamnit, I'm Going To Be Heard!

In a Yahoosports post arguing Ron Santo's HOF case (a case I agree with wholeheartedly, btw), a columnist named Alex Remington posts this "gem":

Third base is the most underrepresented position in the Hall: There are 16 catchers, 25 first basemen, 18 second basemen, 22 shortstops, 21 left fielders, 21 center fielders and 22 right fielders, but only 14 third basemen.

Of those 14, three are former Negro Leaguers, and four are relatively weak players from the dead ball era who were elected by a previous, much more permissive incarnation of the the veterans committee. (These include Frank "Home Run" Baker, whose most notable feature is his nickname, and Freddie Lindstrom, who was mainly elected because he was a member of John McGraw's dynastic New York Giants.)

Emphasis mine. I support Santo's case, but the abject ignorance in this argument kind of undermines the writer's case. Home Run Baker was a fantastic player with a short career, but by nearly any measure significantly better than Santo. Just for a quick and dirty look: in 6660 Plate Appearances, Home Run Baker tallied 63.7 WAR in his career. Santo took 9396 PA to tally 66.4. Is there an argument for longevity? Sure, but to say "Home Run" Baker's most notable feature is his nickname in the same column arguing for the HOF enshrinement of a lesser player seems like a pretty dumb move.

Meanwhile, in the same column, Remington makes an offhand comment indicating he doesn't think Santo stacks up to BBWAA enshrinee Pie Traynor. Another rough and dirty look: In 8293 PA, Traynor has 37.1 WAR (which includes a -3.6 dWAR). Santo, as we saw above, has 66.4 WAR in 9396 PA (which includes a positive dWAR). So it's pretty clear that Remington is very close to completely clueless. But enough about this d-bag. Let's talk like adults about Santo's HOF case.

As far as 3B HOFers go, they probably rank like this:

1. Mike Schmidt
2. George Brett
3. Eddie Matthews
4. Wade Boggs
5. Home Run Baker
6. Maybe Brooks Robinson

That's about it in terms of 3B who are better than Santo at 3B in the HOF. So let the guy in already, for crying out loud. Oh, and Dick Allen, Bert Blyleven, Tim Raines, and Allen Trammell too.

Kthxbye

The Process

Fans, let me tell you a little bit about how we here at FireJay go about finding articles to write about. They don't just fall into our laps....we've only had a few real gems e-mailed to us in our existence. Most often, we have to trudge on through many internets to find something worth writing about. Of course, we're exposed only to the title and the author before we actually click a link to read something. We'll ignore most of them, of course. There's some authors that we consider too consistently intelligent to ever make fun of. There's articles that are purely factual, that of course we pretty much ignore. It's pretty much all opinion columns from authors that haven't proven themselves to be consistently untouchable. Many times, we can't tell if an article is going to be terrible just from the title. But once every so often, we stumble onto a can't-miss "gem" of an awful article. One that no matter how it is subsequently written, it's in for disaster. You know, something like.......

Baseball Needs More Black Stars

Get ready for all the reverse-racism!!!

By Milton Kent

Milton Kent, you guys!

There's good news and bad news to report to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig from my family gathering this weekend.

For all you people out there that thought the Kent family gathering was an insignificant event in Bud Selig's life, well, JOKE'S ON YOU, MOTHERFUCKERS!

The good news is that John and Joshua, my 17 and 13-year-old great nephews like to play baseball.

I promise you, Bud Selig does not care.

The bad news: They don't like to watch it on television.

I promise you, Bud Selig does not care.

This means that John and Joshua, apparently like millions of other young black men, won't be tuned into tomorrow night's baseball All-Star Game, the annual midsummer showcase of the best and the brightest in the national pastime.

....tensions on the Korean peninsula have spiked since North Korea defiantly conducted its second nuclear explosion on May 25.

Sorry, Milton, what was that significant thing you were talking about?

For them, baseball's leisurely pace and distinct lack of hipness, not to mention the virtual absence of players they can relate to, makes the game a loser.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, Mister Jackass, but I'm guessing that 100% of the reason is the first two, and 0% of the reason is the third one. That's right. I know your great nephews better than you do. Your nephews play baseball, sir. They enjoy the sport. Oh, and by the way......me and LeBron James? Absolutely nothing in common. Can't relate to him at all. LOVE to watch him play basketball.

For decades, the history between baseball and blacks was a rich and meaningful one, from the Negro Leagues to Jackie Robinson's successful infiltration of the majors in 1947, an act that helped set the scene for the civil rights movement.

This has nothing to do with your title: "Baseball needs more black stars". Baseball is crashing and burning right now, yes? People turning it off to watch the WNBA?

In the 1960's, the list of great black players grew exponentially, and with the stardom of men like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Reggie Jackson and Frank Robinson, my childhood hero, the bond between blacks and baseball grew ever stronger. In the part of Maryland where I grew up, pick-up Sunday afternoon baseball games among black men were all the rage come summertime, with decent crowds of spectators watching on makeshift wooden stands.

Baseball needs more black stars because Milton Kent needs pick-up Sunday afternoon baseball games among black men. No whites allowed!

However, as the popularity of the NFL and the NBA grew, the ties between African-Americans and baseball loosened to some degree. Older blacks, who remembered the game and its sociological importance, never left, but as they died off, they weren't replaced within the younger set.

This is an excellent point, sir. Time to strike up awareness in other things similar to this! Where are all the cries for more white people in the NBA? Didn't there used to be a strong history of white people in basketball? And hey, let's get more Asians in the NFL! There also needs to be more Latinos that play professional hockey!

You, Milton Kent, are a racist.

As a result, baseball stopped creating black stars. In the 1990's, either Ken Griffey, Jr. or Barry Bonds - both sons of former baseball players -- seemed to alternately hold the title as the game's best player.

Now you're saying blatantly wrong things! From 1991 - 1997, Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas were unquestionably the two best players in Major League Baseball. Not Griffey. Hey, Frank's black too! Doesn't he matter?

However, Griffey's repeated trips to the disabled list left him unable to sustain his greatness for a long period of time, while Bonds' presumed connection to baseball's steroid era has rendered him a less than credible role model.

Frank....Thomas?

Today, Hispanic players like St. Louis' Albert Pujols, and Manny Ramirez of the Los Angeles Dodgers are baseball's biggest stars.

What a complete and total tragedy.

Oddly, Michael Jordan may have held an important key to reestablishing baseball as a relevant force in the minds of young blacks. Jordan retired to pursue a career in baseball in 1994, and his charisma might have transferred a level of coolness to baseball for the hip-hop community. Instead, Jordan famously flamed out, never rising above the minor leagues, and an opportunity was lost.

You have to be the first person in history to attribute the fact that there are a small amount of African-Americans in the MLB, in some way, shape, or form, to the fact that Michael Jordan was bad at baseball.

The irony is that my great nephews' indifference comes amid signs that MLB's recent efforts to reconnect with the African-American community are starting to bear fruit.

Look, some people just don't care for baseball on TV. It's three hours long, and can be pretty slow sometimes. Your great nephews still clearly LIKE baseball.

Now in its 20th year, the Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities (RBI) program is a grassroots effort among the 30 Major League clubs to provide resources for urban youths who want to learn and play the game.

I am all for this. Everyone should have an opportunity to learn how to play baseball, regardless of family income. This is a great program.

Even though only 10 of the 71 players who were either voted or selected to tomorrow's All-Star game are African-American, there are a handful of budding black stars who could bring back the cool to baseball.

Holy shit. I have never read a more ignorant paragraph in my entire life.

Percentage of U.S. population that is black: 13.4%
Percentage of All-Star Game participants that are black: 14.1%

We need to reverse this tragedy! If black people don't rise to complete and utter dominance of the sport of baseball like they have in the NBA, the sport will die!

But the absolute worst part of this paragraph, Milton, and one of the most racist things I have ever read, is that you claim that baseball needs more black people to bring back the "cool" to baseball. You know what? David Wright and Evan Longoria are pretty fucking cool in my book too. If this was written by a white person, about white baseball players, they would be universally blasted verbally from here until eternity and probably presumed to be a member of the KKK.

The world champion Philadelphia Phillies have a pair of terrific players, shortstop Jimmy Rollins, the 2007 National League Most Valuable Player, and first baseman Ryan Howard, who won the award in 2006. Tampa Bay's Carl Crawford is one of baseball's best all-around players, while Adam Jones, who roams centerfield for my Orioles, may actually lift the team over .500 for once.

If only they could just coax John and Joshua to put away their XBox and watch real baseball players play.

Better yet, you actually acknowledge that there are several legitimate African American stars in the game, and that your nephews STILL have no interest in watching them. C'mon now MLB. Less like Willie Bloomquist, more like Willie Harris.

Because this is a sensitive subject for some, I am pulling all of the sarcasm and anger for these closing thoughts.

Since you have great-nephews who are teenagers, Milton, I am assuming that you are an older dude, and have experienced a lot of the hardships and inequities that African-Americans have had to endure over the early/mid decades of the 20th century. I, as a young white male growing up in the late 20th/early 21st century, could never even begin to understand what any of that was like. But none of that changes how overly and ironically racist this article was. Baseball does not need more of any specific race of players. It needs the best players. Period.

Apparently Broadcasters and Units of Time Aren't Getting Along This Month

September 25th game, White Sox vs Twins, Orlando Cabrera is on 1st base.

Hawk Harrelson: "Orlando Cabrera has 18 stolen bases on the year."

Darrin Jackson: "He's been sitting on 18 for awhile, gotta be at least two months since his last steal."

Hawk Harrelson: "It's been since August 5th."

Darrin Jackson: "So OVER two months!" (emphasis his)

I have no words.

Again? Really?

I thought I'd seen the last of this crap when Mariotti left. But I forgot one important thing: Rick Sutcliffe still exists.

When you look back at the Cubs the year before Lou Piniella took over as manager, they lost 96 games.

That's true. The team had a .319 OBP. Juan Pierre logged 699 at-bats. .245/.271/.339 Ronny Cedeno had five hundred thirty-four. Derrek Lee, the best player on the team, was hurt a lot and only batted 175 times. 80 starts were made by a pitcher with an ERA 5.32 or higher. They were very, very bad.

Two years ago, Piniella's first year, I was in uniform with the Cubs during spring training. We had a four-run lead in a spring training game and a lot of the guys that were on the field weren't going to be part of the team by April, but most of the team was still there sitting on the bench. Next thing you know, we started kicking it around out there and we'd given up the lead. I'd never been in the dugout for one of Piniella's eruptions, but he got up and started going up and down the line saying, "That's those Cubbies that lost 96 games! Now it's all coming out. Now, I can see what they were talking about. Boys you can't win baseball games like this. You've got to pay attention! Is anybody paying attention?" In other words, he went off.

That's how you turn around a baseball team, all you managing hopeful! Make crazy gestures with your hands! Ask if people are paying attention a lot!

Even the coaches came up to me afterward and said "Now you know, man. That's Lou."

How inspiringly irrelevant.

But Piniella was making the point that if they were going to keep playing like that, they were going to have him all over them every day.

While he certainly knows how to motivate, it's Piniella's ability to evaluate that's helped this team evolve from 66-96 to where they are today.

The additions of Alfonso Soriano, Ted Lilly, Jim Edmonds, Reed Johnson, Kosuke Fukudome, Geovany Soto, Rich Harden, and ::gasp:: Jason Marquis had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

This is the first time since 1908 that the Cubs have gone to the postseason in back-to-back seasons. If you had to just pick one person responsible for the transformation, it would have to be

Derrek Lee being healthy? Soto breaking out? Ryan Dempster putting together a stellar season out of nowhere? Carlos Marmol emerging as a force in the bullpen?

Piniella.

BAAAAAAHHHHHHNNNNTTTTT. WRONG!

A couple of years ago, Piniella noticed Ryan Theriot starting to press a couple of weeks into spring training. Piniella took him aside and told him to relax, that he was coming to Chicago with him. When everyone was focusing on Theriot's limitations, saying he had a weak arm and no power, Piniella looked right at me and said that he knew Theriot was the kind of guy he could win with.

HAH! Those crazy suckers that thought Theriot had no power and no arm were.....exactly right.

Theriot is slugging .351. That's Scott Podsednik territory. He has a very good .375 OBP, and coming out of 2B or SS, he's fairly valuable. But given all that, his complete and total lack of power reduces him to being a league average hitter, even at that OBP clip. He's also not a good defensive shortstop by any means (which isn't really his fault, he should be playing second base on any team with a shortstop than can hit better than Ronny Cedeno). All of this makes him one of the 15 or so most overrated players in baseball.

And if you look at Theriot, he's won championships in college at LSU and in the minor leagues.

This is not a big deal at all.

He reminds me a lot of Craig Counsell or David Eckstein.

Ya don't fucking say, shithead.

When you see a big inning from the Cubs these days, he always seems to be right in the middle of it.

Gotta love this statement. You can't disprove it! And I guarantee you it holds absolutely no water.

Piniella also recognized the problems with the starting rotation he inherited with Mark Prior and Kerry Wood. He knew something had to be done. They parted ways with Prior, but he saw something that told him that Wood could be the closer. It was his idea to put Ryan Dempster back in the rotation and move Wood to the bullpen, knowing Wood's arm couldn't hold up to the innings needed out of a starter. Piniella figured if he was only going to be able to throw two innings effectively, why not make it the last two.

That move was pretty smart, but it completely takes whatever say Jim Hendry had out of the equation, and also negates the fact that Ryan Dempster has pitched better this season than ever in his entire career. Piniella does deserve some credit for making the move, but you're fucking acting like Piniella is pitching for Dempster or something.

Piniella would be quick to tell you that the players deserve the credit.

Because he likes saying accurate things.

But the one thing a good manager does is put the players in a position to succeed. Take a look at center field, for instance. Back in May, Piniella saw that they had only five home runs from left-handed hitters. He said they couldn't win like that. That's when he decided to give Jim Edmonds a try.

WOAH WOAH WOAH. Stop right there. You're acting like Piniella had this nobody named "Jim Edmonds" just rotting away in triple-A or at the end of the bench and was like, "you know, nothing else is working, let's run this kid out there and see what he's made of!" Jim Edmonds was signed by Jim Hendry. Does Jim Hendry get any credit for any of this? Any at all?

Now, if you look at their production out of center field since the All-Star break, it's completely changed, and they're doing it with two guys that had been released in Edmonds and Reed Johnson.

Reed Johnson was also snatched up by Jim Hendry, not manufactured in Lou Piniella's "Players-I-Need-O-Matic Machine" (TM).

He's not throwing Johnson out there every day, especially against the tough right-handers. That's where Edmonds comes in. Likewise, Edmonds doesn't have to face the best lefties. They are put in a spot where they can succeed.

Woah...careful everyone. Sutcliffe just stumbled upon the idea of a "platoon". It's a very vague concept and entirely new to managing. Very few managers can pull off this hyper-creative and complicated tactic.

As great a job as Joe Torre is doing with those characters in Los Angeles, Piniella is my National League Manager of the Year.

This is so ridiculous. Not so much the Manager of the Year part, but how can you be completely and totally ignorant to how much better the intrinsic quality of the players on the Cubs has become over the past two years? Do you know what a difference a healthy Derrek Lee makes? How about having one of the best catchers in baseball just break out before your eyes? Is that Piniella? What did Lou Piniella have to do with snagging Rich Ha-(Hold on a second, "Home Improvement" just ended, and it has been replaced on the television by "George Lopez." This needs to stop before I can finish that word)-rden? Don't get me wrong, the man has pushed a good amount of the right buttons in his time on the North side, but there are umpteen more important reasons to why the Cubs are good. You, Rick Sutcliffe, are the quintessential example of why ex-players should not be given writing jobs simply because you used to play baseball.

News Flash: The Cubs Have A Good Business Plan and a Terrible Baseball Record

A recent article from the Cincinnati Enquirer: Wrigley has Reds green with ivy

This is not going to stand. I will not go quietly into that blogged night.

Wrigley has Reds green with ivy

On a 50-degree Tuesday night with the wind blowing 20 miles an hour, the Chicago Cubs played baseball in front of a full house at Wrigley Field. On a 60-degree Thursday afternoon in the full sunshine two weeks ago, the Cincinnati Reds worked before a crowd of 12,000.

Well, that sucks. It's too bad that Daughtery will not mention that 2.8 million people live in the incorporated areas of Chicago, while 332,000 live in Cincinnati. Even if you divide the Chicago fans evenly between the two teams [and that's a generous split for the Sox], that's 1.4 million per; approximately four times the number of sheer people available to go to the game.

Thursday afternoon, the finale for the Reds in Chicago, the bleachers at Wrigley will fill like a suitcase on a trip overseas. Half the people packing the seats won’t know who wins. Or care.

Paul- get a clue. This is a bad thing. This is the reason that the Cubs have lost for a century: their fan base does not hold them accountable for winning.

The following night in Cincinnati, the Reds will host the Milwaukee Brewers. If 25,000 show up, we’ll throw a parade.

This is not true. Paul is exaggerating.

Cubs ownership might have lucked into mastering the biggest factor in drawing big baseball crowds now.

There is no "might". It happens that the "relatively undeveloped area" around the ballpark when it was built in 1914 is now a relatively developed neighborhood with a fair amount of affluent people around it.

Or they might have drawn up a detailed plan and executed it like an around-the-horn double play.

They didn't. Cub ownership is, to put it frankly, stupid. Ernie Broglio.

Beats me. It doesn’t matter.

Yes, it does. You're about to argue that the Reds need to mimic the Cubs' model. It does matter.

The Reds are at an interesting crossroads. They have an engaged ownership that wants to win. Ownership has hired bright, enthusiastic people to push the product. But winning takes money and money means ticket sales and these days, ticket sales means attracting people who wouldn't know Johnny Cueto from Johnny Appleseed. It's what they do at Wrigley Field.

If this was true, the Cubs and Yankees would win a lot more World Series. But, as we know, winning doesn't take money. Ask those asshole Marlins who flaunt their rings around to the seventeen fans who came to their games.

Where does baseball rank on a trip to Wrigley? In front of a pilgrimage to Murphy's Bleachers, or behind? Ahead of a Ferris Bueller afternoon, or a distant second? The Cubs could finish out of the money every year for a century and still fill The Friendly Confines. In fact, they've done exactly that.

THIS IS A BAD THING. THIS SUGGESTS THAT CUB FANS DON'T CARE ABOUT BASEBALL.

Going to Wrigley is about seeing your Cubbies win, but only tangentially. It's more about the neighborhood, the Old Style, the ivy, the bleachers, Waveland, Sheffield, celebs singing "Take Me Out to the Ball Game," day games, sunshine, the lake, Harry Caray's ghost, memories of Sammy and The Hawk and Ernie Banks. Let's drink two. At least.

Ugh. This is making me ill. I'm proud to say the Cubs have gotten their shit kicked in every time I've gone to Wrigley and I've enjoyed the schadenfreude thoroughly. Going to Wrigley, for me, is about seeing the myth of Cubs-fans'-fun die a miserable death at the hands of real baseball teams. And I'm not the only one:


This is exactly the atmosphere the Reds have to cultivate to succeed.

Not true. Not true at all. It's simply not true that you have to cultivate a culture of ignorant-but-disposably0-wealthy fans to win games.

Because here is a hard truth in Baseball Town: The game's not enough anymore.

I like the name Baseball town. I'd rather have my city called Baseball Town than Crumbling Stadium With Generally Losing Team That's Fun To Go Watch Town.

It must kill the Reds' marketers to see the Bengals sell out entire seasons when the football team generally stinks and its marketing plan consists of printing schedule cards and opening the gates. In the midst of yet another unsuccessful season, the Bengals last season drew the two largest crowds in the history of Paul Brown Stadium.

The NFL has eight games and a salary-cap. Not a useful comparison at all in this situation. I am getting pissed off. This is a terrible article.

But unless the Reds succeed at making GABP a destination for entertainment first and baseball second, they will lag. This is why vetoing the Broadway Commons site always will be the biggest sports mistake the team and town have ever made. With its proximity to a then-thriving Main Street bar district, Broadway offered a vision of a Wrigleyville South: Come for the party, stay for the game. Return to the party.

Now, Daughtery goes back to the 1996 vote where Hamilton County taxpayers selected a Riverfront site over a slightly-uptown site. He has a point about developing a sustainable neighborhood around a ballpark. That is a good thing. This could have been a reasonable article about creating sustainable development around GABP.
____________________________________________________________________

But no, it was an ode to ignorance. The Cubs have built a culture of losing, Paul. The Reds need to avoid that. At all costs. I'd like to see another World Series title in Cincinnati. I don't want to wait eighty-two more years.