Wistful, sappy sports journalism makes me sad

[Before I begin, in honor of tomorrow night's sure to be more enjoyable if watched without sound All State Home Run Derby Brought to You by GEICO and State Farm, might as well post a link to the best voicemail I have ever received.]

Sometimes it's Sunday evening and I say to myself "I'd really like to put a post up tonight, the beginning of the week can be hectic and if I don't do one now maybe I won't get a chance until Wednesday or Thursday."  And I also say to myself at that point "Shit, I'm pretty tired and lazy.  I don't want to look all over the internets for something to post about."  How do I resolve that tension?  By turning on ESPN, of course.  This evening's garbage came from an unexpected source.  Buster Olney did a pre-scripted voiceover piece (like a slimmed down version of a 60 Minutes segment) about Bryce Harper and Mike Trout, set to sappy background music and highlights/pictures of each.  It was a goddamn disaster.  Buster, what the fuck were you trying to do here?  Unless it was "invent a narrative that doesn't exist in an attempt to be an cuntier version of Bob Costas" you failed.  Quotes are exact thanks to the magical magic of DVR.

Let the record show 

We're not in court.

that Mike Trout and Bryce Harper were called up to the majors in 2012 on the exact same day: April 28.  

Trout also played in the majors in 2011.

And no matter what they accomplish for the rest of their careers, they will be forever linked, 

???

like Tom and Jerry, (screen shows a picture of Tom and Jerry, no really, they did this, they probably had to pay rights fees for it too), Batman and Robin (still from the set of the old Adam West Batman TV, which also probably cost a shitload in rights fees), Martin and Lewis, Simon and Garfunkel.  


None of those duos are even remotely analogous to a pair of baseball players on different teams in different leagues who have never played against each other at any level and for all we know, may never have met each other.  


They will be tied together- Trout and Harper.  


By idiotic journalists doing dumb puff pieces, yes.  In the same manner as two famous musicians who were in a band together, or pair of cartoon characters who are always beating the shit out of each other?  Not even close.


And as was the case with Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, 


Much better comparison although it's kind of too late since you already brought up all those other terrible comparisons.  And even this is still not really that good, since Bird and Magic famously faced off against each other in a college national championship game and were friends/rivals before they even entered the NBA.


there will be a debate over which player you'd rather have.  The 20 year old Trout is arguably the fastest player in baseball, and is a threat to win the batting title, and the MVP, and is regarded as a shutdown centerfielder.  


"Shutdown centerfielder" is not a thing you can be.  You can be a shutdown reliever, or an outstanding centerfielder.  Pick one.


The 19 year old Harper is not as refined a hitter as Trout, but has demonstrated that he might have Ruthian power, 


Peter King thinks it's semi Bonds-like!


and that every day, he plays with the eyes and the intensity of Mike Singletary.  


You're doing a story about baseball players, so naturally, when you need to say that one is passionate about the game, you compare him to someone who doesn't play baseball.


[Long spiel about each player's stats, and how they've helped their teams]  This all before either can legally drink a beer in the United States.  


This was brought up solely to show the "That's a clown question bro" clip, which is a funny clip and all but felt kind of forced here.  Probably because this whole segment felt completely forced at all times.  It was like someone got Ken Burns really drunk and then told him to make a two minute documentary on how Harper and Trout will be forever linked.


Oakland GM Billy Beane 


Wait, who?


knows that both Trout and Harper are once in a generation talents, breaking into the big leagues at the exact same time.  


And this was all he said about Beane.  No direct quote, no anecdote about how Beane passed on Trout in the 2009 draft because he's the geniusest genius around, no explanation as to why his name was mentioned at all.  As far as we know he has exactly zero to do with either Trout or Harper.  Yet Buster cites him here.  Your guess as to why is as good as mine.


You might have to go back more than 60 years of baseball to find another duo as dynamic and as young as Trout and Harper when they first made an impact.  In 1951, the Giants promoted Willie Mays and the Yankees promoted Mickey Mantle, 


Let's slow the fuck down.  Harper and Trout have like 500 combined MLB plate appearances.  I get that they're both really talented, and playing well at a very young age, but Jeebus.  If I were a betting man I'd bet against them eventually hitting a combined 1200 home runs and both making the HOF a la Mickey and Willie.  Let's slow down and take a deep breath.  


and like those superstars, who went on to share the same song, 


A timely reference.  Fuck, I don't even get the reference, but I'm sure it's some stupid 50 year old song. Wait, unless it's We Didn't Start the Fire.  


/listens to We Didn't Star the Fire


Nope.  Only Mickey made the cut for that one.


Mike Trout and Bryce Harper will forever share a stage... 


They probably won't.  They have no relationship that predates their arrival in the big leagues.  Until and unless they change teams and end up in the same league, they'll only play each other once every three or four years.  Their teams are based thousands of miles apart.  Like, I'd sort of get this sentiment if Harper was a Dodger or Trout was an Oriole.  But there's really nothing here.  They play the same position, I guess.  They are both power/speed guys.  Whatever.  This was an embarrassing waste of time for Buster.


this week, as All Stars in Kansas City.  


They will forever share a stage as All Stars this week?  What?

BONUS COVERAGE:  Kruk, having witnessed Buster's incredibly stupid little segment, what are your thoughts about these two players?

They both respect the game immensely.  It's not like "I'm here, let the games begin, I'm going to save the sport." ... They don't want to draw all this attention to themselves with... with a gesture on the field, that, that, that kind of disrespects the opponent.  They play the game the right way, and they're great great players.

You are a complete and total buffoon.  Also: LUNCHPAIL ALERT.

Hey John Kruk, Get Your Head out of Your Ass

Hello there, Tubby. Put down that bacon and have a look at this. It's the National League Wild Card standings, as of last Sunday night.

Team GB
Colorado 0.0
San Francisco 3.0
Atlanta 4.0
Florida 5.0

Guess what you said that night on national TV?

The wild card is the Braves' to lose.

You really said that. You bumblefuck. You imbecile. You fatheaded, knuckle-dragging moron. Back in June, you said you thought the Mets would win the Wild Card. That's fine. I got upset about it, partially because I'm a Rockies fan (meaning I was acting all butthurt), and partially because the reasoning you used to back up your opinion was shoddy at best. But at least it was a reasonable opinion to have, in and of itself. There really was nothing wrong with thinking the Mets were a decent WC contender back then. I'm sure 90% of optimistic Mets fans could have made a more persuasive argument than you did but that's OK. At least your starting point was acceptable.

That's not the case here.

Maybe if the 1927 Yankees were trailing the 1962 Mets and 1998 Marlins in the WC race by three and four games, respectively, on August 24, you could say the playoff berth was "the Yankees' to lose." But here we're dealing with a group of reasonably similar teams. They all have strengths; they all have weaknesses; some are stronger/weaker than others in certain areas. I am of the opinion that the Rockies are the best of the four, but hey, I could be wrong. How might we figure out who's best?

By simple statistics? The Rockies have the best OPS+ of the group and an OPS+ well over 100 (admittedly, the Braves and Giants have better staffs). They also play better defense than any of their WC competitors.

What about by ease of remaining schedule? The Rockies also play 21 of their final 32 at home, with a schedule that is arguably easier than Atlanta's or San Fran's. Food for thought, no pun intended.

What about momentum? Two months ago, the Braves were 5.5 games out of the WC lead. A month ago, they were 3.5 out. After Sunday's games, they were 4 games back. (Now 5.5 back. Oops!) It's not like they've been on some kind of torrid hot streak. Colorado DOES happen to be 52-22 since July 2, 2006 or June 3, 2009, I don't remember which.

What about nerdy stat stuff used for predictions? Baseball Prospectus's playoff odds calculator placed their chances of making the postseason as of Sunday night at just over 10%. It's also not like they've got a great pythagorean record, and are due to go on some kind of hot streak. No, in fact, there is no indication of any sort that the WC is the Braves' to lose.

So... who should receive the blessing as current best bet to win the NL WC? Well... if I had to pick a team from the race to currently apply that label to... I might pick... THE TEAM THAT'S BEEN THE BEST IN THE NATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS, WHICH HOLDS A FOUR GAME LEAD WITH LESS THAN FORTY FUCKING GAMES TO PLAY. YOU FUCKING FAT PIECE OF SHIT. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? ARE YOU BAITING ME INTO MAKING POSTS LIKE THIS? ARE YOU DAYN PERRY? DO YOU JUST SAY SHIT LIKE THIS TO GET ATTENTION? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY THE WILD CARD IS "THE BRAVES' TO LOSE?" AT THE VERY MOST, THEY'LL BE LUCKY TO HAVE A SHOT AT WINNING IT ASSUMING BOTH COLORADO AND SAN FRAN GO COLD. Seriously, guy, fuck you. Fuck you and fuck your shitty analysis. Your reasoning when you made that claim about the Braves had something to do with the depth in Atlanta's rotation. WELL WHERE HAS THAT DEPTH GOTTEN THEM? FIVE AND A HALF GAMES OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS WITH ABOUT 35 GAMES TO PLAY, THAT'S WHERE.

Look, I'm not saying the Rockies will win the WC. They very well may not. (BP's playoff odds have them at a 61% chance to win it as of now.) I wouldn't say it's "theirs to lose." I wouldn't say it's any team's "to lose" right now. But if you don't think the Rockies have the best shot of this bunch to win it... you are a fucking dunce. If you want to go one step further, and hint that if they're going to win it they'll need to snatch it away (a corollary of it being "the Braves' to lose," I suppose) from someone else, you're a fucking dunce with clown shoes on. There is no hope for you. You have zero credibility. You should be fired and deported to Mongolia so you can't bother anyone with your opinions anymore. Fuck you. Fuck you and fuck your NL East bias. YOU DIDN'T EVEN PLAY FOR THE BRAVES, PIEFACE. FUCK YOU.

Hey, you know, the Rockies are only 2 games back of the Dodgers for the NL West title. I guess it's theirs to lose, huh?

Three ESPN Analysts, Three Blithering Idiots

All you have to do if you want to run a shitty blog just like this one is watch ESPN for about an hour a day. I guarantee you at least one of their esteemed employees will cook up a bubbling cauldron of stupid right before your very eyes within that timeframe. To wit, here's what I've collected from some of the highest paid sports analysts in the business in approximately the last 48 hours:

Joe Morgan, on Sunday Night Baseball, after someone goes from first to third on a single:

A few years back we were just sitting around waiting for a three run homer. Now every aspect of the game is important- speed, power, pitching.

Yes, that's right, fans. In case you haven't noticed, baseball has undergone a dramatic shift in strategy since earlier in the decade. In fact it might have been so gradual that you didn't notice. Remember way back when pitching didn't really matter? Teams didn't use it to try to win games, general managers didn't try to acquire it, and hell, fans didn't even talk about it. And yet, here we are in 2009, and I don't think anyone will disagree with what Joe says here: pitching is finally important. Well played, you chubby little mustachioed fool. Well played. You are truly a scholar of the game. Bonus points to Joe for using the lamest "negative thing you can say about the strategy some power-focused teams like to use if you're a purist who likes stolen bases and bunting a lot" available. Indeed, that proverbial three run homer never does show up when teams refuse to "move runners" or "be aggressive on the basepaths," does it? Unless it does, in which case those teams are awarded with three runs; three more than they would have earned by asking Adam Dunn to steal a bag or Manny Ramirez to lay down a bunt.

Also, the glorification of going from first to third might be the stupidest link in a long stupid chain made up of things that are pointlessly celebrated by dumbshits like Joe. You know those scrappy little Angels! When they have a guy on first, and someone singles into the RCF gap, if that guy on first happens to be fast, he often ends up on third. As if this were a risky and innovative baseball strategy that certain teams refuse to employ.

Now we're going to see baseball the way it was meant to be played.

As opposed to 2005 and 2006, during which an iteration of baseball was being played that probably made Abner Doubleday (or whoever the fuck invented it, I don't care what the real story is) roll over in his grave.

Mike Golic, a few hours later on NFL Tonight, talking about some irrelevant topic because it's early July and no one in the league is doing diddley shit for the next two weeks:

What did our coaches say to us back in Little League? I'm going to put the best 11 guys on the field.

Your Little League coach was a real cheater if he tried to employ that strategy. Maybe you're thinking of Pop Warner. Also, the statement itself seems to be substantively wrong. What coach of a young sports team is that cutthroat? I suppose there are teams of 10 year olds out there, run by guys who think they're Bill Cowher and like to tell their kids that only the guys who can make a fucking tackle occasionally are going to fucking get into the goddamn motherfucking game, but they're probably the extreme exception rather than the rule. Mike Golic is a dope. Both Mark Schlereth and him should be permanently assigned to ESPN's national spelling bee coverage team.

Finally, my new favorite ESPN punching bag (aka the Country Fried Emptyscrote), John Kruk, had this to say about an umpire's blown call on a Derek Jeter stolen base attempt (in which Jeter was safe but the ump called him out):

HE SHOULD GO AND APOLOGIZE TO JETER, AND APOLOGIZE TO THE YANKEES, BECAUSE HE BLEW THAT CALL AND OFFERED UP AN EXCUSE THAT WAS BULL.

All caps used to demonstrate his level of frustration with this grave injustice. An umpire making a mistake on a bang-bang slide/tag play? What is the world coming to! Next you'll tell me that the strike zone changes from game to game and even batter to batter. I say if an ump makes a mistake, he should be publicly shamed by being hung in a pillory on top of the home dugout for the rest of the game. That's the only way to keep those fuckers accountable. As things are, they're running amok- blowing a safe/out call at least every twenty or thirty games. What a disaster. Maybe umpires need to take a cue from the teams that are breaking new ground by considering pitching as something important and actually try to get all of their calls right. That's the way baseball was meant to be officiated, right?

John Kruk's Tiny Brain Tries to Analyze Baseball

I try to avoid writing posts about my favorite teams. I really do. Even my favorite sports blog, the dick joke-tacular Kissing Suzy Kolber, suffers from occasional unfunniness as its writers spend too much time on lame jokes and irrelevant news stories about their favorite teams (OMG apparently the Redskins are going to sign a new long snapper!). But sometimes a dick-for-brains fatso like John Kruk takes a horrifically analyzed shot at the squad you live and die for. And that's when you're allowed to break your own rules.

So I'm sitting there in my mom's basement last night, watching Lord of the Rings, eating Funyuns, and playing Stratego against my stuffed animals like usual, when I realize that Baseball Tonight is on. The Rockies have just finished off an 11-1 drubbing of the Angels. Since there were only a handful of games because it was a Monday, and because the Rox have now won 17 out of 18, I realize that there's actually a good chance they're going to get some airtime! It only happens about once a month (usually in the context of "How can the Cubs/Dodgers/Mets/Phillies lose to a team like the Rockies? Impossible") so if you're a Rockies fan you don't want to miss it. As soon as I flip the channel to ESPN, I see a screen displaying the following graphic:

Dexter Fowler 77
Chris Iannetta 233
Troy Tulowitzki 345

And who is talking about this mysterious set of numbers but everyone's favorite unitesticle, Mr. Kruk. I quickly realize the numbers indicate each Rockie's career games played. What's John's angle? Unfortunately I don't have the exact quotes, but what follows are reasonably accurate representations of what he had to say.

I mean, as you get going deep into the season, you don't know how these guys are going to play. They're inexperienced. These guys just aren't known quantities.

It quickly becomes apparent that Krukie's mission for this segment is to tell the nice people at home why the Rockies suck and have absolutely no chance at getting to the playoffs this year. Now, here's the thing. Any analyst can hold that opinion if they want to and it won't bother me. Go right ahead. I'm not some kind of zealot, sitting here saying "If you don't think the Rockies are going to win the World Series then you can just shut the fuck up right now." It's not like that, I promise.

But if you're going to say that they're not a playoff contender, try to pick a reason for doing so that makes some vague semblance of sense. Seriously. Go way, way, way out on a limb and find something better than this. The back of their rotation is shaky. Their pen is leaning on castoffs from other teams like Joel Peralta and Josh Fogg. Even with Brad Hawpe's monster season, they're not getting much offensive production from their outfield. Fine! Great! Go ahead and say those things. But this? So Fowler is young and inexperienced, true. I'll give you that. He may crumble down the stretch. But Iannetta and Tulowitzki are in their fourth fucking years in the bigs. They've both missed time due to injury, which is why their games played totals are relatively low, but it's not like they're a couple of unseasoned 21 year olds who were in AA last year. THEY WENT TO THE FUCKING WORLD SERIES TWO YEARS AGO. They're not experienced enough for you, Kruk? Go fuck yourself with a fucking soup ladle. Asshole. Oh, and here's another great point from Sir Tubsalot:

They won't be able to win the wild card because they have too many teams to pass in the standings.

Here's your current NL wild card standings, which John apparently hasn't checked since Memorial Day. Two teams, leading them by a half game, with only three months left in the season? No way can they climb that mountain!

His latest entry in the "Baseball Tonight Clubhouse" print article series is dedicated to finding other nonsensical reasons as to why the Rockies are doomed. I can only imagine how long it would take him to type all this up. He must have dictated it to an ESPN intern, and then eaten said intern.

I've been in the middle of a couple of firings, and it always seems as if you play better immediately after. When you're a player and your manager gets fired, most players feel responsible. I've been a part of a couple of similar situations,

Wait, have you ever been in that situation before? You only said so twice in the last three sentences. He then goes on to say that their recent hot streak is attributable to the firing of Clint Hurdle and the arrival of new manager Jim Tracy, and that the bump they're experiencing as a result of a change in leadership won't last. That's all well and good, but let me just apply a classic FireJay label to this post: managers don't do that much. This is (almost) the exact same team of 25 players Hurdle was managing. Clearly they have a lot of talent, having beaten up on legitimate teams like the Cardinals, Brewers, and Rays during this stretch. The fact that Hurdle wasn't getting much mileage out of them and Tracy is doesn't mean they're only playing better because of Tracy. It's obviously a number of things, Tracy's arrival being one of them. A manager can't make a team that started the year 20-32 go on a 17-1 streak. He can help, but the players have to play the games. And it's pretty obvious at this point that the Rockies have a collection of players who are at the very least capable of winning the wild card.

Colorado's run is just that, a run. In my mind, this team is not a threat to win the wild card. Even though the Mets and Phillies have played terribly lately, the wild card is still going to come out of the NL East.

There you have it, folks. Why can't the Rockies do it? Because the WC is going to come out of the NL East, that's why. Duhhhhh. No analysis. No explanation. John Kruk is a fucking simpleton among simpletons. And again, if you want to say Colorado won't win the WC, that's fine. But to say they're not even "a threat?" With the second best run differential in the NL (trailing only the Dodgers, thus obviously ahead of the Mets and Phillies), they're not even a threat? What are you, fucking nuts? Why won't Florida repeat as NCAA football champions this year? Because Alabama is going to win it all. How's that for an airtight explanation?

Both teams are almost unwatchable at the moment, but I'm still certain the Phillies will win the division and the Mets will take the wild card. [no further explanation given; end of article; beginning of John's nightly run to 7-11 for as many hot dogs as they happen to have on the rollers when he gets there]

Possible reasons Kruk feels this way:
1) He played most of his career with the Phillies, so he'll naturally favor any playoff scenario which ensures they'll get in
2) He's felt this way since the beginning of the season (and felt that the Rockies were no good), and simply refuses to change his opinion out of stubbornness. Of course, as we learned from the Cleveland "2009 AL Central Champs in Waiting" Indians, early season groupthink can be a dangerous thing
3) Standard east coast bias- Kruk (and the other the media members with whom he associates) can name more players on the Phillies and Mets than on the Rockies, and they play in cities with which he is very familiar while the Rockies play in one of those flyover states, so there's no way the Rockies can contend
4) He genuinely believes that because Chris Iannetta and Troy Tulowitzki have only played about 250 and 350 MLB games respectively (and because they trail two teams by a half game each in the current wild card standings, surely an insurmountable lead) Colorado will not make the playoffs. Nevermind the fact that the Mets are depending heavily on Daniel Murphy and Fernando Martinez, who have combined for fewer than 150 career games played. The Phillies, to John's credit, are indeed a team chock full of seasoned veterans. Their rotation is a complete and total fucking joke, but hey, at least they don't have any inexperienced players

It doesn't really matter which answer is correct. All I know is this: John Kruk is a card carrying horse's ass. There isn't a lobotomy complete enough to save ESPN viewers from his retardery. The next time I have reason to believe the Rockies will be on Baseball Tonight (which might be some time after the All Star break, assuming they don't lose any games between now and then) I'm not going to bother watching.

Before I go, here's some bonus moron-speak from Baseball Tonight's Chris Singleton about the Rockies:

I think they're making their run too early.

Yeah, you know, he's got a point. Wins are worth double in September as compared to June. The Rockies would be much better holding back, staying a good 5 or 6 games out of the WC, and then hoping they can put together another 11 game winning streak during the last two weeks of the season. It's not a fucking bike race, Singleton. You don't choose when to make your fucking push. If you win your first 100 games and lose your last 62, you'll make the playoffs. If you lose your first 62 and win your last 100, you'll make the playoffs. Good thing you share a set with John Kruk- otherwise I would have wasted a lot more of the time spent on this post ripping you apart as opposed to him.

I never thought I'd say this, but relative to some of his coworkers, that Steve Phillips is kind of an OK dude.