Derek Jeter Derek Jeter Derek Jeter DEREK JETER JETERJETERJETERJETER!!!!!!

He's been in the news lately I guess. The best part about it (by which I mean the only non-stupid part about it) is that everyone has something to say about him, and they're all wrong. Join me for a brief tour of all opinions unsupportable, inane, or both.

Zilcharoo blogger 'Duk from Blig League Stew has some thoughts about whether or not Jeter should play in the All Star Game.

But considering Jeter has been healthy enough to play each game since returning from his rehab stint, I don't think it's asking too much of Jeter to put in some face time, both for the good of the sport and to thank his fans.

Yeah, I know, right? I mean, he's been healthy for five whole games. What a vajayjay. Don't worry about your rehab, dude. Truck yourself off to Arizona and smile for the cameras. Not that it isn't a little weak for him to bail on the game- but seriously, the fact the he's been healthy for about a week is a good reason to fly six hours for an exhibition game? Better arguments could have been made, people. BETTER ARGUMENTS. Chris forwarded me that article, and my snarky response was "Nah, if he skips the game, it'll be a move of pure class." Little did I know how right I unintentionally was (according to some).

"Derek Jeter is as great an ambassador for this game as we've seen in a long time," Weiner said.

That's players' union chief Michael Weiner. Hehehehe. Weiner.

"I don't think anybody can really question Derek's commitment to the game or, frankly, to being an All-Star."

Well the thing is, you can. He's not going to the ASG. Therefore he's not really committed to it. I don't blame him for his decision. I don't think it was wrong. But it shows that he's not committed to it. Also, how has he been "as great an ambassador" as anyone has seen in a long time? Is he super involved in charity work? If he is, he's doing it under the radar. The Google indicates that he's no more involved than the average star (and a lot less involved than many). By being a super popular player on a super popular team? If that's the case, then why doesn't anyone call Fish Fillet-Rod a great ambassador? Maybe it's because Jeter bangs lots of hot, famous women. Nope, that doesn't seem like enough. Well he's never been arrested in the aftermath of a bar brawl. Gotta hand him that.

Long story short, he's just your average run-of-the-mill Hall of Famer (and I don't say that as a backhanded compliment). He's played somewhere from good to amazing for about fifteen years. He's got rings. He's super popular. But he hasn't done anything more than the other 50 or so superduperstars with whom his career has overlapped. Why does he get this praise? Why? Whatever the reason is, I'm sure it has something to do with classy classiness, something I've heard Jeter has in spades even though no one can explain what that means or why he gets the label with any level of clarity.

Well in any case I'm sure baseball commissioner Bud "face like a catcher's mitt" Selig can bring some sanity to this fracas.

"There isn't a player I'm more proud of in the last 15 years than Derek Jeter," Selig said. "He has played the game the way it should be played, and he's been a better human being off the field."

What the fuck is Bud alluding to? Is Jeter secretly pulling off Clemente-esque feats of amazing generosity and somehow not being recognized for them? He's obviously a great player. IN WHAT DISCERNABLE WAY IS HE A GREAT HUMAN BEING, OR ANY GREATER A HUMAN BEING THAN ROY HALLADAY OR ALBERT PUJOLS OR DAVID ORTIZ?????? It's insane. He is immediately given full credit for being the second coming of Gandhi regardless of what he does. At this point he could go all OJ and murder his wife and a waiter in cold blood, and people would be like "See, that's just pure class right there. Pure class. Those two had it coming." It fucking boggles my mind. I can't get past it.

Maybe it is all the famous/hot women he's banged. And if FireJay was Barstool Sports, this is where we'd have links to Maxim photoshoots of all of them.

Dear Selig: This is Not an Appropriate Thing To Say

Bud Selig sez:

“I was talking once with Robin Yount and George Brett and said they were getting to be the exceptions (players who stayed in one place). But they were such big parts of their communities. Their communities were better off that they stayed. And the players said they were better off, too. So, yes, baseball would be better with Albert in St. Louis.”

Jesus Christ Bud. You've said some stupid shit in your time (see: "Abner Doubleday invented baseball as long as we believe hard enough") but when you're the commissioner of a league that has not only been convicted of owner-collusion 3 times in the last 30 years and which has had a major, world-series-canceling work stoppage that almost crashed the sport the cause of which was very largely the players' residual resentment due to owner collusion....well, this is a really really really stupid thing to say, my man.

It isn't broke, but they're fixing it for the money - Part II

Just last week at the Winter Meetings, baseball commissioner Bud Selig announced that baseball will likely move forward with playoff expansion for 2010. [mlb.com ]. This is not a particularly good decision, and it seems to be motivated almost exclusively by a desire to make more money for people who are already absurdly rich at the cost of deflating a great product.

This is hardly new in sports (I wrote about some NCAA football rule changes back in 2008), but it's reprehensible every time it comes up. This proposal would generate some more gate and television revenue while watering down the playoffs and awarding a fairly outrageous advantage to a division winner.

Bud, ever the master strategist, had this to offer: "Eight is a very fair number, but so is 10."

Wham! The logic train has come through on the track, steaming over all the opposition. If eight teams is fair, so is ten! QED!

Jayson Stark came out with a column back in mid-September that supports it on the grounds that it incentivizes a team playing for first place, because it gives division winners a bigger advantage. In general, Jayson Stark knows what he's talking about and the man obviously has a depth of baseball knowledge. But I don't think he's accurate here: while it could increase September excitement, do we really need to invite a worse team to the playoffs just to get the Wild-Card team to try harder?

And Jayson's article (which came out on September 10), was ostensibly written with the obvious example of the Yankees and Rays, who were both assured of a playoff spot, but were fighting for a division crown. Sure, the new system would've made their run for the division title a little more exciting ... by giving the distant-third-place Red Sox a chance to knock one of them them out?

Not to mention that this proposed system would have completely eliminated the drama in the National League this year, when the Braves, Padres and Giants all entered the last weekend knowing that only two would make the playoffs. That was an exciting last day of the season, one that would've been meaningless under the new system.

Had the system been in place this year, the Red Sox and Padres would have made the playoffs. While these teams are decent teams (unlike, say, the under .500 record which gets you into the NBA playoffs), I don't see a strong argument for these teams on the basis of fairness. In fact, not a single article I've read justifies this move on account of giving a good team the chance to win the World Series.

In fact, there are really no justifications offered for this other than it would "increase playoff drama" and "make division winners count for more", both of which, IMO, are bullshit.

If this is adopted, the division winner who would play the winner of the Wild-Card round would have a rested staff ready to face an opponent who just spent their top two or three pitchers. Although that would incentivize a team's desire to win home-field advantage, that seems wildly unfair to the division winner with the second-best record, who wouldn't get to face the WC team.

The other three major sports all have a playoff system which rewards nearly half the league with a playoff spot. This results in bloated playoffs (which nobody likes) that drag on for months at a time. The other sports have no sense of end-of-season drama, since all the good teams are assured of a playoff spot, and the only teams battling for entry are teams that don't really deserve to be there.

Baseball should be proud of its differences from the other major sports. Adding playoff teams is never going to increase the playoff drama. It's only going to increase the revenues going into the hands of owners.

Armando Galarraga and Histrionic Whining

The sanctity of the baseball record books are challenged every summer in some respect. Steroids, balata-based balls, All-Star ties, 162-game seasons, midget batters, World Wars, the lowering of the mound, the raising of the mound, the designated hitter... every one of these has caused some variation in the sanctity of the record books. Any decently enlightened fan has realized that part of the job is to mentally adjust for the conditions and exceptions that have applied to the game over the years.

Whenever some new variation comes up, some writers inevitably call for adjustment to preserve the sanctity of the books. They're missing the obvious: the "sanctity" that they're preserving is only sacred because baseball fans and historians have learned to adapt their thinking. It's an insult to the fans to suggest that every record book entry requires an annotation giving every contextual detail.

The latest entry comes from ESPN New York's Ian O'Connor, who has supplied us with stupid before. He calls for Bud Selig to reverse Jim Joyce's call and declare Mr. Galarraga the author of a perfect game.

Hey Bud, don't shrug this one off

Bud Selig can get the shrug back. Right here, right now.

No, he can't. The shrug still exists. The shrug will always exist, unless we pull some Big Brother shit and destroy every copy of the news from the summer of 2002.

Mulligans aren't normally awarded in sports. Bill Buckner cannot get that Mookie grounder back, Scott Norwood cannot get wide right back, and Greg Norman cannot get a hundred Sunday putts back.

That's the whole POINT of sports. That's why we compete - to declare a winner. If everyone got do-overs, there'd be no point in competing. Everyone would just do it over until they got it right.

But Bud, this one's for you.

Ian, why?

Remember that shrug at the 2002 All-Star Game in your very own Milwaukee backyard, where you threw those bony hands in the air, slapped on your best Willy Loman expression, and told the finest baseball players in the world their spirited 11-inning contest would end in a 7-7 tie?

This is a poorly used rhetorical question couched within a poorly used rhetorical device (apostrophe) and tied to a poorly used allusion. I feel poorer, like Willy Loman near the end of that play, for reading that paragraph.

You're getting a do-over, Bud, and here's a little unsolicited advice: Don't shrug this second time around.

He didn't shrug. Also this is not the second time around; this is a totally different situation.

Invoke your best-interests-of-the-game powers to make Armando Galarraga and Jim Joyce and Jason Donald and the rest of baseball whole.

I don't know why sportswriters consistently think baseball is broken or dying. Baseball has had thousands of blown calls over the years - some even in games of much more gravity than an early-season non-division matchup. Somehow, it continues. This whole article is dramatic silliness. It is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

The imperfect man pitched the perfect game, Bud, just like the old newspaper story said.

That's a reference to Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. Did you other readers recognize that immediately? I had to google it.

The offending umpire, Jim Joyce, is in full agreement even as he picks through the rubble and ash of a distinguished baseball life.

Ash? Rubble? Is a volcano metaphor really appropriate right now when thousands of Icelanders are viciously dumping their geological shit all over Europe?

"It was the biggest call of my career," Joyce conceded as he reportedly paced in his dressing room, "and I kicked the [stuff] out of it. I just cost that kid a perfect game."

And yet, he didn't. Everyone knows it was a perfect game. I suspect that Armando Galarraga will receive more press, notoriety, and mention than Dallas Braden ever will.

So this isn't only about granting Detroit's Galarraga his rightful corner of history, or about acknowledging that Galarraga caught Miguel Cabrera's throw and put his foot on the first-base bag before Cleveland's Donald did the same.

He HAS his rightful corner of history. And everyone already has acknowledged it.

This is about freeing Joyce from the grim prison cell that will hold him for the rest of his professional days.

Good lord, this is dramatic nonsense. Yes, he will get a lot of annoying press. If he has the sense to not buy into the hand-wringing whining of people like Ian O'Connor, he'll have a fine life.

Don Denkinger can fill you in. He once told me on the phone about his infamous blown call that turned the 1985 World Series, when he ruled Kansas City's Jorge Orta safe at first before replays showed that the Cardinals' Todd Worrell had beaten him to the bag.

And that's why Bud Selig can't reverse a call. You can't just go back and start changing calls, even if they were wrong. The game is over. Umps have always made bad calls. No amount of sentimental nonsense or played-up drama can change the fundamental nature of a sport officiated by human beings.

"It's a crushing feeling," said Denkinger, who received death threats and a never-ending stream of hate mail from gamblers and fans. "You can't imagine what a person feels when you're written about, talked about, and then they show 13 different angles of the call in slow motion."

Hate mail from gamblers? I already imagine that most sports gamblers are dummies, but I can't even fathom having the gall to risk thousands of dollars on a sports contest which has a huge luck factor to begin with, and then complaining when a person makes a good-faith mistake.

Don't want to get yelled at over a bad call? Don't become a professional baseball umpire.

Life isn't fair, but we like to think of stadiums and arenas as places to go to escape life for a few hours. Games are supposed to be fair. What went down in Comerica Park on Wednesday night was a million miles from fair.

Ian O'Connor is somehow confused into thinking that every game was perfectly fair up until June 2010. And the thing is: it actually was completely FAIR. An unbiased, independent third party who is not related to or paid by the Detroit Tigers or the Cleveland Indians organizations made an objective call with a clear view. It was completely fair. It just wasn't accurate.

So the expanded use of instant replay is the issue of the day, the item atop the commissioner's morning agenda. Only there's no time to measure the merits of technology against the charms of a sport officiated by fallible men.

What are you saying here, Ian? That if Bud makes the decision today, it'll be better than if he makes it tomorrow?

That debate isn't going to help Galarraga, or Joyce, or millions of right-minded baseball fans who need some healing ASAP.

Healing? Who out there is healing from this terrible injury wrought upon us all? A plague of locusts has struck the land thanks to the pernicious villainy of Jim Joyce!

Selig shouldn't wait. Even the city of Cleveland would be with him on this one.

Haha, Cleveland sucks.

He wouldn't be fighting a powerful and antagonistic players union over the issue of performance-enhancing drugs, and he wouldn't be flexing his pecs in an attempt to stop or expedite the sale of a team.

What? So, Mr. O'Connor, you're ENCOURAGING him to gain PR points for a cheap-shit sentimental issue like this one and make the call that would make a bunch of people feel happy but violate the sentiments of the game?

Selig would simply be using his power to call a batter out at first. If the "best interests of baseball" clause doesn't cover that, what the hell does it cover?

Eddie Gaedel is still in the books, even though the commish tried to strike him. This kind of stuff just happens in baseball, and really, nobody is hurt by it, since everyone knows Galarraga pitched a perfect game anyways.

There is only one real danger here: the precedent of allowing the commissioner to redact the results of a game based on popular outrage. That simply can't be allowed to happen - just as Ford Frick is justly hammered for insulting the fans when he tried to intervene in the record books to preserve the public's vision of righteousness.

Even the commish isn't above the rules.

"I just watched the replay 20 times," Galarraga said, "and there's no way you can call him safe."

He's right.

Baseball players, coaches and managers are taught to move on from a moment like this. Get over it. Prepare for the next day's game.

Good advice for you to take, Mr. O'Connor.

You're supposed to live and die with the good and bad breaks, and remember that the 162-game season is an endless narrative that rewards the characters who weather the most plot twists.

Sounds good to me.

But those terms of engagement just don't cut it here. There's no moving on from the damnation of the 21st perfect game in history, and the third in a month.

"Damnation". "Grim prison cell". "Healing". Good lord, the histrionic diction of this article is nearly making me swoon. If I had a wife and I lived Victorian England and I read this to her, I would need some smelling salts and my fainting chair.

This commissioner has always loved to be loved. In fact, I've never met a sports executive who cares more about his or her public standing than Bud Selig.

And that's why I'm almost surprised that he made the right decision by not caving to the immediate pressure of sentimental writers and fans. Good for Bud - by taking an unpopular stance, he avoided setting a dangerous precendent. Choosing to restore the perfect game would have been easy for Bud to do, but would have added to the weight and pressure put on future commissioners in similar situations.

He wants you to appreciate him for introducing the wild card, for authorizing the Mitchell Report, and for giving birth to the World Baseball Classic. He would also prefer it if you forgot all about that 7-7 score at the 2002 All-Star Game.

Who really hates Bud Selig for that, anyways? Actually, the real problem with that game wasn't Bud's decision to allow it to end in a tie... the real problem with that game is the nonsensical pandering of the managers trying to get as many players in the game as possible.

Well, here's your big chance, Bud. The Tigers are in the books as 3-0 winners either way.

So grab your heaviest lumber, step into the box, and remember one last thing:

Don't shrug.

He didn't, and I'm glad. If you want to see hilarious examples of incredible shitspouting braindead fluttertalk, read the comments on the ESPN article. They're so awful.

Again, It's Not Broken

I know we spend a lot of time on this blog bitching about things extraneous to currently-played big-league baseball, like the HOF and the All-Star Game.

But this seems silly.

Changes to the All-Star Game, based on recommendations by the Special Committee for On-Field Matters, were announced by Major League Baseball on Wednesday, furthering efforts to sharpen the competitive edge in baseball's annual Midsummer Classic.

Maybe they should sharpen the edge by telling the National League to win a few goddamn games. Also, none of these changes sharpen anyone's competitive edge, they simply allow more people to be recognized as All-Stars.

Starting with the 81st All-Star Game on July 13 in Anaheim, the changes include:

• The contest always will include a designated hitter no matter where it's played.

Why? This sucks. Like really. Why? I know I'm not really being articulate here because I don't want to get into the whole DH or not DH argument, but can't we just respect our differences as leagues and permit each to play by their rules half the time?

• No pitcher who competes for his team on the previous Sunday will be allowed to pitch in the game.

I recognize the rationale for this, but is it really necessary?

• Rosters have been increased to 34 players, by one slot designated for a position player.

Great. Why don't they call it the All the Kind of Good Players Game?

• A rule will allow one position player re-entry into the game if necessitated by injury.

This rule wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have some sort of pathological love of participation that impels managers to waste a lot of players on pinch-hits and one-out relief appearances just to get them in the game. If MLB really wanted to solve the problem, they wouldn't change the rules, they'd just tell the managers to stop the bullshit.

I wonder if MLB encourages managers to get each team's player in the game to hold the attention of (and the corresponding ratings and ad dollars) fans in weak teams' markets.

The procedural changes, agreed upon by Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association, come as the most significant alterations to the sport recommended by the Special Committee to date.

I realize I sound about eighty-eight years old when I say this shit, but really, if it isn't broke, then the Special Committee for On-Field Matters can keep its own Special Nose in its own Special Business.

Chaired by Commissioner Bud Selig and composed of longtime managers, executives and observers of the game, the committee was formed in December.

Thanks, Bud. Knew you were in on this somehow. Also, there is no rationale cited for the formation of this committee.

It previously recommended an off-day be removed from the League Championship rounds to tighten the playoff schedule, and the Commissioner's Office announced that change in March.

Yawn.

These also are the first significant alterations to the All-Star Game format since 2003, when the game was declared the deciding factor for which league hosts the World Series. That change, along with a roster bump from 30 to 32 players, was made in the wake of the 7-7 tie at the 2002 game in Milwaukee.

And which has resulted in a nuclear tsunami volcano of stupidity since then.

The rest of the article is just Joe Girardi just yokeling on about how these rules will make the ASG better.

What?

Bud Selig has failed at many things during his time as commissioner of MLB. (His response to steroids being the most obvious example; I'm also not happy with his handling of parity-related issues.) He has also succeeded at many things, but the article I'm about to highlight is supposedly about his failures so I just wanted to establish up front that I'm not a Selig apologist. I'm generally on board with this guy's premise. However: what?

The thought of major league baseball without Bud Selig as commissioner? I'm absolutely giddy.

Sure. I wouldn't say I'm giddy, but I do think it's time for a change.

Replacing Selig is the only way that major league baseball can really get their house in order.

OK... fine. I think it's hyperbolic to say that MLB's "house" is "out of order," or whatever, but fine.

Yes, Selig has done a number of positive things during his reign; having said that, he's missed the boat on other opportunities.

Hear hear! Such as...

Perhaps a new commissioner will embrace the concept of two 15-team leagues, and schedule one interleague game every day, rather than 2 dedicated interleague periods, leaving a lone NL game on the schedule.

What?

Maybe he'll recongize the necessity to go back to the balanced schedule, if for no other reason than to help the have-nots in the AL East have a fighting chance.

What?

The travesty of the whole "contraction" issue - a total red herring - and the "this time it counts" nonsense surrounding the All- Star Game are just two of the strikes against Selig.

Two of the least significant ones. People need to shut the fuck up about the All Star Game. Immediately.

Avoiding a work stoppage for 15-plus years is a genuine accomplishment.

What? Weren't we just talking about...

(pause)

What?

"Missed the boat" on the "opportunity" to fuck around with scheduling? Is this clown seriously bothered by the idea that two NL teams have to play each other during weeks when everyone else is involved in interleague? Is anyone out there- anyone at all- clamoring for fewer intradivisional games?

You know what, fuck it. Let's just keep Selig. I'd hate to have him replaced by a guy who has the same shortcomings, but also thinks it's a great idea to have at least one interleague series happening at all times.

Bud Selig is a Naive Moron

I guess in preparation for my fair town hosting the All Star Game, St. Louis Post Dispatch writer Rick Hummel got to talk to Bud Selig. He proves he can hold a grudge, can't answer direct questions, and that he is a guiding light for naive morons everywhere.

Bonus FJM Drinking Game: Everytime you read to word "eliminated," take a drink.

My first problem with this article was that the headline to it is "Baseball prospers under Bud Selig." It

(1) has nothing to do with the article, and
(2) is wrong.

I'm not picking on this because a capitalization weary Larry B showed us that the writer does not write his headlines. (Larry also showed us his gmail address, his lack of a good internet browser, his problem with spam, and lack of labels. What an unorganized schmuck!) Now onto the fireworks.

As a Milwaukee Braves fan in 1956, he still laments the two catches a nondescript Cardinals outfielder named Bobby Del Greco made on a Saturday night in St. Louis to cost the Braves what would be their first pennant.

"We lose 2-1 and Bobby Del Greco makes two catches he couldn't make again if his life depended on it," said Selig. "I was mad at him that night. I didn't sleep — and I'm still mad at him."

To which Selig writes a note: "Have Del Greco eliminated." Unlike Joe Morgan's stories, this one is actually true.

Q: Do you worry about the impact the recession will have on baseball?

A: I worried about it last fall, no question about it. I used to think that in some of the previous recessions that baseball was recession-proof. But not this one. So far, while advertising sales are down and clubs have had some trouble with sponsorships, our attendance is down between four and five percent, which is remarkably good.

Baseball does not prosper under Selig, it just doesn't implode. I seem to remember seeing that another league had attendance go up this past season. I realize there's a big difference in selling tickets to 80+ games in stadiums that seat 40,000+ fans compared to 40+ games in arenas that might seat 20,000, among many other financial differences between the ticketing systems in both leagues. Let me gloat about hockey for one paragraph, and then back to shitting all over it once the preseason starts in September.

Q: When you hear the names of Rodriguez, Ramirez and Sosa linked to performance-enhancing drugs, how does that make you feel?

A: All it proves is that our program is working and nobody is above the law. I'm the only commissioner of any sport who ever called on an outsider, George Mitchell, to do a study of the sports. He made 20 recommendations and we adopted every one of them. This is a subject of collective bargaining. It cannot be unilaterally implemented. When I could do it, I did it. We've toughened our program three times, had the Mitchell investigation. I'm proud of what baseball has done. … Anybody who's still living in the '90s, who said we should have done something, well, I can't talk to them. But it's easy, in the retrospect of history, to be very smart 11 years later. I'm very protective of the image of the sport. Sure, do I wish it hadn't happened? Of course, I do. Do I worry about it? Of course, I do. But I'm proud of our players. I've had players call me and tell me, 'No, everybody didn't do it. Most of us didn't do it. And that's unfair.' And I do think some members of the media have not only overreacted, they've overreacted without any facts.

Surprisingly, Selig's answer wasn't "Feelings only make you weak," followed by ripping the heart out of Rick Hummel, eating the still beating organ and then checking his stock portfolio on Fox Business Channel. Instead, his answer is to a question that wasn't asked and it takes an unnecessarily defensive stance on what was/is? a problem. If you totally ignore the problem, only losers will talk about it. Who cares what losers say anyways? They aren't with the time, those losers. And to any of you lameoids still living in the 90's, stop ruining baseball with your positive drug tests in 2001-present.

Q: Would you be in favor of the list of other 103 players who tested positive in 2003 being released?

A: There was a list that was supposed to be eliminated.

The list or the players on it?

That was the agreement, in all fairness. It wasn't, for some reason, as the players' association didn't get (it) thrown out. The answer is that it was supposed to be anonymous, but it's now in the government's hands. But I would want to say something to all these people who are grumbling about these things. If we didn't force those tests, none of this would have ever been public. Does that tell you that we're not hiding and have never tried to hide anything?

The answer to this question is yes or no. Miraculously, neither of those words show up in that answer. If there is a list, and it's supposed to be "eliminated," why the fuck are you going to throw it out? Shred it. Flush it down the toilet at the gas station. Burn it in the fire that glows deep in your soulless body. But throw it out? That's a fail proof plan to keep things safe and out of the public eye.

Q: Do you concern yourself with the fact that, somewhere, there are chemists at work trying to concoct some other potion to beat the system?

A: Yes. All of us in sports worry about that. But we've come a long way in our understanding of this. Will there be new chemists? Of course, there will be. And we just have to be very vigilant and have to stay ahead of the game. Steroids are not a baseball problem. Steroids are a societal problem. Could I sit here today and say, 'We've got everything under control.' I wouldn't even make a statement like that. It would be foolish.

See? Baseball doesn't need to clean up here, it's society. Get with it, society! You're tarnishing the game's reputation, with your steroids and techno music. Society, it is YOUR fault that these premier athletes are trying to find new ways to cheat to make millions of dollars to play a game.

Q: In the last eight years, there have been 13 different teams in the World Series. How good is that for baseball?

A: I looked out at the field last year and saw Tampa Bay in the World Series, I said, 'That's a great thing for the sport.' It wasn't always well-received on the East Coast, but if baseball can't survive in Middle America, baseball won't be the sport we thought it could be.

A rather pointed question that I didn't really care for yields an even worse answer. Tampa Bay is on the west coast of Florida, which... uh.... uh huh. Still on the East Coast. Not in Middle America.


Q: Do you perceive that the Home Run Derby has taken on a bigger life than the All-Star Game itself?

A: It's big. It's the highest-rated cable show of the summer. But I was in St. Louis for the All-Star Game in St. Louis in 1966. I was trying to get a (major league) team for Milwaukee. All I can remember is I sat down in a seat that was so hot, I had a Coke in my hand and I spilled it all over the friend I came with. But it was a one-day event. People came in, saw the game and left. What you're going to see in St. Louis is really a celebration of the sport for six days. The Home Run Derby is huge, no question about it. But does it eclipse the game? I don't think so.

He went to the All-Star game in 1966, and all he remembers is spilling a Coke. I meant to erect a monument to that story, but I couldn't find a grade of marble boring enough.

He can also remember the name of a Cardinals outfielder in the 1950's, but when it comes to remembering anything from an All-Star game 10 years later, it's all hot metal and Coke. What a piece of shit.

Q: What's your favorite All-Star Game memory?

A: I guess Cal Ripken (hitting a home run in his last All-Star Game) in Seattle in 2001. Cal Ripken is everything baseball should have. You want me to go back? OK, 1955, Stan the Man right here in Milwaukee off Frank Sullivan. I'll never forget it. There was the All-Star Game I went to with my brother in 1950 in Chicago's Comiskey Park. I believe Albert Fred "Red" Schoendienst won that one with a 14th-inning homer.

What the fuck is going on here? Here's that game he went to in 1966. And he doesn't remember a 2-1 extra innings All-Star game. But he does remember a Stan Musial home run 11 years before that.

Q: Least favorite All-Star memory? I suspect it was the 11-inning tie in 2002?

A: It was unfortunate because it happened (in Milwaukee). My wife left early that night. She was smart because she was about to have hip replacement surgery.

Good thing she was walking around the All-Star Game.

Joe (Torre) used Barry Zito for like one hitter and I said to my wife before she left, 'I hope to hell Joe knows what he's doing.' And she said, 'Oh, don't worry, Buddy, he does.' But when the umpire (Gerry Davis) came over to me and told me that (Vicente) Padilla was laboring and Joe was worried about Freddy Garcia. We were out of pitchers and I'll tell you how it happened. In 1993 in Baltimore, when Cito Gaston didn't use Mike Mussina, the crowd booed the hell out of him. The managers (then) decided they were going to get everybody in the game. Sandy Alderson (Selig's right-hand man) and I worried from the late '90s on that something like this was going to happen. It happened. It was unfortunate. Now we've added some pitchers and it's never going to happen again."

Fans were booing that their player wasn't being used. That doesn't mean use every player, it means that if you're in Baltimore and an Oriole is on the roster, you should play him. So because of Orioles fans, the All-Star Game counts. Or should we blame Cito Gaston? I can't wait for this to happen again.

Q: Does the interleague play need to be adjusted, i.e., do natural rivals really need to play six games a year, rather than three?

A: The natural rivalries are so good. The first time I ever heard interleague play talked about was by (Bill) Veeck and (Hank) Greenberg in the late 1940s. Our attendance is up for interleague play by 19.5 percent. Veeck and Greenberg were absolutely right. And our fans like it. Yes, there are some scheduling things that aren't perfect. But what's interesting is that you've got a lot of rivalries that people like — rivalries that people didn't know about. Pittsburgh wants to play Cleveland. Cincinnati wants to play Cleveland and they fight over it. So this idea is that it's only New York and Chicago …

Cleveland and Pittsburgh hate each others teams in football, too. It's a geographic rivalry, as is two Ohio teams playing each other. Interleague works for a lot more for two cities, but Rockies v. Mariners? Rays vs. Any NL team that they didn't lose to in the World Series?

Q: The DH was instituted more than 35 years ago to help improve attendance in the American League with more scoring. Now that that goal has been achieved, isn't it time to have the same rules in both leagues?

A: The American League clubs really do like it. The National League clubs clearly do not. (Former Philadelphia owner) Bill Giles said to me a few years ago that a little controversy helps. Eventually there will be some event that will force us to make a decision, but not yet. That's not an issue I want to force right now.

That event will be fans booing the hell out of somebody, followed by an idiotic decision made from a field box 10 years later. Most likely, it will be a result of the second coming of Cito Gaston.

Q: Do you have fun in this job?

A: I'm not sure 'fun' would be the right word.

So the answer is no?

You have 30 owners with 30 different agendas. But I do love the challenges and the responsibilities. I do question my sanity sometimes.

That explains the Florida Marlins...

I'll be 75 years old on July 30 and when this term is over, I'll be 78. Let me put it this way. It's been a remarkable journey.

Straight into the ground?

Have you found it interesting that since the All-Star Game carrot of the winning league having home-field advantage — home field for the seventh and decisive game — has been in effect, that game actually never has taken place?

I’d like to see a seven-game World Series, I don’t mind telling you. I miss that. We didn’t really have a great idea in place. One year, you got (the home-field advantage) and the next year I got it. So, in talking to the Fox people, I really liked the idea because it does revive interest in the All-Star Game.

Taking turns really is a horrible solution, much worse than placing meaning on a game where guys don't try as hard so they don't get hurt. Also great to see that FOX made the decision to place meaning on the All-Star Game. Who would have thought that a change in rules would be a money grab?

Since then, the games have been played with great intensity. I think it’s worked out great and I think it’s restored the intensity of the game. I had called my friend, Ron Santo, in 2002, to see how he was feeling and he told me, ‘When we were in the All-Star Game, everybody played hard and we wanted to win. Guys today are gone after three innings.’ Hank Aaron said the same thing and asked me, ‘Can’t you do something?’ I think it’s here to stay unless somebody comes up with a better idea. Now the fact that we don’t seem to able to get past Game No. 5 (of the World Series) is a whole another story."

Are we sure that Ron Santo wasn't just referring to the fact that everybody is getting replaced by other players starting in the 3rd inning so that everybody plays? If you want millionaires to try harder, how about holding their possessions over a vat or acid and dropping them in if they mail it in? Fans text message votes in to monetize the situation and suddenly you have a sponsorable solution.

Would it good for baseball if the National League won an All-Star Game pretty soon?

Uh, I’m the commissioner … so I have to remain impartial. I’ll let you answer that.

The answer? Eliminated.

Bud Selig's Inconsistent Opinions

Bud Selig offers his thoughts on the New Yankee Stadium. We will now see yet another example of the commissioner being a waffling milquetoast. I, for one, can't wait until baseball hires a commissioner that looks as bad ass as this guy:



NEW YORK -- Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig felt like he was 15 again.

I figure the last time he felt completely childish was when he called the All-Star game a tie and then instituted the lousy-ass "this time it counts" rule. From the tone of my critique so far, you should be able to determine that I am going to rip Selig. I know that seems to be low-hanging fruit, but the guy deserves it.

Selig remember that it was for his 15th birthday that he first stepped into historic Yankee Stadium. His mother had brought him to the Bronx so that he could see his favorite team in person, by way of the third deck.

How nice. Was Selig's family too poor to take him there before his 15th birthday? What a Horatio Alger story that Bud Selig is.

Fast-forward nearly 60 years, and here Selig was at the opening of the Yankees' new $1.5 billion home.

Goddamn, I didn't realize Bud was that old. Someone put him out to pasture already.

"My view is a little better today," Selig joked.

And take his jokes with him.

But in many ways, his feelings about the new facility echo those about the original one.

"I'll never forget the thrill of walking in [the old Stadium] the first time," Selig said. "What I sense today is they've preserved the history."

By moving into a brand-new stadium designed to generate approximately a skillion more dollars a year, yes, they preserved the history. I wrote about this issue last summer, and I stand by it. The Yankees sold their history to more money, and nobody's even mentioning it.

Selig is also in favor of preserving the history at two of baseball's most hallowed shrines -- Fenway Park and Wrigley Field. As much as he likes the way architects have brought Yankee Stadium into the 21st century, Selig hopes Fenway and Wrigley can remain a central part of the sport's connection to previous generations by staying open.

Note how he avoids criticizing what the Yankees did, even though their now-defunct stadium was thrice the hallowed shrine than either of those other parks. I guess it's not the commish's place to critique a team, but it sure seems like this is example #842 of Bud Selig not having the cojones to tell it like it is.

"There's something about Fenway and Wrigley that I'd like to see preserved," Selig said. "I think the institution of Fenway and Wrigley is something that should be preserved. If they can make it work [economically], good for them."

Goddamn: don't people realize that the Yankees, in old Yankee Stadium, were certainly "making it work [economically]" - shit, they were raking in money to the tune of $327,000,000 dollars. That is not enough to support the Yankees' lust for bigger money, bigger stars, bigger everything. Therefore, they built a new stadium, hoping to exceed that. Note again that Bud avoids saying that the "institution of Yankee stadium should've been preserved.

The opening of this lavish park in the midst of a recession is seen by some as incongruous. And the Yankees have been criticized by some for the 52,325-seat ballpark's ticket prices, which reach as high as $2,625.

If you build it, they will come. If the Yankees can get people to pay it, fine by me. Also, whoever sees this as "incongruous" is an idiot, since they started building this thing like five years ago, when this country was not in a recession. Can you imagine the Yankees' brass saying: "Oh, shit, there's a recession, let's just have this mostly-built ballpark just sit there idly!".

Me neither.

But while the priciest seats get a lot of the attention, Selig looks at the park's full range of prices -- including $5 bleacher seats, $29 grandstand seats and $48 terrace seats on the low end of the spectrum -- and considers the charges to be fair, for the most part.

I'm glad they have forty-eight dollar seats for all those poor New Yorkers who want to sit on the terrace but couldn't afford sixty-dollar seats.

"I know there's been a focus on the expensive seats," he said. "[Yankees co-chairman] Hal Steinbrenner himself has said that's something that they should review. But in the meantime, there are a lot of seats priced here that are quite fair and competitive."

And Selig said he believes MLB's clubs have done a fine job staying fair and competitive at a time when many fans are forced to tighten their belts.

"As a sport, baseball's done an amazing job with ticket prices this year," Selig said. "I'm proud of our clubs. We've reacted very well. A lot of clubs have cut prices and concession prices. My father used to always say to me, 'There's nothing good or bad, except by comparison.' If you look at other forms of entertainment, our ticket prices overall are competitive."

Bud Selig's dad is endorsing a dangerous form of moral relativism here. I wonder if the young Selig ever used his dad's argument against him. It seems to me that any father that concedes such a point is entering dangerous waters!

Selig didn't take the full tour of the new Yankee Stadium on Thursday. He said he plans to give this park and Citi Field, which the Mets opened up on Monday, a full review when each club has an off-day.

Glad the commissioner is earning his keep by going around, touring new stadiums, and offering inconsisten opinions on baseball's own commitment to history.

But Selig did get a chance to watch some of Thursday's game with Yankees principal owner George M. Steinbrenner III.

I wonder if you have to do this once you become commish. I think I'd probably just tell Steinbrenner to kiss my ass and go sit in the bleachers, but then again, Bud Selig didn't get where he is without knowing how to butter up the real kingmakers.

"I sat with him for a little while," Selig said. "I did most of the talking. I just told him he ought to be very proud."

Bud, jellyfish that you are, you just don't have the courage to go up to George Steinbrenner III and tell him what you really think of his team's fairly clear abandoning of baseball history for bigger revenue streams.

Politics, Bud Selig, and Nutley, New Jersey

At first, I was going to post about an article in The Hockey News about Sarah Palin dropping the puck in Philadelphia. The article was pretty bitter, bad, and overall a FireJay winner. But you don't come here for politics. You come here to escape politics. That's why I come here.

Well tough nails, Judy, here's something that could be construed to be political in a way.

You can stop if you want. If you want to leave right now, here's a story about how you lead a better life than this guy. I can say that my own Price is Right story ended in heartbreak as well, but I didn't go that far.

Larry declared this nitpick week, and nitpick I shall. In the course of a normal day, I use Firefox to browse RSS feeds from around the internet. Having just added a fabulous tool to Firefox to display all of the text in Live Bookmark headlines, I wandered on over to Ad Age. Here's the whole article:

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) --Major League Baseball has moved back the scheduled start time of a possible game six of the World Series so Fox can also air the half-hour spot from Sen. Barack Obama on Oct. 29.

A network spokeswoman confirmed the buy and said MLB had agreed to the network's request for the delay.

Fox now joins CBS and NBC in airing the half hour program, whose content the Obama campaign has declined to describe. The decision means the Obama campaign is now spending close to $3 million to air the program from 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. that night on at least three networks. ABC didn't immediately return a message asking whether it too has now agreed to a buy, a move which would create an unprecedented roadblock of the nation's biggest commercial networks.

Fox had originally been scheduled to start airing the baseball game at 8:20 p.m. but is now expected to start the game at 8:35 p.m.

In other words, "Hey Jughead, didja hear? The Supreme Court reversed..."

Nothing wrong with that, $1 million speaks in the world of television. In fact, dan-bob has fantastically noted the intrinsic greed of television and money.

But sometimes - and I'm not saying that it happens here - the commenter comes through for a nitpicker in a pinch. Patrick Kehoe from chortle-worthy Nutley, New Jersey weighs in.

1 Comment
Are you kidding me!!! Now baseball has gone political. This 30 minute buy is absolutely ridiculous, like we haven't seen enough of Obama and McCain. Hey Bud Selig, you suck! – Patrick Kehoe | Nutley, NJ

Yes, Bud Selig sucks. He's the reason that this time, it counts. Complain about Selig putting every LDS game on basic cable. Blame him for the Steroid Era if you want. But who is getting a cool million from Obama for 30 minutes of time here? MLB might see a little bit of it, but FOX is who you have a beef with, Nutley. Usually you can't get away form politics because it's every ad right now. Or because some loser in Missouri decided to post this to a sports blog.

Bud Selig To Nuke The NFL

Bud apologizes for reserve clause, etc.

Bud, is this really necessary? I love how this makes a story: Baseball Commissioner takes credit for the sport's popularity. What has Bud done? Managed to avoid another cataclysmic and pointless strike because both sides realize they are making more money than everyone else in the country except the oil companies?

I actually liked this article, because I felt that deep down, whoever wrote it was actually mocking ol' Bud. Why else would we publish the fact that a commissioner apologized for something he had nothing to do with? But here's the real clincher that makes this article a Bud-laugh:

Red Sox president Larry Lucchino called Selig "the Harry Truman of baseball commissioners" and said changes such as interleague play and the wild card make Selig the most accomplished of the sport's leaders.

Ookay, Larry. Make a comparison to a president whose most famous action was utterly annihilating an enemy. I hardly suspect that the wild-card and interleague play have established baseball as the superpower sport, while Nagasaki established the USA as the superpower country.

Was that what you were trying to say, Mr. Lucchino?