The real question is, Who's Now? Is Mike Trout Now?

I should have done this post back on Tuesday when I took the screen cap, but fuck it, it's still relevant so I'll do it now.  Here's the ESPN front page as of Tuesday morning:

First of all, before we get to the main event, let's look at the undercard that is the four "sub front page" stories on the bottom.

Going from left to right: NCAA women's basketball, which is front page news the day after MLB opening day, while the NBA and NHL are approaching the end of the regular season.  I wonder why this is here?  Could it be because ESPN televises NCAAW tournament games?  Nah, no way, couldn't be.  I was promised by John Skipper (or some other piece of cat shit high powered ESPN decision maker, I'm not going to look up exactly who it was right now but I'm pretty sure it was Skipper) in "Those Guys Have All the Fun" that's ESPN's editorial decisionmaking process is COMPLETELY REMOVED from its business side.  So therefore, I guess NCAAW is on there with the same number of panels/stories as MLB because it's editorially important to cover it, right?  And I guess the NHL just really isn't editorially important at all.  Not that I give a shit whether ESPN enables obnoxious NHL fanboys (who are the worst fans this side of obnoxious soccer fanboys) by giving the fanboys' sport the attention the fanboys think it deserves, but come on.  Fucking women's basketball?  Fuck that.  Fuck.

Next: Turmoil in Indy.  Wow, holy hell!  It's a story about a team that isn't the Heat, Knicks, Bulls or Lakers!  And it appears to be about how they're doing on the court and what challenges they might face as they move towards the playoffs!  Wild stuff.  I'm shocked.  ESPN management is aware of the relatively low number of people who live in Indy and/or follow the Pacers, right?

Next: Final Four.  It's the week before the Final Four.  Sounds like news to me.

Finally: "Critical of Kobe."  I don't know what this is and I don't give a fuck.  He hasn't played a meaningful game in a year.  I don't care what he Tweeted about what someone wrote about what he Tweeted, or whatever the fuck is being addressed here.  This is tabloid garbage and it does not belong on the front page, or anywhere else.

OK, enough of that.  I should just be happy the entire front page isn't NFL draft.  IT'S ONLY FIVE WEEKS AWAY, GUYS.  WHO'S GOING TO GO #1 OVERALL?  I THINK I JUST PEED MY PANTS.  Fuck the NFL draft.  Anyways, here's the reason I decided to write this post in the first place.

Mike Trout is really awesome.  He's the best player in baseball.  When he signs a gigantic contract extension, that's very important news.  However, he signed that contract on Friday night.  In the world of 24 hour sports news, it's ancient history by Tuesday morning.  It would have been ancient history even if Monday weren't opening day, i.e. the day on which a bunch of teams played their first game and lots of cool stuff happened.  Now, Mike Trout hit a home run on Monday night, which is pretty cool.  But his team still got their shit kicked in by the Mariners.  They lost 10-3.  But that doesn't even get mentioned in the subheadline.  It's only in the title of one of the links.  To be clear: I am not a Mariners fan.  I don't give a pot of piss about the Mariners.  I am not whining about this because I feel like the Mariners have been disrespected here.  As you can see from the highlighted box on the score ticker at the top of the screen capture, I am a Rockies fan.  God, do the Rockies suck.  Anyways.

So, the Mariners beat the Angels on Monday night.  Lots of other baseball stuff happened too.  What is ESPN's angle?  Well, since ESPN is more interested in promoting marketable personalities (WHO'S NOW????  IS JOHNNY FOOTBALL NOW?  I'M PRETTY SURE HE IS NOW) than covering sports, the angle becomes: Mike Trout hit a home run.  But Mike Trout's home run was pretty unimportant.  It was a long ways away from being the most important thing to happen in this game, and this game was definitely not the night's most entertaining.  Thus: this home run isn't really news, unless you're some shithead who cares more about stories and narratives than about sports.  Unfortunately, that's exactly who ESPN caters to.

ESPN is awful.  Please stop watching ESPN, people.  I have, except for live MLB and NBA broadcasts, and with the MLB ones I mute the TV.  (Their NBA announcers are kind of good though!)  Reading ESPN.com is not as bad as watching the network, but it's still terrible.  What do they offer that another major content provider that is 10% less horrible doesn't?  If you think the answer isn't "Nothing," you are wrong.  Just go to CBS or FoxSports or the actual home page of whatever league/sport you like to follow.  You won't regret it!  Oh, and if you use ESPN ScoreCenter on your phone, please stop.  That app was OK a couple years ago but it's horrendous now.  You're going to laugh at this suggestion, but I stand behind it.  Hear me out.  Delete ScoreCenter now and download TeamStream.  Yes, TeamStream is from Bleacher Report.  No, I do not go to Bleacher Report's website.  No, I do not respect Bleacher Report.  But damn, that is one fine app.  Seriously.  Try it.

In conclusion: fuck ESPN in the nose.

ESPN's wretched baseball coverage

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you've probably noticed that it has devolved into pretty much just me posting about Simmons, Easterbrook, and the occasional generic rant against ESPN.  And since Easterbrook only writes about the NFL (and the pathetic lack of realism in TV's most watched show, Last Resort) and Simmons only writes about the NFL and the NBA, posts about those two leagues end up making up about 80% of what goes on around here. Things weren't always this way.  Back when we launched we were focused mainly on baseball, because that's Chris's, Dan's, PNoles's and my favorite sport.  Nothing has changed in that department--it's still certainly my favorite sport to read about/watch--I've just blogged about it a lot less.  Maybe that will change this summer.  Earlier tonight Chris sent me a screenshot of ESPN.com's main MLB page and broke down how worthless their online coverage is.  (Not that it needs to be said, but their televised MLB coverage is also utterly worthless.)  I'm lazy, so I'm going to steal his idea and in some cases more or less steal his exact words.  He'll deal with it.  But enough context/introduction: just look at this fucking mess.

Let's run through all the content here, keeping in mind that there are only about five thousand other places you can find baseball news and analysis online.  It's really too bad that the articles I'm about to summarize/mock are so terrible, because as I'll indicate in a number of parentheticals, I really genuinely like many of ESPN's baseball writers.  They're not exactly producing top notch content, though.

These are the featured stories, the ones with corresponding slides below the main video box:

1.) A saccharine-sweet article by Jayson Stark (who is not a bad writer, but also not exactly known for producing hard hitting analysis) about how Max Scherzer could be great if absolutely everything possible goes right for him, and then given that Justin Verlander is good, those two together could give the Tigers good pitching, which, yeah, no fucking dogshit.

2.) A substance-free puff piece by Tim Kurkjian (again, a writer who I generally approve of, but who also is not really known for coming up with interesting analysis) about how unfair it is that people are skeptical about RA Dickey's chances for repeating his 2012 season.  The chosen angle: people are so darn mean to knuckleballers!

3.) Another substance-free article/video, this time about Chase Headley.  I've actually got to give them props for actually doing an article about Chase Headley, a guy 75% of baseball fans only know of as "that guy who plays for some west coast them that we should have traded for at the deadline last season."  No further snark here.

4.) A slide about the WBC that seems like it might have some decent and available content. Nope, nevermind, it's just a photo gallery and three ESPN Insider articles (who the hell is going to buy Insider to read about the WBC?).

5.) Horseshit "future rankings," a totally worthless exercise in trying to rank all franchises based on the votes of smart genius baseball minds like Jim Bowden (yes, I know, lol Jim Bowden).  When you're borrowing ideas from the fuckheads over at FanGraphs and somehow executing their ideas worse than they execute them, you truly are out of ideas.


Next, we have the news in brief items from the right sidebar:

1.) A lie about Mike Trout taking the high road in negotiations--since apparently Trout and his agent are dumb enough to think fans will believe that the agent popped off at the mouth without being directed to by Trout.  Buster Olney provides Insider analysis on this already excruciating "story."

2.) Generic sensationalist news that is certainly scary but also certainly uninteresting if you came to this page hoping to read about baseball

3.) Actual baseball news peppered with absolutely unnecessary video (fantasy related, since many people only care about baseball because they play fantasy baseball, a symptom of the fact that ESPN's baseball coverage blows)

4.) Actual baseball news (fantasy related)

5.) Actual baseball news (fantasy related)
6.) Actual baseball news
7.) Actual baseball news
8.) More or less actual baseball news, sort of (fantasy related)
9.) Non-news, but baseball related
10.) Actual baseball news
11.) Another Buster Olney Insider article that may or may not be actual baseball news, but is definitely not worth paying for

Finally, the featured columns, from the bottom of the page, running from left to right:

1.) Jason Giambi is giving out life lessons Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
2.) Human interest piece on Brian McCann Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
3.) Sportsnation article (puke)
4.) Insider article about the realigned AL West from the biggest asshole in the world of baseball analysis (to his credit, at least when he writes he's usually actually trying to provide insight, which makes him woefully out of place at ESPN)
5.) Article on analytics I might actually consider clicking on but probably won't
6.) Endless talk about the Mike Trout non-issue, which is essentially tabloid shit, but yes, please, let 's keep breaking down all the nothingness
7.) Puff piece on an Iraq veteran who got to try out for the Dodgers, certainly heartwarming but also tabloid
8.) The same Olney Insider article as referenced in #1 on the sidebar stories, about a story that should have died 15 seconds after it hit the wire
9.) ARE THE DODGERS THE NEW EVIL EMPIRE???? AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW

So yeah, what a fucking wasteland.  Especially the news and featured columns.  I'll say it again because part of me feels bad ripping on them here--Stark, Crasnick and Kurkjian are all enjoyable writers who don't take themselves too seriously.  But they shouldn't be anchoring the baseball coverage of the world's largest sports network with this dreck.  Here's hoping they find a way to step their game up as the season goes along.  Nothing would make me happier than to do an apology post in a few months that says "Well, ESPN is still a tabloid tub of elephant shit, but at least they've got their main columnists covering interesting and worthwhile subjects!"

Your most recent dose of inanity from Terry Francona

Slowly (very very slowly), this is becoming a recurring event. It's Sunday. I want to post something, but don't have time or energy for a long post. I look for a source for something about which to make a quick post. I turn on ESPN. Either Baseball Tonight is on, or Sunday Night Baseball is on. I listen to either Kruk or Francona for three-ish minutes. Presto, there's my post. Tonight: during the Braves/Mets game, Terry riffs about Atlanta's new players.

Orel Hershiser: Terry, Earlier you mentioned the moves the Braves made.
Terry: They acquired, as Fredi [Gonzalez] said, baseball players. 

Savvy move.  The Astros are like 5-60 since June 1st because they have wasted time and money acquiring pro surfers.

Reed Johnson is a gym rat. 

I hate picking nits when it comes to dumb non-analysis, but isn't a gym rat who has a spot on an MLB team, like, the opposite of a capital B Baseball capital P Player?  I think of the latter as someone who has great instincts and natural talent for the game (even if they're not particularly athletic), and the former as someone who sucks at baseball but works out a lot and hustles a lot and endears himself management so he always has a job.  Also, Reed Johnson sucks at baseball.

He's at the ballpark all day, 

OR IS HE IN THE GYM?  MAKE UP YOUR MIND

he knows how to play. 

Number of MLB players who know how to play baseball: all.

A guy like Eric Hinske sitting over there. 

A sentence fragment in the style of Bill Plaschke.  Eric Hinske has been a Brave for more than two years.  Also, while Eric Hinske has stunk less than Reed Johnson over the course of his career, he actually stinks worse than Johnson right now.  He's hitting .209/.287/.304 this year.  No amount of knowing how to play and being at the ballpark all day can make up for that awfulness.

They have a ballclub that understands what they're supposed to do when they show up.

You are saying absolutely nothing.  Your non-existant point is that the Braves have some players (who happen to be untalented and white and scrappy) who are dedicated to winning and prepare a lot in order to increase their chances of doing so.  And that... makes the Braves identical to the other 29 teams in MLB.  Really, the only thing you're actually saying is hidden in subtext: if guys like Johnson didn't work out all the time and hustle their asses off, they wouldn't have jobs because they sure as shit aren't very good at baseball.  

Much as I hate the Red Sox, I didn't mind Francona as their manager.  Now I wish they'd hire him back to get him away from TV microphones.

Attention: baseball commentators of America

I have heard several of you talk about Mike Trout during the past month.  In aggregate, about 20% of your talk time has been spent praising Trout's baseball ability while 80% of it has been spent talking about what a wonderful person he is.  He is humble.  His teammates love him.  He is mature beyond his years.  Did you mention he was humble?  Yes, yes you did, 250 fucking times already.  Here's something you need to hear: I don't give a flying fuck about what kind of person he is (as long as he's not a shameless dickhead like Ty Cobb or Barry Bonds or Joe West).  I know that many of you are stuffy boring white men in your 40s or 50s, who are appalled at all the brashness today's youngpeople exude.  What with their affinity for hippity hop music and the Twitter, it's a wonder the whole country hasn't literally gone to literal hell in a literal handbasket yet.  And I know that Trout has a twinkle in his eye as he tells you that the most important thing to him is winning rather than his own statistics.  Just fucking stuff a cork in it and tell me about what makes him a great player.  Tell me about his approach at the plate, or how he generates backspin, or the quality of the routes he takes to the ball when he's playing defense.  I'm begging yoU.  No more GEE GOLLY WHAT A NICE YOUNG MAN I'D LET HIM DATE MY DAUGHTER.  I'm about to kick the shit out of my TV.

Real post re Simmons coming later this week.  Like I said last week, I'm really lurching through summer here, what with all the time I'm spending outside and shit.  Teh blogzz will be more active come September.  Promise.

Orel Hershiser confirms what you've known since the instant you first learned of his existence

Just a second ago Baseball Tonight was doing some stupid fucking segment where Hershiser and Doug Glanville made their choices for the five best offenses in baseball.  The fact that they were doing this was not what made it fucking stupid--the manner in which they did it was.  Apparently ESPN did some focus group research and came to the conclusion that having analysts use a giant touchscreen is OMG A BIG HIT WITH TEH VIEWERZ.  I have no idea why that would be the case.  But some producer decided that rather than having Orel and Doug tell an intern what their choices for that top 5 were in advance so a graphic could be prepared with each man's list, it would be a lot more fun to let them use a touchscreen to drag/drop icons with the teams' logos into open spots on a top 5 ladder.  IT WAS RIVETING.  Mostly because Hershiser struggled mightily with the drag/drop process, putting his teams into Doug's spots by mistake, then having to clear the board a couple of times before finally getting it right.  He was self-deprecating about it.  At one point he jokingly asked Karl Ravech if it was a 45 or 60 minute edition of the show.

Anyways, the reason I'm making this into a post is because once the segment was over and they were going to commercial, Glanville and Ravech really started giving it to him.  His response: "You think growing up with a name like 'Orel' I was never embarrassed?"  Oof.  Poor middle school-aged Orel.

John Kruk: Terrified of numbers of all kinds

I have to admit, Krukie's BBTN analysis has improved over the years.  He used to say stuff like this and this.  Lately he's a lot less offensive and has even learned to read a teleprompter.  Good for him.  Tonight, though, he put together a little mini rant that I found both amusing and illuminating.  Amusing because let's face it, it's always funny when a fat idiot gets worked up about something, and illuminating because it showed that ex-player neanderthals like him who hate advanced stats also hate any other numerical information that's not batting average/number of pitching wins.  In other words Kruk showed that the universe of stuff he'd rather not understand is a lot larger than I previously thought it was.

ESPN occasionally does these little Sport Science bits; they're actually not a huge waste of time.  They dumb down the physics behind awesome stuff that athletes do and then present their analysis with some cool-looking production.  Here's how much force LeBron generates when he jumps to dunk, here's the amount of torque Tiger Woods generates when he swings, etc.  It's like a video version of a USA Today infographic.  Early this evening on BBTN they did one about this Justin Sellers catch.  The narrator (who is not one of the anchors; it's a pre-recorded bit) described the amount of time Sellers spent looking at the ball to judge its trajectory, the "optimal acceleration cancellation" his brain used to create a vectored route that would intersect with the ball's trajectory, the speed at which he was running when he tumbled into the stands (19 mph), and the force of impact he made with the wall (somehow equivalent to being hit by a car going 20 rather than 19 mph).  It was reasonably entertaining.  And when it was over, we were taken back to the studio to get Kruk and Karl Ravech's thoughts.  Take it away, Larry B's DVR.

Sport Science narrator, wrapping things up:  Sellers manages to hold onto the ball after tumbling into the stands, and grab our play of the week.  


KR: I love it.  I love what I just saw.  I love that stuff.  There he is.  He basically caught the ball, got hit by a car, and held onto it.


JK:  At twenty miles per hour.


[graphic on screen: Most defensive runs saved by Dodgers in 2012.  Sellers is second on the team with 4 in just 90 innings in the field.]


KR:  At twenty miles per hour.  That's Justin Sellers there, Jerry Hairston Junior, as far as the Dodgers go... (obviously trolling Kruk) Krukie, what part of that resonates with you?  Was it the optimal acceleration cancellation?  


JK (sarcastically):  That was... that was where I really got into it.  (pause)  Karl.


KR (chuckling):  What.


JK:  My optical illusions told me when I watched that play that it was a great play.  I don't need science to tell me that was a great play.  I don't.  I don't care how long his eyes were on the ball.  I don't care if a car going FIFTY miles per hour hit him.


KR:  Yeah, well, that was-


JK:  He made a great play.  I didn't need science to tell me that.


KR:  Well, it allows to just-


JK (exasperated):  Sometimes, let's just use our eyes.  Let's just use our eyes!


KR:  So... you don't want to know HOW great a play it was.


JK  (still exasperated):  No.  I know how great a play it was!  It was very difficult!


KR:  He caught it.  Got hit by a car.  And held onto it.


JK: (exhales audibly)  I feel like I got hit by a car.

What's the best part of that?  Him pleading with us to "just use our eyes," as if one could enjoy Sellers' play by knowing the Sport Science facts but without actually have seen the catch?  "My optical illusions?"  Ravech unashamedly setting Kruk up for a rant against an in-house production piece?  Pretty fun.  I also enjoyed their signoff about 30 minutes later, before Sunday Night Baseball began, in which Karl awkwardly announced that they'd be back for more Baseball Tonight after the game in part because he didn't think he and Kruk had done anything to get fired during the show.  Great stuff.

ESPN is not a meritocracy

Legitimate post coming tomorrow. In the meantime, let's all chuckle at the pumpkinheaded idiot pictured on the right:

I wanted to post a clip of his BBTN appearance from earlier this evening but I couldn't find it. All you really need to know is that he and Karl Ravech (bless that man's soul for having to deal with the Kruks and Fernando Vinas and Schillings of the world) were discussing Brian Wilson's injury, and he (Schilling) pointed out that Bruce Bochy will now have to go with a "bullpen by committee," and Ravech corrected him and pointed out that he must have meant closer by committee, and Schilling agreed and corrected himself, and then eight seconds later went right back to discussing the difficulties associated with managing a bullpen by committee. Then, asked to explain what the loss of Wilson means to the Giants, Schilling said something like

I mean, what he means is everything you just saw right there. The passion. The heart.

when in fact, the viewers had not seen anything related to Wilson leading into the segment. No highlights, no interview footage, no obnoxious Taco Bell commercial. Maybe Schilling was watching one of the above in the minutes leading up to the taping of the segment, and then assumed that all the viewers would have seen the same thing right before the segment aired? In any case, I get that doing TV journalism is probably way harder than most people think it is, but facts are facts: Curt Schilling should be strapped to a rocket and shot into deep space. Or at the very least he shouldn't be allowed on the BBTN set. Maybe let him work the ESPNNews desk between midnight and 5 AM or something.

As for my snarkity snark snark headline, I'm not saying there's anything shocking or inappropriate about the fact that ESPN pays a braindead zilcheroo like Schilling to try to talk about baseball. Just look at who gets paid to talk about football on every outlet that broadcasts it and it's easy to see that all over the sports media world, being a former player is just as useful a career advancement tool as having interesting things to say and knowing how to form complete sentences. But man... Schilling really takes the cake for being uninteresting, unlikeable, and extra stupid.

An article about baseball written by someone who obviously knows nothing about baseball

Back in the day, way back when that other FJM blog (the one that copied our name and stole our idea) was still active, they occasionally wrote posts picking on small-time sportswriters. Really small-time. Like, they'd pick on the guy who writes the sports section, entertainment section, and police blotter for the North Platte Plains Journal. I always thought that was kind of pointless; sure, those writers had really stupid things to say about sports, but it's not like anyone ever read their garbage. It kind of had the feel of a literary critic ripping apart entries from a middle school short story contest.

But you know what? Fuck that. If they can steal our ideas, we can steal theirs. Last week I stumbled into this piece by some dude from the Enid (Oklahoma) News and Eagle. And that dude, Dave Ruthenberg, has some really great and valid points to make about interleague play. So lean back in your porch swing, take a sip of homemade iced tea, and enjoy some small town sportswriting from a guy who really isn't too sure about this whole Facebook Twitter thing.

In the normal scheme of things, Tuesday’s 5-2 victory by the Florida Marlins over the Los Angeles Angels would garner nary a notice other than a mention on that ubiquitous lower-screen ESPN crawl on your television.

Well your first problem is that you're watching ESPN and expecting any kind of baseball coverage at all. TONIGHT ON SPORTSCENTER- JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR WHAT CAM NEWTON HAD TO SAY ABOUT BEING COMPARED TO MIKE VICK IN A TWEET FROM LEBRON.

Certainly, the fact the Marlins and Angels were playing an interleague game bore little or no interest to most fans.

Whereas most Marlins games get coverage like the first moon landing.

Interleague play, once an intriguing an idea before the explosion of cable and satellite TV brought nearly every team from the American League and National League into our homes, has run its tired course.

Baseball has been shown on national TV since 1965. I understand that MLB Extra Innings is a little different than a single game being broadcast nationally once a week on ABC, but it's not like the only option for following games when interleague was conceptualized was to sit around your family's vacuum tube radio and hope you could pick up the Senators/Redstockings game.

Interleague play was a new idea in 1997,

All ideas are new ideas when people first have them. That is the essence of an idea.

but has quickly grown old and needs to put out to pasture. Be honest, does anybody care that the Detroit Tigers are playing the Colorado Rockies or that the Washington Nationals are playing the Seattle Mariners?

Does anyone care when the Tigers play the Mariners and the Rockies play the Nationals? Pointing out that unpopular teams play interleague games is not a reason to can it. Although I have to agree with the author's implied premise: baseball certainly would be more interesting if the AL consisted of only the Red Sox and Yankees and the NL consisted of only the Dodgers and Phillies. Geez, that would be so exciting that it might even be worth reconsidering this whole “let's shelve interleague” thing. Yankees-Phillies! Can you imagine?

Sure, there were a couple of intriguing matchups such as St. Louis and Kansas City

Yeah, a good 40% of Missouri was riveted to that one. THAT'S the one you pick?

or the Cubs versus the Mets.

Not to mention that White Sox/Rangers interleague series from a few weeks back!

But even those games have lost their luster in the middle of a baseball season that is sorely lacking intrigue or excitement.

You know what would help baseball regain its status as America's favorite sport? If it had more football in it.

So why would a game involving the Florida Marlins, who entered Tuesday with an 11-game losing streak, matter to anyone? Jack McKeon.

Hey, one of the league's least-followed teams hired an 80 year old dude to manage. NOW we'll see some intrigue and excitement.

/waits for Jack McKeon to say something racist or pee himself during a press conference

While baseball needs to retire interleague play, it is a little ironic

I don't want to be a grammar dick, but it's ironical.

that a manager long ago thought to have been put out to pasture, became, at least for now, baseball’s most interesting story.

So ironical. I guess in Dave's world, interleague play = boring, Jack McKeon = interesting. Geez, where does the fact that the Pirates just signed a contract with a new hot dog bun provider for PNC Parkfit on this scale? Can it even fit or do we have to acknowledge that some things are so incredible that they simply can't be categorized?

The 80-year-old McKeon was brought out of retirement to take over as interim manager of the woeful Marlins after Edwin Rodriguez stepped down as their manager. Rodriguez compiled a record of 78-85 since taking over one year ago but things were heading downhill swiftly but when the Marlins named McKeon, most observers snickered.

Editorial standards at the News and Eagle aren't what they used to be.

But really, an 80-year-old manager? McKeon is old-school and offers no apologies.

Unlike Manny Acta, who simply will not stop fucking apologizing for his age. It's really awkward, actually.

“Why should experience get penalized?” McKeon said after he took on the job.

Because as humans get older they tend to get shittier at everything?

“Maybe I’m not hip with the Twitter or Facebook or stuff like that,

Is there a more predictable way for an 80 year old in a young persons' industry to respond to a question about their age? I'm certain that there isn't. Eat your heart out, Ted Stevens. WELL I TELL YOU WHAT I DON'T KNOW TOO MUCH ABOUT THE INTERNET ROBOT MACHINES BUT I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT DOUBLE SWITCHES

but outside of that I don’t have any problem disciplining my kids – or these players.”

So McKeon will not be telling Hanley Ramirez to get his lazy fucking ass in gear via tweet or status message. Gotcha.

You have to admire straight-forward talk like that.

No you don't. You have to either 1) shrug it off as a stupid cliché or 2) nod along cautiously because you're also 80 and have no idea what Facebook and Twitter are.

Not being familiar with today’s so-called social media may be an advantage. How many games have been won via Twitter or Facebook?

Exactly 273, but who's counting? Yeah, I have to admit that the other FJM was onto something w/r/t these small time sportswriters. I might have to start checking in with Dave from Enid regularly. This guy rules.

John Kruk slowly lurches his way towards 21st century baseball analysis

A couple hours ago on Baseball Tonight, while talking about how successful the Brewers have been since Corey Hart came off the DL:

Their runs are up. Their OPS (pause) which I absolutely love... (pause) is up high. (pause) That OPS is the biggest stat you will ever find in the game of baseball.

Biggest?

Bobby Valentine, tastefully explaining OPS to the "alls I care about is batting average and pitching wins" crowd: That "OPS-" on base plus slugging, in case you were wondering.

Karl Ravech, a man more than familiar with Krukie's buffoonery: John had that on his card.

So they keep their talking points on 3" x 5" index cards. I think that's pretty cool actually. They can't script it like they do on that travesty of a show Sportscenter has become since there are so many live updates, so they just write shit down and talk about it when they get around to talking about it. I respect Kruk 2% more than I did yesterday because of that fact.

I've never seen a card so full of information for you. That's some good research.

Kruk: Yeah I didn't actually write all this down. Someone gave it to me.

Well with any luck, interns will be writing down information about FIP and WAR for Kruk no later than 2020.

Why Was "Moneyball" Written? Among Other Reasons, THIS

Oh my goodness gracious. Oh sweet potato pie with gravy. This one is a motherfucking doozy.

What you're about to read is going to sound an awful lot like a parody- the kind of fictional conversation you might read on The Dugout or Kissing Suzy Kolber. But it's not. It took place during an actual, real broadcast of an actual, real edition of Baseball Tonight which aired last Saturday night and Sunday morning. These ESPN analysts (term "analyst" used loosely in Buck Showalter's case) really said these things. It's perhaps the most hilarious pile of bullshit I've ever heard on TV. I was able to transcribe what was said word-for-word and stutter-for-stutter, as I moved into a new apartment on 8/1 and am now the proud owner of a DVR. It takes forever to do the transcription but in this case it was 100% worth it. You'll see that my commentary is pretty limited, because, let's face it, this segment is funny enough on its own.

One final time, please keep in mind, this is a real segment that ran on BBTN. Seriously. We join it already in progress, as I happened to channel surf into the catastrophe rather than watching it unfold from its beginning. You'll have to imagine how it began. Our topic: what baseball scouts look for in terms of a prospect's body.

Buck Showalter (standing, adjusting his feet from pigeon-toed to parallel to "open," presumably showing different ways players run): I've seen some bow-legged guys, you know, you wanna talk about Deion Sanders or Derek Jeter...

Steve Berthiaume: [Indecipherable] could barely walk, but he could run like a deer!

BS: Well I'll tell you what, he could put it in play, and he could run.

Buck is a folk hero. He's the Boomhauer of baseball analysts. Tell you what, that boy could play a little ball, you know?

SB: Now, "10 to 2," "5 to 1," (referring to ways scouts describe the alignment of feet) I thought scouting was all about average, RBIs, OPS.

You forgot living in your parents' basement, never seeing the sun, not knowing what grass feels like between your toes, not knowing how to talk to a girl, never having sex, never having sexy dreams because you've never had sex and can't even conceptualize what it would be like, etc.

But you're using terminology that they use, and that's what they actually make their recommendations on, right?

BS: The stats are the easy part! Now, you don't get to see a guy play 20, 30 times. But you take your experience you've learned from years and years and years, what Major League players look like, for the most part. With a few exceptions to the rule.

And this is part of the impetus behind Billy Beane's style of GMing, and thus the inspiration for "Moneyball." A bunch of (in my opinion, creepy) old baseball scouts pay a significant amount of attention to how a player looks. Do they pay more attention to looks than ability? Most probably don't. Some probably do. In any case, this segment is about to get all kinds of anecdotal/creepy. Because we're not just talking about a prospect's body in general. We're talking about individual body parts.

SB: Alright, we've done feet. What's a good leg?

One that works? One with muscles and bone in it? One that enables a guy to run fast?

BS: A good leg? Well, it's a, you don't wanna see a guy's thigh wide this way (places hands at sides of upper leg and expands them outwards), you wanna see them wide that way (places hands at front and back of upper leg and expands them outwards).

Thanks for the anecdotal bullshit, Buck. I don't care how many dusty dirt roads in the middle of Wyoming you've driven down to find the next Mickey Mantle playing in a community softball game in a city no one has ever visited. You've got to be fucking kidding me with this. How are you going to be able to tell if a guy has a "wide" side-to-side thigh versus a "thick" front-to-back thigh? You aren't. But don't let any of those stat nerds tell you that. They're too busy not understanding what it's like to feel the foul line chalk between your fingers.

Tim Kirkijuan: Who's got great legs?

BS: Alex Rodriguez. Perfection in his legs, as far as going this way. (He repeats the "good" motion he used above, as a Baseball Tonight graphic which reads "LEGS" flashes across the screen and is immediately followed by a clip of Rodriguez running down the first base line. It freezes at some point, and a spot shadow illuminates A-Rod's gorgeous thigh.) Very strong, can stand up to the toll that Major League players... and uh, stays away from injury for the most part.

He missed most of spring training and all of April with a hip injury this year. Where were his turbothighs on that one? Also, way to pick one of the 10 or so best players of all time to prove your point. You're really crossing the correlation-causation gap there. A-Rod has legs => A-Rod is a great player => A-Rod is a great player because of those legs.

Perfect example, Derek, uh, Alex Rodriguez.

Nice little Freudian slip there. Whose thigh is Buck thinking about again? And yes, I'm sure you already guessed it, but this isn't the last time we'll be hearing about a certain man named Derek.

TK (a little too excited): OK, now let's move up. Butt. What's a good butt?

Slow down, Tim. You've barely met these guys.

BS (defensively): Hey, heyheyheyhey. Well it ain't here, boys, I'm, you know (interrupted by laughter from UA and TK) Well it's common of good, especially good pitchers and guys with a lot of power, that part of the body, and the torso and the stomach, create a lot of arm speed, create a lot of bat speed. And you just don't see a lot of power hitters, or good pitchers that can generate arm speed, who don't have a good high butt on them.

At least here, I can understand that there might be some butt variation from player to player. I can also understand that a high butt helps guys generate power. Despite the inherent weirdness of talking about dudes' asses, this is probably the least objectionable part of this whole segment.

SB: You want a, who's a "high butt" guy?

BS: Uhhhhhhhh... not that I look at them a lot (TK giggles), but uh, Derek Lee.

SB: OK, Derek Lee, I like this guy, he's a "high butt" guy. (Again, we get a Baseball Tonight screen graphic which reads "HIGH BUTT" and are treated to a shot of Lee running the bases, with a spot shadow on his ass and two large yellow arrows on either side of it, pointing up.)

I'm not kidding. They really did that. With the arrows and everything.

BS: And I don't want to say he's got a "perfect butt" but I'll tell you, if you watched this guy as an amateur player you'd go "wow." That's a-

TK: And scouts are saying "He's got a high butt, I like that."

BS: Oh, without a doubt.

Again, I find this creepy.

And you don't see many guys who can't run with a high butt. They usually can run pretty well.

Nice and anecdotal, just how I want my favorite team to scout young players!

SB: So a "low butt" guy would be a catcher, somebody like that.

BS: Yeah, sometimes you- but there's exceptions, like you said, might go behind the plate, might be a relief pitcher.

What he's implying is that he, or perhaps friends of his who are scouts, have in the past (and maybe even still do) looked at a potential prospect unfavorably because the prospect's ass was not "high" enough. These are the guys who, up until maybe 10 years ago, made pretty much every low-level personnel decision for every team in baseball.

TK: What about the back? (awkwardly gestures towards his own back)

Try pointing at your own back. I bet you look like a fucking idiot right now.

BS: Oh, without a doubt, I'll tell you, one thing you look at is a wide shoulder, wide back guy.

SB: A "V" guy. (Make a "V" motion with his hands)

BS: That's why sometimes, smaller pitchers can have long careers and generate arm speed and can withstand the pounding that they take, you look for that wide back.

How is the width of your shoulders/back going to help you generate arm speed? I'll buy the durability argument, I guess. And that's the kind of thing you have to scout for without relying on stats. They won't often tell you whether or not a guy will break down over time. But I will say this- do you think Tim Lincecum would be able to ditch his crazy whiplash delivery and still be able to throw 96 if only he had a wider back?

TK: Who's got a good back?

BS: Oh, I'll tell ya, every time I see Derrek Holland with the Rangers pitch, I go "wow." That's what it looks like. (Cue "BROAD BACK" screen sweep graphic, and spot shadow on Holland's back.)

It looks exactly like every other baseball player's back does through his jersey.

Somewhere along the line a scout wrote, in his narrative, when he's going, "look at the back on this guy." Perfect-shaped back, small waist, wide shoulders, that's a good lookin' back.

Again, mildly creepy. That's not the focus of this post, but you have to admit it's definitely here in spades.

Are you ready for the good stuff? Here comes the good stuff.

TK: I remember when Bobby Cox met Chipper Jones, and I asked him, "Tell me about Chipper Jones." And he said "He's got a great face."

SB (laughing): "He's got a great face?"

Like Bill Simmons!

TK: And I was like, what is that? Give me a guy with a great face, what does that mean?

It means the scouts who started this idea that you can evaluate a player based on what his fucking face looks like (and the ones who have continued it throughout the years) are a bunch of buffoons. Seriously. I tried to cut some slack in my criticism of the "high butt" and the back. I mean, although incredibly difficult to evaluate, I acknowledge that the physical makeup of those body parts can affect a player's performance. The face? The fucking face? The bone with skin stretched over it which gives the eyes, nose, and mouth their shape? Fuck you and die in a tornado, baseball scouts.

BS: Uhhh, probably Orlando Hudson.

Well obviously Orlando Hudson.

Every time I see him, I go "great face."

???

I guarantee you, somewhere along the line- this is my favorite category. ("GREAT FACE" graphic sweeps by, and we are greeted to a close up of Hudson's mug complete with spot shadow.)

Holy shit. Holy dog balls. Can you imagine being the ESPN junior video production assistant in charge of this segment? How many times would you need to take a break from working on it so you could roll on the floor laughing? This is mind-bogglingly stupid. It's stupid in its baseball context and its even stupider in its BBTN incarnation. Yes, thank you ESPN. Thank you for the spot shadow. Now I know where Orlando Hudson's fucking face is. Better than that, I know that some scout told the Blue Jays to draft him in the 47th round way back in 1997 BECAUSE HE HAD A GOOD FUCKING FACE. I defy any Billy Beane hater out there (read: people who are scared of numbers) to watch this and then say with a straight face "Yes. This is a reasonable way to judge young baseball players." Holy fucking shitballs.

When you tell a scout "tell me what kind of face he's got," everybody knows what he's talking about. It's just a sincerity.

A calmness? A dreaminess?

There's a look in his eyes, there's a competitiveness, there's an alertness about his face. He sees what's going on around him.

Those players with great high school stats but a bad face? No idea what's happening around them. They're oblivious.

Derek Jeter,

There we go.

first time I met him in the dugout at 18, I went "Wow. What a good face."

Over time you and your ilk have probably ruined hundreds of young careers, and tried to jump start several others which had no place being jump started, based on how the players' faces looked. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES, YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS. JUST BECAUSE HERB "FACELOVER" MCGEE, WHO FOUND WILLIE MAYS HITTING ROCKS 500 FEET WITH A BROOMHANDLE BACK IN 1947, SAID "IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT A PLAYER'S FACE" DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO KEEP DOING IT. IT'S OK TO STOP AND PAY MORE ATTENTION TO ATTRIBUTES THAT ACTUALLY MATTER ANYTIME NOW.

SB: Now Buck, I know you got a lot of hits, Cape Cod League, minor leagues, I noticed, and I say this with great affection, you've got kind of a square head. (TK giggles) So I'm wondering, I'm going to guess that that's good.

It's not.

BS: Well not because I have it. I've been told it's round, but thanks anyways! (TK giggles) Square heads. I like square heads. A lot of guys, there's a definition of, uh, uh-

TK (finishing his sentence): -character there.

Character. In the shape of your head. One last time, I promise this is the last time- these guys really talked about this on a real BBTN broadcast. And thus it is fair to assume that yes, real scouts really used to (or still do) use this as a way to measure the viability of young prospects.

BS: Yeah. There's a great bloodline there, you see the definition of the jawline.

"Great bloodline?" Is Buck a member of the Aryan Brotherhood?

SB: Pujols, square head guy. (Cue "SQUARE HEAD" graphic, and video of Albert Pujols which freezes with a spot shadow on his allegedly square head)

BS: Oh, perfect! You know, that's the way major league quality hitters look. Same way guys don't like to see hitters, in a perfect world, have anything but brown eyes. There are some great blue and green-eyed hitters, but they talk about that.

Yeah, he's definitely some kind of bizarre iteration of baseball racist. EYE COLOR? FUCKING EYE COLOR?

TK: Now, when a scout shakes hands with a kid. What, what, what's that-

BS (interrupting): Oh, he's getting a lot of info back. He shakes hands (TK and BS reach out and shake each other's hands), he's already said "OK, how long's his fingers, how supple is his wrist, how fat are his palms, and how firm is his handshake?" You've got four tools before they even-

It's funny, now we're back into things which might at least have a tertiary impact on a prospect's ability. They're still patently ridiculous when compared to, you know, how fucking good the prospect is at baseball. But at least you can kind of see them mattering. And that means they are infinitely more worthy of analysis than WHAT A GUY'S FACE LOOKS LIKE.

TK (interrupting, incredulously): He, he, he's got a fat palm, he's-

SB (sarcastically interrupting, perhaps warming up to the idea that this is the most ludicrous 4 minute stretch in television history): Fat palm, he's out.

BS: Ehhhh.... catcher.

But not a first baseman! Or an outfielder, heaven forbid! Can't have all these fat-palmed fatty fat palms running around out there in fair territory.

TK: Alright, supple wrist, what's that?

BS: Well I'll tell ya, great example. Mariano Rivera. Mariano Rivera had a very stiff wrist. That's the reason why they made him a relief pitcher, because he couldn't ever master a breaking ball, couldn't make his wrist go (makes a curveball-type motion with his wrist).

SB: Now hold on, the greatest closer in the history of baseball, and he is, he can't throw a breaking ball, because his hand doesn't go like that? (makes a similar motion)

BS: Oh, he can throw a breaking ball! But it's not pretty. You know, basically, that's why he throws the cutter off-center. He can't do that (makes the curveball motion again) and create a lot of torque, he can't throw the slider, you know, and that's why he throws the cut fastball. Doesn't mean he can't pitch in the big leagues, but his ability to start was not gonna happen because of how stiff his wrist was.

OK, I'll buy this is as a useful attribute by which to judge a player, but I will not buy the idea that you can figure this out from shaking a dude's hand. Aren't having a firm handshake and displaying a supple wrist mutually exclusive? How could you possibly do both?

TK: Well the guy had a full beard at 18.

Aaaaaaaand.... we're back to the absolutely ridiculous stuff.

BS: Well I'll tell ya, you go in and see an 18 year old guy with a full beard, shaving once or twice a day, he's out more than likely. He's flatlining!

Words fail me. Words should fail anyone with a brain who reads this. It's like trying to listen to someone who insists the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood or that the world is going to end in 2012 because the ancient Mayans said so. How do you respond? My advice is to punch anyone from any of these three groups (2012 people, moon landing hoax people, and "don't sign a prospect if he's got a lot of facial hair at age 18" people) directly in the eye socket. Crush that orbital bone nice and good.

That's as good as he's gonna be!

Again, your kind has probably ruined at least a few potential careers over the years... because a teenager had facial hair.

You see a guy who's starting to lose his hair at 18, he's mature! (pronounces it "mah-toor") He's getting ready to go the- that's as good as he's gonna get! You're looking for upside.

And no matter how much of it you see on the field or in the numbers, don't be fooled. If a guy has the genes that cause baldness in his family, he's going to suck at baseball. Just ask that lovable* little bald scamp Dustin Pedroia.

* = I hope Dustin Pedroia gets run over by a cement mixer

Derek Jeter

These kinds of things always happen in 3s.

hadn't shaved in high school, I don't think, when we signed him.

Don't tell that to the find folks at Gillette! He's making them a lot of money these days.

SB (playing devil's advocate): What if he shaves, but he's got a great face?

BS: Ooooh... that's a tough one. That's when you ask the scout, well, what do you think.

So the scout can pull some more random shit out of his ass about how good or not good the players is, based on absolutely nothing.

TK: Right. But if he shaves twice a day and has a low butt... done.

BS (making "you're outta here" motion with his thumb): Done.

The dreaded beard/buttsag combo.

SB (looking towards camera as it pans away, mercifully ending the segment): Well I think you've got three low butt guys here. (TK chuckles)

BS: Speak for yourself!

Fin.

So, yeah. That's why Billy Beane started GMing the way he did. The fact that anyone out there still tries to take pot shots at him, no matter how bad the A's have been since 2006, makes my brain hurt. What makes it hurt even more is the fact that no one questioned this nonsense earlier. As recently as 20 years ago, most teams were probably signing a large number of their players based in part on analysis like this. Wow.

Baseball Grab Bag

Or should I say, baseball copout/mail-it-in post. I'm having a little trouble finding full, intact awful articles right now. That doesn't mean there aren't snippets of dumbassery and wrongness floating around though.

------------------
Tuesday on Baseball Tonight, after the cast finishes watching highlights of the Royals' 9-3 dismantling of the Indians-

John Kruk: Can I change my pick to win the AL Cental?
Karl Ravech: Did... did you have the Indians?
Kruk: Yeah. I need to change that.
Karl: Wow, John, that was pretty ballsy of you. (See what he did there?)

OK, Karl didn't really say that last one. That would just be mean. But the first three lines are legit. Really, Kruk? The Indians? I mean, I understand the division doesn't have a clear favorite. But you might not want to go with the team that limped to a .500 finish last year even after getting an unbelievable, certainly unrepeatable performance out of a random usually-crappy pitcher. You might also want to pick a team which can actually play defense, and which has a decent bullpen. Just my thoughts.

----------------------
Earlier tonight, during a discussion about Jackie Robinson's career and accomplishments, the usually-reliable Ravech talked about how Robinson died tragically in a plane crash. No, Karl, pretty much any decent baseball fan knows that was Roberto Clemente. Close, though. (He corrected himself after a commercial break just a few minutes later.)

------------------------
This is extremely old, but since this is a lazy post, I might as well reach all the way back to the weekend. During Sunday Night Baseball everyone's favorite quasi-racist analyst, Joe Morgan (has he mentioned what an undeserved raw deal Barry Bonds and Gary Sheffield get from the media recently?) was praising Alfonso Soriano for Soriano's ability to hit home runs. At some point the following tumbled out of his confused mouth:

I mean, even though he's in the leadoff spot, I like his power. He led off the game with a solo home run tonight. That's a run, right there!

That is correct. Good.

I mean, I would rather have that than a run-scoring single when a guy is on second base.

Well, in one case you get a run and the bases are empty. In the other you get a run AND you get another guy on base. So I can totally see why you'd prefer the former. Obviously, Joe's brain is too small to think through and compare those two scenarios. I guess what he was trying to say is that he likes home runs. Can't disagree there! Someone give Joe an ice cream or a box of popcorn or a shiny thing to keep him busy for a while.

---------------------
Our favorite ESPN grit-loving analyst, one Jerry E. Crasnick (the "E" stands for Eckstein, his favorite player of all time) has a new article out about guys you've never heard of who had to scrimp and scrap and grit their way onto major league rosters. Jerry has a little bit of TMQ in him in that regard. Who gives a shit about good players? I want to hear more about shitty players who are just barely teetering on the brink of being employed as professional athletes. Here is a collection of choice snippets from that article.

-According to the Seattle Times, Jakubauskas sold Christmas gifts at Nordstrom and worked for a cement company to pay the bills while playing independent ball. Judging from his performance in the Cactus League, his department store clerking days are history.

Someone get Rick Reilly on this story. This guy doesn't know the meaning of the word "quit!" Except when it comes to quitting his cement company job. Or maybe he's still holding that down to make a couple bucks on the side, who knows?

-"My legs were shaking a little bit," he told Tom Krasovic of The San Diego Union Tribune.

That's what Albert Pujols said, referring to when he- oh wait, no, Albert Pujols has never said that. Only guys who know full well that they shouldn't be in the bigs say this kind of stuff.

-He violated minor league baseball's drug policy with Triple-A Buffalo, and achieved a degree of notoriety as a Rochester Red Wing when he lost a 50-yard match race with that lovable thoroughbred loser, Zippy Chippy.

More fodder for Reilly.

-"He called his dad and his wife, and I had to get away from him because it looked like he was close to tears," manager Dusty Baker told the Dayton Daily News.

How'd this get into the article? Crying isn't gritty.

-He struggled with the elements and had a rough outing defensively in center field. But he went 3-for-9 at the plate in his first five games in Cincinnati, and he's still hanging around.

Not for much longer, because he (I don't care who it is, if he's featured in a Crasnick article he probably sucks) probably sucks.

-It appeared his playing days were over in October 2007 when he severed the thumb and three fingers on his throwing hand in a table saw accident while making a window frame in his garage. A hand specialist reattached the four digits, but not without complications: There was a difference of opinion when Hill insisted he would be ready to play by spring training of 2008, and the doctor tempered his euphoria with some distressing news. "Right before surgery, the doctor told him the tendons near his pinkie finger might be a problem and delay his return," said Cubs general manager Jim Hendry. "So Koyie told him, 'If you get in there and that's an issue, just cut the pinkie off. I can play without it.' True story."

His pain threshold is also off the charts.

He should be well suited for MMA fighting then. Oh, what's that? He's a baseball player? Hmm, that probably won't do much for him.

-In eight big league seasons, Miller has established himself as a walking Jayson Stark blog item for his ineptitude with a bat. The nadir came from 2004 through 2006, when he endured a 1-for-55 funk with Cincinnati, Minnesota and Boston. For those keeping score at home, that's a batting average of .018.

For those keeping score at home, here's a guy who almost definitely has no place playing major league baseball.

-But all the starters are right-handed and he's a lefty, so manager Ken Macha should find a way to work him in here and there.

Ah, the essence of the subjects of this article- their ceiling is to play occasionally, possibly because of a lineup idosyncracy.

--------------------
Finally, I thought this was pretty hilarious. Jayson Stark writes a somewhat entertaining column throughout the baseball season called "Useless Information." It's a collection of just that, all kinds of weird stats and factoids (based on events that happened in games during the previous week or so) you'd never know how to find on your own. So naturally this week, re: the Dodgers' Orlando Hudson, and the cycle he recently hit for by the 6th inning:

But the only cyclist we know of who completed his cycle any faster than that was Gregg Jefferies, who went cycling by the fifth inning on Aug. 25, 1995. (Andy Van Slyke's great quip after that game: "He could have done it twice. He could have had the bi-cycle.")

But here's our question: Was Jefferies the quickest cyclist in history? If you can help, let us know at uselessinfodept@yahoo.com.

Dude. You're the one writing the column, who presumably has access to a stats department and at least a couple of interns. I'm going to leave this one to you.

And of course, watch me look like an ass when next week's column features twelve diligent readers who did the research and wrote in to help Jayson out with his question.

OK, that's all for now, I'll be less lazy next time! Maybe! I hate to beg for tips, but if you've got 'em, send 'em. Also, if anyone knows where the other guys who write for this blog are, let them know that I could use a hand around here every fucking other week or so.

Buck Showalter Teaches Backpedaling 101

Have you ever been trying to pick up someone attractive, and suddenly said something that pretty much dooms your attempt, but then, rather than bailing out tried pathetically to save the situation? You end up sounding like "You know, I usually don't go for blondes like you. My ex was a blonde, and she was batshit crazy. (pause) Not that I think you're batshit crazy. (pause) And not that I'm still thinking about my ex! I was just noticing how nice your hair is, that's all. (long pause) You have really pretty eyes." See how well that worked? Ugh. Douchechills. And that brings us to Buck on Baseball Tonight yesterday.

(The scene- Red Sox vs. Orioles.)

Karl Ravech: Top 9, Boston within one, no outs, full count, and it's David Ortiz...

(Ortiz strikes out on a fairly obvious failed check swing.)

Eric Young: Buck, did he go?

Buck (taking the bait): Well, it's all about intent.

Karl (confused/disdainful): He didn't "intend" to swing?

Buck: Well, he didn't INTEND to swing... It's a matter of whether or not you................ (suddenly changing to a much brighter and friendlier tone) You know, Laz Diaz is a good umpire.

Oof. Just abandon ship next time, buddy. Nothing you say is going to bring him back at that point.

Also, I hate it when blogs make too big a deal out of this, but I feel it's worth mentioning that FireJay is officially one year old as of this morning. If you'd like, feel free to go back through the archives and read some of our shit from last May. Several things become clear when you do so- PNoles still hates Mariotti with a passion that not even my Simmons bashing can match, Dan-Bob and Chris W should post more often because they are funny dudes, and I've gone from being a shithead who doesn't use capital letters to a shithead who does.

Also also, this is the last you'll hear from me until next Tuesday, as I'm taking off on a vacation to the current murder capital of the country. I'm so glad the Saints made it to the NFC championship game two Januarys ago. As far as I learned at the time from ESPN/FOX/CBS, in doing so they saved the city and proved that there were absolutely no lingering effects from Hurricane Katrina. Awesome! Geeeeaaaauuuuuuxxxxxxxxx Saints!

The End of an Era

It's noon on a Friday and I notice "SportsCenter Special" is on the screen. What is it for? The Yankees. Joe Torre not signing with the Yankees. In the middle of Rockies vs. Indians/Red Sox, there is somehow hours of Yankees coverage. Honest to God - it's called SportsCenter Special: 2007 Yankees The End of an Era Take a look. If this is the new direction of 'This is SportsCenter' ads, then you can count me out. How is this any better than the repeat of the west coast show? At least then I could have seen highlights of the Rutgers/USF game... instead I'll have to watch FSN's Final Score. The ALCS is still going on. I know nobody is really watching ESPN in the middle of the day, but c'mon. I'm watching in a bar and there's no volume or captioning, so I borrowed a computer and TiVoed it on over the internet. Here's the best of the best of what I heard from Joe Torre's news conference. All times are central. 1:17 pm - and not very important - The TiVo was awakened from recording a suggested recording of Card Sharks to record. I join the press conference in progress, which is a shame. I really wanted to hear what was said when I was in the bar. 1:20 pm - Budd Mishkan, NY1 - "We've seen some strange things from the Yankees in years past. Managers fired, then the decision is reconsidered in the next couple days. Billy Martin was announced at an Oldtimers day a couple days after he was fired. I know it's a long shot, but in the next couple of days, they reconsider for whatever reason would you or is the door absolutely shut?" I bring this up not because of how confusing the question seems at the end there, but what's on the screen. TheBottomLine has JOE TORRE STATISTICS scrolling along the bottom instead of who will play tonight and a meaningless stat about that match up or a player in that game. Moments later, the SportsCenter Pièce de résistance of live action split screen with vaguely related stat gives us Longest Tenured GM/Manager. No doubt that somewhere in Bristol, makers of these stat screens were sitting at the screen like parents at a children's beauty pageant. Quickly, they pace around a control room hoping that something is asked that kind of resembles their stat so that THEY get picked. Sure it's interesting that the four longest GM/Manager relationships all broke up this year, but maybe it's time that they moved on. I'm sure there are other managers looking for a GM out there. Better managers. Managers with feelings. And a boat. 1:23 - Amy Nelson, ESPN.com - "What is it that you're going to miss most about being manager of the Yankees?" Hard hitting questions today. I can name a couple of the things that I would miss about being a manager: The money. Bottomless buckets of bubble gum and sunflower seeds. Being the only coach that wears a uniform, therefore being the only coach allowed on the field in all of sports. But let's see how Joe answers: "Well, spring training is wonderful. Even though George'd never agree with me, I said spring training is great because you don't have to win games." ...and then he talks out of the side of his mouth, waiting for uproarious laughter from the press. Nothing. Boy, tough crowd. Maybe something a little blue will crack them up yet, Joe. Quick, SAVE IT! "...but that didn't always sell on my part. I had a lot of fun with it though. The thing I'm gonna miss most are the players... I mean, the players and the game itself... uh... and my coaches. That was the most fun for me." Well I guess I missed the mark. He could have two of the three of those things with a fantasy team and MLB Extra Innings. 1:30pm - Joe Torre: "I know Brian [Cashman] as General Manager has a lot of balls to keep in the air at the same time. As fas as I'm concerned it's pretty simple..." A little out of context, juvenile quoting for you. I was actually typing the intro when I heard that and pressed pause so I could get right back to it. 1:34 pm - CJ Papa, TV55: "What was it like for you this morning when you woke up knowing you were not the manager of the Yankees anymore?" Torre at the Improv: "Well, you know, it wasn't that tough. I mean, which time when I woke up?" Torre brings out the laughs with incontinence. I really hope there's a follow-up question coming from NY1 that involves holding a lead. CJ Papa hiccups into the microphone laughing. Torre is probably kicking himself that he forgot his fart machine. That thing would have killed. 1:37 pm - Bob Wolf, News 12: "All of the sudden, the Yankee front office seems to believe that a 3 out of 5 series is more important than a 162 game campaign. Have you ever been able to convince them that it's just a matter of luck, you're going to do a short series like that? Let me check real quick... nope, they still play a postseason. That would make a 3 out of 5 series more important than a 162 season. It would appear winning the regular season didn't get the Yankees a championship. 1:47 - Back to the studio, where we are told to tune to ESPNews What's interesting about this is the last question that aired on ESPN was from ESPN, then they cut away. The studio crew takes us to the top of the hour, where the coverage is accidentally summed up by Karl Ravech as he throws it to Buster Olney to close it all out. "Let's get Buster in here quickly. We had Donald Trump talk about the early 70s and we know how they struggled in the 80s. What crossroads do you think the next 6 months will be for the Yankees?" That's right. To talk about baseball, ESPN called Donald Trump. They can bring in an endless parade of sports writers to be talking heads. But somebody said "GET ME DONALD TRUMP!" and it was so.

karl? karl, are you ok?

someone check karl ravech and make sure he doesn't have a fever. minutes ago, on baseball tonight, while singing the praises of various members of the 2005 MLB draft class who have reached the majors already (justin upton, troy tulowitzki, etc.):

And everyone knows about Ryan Zimmerman, the Z-Pack! Arguably the best third baseman in that league, which includes David Wright and whatnot...

wow. the best? listen, ryan zimmerman is a fine young player. he's great defensively, no slouch at the plate, and his best years are ahead of him. but david wright he is not. nor chipper jones. nor miguel cabrera. jesus, those are just three other third basemen in his division. don't forget aramis ramirez.

And you could even make a case for him being the best in all of baseball.

there's a guy who plays for the AL franchise in new york who might have something to say about that. now, i'm really hoping he said "best defensive third baseman", because i like karl. but i'm reasonably sure he didn't say that. and he said what i think he said with almost no conviction, making it even more likely that it wasn't a mistake, but he just couldn't bring himself to really go for it.

Who's that guy....Gordonlenny?

I'm almost positive this was Karl Ravech that said this on Baseball Tonight (quote is not exact, but close).

Right now Freddy Sanchez the only Pirate on the roster, but Tom Gorzelanny, the reliever, could get voted in as well.

Reliever.

Guess how many relief appearances Tom Gorzelanny has this year.

I mean, I really should give these guys a break. They aren't paid to know stuff about the Pirates, they're just the number one baseball show on the number one sports network in America.

Anyone else think the show should be renamed to "YankeesMetsRedSoxCubsCardinals Tonight"? Or how about "Jose Reyes" tonight? Because in 3 months time, the show has promoted him from "Most interesting player in baseball" to "Most exciting player in baseball" to "Better than Derek Jeter" to "Only player in baseball worth ever talking about.....except for whats-his-name in San Francisco that nobody likes but is chasing some sort of milestone".