WHAT????!?!?

You're shitting me. How did they overcome his absence? Shortstops with no range who can rake to the tune of .260/.324/.324 don't just grow on trees, you know. He's actually accumulated -0.1 Baseball-reference WAR so far this year. The Yankees should have been expected to get ever so slightly better simply by having him get hurt.

So of course he's going to start the All-Star game, why wouldn't he? And of course there are people out there (who aren't from Yonkers or Jersey) more than willing to justify his All-Star selection, why wouldn't they? YOU KNOW WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IT'S THE ALL *STAR* GAME- ONLY STARS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PLAY. AND ONLY GUYS WHO HAVE PLAYED IN THE ALL STAR GAME BEFORE COUNT AS STARS, WHICH CLOSES THE LOOP AND MAKES THIS LINE OF LOGIC FLAWLESS:

AL shortstop for life: Despite a subpar season, Trenton Thunder shortstop Derek Jeter was voted into his sixth straight Midsummer Classic and 11th overall. Just as you're sure to read plenty of profiles of Vogelsong's time in Japan, you're also going to hear plenty of bellyaching about Jeter's spot on the team with a 77 OPS+. Whatever. It's always been my position that the All-Star game should feature "stars" and there isn't a bigger one in baseball right now than Derek Jeter. With all apologies to Asdrubal Cabrera -- who could start the game anyway if Jeter isn't up to the task — no one's tuning into the game to watch Asdrubal Cabrera.

There "isn't a bigger (star) in baseball right now than Derek Jeter"? Fuck you, Yahoo Sports blogger. Regardless of the validity of this line of logic, you can't say that. I'm not having it. Even if you make "how many fans know who he is" your #1 qualification for stardom, Jeter's almost certainly not even the biggest star on his own team. He's probably in the top 10 in the league, but still. C'mon.

Now, Chris W and I discussed this today and we agree that the ASG is for the fans (insert snarky comment about how stupid it is for the game to determine WS home field advantage here), so if they want to see Jeter, they should vote to see Jeter. Of course, Chris then went on to make a number of important points that supersede that point:

1) Fans don't really know what's best for them or for the game. Which is better for both: letting the fans restrict themselves to a narrow and aging base of superstars who are about to be put out to pasture, or forcing the fans to acknowledge that younger better players like Asdrubal Cabrera are budding stars who are really actually good at baseball in the year 2011 and will be for the next 10 years? But don't bother telling any of that to Selig and his merry band of asshole owners, because

2) MLB is run by a bunch of fucking morons who let fans determine who gets coverage. The attention balance in MLB as compared to the NFL blows my mind. I shake my head in sadness at the fact that Colts vs. Jaguars or Chiefs vs. Chargers can get great ratings on Monday Night Football (provided those teams are playing well of course), but if a baseball game involves any team other than the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, or Cubs, 90% of sports fans don't give a shit. This is partially on media giants like ESPN and FOX, but more significantly it's on the league itself, which rams the GREATEST RIVALRY IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS EVER (you know which teams I'm referring to) down our throats every year at the expense of developing any number of other available and compelling storylines. Fuck you, MLB. Fuck you with an oar, Bud Selig. You suck ass. And of course, on both the fan and ownership sides, the problem is accurately generalized by Chris when he points out that

3) The problem with sports (and really all of entertainment... but I'll skip ranting on a broader subject because this isn't Gruntland) today is that people won't let their perceived enjoyment now be lowered even if that means they'll be able to enjoy things more tomorrow.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. And that pretty much sums up how talking about this with Chris/writing this post made me feel. Good luck to you in the ASG, Jeter. I hope you somehow ground into twenty double plays and get a standing ovation after each of them.

Geoff Baker Condescends To Us, Misses The Point

In light of the Raul Ibanez blow-up where the red-hot Phillies LFer lashed out (rightly) against more or less baseless steroids accusations and more saliently (and less rightly) against "people who live in their parents' basements" or whatever, Geoff Baker, a Mariners "legitimate-blogger" has submitted this overly facile, self-aggrandizing and utterly beside the point "explanation" of the blogger-vs-journalist scrum.

Take a few seconds to read it, because I'm not going to quote extensively from it.

Let's skip to the part after Baker spends half his word-count waxing grandiloquent about the myriad "consequences" that his stories held for their subjects (Particularly re: former Blue Jays manager cum Vietnam war liar Tim Johnson) and get right to this quotation re: the Ibanez blogger:

In the end, [Johnson] suffered far greater than I did. Why? Because I was right.

Now, can the blogger who wrote about Ibanez say the same thing? No, he cannot. Because he never really takes a position.

He throws some innuendo out there, under a provocative headline, then couches it with a bunch of well-researched statistics on park factors, and the like. Makes it all look like a fact-finding mission.

Do you see the obvious, stupefying disjunct on Baker's part? He's confusing investigative journalism with editorial journalism. What on earth does some blogger saying "Hmmm...Ibanez is putting up record numbers. Let me crunch some statistical models and see if I can find a logical reason why this could be" have to do with Baker interviewing sources in order to write a standard lead story?

A: Nothing.

Why are people are so incapable of recognizing the internet's various outlets for sports writing for what they are?

Blogs are generally opinion. They are that by nature. On the other hand, journalism like that which Geoff Baker is thumping his chest about by nature aspires to be objective fact. There is little to no relation between the two. Just because bloggers add statistics to their posts doesn't mean they're trying to make a factual, investigative claim.

If you want to compare them to journalists (which seems a foolish venture to begin with, since they're independent in their operations for the most part whereas journalists are part of a for-profit conglom.) compare them to the Dan Shaughnessy's and Jay Mariotti's of the world--people who have almost no access beyond that of the average fan and yet who expound from a position of authority (whatever that position of authority might be).

Don't hold Deadspin to the standards of Sportscenter or Sports Illustrated. From the snarky nature of the posts to the ultra-snarky nature of the comments, it's clear that Deadspin was always built to model radio call-in shows like Jim Rome's The Jungle.

Are sports opinion columnists an inherently bad thing? The title of this blog suggests they might be--but only when they're completely uninformed. Why on earth should anyone be pitching a fit because a blogger suggested--however foolishly--that he would like to examine statistically whether it was possible that Raul Ibanez might be exploiting PED's. Why is this a bigger deal than when Jay Mariotti says "Jerry Reinsdorf is only doing __________ because he is cheap."

At least the former wasn't selling sensationalism and tabloid journalism.

Why on earth would you hold either to the standards of investigative journalism? Unless, of course, you just plain missed the point.

Baker spends the rest of the article grandstanding about what a tough guy he has to be to hobnob with "Killers, or Hell's Angels, or major leaguers and steroids" as if that's at all relevant to the topic at hand, thumping his chest about how "he has to look the players in the eye, and bloggers aren't ready to do that." Snooze.

Look--If you want to make some sweeping judgments on how sports bloggers relate to "legitimate journalists," don't compare them to investigative journalists. It's clear from their inherent lack of access that they simply can not be nor aspire to be that. Compare them to editorial journalists. And you know what? For the most part, sports bloggers compare pretty fucking favorably to those. I'll take the bloggers at Hardball Times, Baseball Daily Digest, and Ump Bump (flawed as they all are--hell, opinions are like assholes, etc) over the Mike Celizic's of the world any old day.

Too bad Baker--and everyone else, it seems--wants to compare them to Tom Verducci. Ridiculous.

What Jeff Pearlman doesn't seem to understand

This is almost too complicated a series of linking for me to do this, hungover as I am, but here goes. Jeff Pearlman has written a column taking Jason Whitlock to task for a column (a wonderful column, IMO) which takes to task Selena Roberts for writing a vindictive invective (is that redundant?) about Alex Rodriguez's myriad personal problems. (No link necessary).

Jeff's a sometime reader of this blog, evidently a very nice person, and and a talented author whose only book I read I enjoyed immensely (the one about the 1986 "Nigh" Mets). However he just doesn't seem to get it here. Let's look

Ten years ago this December, Sports Illustrated ran my profile of John Rocker. The story sort of put me on the map as a journalist (which is funny, because it really wasn’t all that well written), but it also earned me a ton of scorn. In the days … months … years after the piece initially ran, I received myriad calls and letters, wondering when I would step up and apologize. In some quarters, the belief was that I had taken advantage of a young man. That, while his beliefs were certainly off, he was just a bumpkin, naive to the ways of the media.

Alas, I never apologized. Never felt I should, even though the outcry was pretty damn loud.

Three years ago, Selena Roberts wrote a piece for the New York Times that called out those Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault. Her column was unambiguously strong, and, many believed, took the young men to task for a crime it turns out they didn’t commit. In the days … months … years after the piece initially ran, the belief was that Roberts had taken advantage of young men. That, while she certainly had a right to an opinion, she hung these guys without proof.

Alas, Selena Roberts never apologized, either. Never felt she should, even though the outcry was pretty damn loud.

This is a longer block quote than I usually post, but I think it's essential. Look--let's look at this bullshit analogy:

1a.) Jeff Pearlman writes a mildly exploitative column in which John Rocker says a bunch of blatantly racist things of his own volition.

2a.) Some people claim that Rocker was too naive to realize the consequences of his blatantly racist comments and therefore Pearlman had done him an injustice in writing this column.

3a.) Pearlman felt pressure to apologize but did not.

Now the flipside

1b.) Selena Roberts write a column in which she uses the allegations of A FUCKING CRIME. THE WORST FUCKING CRIME THERE IS ACCORDING TO MANY PEOPLE. She uses these allegations of a crime (which turn out to be false) in order to attack what she perceives to be unacceptable NON-CRIMES going on within a sports program and university. She makes various connections between the allegations of the crime and the NON-CRIMES in order to attempt to get readers to infer that the allegations of the crime are likely true.

2b.) People think that this is inethical and that she should apologize for it.

3b.) Roberts not only does not apologize for it but gives myriad statements claiming that she was indeed justified in implying that a culture of what she perceives to be sexism somehow meant that these boys were more likely than not to be guilty of ONE OF THE WORST CRIMES IMAGINABLE

Surely it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see how shitty this analogy, but let's break it down for all the orthopedic surgeons out there. (Take that Dr. McGillicuddy. MRI my ass!) Jeff Pearlman's crime (if it was a crime) involved his use of discretion regarding FACTS--if Rocker said something racist, it was nonetheless said, irrespective of how naive Rocker was or whether Pearlman should have posed those quotations as excoriatingly as he did. Roberts's crime (if it was a crime. And it was. A crime that is) was rather that she took conjecture involving her interpretation of facts (pictures taken, broomsticks waves, American Psycho emails sent) and presented it in a way that suggested evidence of fact towards a judgment on the guilt of people who, as it turns out, were not fucking guilty.

In short: Pearlman is accused of putting too many facts in. Roberts is accused of using facts to turn a non-fact into a fact.

This is not a valid analogy, and one of the major failings of the thought process that leads to what follows:

Being completely forthright, I don’t think Selena handled it 100-percent righteously. The column was, in hindsight, too accusatory, and when the innocence was proven, she probably owed an “I was wrong” follow-up piece.

Not particularly relevant to Whitlock's point.

That being said, for my money Selena is one of America’s best writer/reporters.

Not particularly relevant to anything.

She was years ago, when she covered Tate George and the New Jersey Nyets for the Times, and she is now. Show me a big-time columnist who doesn’t wish he/she could take back some things that made ink, and I’ll show you a big-time columnist who doesn’t belong in the biz. Columnist go out on limbs. They take sides. The oftentimes leap before they look. Do you think, looking back, I’m happy I called for Joe Torre’s dismissal
in May, 2007? Hell, no. It was boneheaded, rash, moronic. I was wrong, but my pen (well, keyboard) never stopped me.

And certainly Pearlman shouldn't have written that Torre article. But surely Pearlman can also see a difference between writing a column that impugns a player or coach's ability, and writing column after column after column, as Roberts has, that impugns a player's (A-Rod, for those of you scoring at home) moral fiber.

If Pearlman were to write a book exposing various he said she said bullshit allegations about Torre, his previous column would not establish a personal vendetta against Torre. It would establish that, at that time, he thought Torre wasn't getting the job done as manager.

OTOH, Roberts has established a personal vendetta (or at least something resembling that) about A-Rod's moral character. That makes her allegations more suspect than if she was not someone who, time and again, had written articles calling A-Rod phony, a bad teammate, and of weak character.

Furthermore, her Duke situation shows to an even greater extent her reliability when presented with facts--the way she is willing to play fast and loose with specious facts in order to arrive at what she presents as hard and fast conclusions.

Gee fucking whiz. Why oh why would hearsay that supported her foregone conclusion re: The Duke Case be relevant when evaluating her book, in which all her allegations are based on hearsay that supports what already was her foregone conclusion?

Good grief.

What truly bothers me right now are the growing legions of media sorts taking Selena to task; gleefully evoking Duke lacrosse—as if they’d never made a blunder themselves. Here in New York, Boomer and Carton of WFAN’s morning show seemed to take special pleasure in slamming away

How is it possible that Pearlman can't see the difference between a "blunder" that involved essentially convicting someone of something they didn't do whilst relying on specious (at BEST) evidence, and the "blunder" that he is about to use to impugn Whitlock's credibility (found below)? Especially since the majority of revelations that have leaked from Roberts's book involve using specious evidence (hearsay and conjecture about how "pitch tipping" MIGHT work or players who heard that "A-Rod was in on it") to reach a judgmental conclusion about A-Rod as a human being?

How is it possible he does not understand that? Is it possible he sees his own journalistic mistakes through the eyes of Roberts's poorly received invectives?

Pearl: It ISN'T. Your. Fault. (Will Pearlman respond: "Don't do this to me man. Not you man."? Tune in next week!)

Look:

(Several years ago, Whitlock was embarrassed nationally after it was learned that, during a Chiefs game against the Patriots in Foxboro, he taunted fans by writing a sign reading BLEDSOE. GAY? I thought it was just a stupid, silly mistake—but one that bothered many people. We all do things we regret). Others have followed suit.

Lol. He just. Doesn't. Fucking. Get it.

Here is why this is not relevant to this conversation: If Whitlock comes out and writes a tell-all book detailing how Bledsoe is a bad person, and potentially gay, this would be a relevant incident to mention.

Jeff Pearlman: confusing ad hominem arguments with reasonable questions of credibility since 199X. Like in this passage:

I’m not sure what the point here is, except that I hate the old Republican strategy of shifting the focus from the subject to the messenger.

What it boils down to is this. A-Rod has cheated. He's used steroids. He may have used steroids in high school. He may not have. He may have tipped pitches (and if he did, then that is an atrocious crime against the game of baseball, IMO) or he may not have. He may have "bitch tits" or he may not. He may have asked a trainer to bring him a cup of coffee. He may be insecure. He may be a bad human being. Hell, worst of all, he might even tip 15%!!!!!

Hell, I think I'm inclined to believe that all of the above are more likely to be true than not.

But you know what? When I'm looking at someone being accused of all these things, when the evidence is less than concrete (as it is for most of the above accusations) then SOME OF the burden falls on the credibility of the person leveling these accusations. Since journalists' sources are protected, that puts much of the burden of credibility on the journalist who is expressing these third party accusations.

Why is it unnatural that we inspect closely she who is leveling these accusations, and, finding her past wanting, adjust the extent to which we are willing to believe these accusations accordingly?

Don't answer that. It was rhetorical.

The BLOGOSPHERE

Man oh man, does it give me douchechills to type that fucking word.

Ok--here's the thing. As you may or may not (you probably are more likely to may) know there was a huge blowout on some Bob Costas special last night between Will Leitch and Buzz "Benry" Bissinger.

As any of you who may know may know, Bissinger threw a hissy fit at Leitch for "ruining America with your rock and roll music and your bloggerations" whilst Braylon Edwards looked on with an eyebrow dazily arched.

The consensus--i.e. what has been taken away from this--is that Bissinger, by virtue of being a moron, is wrong and that Leitch, by virtue of not being the moron in this exchange, is right.

As Lee Corso would say (prior to being excoriated on the BLOGOSPHERE)--not so fast my friends.

Here's the thing: Bissinger is without a doubt unhinged (and also very wrong, as we've seen today at firejoemorgan.blogspot.com, and will no doubt see in greater detail as the blogoverse strikes back at him). But does that make Leitch right?

I want to start by saying that I read Deadspin quite a bit. I find it often hilarious and of a similar mind as me. I have very little problem with Will Leitch (though I can't help but be reminded of former Kids in the Hall geek Dave Foley every time I watch that clip of him and Bissinger). Larry B, it seems, does not like him one bit, but that ain't me.

But here's the thing: many of the problems brought up by Bissinger and by Edwards ARE VALID POINTS. There has been a huge deterioration in the quality of sports journalism--whether it be in print, online, or on television and radio--and it DOES seem to have a lot to do with the internet.

Here's the facts--sports journalism seems to consist of the following things:

1.) reporting of the results of sports contests (about 5% of all stories and television coverage)
2.) interviews, insight, and speculation regarding the players' opinions and reactions about the games, their team, and their league
3.) scandals
4.) lawsuits
5.) scandals and lawsuits
6.) predictions and speculation, be it about injuries, results of future sporting events, trades, strikes, scandals and lawsuits, what have you

The problem is, if you watch, read, or listen to sports coverage you'll notice that the vast majority of pundits and analysts, AT THE VERY LEAST take a very authoritarian absolutist position toward these things, particularly items 3-6. There is also a lot of moral grandstanding and finger pointing. Now: these are things that exist as much in the print and television (to say nothing of the cesspool that is Sports Talk Radio) as on the internet--hell, just check out the name of this "blog" to see the prime example of an authoritarian, morally high-handed, always "right", ignorant king of all dirtballs ever to walk the earth.

But here IS the problem--blogging makes this attitude contagious. It would be foolish to point to the advent and proliferation of the yelling/arguing genre of shows on television as coinciding perfectly with the internet. That would be false and anachronous--PTI was already on when I was in high school. However, the blogosphere IS a significant breeding ground for this. It's the perfect environment for sports bleating to fester. Look--opinions are like assholes. But while it does seem silly to hear Michael Wilbon saying "If I don't know your credentials as a sportswriter why should I listen to you?" it does raise a good point.

Even 15 years ago, a sportswriter's opinions superseded your opinions as the casual fan. That didn't mean you just got on your knees and took his thought-juice all over your face. But it did mean that in order for a bleating voice to be heard, it had to have a forum. And though there will still some jackasses morally highhanding the players and fans alike (particularly around time of the 94 strike), it did mean that sportswriters didn't have to be on the offensive all the time--their opinion "mattered" more because they had "the floor".

Now, anyone has the potential to be heard. Obviously, not everyone is going to be Will Leitch or Ken Tremendous or even Larry B, but fact of the matter is, everyone thinks they COULD be and without much effort. Nowadays everyone has an opinion and everyone will be heard. That's not a BAD thing but what it does is turn sportstalk into an argument. Now, that's nothing new PER SE, but it's new that that it is the full extent to how we communicate in the realm of sports.

Were the Bears winners or losers in the draft? Will Indy win the Super Bowl? Is Lebron the next MJ?

These are all questions we might have wondered aloud 15 years ago, given the opportunity, but there wasn't the implication that we NEEDED AN ANSWER NOW nor that I MUST BE RIGHT AT ALL COSTS. The instant access to past statements and statistical data makes discussion in the internet forum a very objective and coldly rational forum--but the item of discussion is not a cold, mechanical object. It is a living thing. Now I don't mean to say "numbers don't play games" but the fact is, anything can happen over the course of a season. If you and I are arguing about who will win the AL Central, you can make the most airtight argument that the Indians are a far better team than the White Sox in every relevant area, but the fact is, the White Sox could very well win. At that point, you lick your wounds with a defensive argument about why that happened.

THAT IS NOT A BAD THING. However, because of the success in this realm, people demand that in other realms (i.e. Television) and what we get is Around the Horn (the most asinine yet infinitely watchable show on at 6:30 ET). Arguments, purported to be founded under the premise of being "RIGHT" about something that one can not be right about. And so, in this "society" of argumentation and absolutism, we also get a meanspiritedness that I enjoy (as long as it's not morally superior meanspiritedness, Jay, you shithead) but that others might take offense at.

Look: Rich Garces has tits. That's funny. But how do you honestly defend making fun of Rich Garces tits to someone who's offended by that? You can't. It's not nice to make fun of Rich Garces tits and it's not something to be proud of if called on. And yet, that's where we're at. And I'm fine with it--but it doesn't mean that those who aren't fine with it are wrong.

Also it's important not to overlook Braylon Edwards's very valid point--athletes can't go out in public anymore. Ever. Not now, not for the rest of their lives (if they're at all noteworthy) for fear of being NeckBearded.

I loved the Neckbeard pictures. I loved the Rexy Morgan pictures. I loved the Peyton's Sweet 16 Pictures. But shit, that's got to suck for those dudes. What can be done about it? Nothing. What should be done about it? Nothing. But here's the thing: it's a problem.

And ESPN is a problem. And Jay Mariotti is a problem. And the fact that the blogosphere has helped to make ESPN and Mariotti who they are is also a problem.

End of rant.

how the hell did the patriots get this reputation?

a semi-outrageous blurb from a dumb AP article about a "controversial" non-story that happened in sunday's patriots/browns game involving a late, low hit by new england LB mike vrabel:

Whether Vrabel's move on Thomas was intentional or not, to Steinbach, it's yet another spot on the Patriots' once-impeccable image, which seems to be getting more tarnished as the months pass.

let me clarify that this isn't yet another of my "god i hate the red sox/patriots soooooo much!!!!1111" tirades. although i do enjoy writing those... expect one as soon as bill simmons releases his inevitable "HA HA RED SOX WON YANKEES LOST TAKE THAT YANKEE FANS" article later this week. anyways, there's no negativity for the patriots themselves here. i'm just pissed about the way the media portrays them. the way i've always understood it, the reason they're widely regarded as a model NFL franchise is because they consistently make great player personnel decisions and have won 3 super bowls in the last 6 years. that's all and that's it. they spend their money wisely, draft well, and win a lot. what other team wouldn't want to emulate them in this regard?

so here's the rub- how did they somehow along the way add a "they're the classiest, nicest, swellest team in the league too!" component to this rep? since when did they also become known as pinnacles of character? when the whole camera controversy thing happened back in september, i couldn't help but wonder why so much attention was being paid to the possible "damage" this would do to the patriots' legacy. what legacy? the one in which they won a lot? i realize that was cheating, but the way i heard things pretty much every team in the league was doing the exact same thing up until this year. it was far from out of the ordinary. the patriots kept doing it into 2007, got caught, and got penalized. that was a mildly interesting story, especially because i hate them. but again, i really didn't (and still don't) understand why everyone is acting like this hurts their reputation as a collective bunch of goody two shoes. as far as i knew, they had a reputation for being really good at football and that's about it.

so getting to the dumb little story that prompted this post, why is one questionable late and low hit all of a sudden doing even more harm in the exact same way? i don't get it. i looked around and couldn't find any penalty statistics from previous years, but i'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the patriots have committed their fair share during the construction of this mini-dynasty they have going. including some late hits and other personal fouls! oh my heavens! and then when it comes to off the field stuff, their coach tried to steal a guy's wife! (i can't believe how many football fan friends of mine hadn't heard of this before i told them about it. sorry the link isn't great, but the story is right there.) their golden boy QB just had a kid out of wedlock! (probably don't need a link for that one.)

now, don't get me wrong- i'm not criticizing the patriots for this kind of stuff. on the field, tons of players all over the league play dirty each and every sunday. off it, plenty of athletes and coaches have shady lives. larry eustachy, anyone? but apparently, according to this writer (and many many more just like him/her...trust me, it's an epidemic) prior to this season the new england patriots had never done anything wrong or dirty. ever. it confuses the hell out of me. maybe i'm just out of touch; have they actually legitimately developed a reputation of classiness along with their reputation for making good player decisions and winning? or is the former just a function of the latter- as in, everyone just assumes that because they win a lot and they don't have any ray lewis/chris henry type convicts on their team, they must be nice guys as well? i'm frustrated and pissed about this. and furthermore i'm now pissed that this is a rambling post in which i'm kind of sort of defending a boston sports team. i think i'm just going to cut my losses, but please, leave me your thoughts- is this "classy reputation" thing a bunch of crap or what?

chris w reveals his true feelings about the home run derby

this is kind of an awkward way to "blog", but i'll give it a shot anyways. first of all, i think we can all agree that while the home run derby is sort of kind of cool concept, its execution is poor at best. it takes entirely too long, is entirely overhyped, and really just leaves me wondering what all the fuss is about. if i were to change it, jeez, i don't know what i would do. just not make such a huge damn deal out of it i guess. regardless, the point remains- the home run derby and the hype surrounding it are annoying. but i'm not quite sure i am as capable of expressing that sentiment as my fellow fjm contributor chris w. so let's have him take the wheel on this one. what you are about to read is a direct, word-for-word transcription of a voice message left for me by chris w at 2:14 AM tuesday morning. warning: contains slightly more profanity than the stuff that usually comes out of chris w's mouth, which, if you know him, is a lot of profanity. here goes:

what's up, larry's cell phone. it's... it's, uh, chris w here. jesus christ, man, i mean, every time i watch the home run derby i feel more and more retarded. you know, because, it's like, what the fuck? here's this fucking competition that's centered around these fucking big fatass steroid using motherfuckers taking batting practice. and i don't even mean that in the terms of like, the kansas city royals pitching staff but i mean like, literally, BATTING PRACTICE. then in finals we're like all excited that fucking vlad guererro hit fucking 3 home runs, you know? what the FUCK is that? i would hope that he could hit 3 home runs. i could go out there and hold a wooden bat upside down, and i would hope that i could hit 3 fucking home runs with a fucking upside down wooden bat. nobody pitchers could fucking serve up motherfucking fastballs, and by fastballs, i mean fucking 74 mile per hour lob-balls... (trails off) anyways i'm at this sweetass restaurant about to get some sweetass hamburgers hopefully, and.... that's gonna end this call. take it easy.

couldn't have said it better myself. what the fuck. i hope he ended up getting those hamburgers.

also, hey vlad guererro, you're a big bitch for how you handled your second round appearance. did anyone else see this? it got to a point where he needed something like 3 home runs before he got 2 more outs or he would have been eliminated. obviously, he's pretty winded at this point (at least for a baseball player); he's taken about 15 huge swings in the last few minutes. so what does he do? unlike the guys that hit before him, matt holliday and alex rios, he starts stalling for time to regain his strength. he steps out... inspects his bat... lets 6 or 7 pitches in a row go by at one point.... then when it gets down to him needing one more home run with no outs remaining, he steps out AND SPENDS 2 MINUTES TAPING HIS FINGERS. then he hits 2 more bombs before his last out, eventually moving into the finals. are you kidding me? that's bush league. holliday and rios didn't do that shit. they didn't have the same "pressure", sure, because they were the first two competitors to bat so they didn't have a target number they were aiming for. but they certainly would have benefited from taking the same liberal breathers that vlad did. i'm sure they were winded by the end of the round as well. but they just kept on hacking and didn't stall for time to recover. that's gritty. that's relentless. that's the way the home run derby was MEANT to be played.

yeah, i wrote that whole thing because i'm a rockies fan and wanted to see holliday in the finals. but still... honestly. get in the box and swing the bat, asshole. your fingers don't need tape.

It's Not That I Particularly Like Rick Morrissey...

...but this is a very good article. If every sports journalist could follow the lead Morrissey at least lays out in this article, this site might not exist.

Here's some highlights:

If you use swear words, as Guillen did, you might be referred to in the newspaper as "potty mouthed," a term that is so matronly, it's hard to know where to begin. If this keeps up, the Sox aren't going to need a manager, they're going to need a schoolmarm.

This is absolutely 100% true. In case you hadn't heard about the flap, AJ Pierzynski was on the Mike North sportstalk radio show on AM 670 in Chicago. AJ criticized manager Ozzie Guillen's decision to start backup catcher Toby Hall in the meaningless first game of the meaningless interleague series vs. the Cubs. Ozzie called in to confront AJ and North, and let drop a few "shit"s on live radio.

Some columnists in Chicago acted like this was a crime against humanity, the latest in Ozzie's various sins against the pure-hearted baseball loving public. I don't think Rick Morrissey or I are trying to say it's ok that Ozzie cursed on the airwaves, but the fact is, everyone who listens to sports talk radio has heard the word "Shit" before. It's also likely that most everyone who listens to sports talk radio has said the word "shit" before. Every baseball coach I've ever had has used the word "shit" before and I didn't respect them any less for it. So I guess what Rick Morrissey's trying to say here, and what I would echo, and will echo, is that it's not that big a deal.

Say what you will about the decline in decorum in American culture, but that's the way it is. You may say that this is sending the message that it's ok to say "shit" in casual conversation. But guess what: it is. When you reach a certain age (let's say, 18) it doesn't become a big deal. If the situation calls for it (say, you ding up your car on a lamp post, or drop a brick on your toe, or have some shithead catcher on your team question your judgment) you curse. And people generally understand.

Too bad the airwaves, FCC, and moral compass of the media is always harping on completely ridiculous, irrelevant shit. The whole Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction, for instance, was completely ridiculous. It was a fucking stupid publicity stunt, but to use that to completely enforce state sponsored censorship seemed to be an extreme. The party line "we must protect our kids from ever seeing tit again" seemed to belie a kind of accepted ignorance to the fact that football is a violent sport played by assholes. The fact that the NFL wants the Super Bowl, a collection of ruthless borderline criminals running into eachother (beautifully) at high speeds, to be a "family entertainment hour" despite the fact that it's hopelessly violent and mostly unappealing to the majority of women is underscored every year by nauseatingly saccharine half-time shows (even the most innocuous of which are always protested by clueless morons....see this year's phallic silhouette flap for proof) and "the commercials" (as in the ever-annoying "I only watch it for the commercials").

Meanwhile Roger Goddell and David Stern continue to bite the hand that feeds them, eschewing the fact that NFL and NBA's immense popularity in urban milieus (which separate the two leagues in the race for nationwide popularity and ad revenue and luxury box sales from the less popular-in-urban-areas MLB) comes largely from the "street cred" of the two leagues. David Stern is the biggest perpetrator of this shilling and shucking, basically spitting in the face of his urban audience with dress codes and ridiculous suspension policies in preference of the luxury box crowd. Goddell merely enforces a behavior code that seems predicated on suspicion of guilt---something that inevitably seems to vilify certain athletes while ignoring the fact that the league is mostly full of generally criminal ex-collegiates who inevitably lived a lawless life as college players, taking payoffs, showing up to class when they felt like it, and having sex in degrading ways with innumerable groupies. The fact that players like Michael Vick, Terrell Owens and Randy Moss are portrayed as some sort of outsiders, aberration, execptional assholes, and so on, instead of as the rule, while, paradoxically decent guys (who, in my opinion are the vast exception rather than the status quo) like Donovan McNabb and LaDainian Tomlinson are lauded for their being decent human beings---I guess what I'm trying to say is the league sort of acknowledges that most everyone is a scoundrel, but also singles out people for having bad attitudes. It really reminds me of a very funny Onion article about Ray Allen. This one, I mean.

Like, for example, remember Mark Chmura making that very public statement after the Packers's Super Bowl win that he wouldn't go to the White House to accept a congratulations from Clinton because of Clinton's "immoral behavior"...About a year later Chmura was arrested for statutory rape. He was, of course, inevitably acquitted when it was determined that all he did was take the 17-year old girl into the bathroom, lock the door, force her pants off and manually, and only manually, show her the meaning of tight end. Not to single Chewie out excessively, but I think this is a beautiful metaphor for sports journalism today. All the Schillings, Mariottis, Baylesses, and Dr. Z's of the world pointing a finger at the crumbums and ne'er-do-wells of the sports world with 4 fingers pointing back at them. Just saying.

But I digress. Morrissey says this better than I anyway. Let's let his words do the talking:

I'm not sure what's left for them anymore. No swearing. No off-color jokes. No having disagreements with teammates. And, please, whatever you do, no youthful indiscretions. Don't make mistakes as 18-year-olds that you will be spanked for again and again later. Don't dare do that because there's no statute of limitations on immaturity.


-----


I don't walk with my knuckles dragging behind me, nor can I make a side part with the hair on my back. But sometimes I squirm at what is happening in my profession. It's not that the blowhards are winning, which is bad enough. It's that the blowhards are commando Puritans on the lookout for sinners.

That's why a manager who swears or a figure-skating judge who cheats can get the same indignant treatment as the football player who gets arrested three times in less than two years. It's all the same. There's no distinction, just the same reaction: The humanity!


-----


All of this poor behavior among athletes arouses some of the writers—in a very pure way, of course. They can't have this sort of thing in society. Next thing you know, we'll be tolerating sports owners who don't shell out big bucks to bring winners to a town that so richly deserves them.

Give me turmoil, not because of the benefits to a controversy-starved columnist like me. Just to know that there's a pulse. That they care. I'll take that anytime over a group that toes the line.

Guillen cares. So do his players. The rest of it is silly stuff.

Not the best-written article I've ever read, nor is Rick Morrissey guilt-free when it comes to writing stupid bullshit, but credit where credit is due. It's a breath of fresh air to hear this thing outside the blogosphere (god, do I love that term) and as an added bonus, it's almost like you can hear him pretending to clear his throat whilst coughing "Mariotti! Mariotti!" after every sentence.

Kudos, Rick Morrissey. Now just try to refrain from writing more "The Cubs are more important than the White Sox" articles for about a month or so.