Wistful, sappy sports journalism makes me sad

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

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

Let the record show 

We're not in court.

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

Trout also played in the majors in 2011.

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

???

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


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


They will be tied together- Trout and Harper.  


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


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


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


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


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


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


Peter King thinks it's semi Bonds-like!


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


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


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


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


Oakland GM Billy Beane 


Wait, who?


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


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


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


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


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


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


/listens to We Didn't Star the Fire


Nope.  Only Mickey made the cut for that one.


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


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


this week, as All Stars in Kansas City.  


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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Power Rankings are Whatever But....

Check this out:

Krukie gives the Power Rankings for the league, and shamelessly puts the Cleveland Indians as the third best team in baseball.

The Cleveland Indians.

Karl Ravech tries to put a nice little spin on it to make it not sound as awful as it is....

KR: You seem to do it really on what's going on as we speak, ESPN.com kind of looks at like the potential for these teams

JK: Yeah I don't look at potential. Potential just gets you fired, that's what I've been told by a bunch of managers. I'm not going to get fired because of this.

When the Indians are struggling to hit that 70 win mark in September due to awful pitching and utilizing 3-4 replacement level bats on an everyday basis, I beg of you, ESPN management, watch this video on repeat 60 times like I just did, and teach Mr. I'm-not-going-to-get-fired a little lesson about getting cocky about.....not getting fired.

Hey John Kruk, Get Your Head out of Your Ass

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

Team GB
Colorado 0.0
San Francisco 3.0
Atlanta 4.0
Florida 5.0

Guess what you said that night on national TV?

The wild card is the Braves' to lose.

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

That's not the case here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Kruk's Tiny Brain Tries to Analyze Baseball

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

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

Dexter Fowler 77
Chris Iannetta 233
Troy Tulowitzki 345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they're making their run too early.

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

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

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.

ESPN.com Idiot Roundup

Trolling around the WWL as I wait for a hurricane to demolish me. Here are two ESPN articles with the actual link headlines, which I did not even fake, even though you might think I faked them.

Article #1:
The final month of the regular season starts Monday, and the one big question that has loomed throughout the season remains: Will the Rays fade? John Kruk provides the definitive answer.

Things John Kruk has a definitive answer on:
1. What does it feel like to look like an idiot on television?
2. Did you really mean to admit that you quit baseball because you "wanted to spend the rest of the year "eating at the Sizzler's buffet" ?
3. Did you intentionally quit baseball abruptly because you wanted to preserve your exactly .300 batting average and exactly 100 home runs?
4. What does it feel like to have one ball?

Things John Kruk has a pretty bad answer on:
1. Will the Rays fade?

But this Rays team has had physical altercations with both teams during the course of spring training and this season, and each time it was the Rays' dugout that got onto the field first, ready to scrap.

I would like to see someone do a direct correllative study to see if there are any connection between fights and wins. It would be awesome if this were true, but it sure doesn't sound like it has any real evidence to support it. If it were true, I would immediately advocate the Reds trading for A.J. Pierzynski and Kyle Farnsworth.

That may not sound like a big thing, but it is, because if a team is scared to be on that field

How often does this happen in the Major Leagues? What are they scared of?

or doesn't think it deserves to be on the field with the opposing team, then you'll see some hesitation.

I wonder what this hesitation looks like. Kruk claims we can see it.

There has been no hesitation from the Rays at any point during this season.

Well, if there had been any hesitation, we sure haven't seen it from those scrappy Rays!

To be fair, Kruk did mention the Rays' rotation as a reason for their impressive season; however, I find it stupid that me mentios the rotation only in passing and focuses instead on their "lack of visible hesitation".

Article #2:
Mr. October? D-backs acquire Eckstein from Jays

I did not make that heading up.

NEW YORK -- David Eckstein as been traded from the Toronto Blue Jays to the Arizona Diamonbacks, giving the NL West leaders a late-season spark plug with impressive October credentials.

In one hundred and seventy-six postseason at-bats, David Eckstein has forty-three singles and six extra-base hits. He just happened to cluster exactly half of those xbh into one game, earning him a bullshit WSMVP and ridiculous adulation years later.

John Kruk Stays The Course

Krukie, earlier today offering his prediction for who will win the NL Central this year:

I like the Cubs- and I've been saying this since day one.

It is day one, jackass. Or day five, I guess, if you want to be picky about those A's/Red Sox games. I guess he probably meant "since the beginning of spring training." That's still like picking a team to win the NCAA tourney when the brackets get announced, watching them beat East Bumfuck State A&M in the first round, and then reaffirming the pick as if you're going out on a limb by sticking to your guns.

In an unrelated story, it's been tough to keep holding on to this one, but I've still got Andrew W.K. as my pick for douchiest one hit wonder of the 21st century.

yessss! first john kruk post

LUNCHPAIL ALERT:

im watching baseball tonight. cue astros rookie hunter pence, who has one of the worst cases of permanent bugeye ive ever seen. he absolutely destroys a pitch, way WAY out to deep left at minute maid park. the camera didnt even pick it up. it was probably hit roughly as far as pujols' famous 2005 NLCS bomb off brad lidge. krukie chimes in (mildly paraphrased): "you know what i liked about this though? even with as far as he hit it, he was still sprinting around the bases as fast as he could." the highlight then shows pence hustling around third while slapping five with the base coach.

you know what i liked about it? the fact that he hit a ball like 480 feet, and thats really hard to do in the major leagues. but not kruk, no sir. HE liked the fact that the guy who hit the ball ran around the bases faster than most people do after hitting a home run. im declaring the lunchpail alert level to be at red for the next 12 hours due to this comment.