Showing posts with label mike celizic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mike celizic. Show all posts

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Homage to the Hat

Just found out that HatGuy passed away Wednesday at age 61 after battling cancer.

(He did apparently wear the hat all the time.)

It's refreshing to see that, no matter your opinions on the quality of his work or thought, he put a lot of old-fashioned work into his prose. Seems as though he spent a lot of time doing what journalists should be doing - watching sports and crafting writing - instead of puffing himself up.

The comments on the article are some of the more considerate, articulate and grammatically sensible comments of any sports article I've seen. Considering the vitriol with which folks reacted after the downfall of Jay Mariotti a few weeks ago, it's good to see folks exercising some decency, and suggests that Mike's personality and writing earned him real respect.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

HatGuy's Core Belief: Popularity Above All

While watching Notre Dame demolish Nevada, I poked my way around NBCSports, only to find that our usual baseball whipping boy has a few things to say about college football and Notre Dame. To sum it up: he things that sports require famously popular teams to succeed.

I also discovered one of the more embarrassing things I have ever known: HatGuy is an ND alum. Not just an ND alum, but an ND alum with the exact same degree I have. Thanks to somewhat-loyal reader Kevin for pointing this out. I guess it doesn't make me any worse of a person, but the association is still bothersome.


College football needs Notre Dame to succeed

I keep reading about how this could be the year for Notre Dame andCharlie Weis, about how an easy schedule and a veteran team can put the Irish back into the BCS mix.

Fuck, I'm just surprised the guy reads. I'm pretty sure he's illiterate.

I hope what I read is right. College football needs the Fighting Irish to be a team worthy of its legend.

No. But for a brief flirtation in 2005-06, Notre Dame hasn't been that way since 1993. And college football is still in great shape.

It needs Notre Dame to be a team worthy of the devotion of its fans and the undying enmity of its foes.

No. College football has had some great seasons lately with some historically lousy Notre Dame teams.

This has nothing to do with my own attachment to the place. I’m a Domer but not a homer.

Bullshit. I hate you, HatGuy. You can't come over to watch next week's ND-Michigan game.

I could survive quite nicely if Notre Dame never wins another national championship — even the phony version foisted off on us by the BCS.

HatGuy, a man of the people, continues to complain about things that are popular to complain about, like the BCS.

Just the same, for the sake of the game and the fans and everything we love about college sports, it would be great if Weis shows that he really is a great college coach and ND shows up in the Top 10 again, maybe even lays down a claim for No. 1.

Why would it be great? Wouldn't it be great if a new Notre Dame established some kind of incredible legacy?

And you know, the fact that HatGuy mentions ND as maybe even laying down a claim for No. 1 is uproariously stupid. And he doesn't even have the 1988 national title to excuse his lunacy.

It doesn’t have to win a title. But Notre Dame should compete for them in the same way that the Yankees should compete for American League pennants and World Series rings and the Dallas Cowboys should compete for Super Bowl trophies.

HatGuy just wants sports to be a repeat of the 1970s. Actually, if HatGuy had his way, we would just watch all the old games on repeat. HatGuy probably loves ESPN Classic.

When you don’t have a national team, it’s like going into an ice cream parlor that doesn’t have vanilla and chocolate or a pizzeria that doesn’t offer a cheese pie.

Assuming, if you will, that Notre Dame is the only 'national' team, what has college football been lately? A Buffalo Wild Wings without the Wild Wings?

Every sport needs a team that transcends parochial boundaries, a team that inflames passions in ways that other teams can’t.

Why?

You can’t generate much more than a mild disagreement in Vermont by trying to debate the relative merits of the Florida Gators or Texas Longhorns. But you can get an argument anywhere just by saying the words: “Notre Dame.”


I guess. THis goes on and on with all this crap, about how college football is better if there are headlines to shout about, scream about, whine about.

And that’s why I want the Irish to compete.

Not because you went there. It's because it's good for college football.

It’s the same reason I want the Yankees, the Cowboys, the Celtics and the Lakers to compete. Their sports are always better

No. Baseball with an average Yankees team last year was great. A non-dominant Cowboys team over the last ten years has been equally great. I don't doubt that every non-ND college football fan has found the last sixteen years to be pretty damn great even though Notre Dame hasn't been that good.

and life is always brighter when the legendary teams are involved.

Jesus, HatGuy, get a grip.

They don’t have to win. But they can’t stink.

They're not going to stink this year. They're going to win nine games this year and I, dan-bob, am probably going to be mad about it.

Can you imagine the stories and the talk that a resurgence in South Bend would generate?

Yes, because it happened in the fall of 2002, and it turned out to be a complete sham.

On the one hand would be the loyal sons and daughters reacquainting themselves with that heady feeling of success on the football field.

You've already started that, HatGuy. Of course, the 35-0 lead the Irish are currently enjoying is doing its own part.

On the other would be endless rants from Notre Dames’ critics, of which there are several,

I see what he did there. Do you see what he did there?

complaining about the cushy schedule, the compliant voters, the media bias and all the other things they’ve been grousing about since Knute Rockne ran the show.

Doubtless those Notre Dame critics have just been acting out of nothing but jealousy and spite; they've never had any cause to suspect a pro-ND bias.

I know there are hordes of Notre Dame haters who would be delighted if the school never wins another game. They are like Yankee haters and Dallas Cowboy haters and Duke haters who are only happy when their mortal enemy is totally miserable.

Larry B is only happy when Boston sports teams are totally miserable.


I’ve never understood people like that. Sure, it’s fun to see the team you despise do a total face plant now and then, but if it happens every year, you’re not a fan, you’re a sadist. Nobody except a really demented sports fan wants to see lopsided victories every year. It’s like frying ants with a magnifying glass. What part of that exercise would an adult find entertaining?

It's the same sort of exercise that I find entertaining when I read that you've posted another article. Tearing you up is like ... frying ants with a magnifying glass. Still, I think this article has gotten awfully tedious.

It could turn out that Weis really is in over his head and should go back to being a coordinator somewhere. But if he turns it around — even if it’s thanks to an easy schedule — that, too, will be a darned good story. Redemption always sells.

No, big brand names always sell, because the college football world is a remarkably savvy corporate market that knows how to market big names to get more hits on their site/watchers for their games/followers of their Tweets.

Notre Dame's resurgence is such a wonderful human interest story! I hope Rick Reilly writes about it!

And both Weis and Notre Dame are due for some redemption. It’s been a long time since the Irish were an elite program. And someone needs to show that a school can have high standards — like requiring every undergrad to pass calculus — and still win.

Someone needs to do this. Someone needs to show that passing calculus is necessary. Someone needs to stand up for old fashioned education.

Someone needs to.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

I've Got a Bone to Pick with MSNBC's HR Department.....

Celizic wrote again. I continue to wonder what anyone ever saw in this guy.

Time for Manny, Torre to earn their keep
As the Dodgers struggle, focus should be on star, manager


You could focus on how Raffy Furcal shit the bed this year, or how someone sapped Russell Martin's power. You could focus on the fact that the first baseman can't slug his way out of a paper bag, or the fact that injuries have dilapidated the rotation to the point where knucklejunkit Chuck Haeger made a start (and will make another today) for arguably the best team in baseball. You could look at a little bad luck, or the fact that their "decline" is more rooted in how hot the Colorado Rockies are than how less-than-good the Dodgers are playing.

But you can ABSOLUTELY NOT focus on a guy who doesn't play for the team, or THE FUCKING STAR LEFT FIELDER HITTING .306/.424/.536. Remember these slash stats. You will be seeing them many times in this post.

When the Dodgers opened the vault to hire Joe Torre, it was because of his ability to manage teams under playoff stress. And when they dug deep to sign Manny Ramirez, it was because of his ability to drag a team into the playoffs by his dreadlocks.

Which he is failing miserably at to the tune of .306/.424/.536.

This would be a good time for both to live up to their reputation: Torre as the unflappable leader whose teams never panic, even when they can’t buy a win; Manny as one of baseball’s most reliable RBI machines.

The Dodgers are 6-4 in their last 10....they can't BUY a win.

And Manny sucks too. .306/.424/.536.

Nobody’s blaming Torre for what could be a memorable collapse should the Rockies continue their torrid pace and the Dodgers fail to remember how to win. At least not in Los Angeles, they aren’t.

The Dodgers are 12-14 this month. Vulnerable, but saying that they "forgot how to win", is insane. Most very good teams have at least one month like this.

And so the blame for the Dodger doldrums is falling squarely on the shoulders of Manny.

Ex....cuse me? You're pointing the finger at the best offensive player on the team, (who, might I add, is hitting .306/.424/.536)?

Normally, calling one player on the carpet for a team’s problems is too simplistic. But in this case, it’s not.

Mike Celizic has thoroughly analyzed the performances of everyone on the roster and has come to the conclusion that Manny Ramirez is the problem. He tried several different methods, and all of them output that Manny is the problem. I'm serious.

...

...

Naw, I'm kidding. He just figured out his batting average since the All-Star break and cited some freakish RBI stats.

If Manny were even half the player he was last year, the Dodgers would be comfortably in first place

1) The Dodgers are (sort of) comfortably in first place.
2) You're blaming Manny for not repeating one of the best two-month performances of all-time.
3) .306/.424/.536

and I’d probably be writing yet another column about the — groan! — AL East.

At least you recognize what a fuckstick you are about your writing topics.

At this time last year, Manny was as awesome a force as you’ll see. After arriving from Boston, he averaged an RBI a game and dragged L.A. into the playoffs.

Yes. This, Mike Celizic, is not what we in the baseball world called "normal". We call this superhumanly clutch, or fluketasticly spectacular. No one in the world can do that on a monthly basis.

He signed a short but sweet contract in the spring, took nearly two months off early in the season to serve a suspension for violating the league’s drug policy, came back with his signature dreads longer than ever, and then disappeared.

It's true. Ask opposing pitchers whether they noticed the guy hitting .306/.424/.536. Nowhere to be seen.

Brett Favre was better down the stretch for the Jets last year than Manny has been in August for L.A. John Smoltz wasn’t as bad for the Red Sox this year than Manny has been for the Dodgers.

First of all, who the hell is "Brett Favre"?

Second.....

A guy who had averaged a 55.4 passer rating and a 2/9 TD/INT over the last 5 games of the regular season, and a guy with an 8.32 ERA weren't as bad for their respective teams than the supreme junkiest player in sports, who has been hitting .306/.424./.536.

Huh.

I give up. If he doesn't get fired for writing that, I don't think he ever will.

He’s been so bad he got booed in Dodgers Stadium the other day when he misplayed a ball into a triple and put another 0-for-4 in the box score in another loss.

Asshole. WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DID IN JUNE, MANNY!

Dodgers fans aren’t given to booing — it takes too much energy and demands that the spectators actually pay attention to the game.

Mike Celizic isn't given to facts - they take too much research and demand that the writer actually follow the sport in question.

But even Dodgers fans have their limits, and Manny has found them with one of the worst months he’s probably ever had in his career.

Manny Ramirez, August: .306/.424/.536.

Naw, just kidding. It's .287/.391/.415. Quit dragging down the universe, Manny.

Through Sunday’s games, Manny had played 22 games in August. In two of those games, he performed like Manny, getting a home run and three RBIs in each of them. In the other 20 games, he has zero home runs and a grand total of six RBIs, a hitting pace that a lot of pitchers have little trouble keeping up with. He’s driven in just one run in his last dozen games.

Congratulations. You've found the worst possible way to evaluate a person's month-long performance in history.

He’s hitting .303 on the season, but only .254 since the All-Star break.

I told you there would be some dumb batting average-related thing in here.

The Dodgers are not a bad hitting team.

Uh huh.....

They lead the National League in team batting average and on-base percentage.

Which is "not bad", as you said.

Normally, that’s a sure formula for winning baseball. And when Manny’s driving in runs, it is.

Manny Ramirez is the only player on the Los Angeles Dodgers responsible for driving in runs. It's actually impossible for James Loney and Andre Ethier to do it.

The Dodgers are third in the NL in scoring, with 603 runs. But they’re 10th in slugging percentage

Clearly the fault of that .536-slugging Manny. By the way, Manny's complete line for the season? .306/.424/.536

All other things being equal, when Manny is hitting, they win. When he’s not hitting, they have problems.

When you set all other factors equal in two scenarios, the performance of the one variable factor will pretty much determine the difference in outcome of the two scenarios.

And that's totally how it's worked with the Dodgers this year.

So far, there’s no sign that Torre has done anything to light a fire under Manny.

No need to strike a match to ignite a fully spreading-and-dangerous wildfire.

Right now, nobody’s blaming Torre for that. But if things continue to go badly in Colorado and if that once huge lead continues to erode like a sand castle in a hurricane, somebody’s going to bring it up.

And if they don’t, they should.


Three-oh-six, four-twenty-four, five-thirty-six.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Hat Guy, A Man of the People, Loves Steroid Users

I was bored and wanted to post. So I found the latest from an old friend.

"If Fans Don't Boo Manny, Why Should the Media?"

Though I realize that sometimes writers don't create their own titles... this title already suggests a logical conclusion that I do not support. Let's remind ourselves that HatGuy has, in the past, praised the efforts of Sammy Sosa in overcoming steroid judgment and coming back to the game. HatGuy, by all accounts, has little problem with steroid use. Here are the major problems with this article:

1. HatGuy bases a huge argument about baseball, the press and moral indignation based on one anecdote of evidence from a Mets/Dodgers broadcast.

2. HatGuy takes pointless potshots at people who enjoy the historical tradition of baseball.

3. HatGuy makes himself into a people's champion. In that respect, I'm perfectly happy with the blind leading the blind. But it still smacks of arrogance.

The Mets’ play-by-play guy couldn’t believe what he wasn’t hearing. Manny Ramirez, fresh off a 50-game drug suspension, was stepping to the plate for the first time this year in front of the toughest fans this side of Philadelphia, and there were more people taking pictures than booing.

Whose fans are tough? Since when are Mets fans notoriously tough? But the man's right: where are the boos?

“They just don’t care anymore,” SNY’s Gary Cohen said, with a distinct note of disappointment. “Most of them seem to care not much at all about performance-enhancing drugs.”

Which is a significant charge. The player just got caught for cheating and suspended for almost a third of the season... and nobody seems to care.

The camera panned the crowd, catching Dodgers fans wearing novelty caps with Manny dreads attached or waving signs welcoming their hero back from exile. Oh, there was a smattering of boos, but nothing remarkable. They weren’t even as loud as those showered on Mets starter Mike Pelfrey when he let the Dodgers jump out to a 5-0 lead in the fourth.

Well, at least the Mets fans are tough on their bad baseball players, if not on actual cheaters.

Cohen kept talking about it, as if the fans’ behavior was incomprehensible.

HatGuy keeps writing about Cohen, as if his reaction is somehow incomprehensible.

HatGuy is clearly on the side of the fans here - in fact, HatGuy is almost always on the side of popularity and what the ordinary mindless idiot fan thinks.
In an earlier post, pnoles notes that HG said there's "no freer spirit in the game" than Manny Ramirez.

Manny had been caught with a drug in his system that’s used to restore normal testosterone production after using steroids.

Fact. Good to see one of these in HatGuy's work.

He was slammed with a 50-game suspension that cost him more than $8 million.

Fact.

Though he has never tested positive for steroids, all the commentators are calling him a cheater who may never get in the Hall of Fame.

Debatable fact (given the word "all").

He’s sullied the game.

Opinion.
Actually, this is a rhetorical trick by old HatGuy - sticking an opinion with which he does not agree after a series of facts. He's making it seem like this is an obvious fact, so that he can set it up to question it.

You're tricky there, HatGuy, but I'm on to you!


He’s lower than a snake’s belly in a canyon.

Another quality HatGuy comparison. I thought he'd go with his old favorite comparison, but I imagine that snakes' bellies in canyons are pretty low. I thought maybe he would go with something creative and relevant, like "He's lower than Eliot Spitzer's moral compass" or even "He's lower than Eddie Gaedel's jockstrap".

Why aren’t the fans booing?

Because they don't care. Also because they don't care much about the game of baseball.

“Either they put it behind them or they didn’t care to start with,” Cohen finally decided with an almost audible shrug.

What does an audible shrug sound like? Also, Cohen's conclusions are correct.

We in the opinion business like to talk about how players don’t have a clue about just about everything — money, fame, contracts, respect, the real world.

We in the sarcastic blog business like to talk about how journalists don't have a clue about just about everything - sports, logic, basic conventions of English, writing skill, basic statistical maxims, the real world.

But on this subject, the guys in the electronic pulpits are the ones who are clueless, and have been for a long time.

Actually, HatMan, I'm not clueless, I'm just mad. I'm well aware that hordes of morons are baseball fans.

And calling a blog an "electronic pulpit" is amusing. There's an interesting dose of anti-evangelical sentiment in this particular article of HatGuy's. I mean, I always figured HatGuy believed in faith over reason, but maybe not.

I’ve been saying this for years: The fans don’t care.

Bloggers have been saying it for years: you're an idiot.

[I here omit three paragraphs of storytelling about what happened on Manny's return].

The real issue is the fans, who have been packing ballparks at record rates ever since chemically-enhanced players started hitting balls out of the park more than a decade ago. Scandal after scandal was going to destroy the game. Scandal after scandal has produced little more than a collective yawn.

That's the truth: the steroid scandal is not affecting baseball's bottom line and people are still coming out in droves. Even Bud has claimed that "this could be our greatest season". Now - that doesn't mean it's right. Just because people show up doesn't mean that steroids are not a problem and were not a problem.

HatGuy, the ultimate populists, equates moral correctness with popular opinion. I realize that I'm getting a bit preachy here, but isn't that a problem?

And this brings a larger issue to the table: is MLB's job to entertain its fans, or produce the best quality baseball on the planet? HatGuy says the former, I say the latter. If you ask me, too much of HatGuy's entertainment will destroy the quality of the baseball, whereas if the quality of the baseball is held high, it will certainly entertain the fans.

Oh, sure, you won’t have any trouble finding people on message boards and bar stools yawping about how these guys should be hung by their thumbs in Times Square and beaten like piƱatas with the Naked Cowboy’s guitar.

This is what you call humorous hyperbole, a standard tool in the writer's arsenal.

To them, the guys who cheated with steroids are the only people who ever broke the rules of the game.

No. This is what you call "stupid hyperbole", or a straw man logical fallacy. It's where you misrepresent your opponent's argument and then refute the misrepresentation.

The guys who stole signs, used corked bats, gobbled down amphetamines like they were M&Ms, threw cut balls, spitballs, scuff balls, emery balls and Vaseline balls weren’t cheating at all. They were just trying to win.

Not the same thing, HatGuy.

They’re a vocal minority, and their voices are amplified by commentators and columnists who are the baseball equivalent of creationists.

Woah.


Huh?


Did I just get called a "creationist" by the most illogical and unreasonable sportswriter on the entire interwebs?

The reason that all forms of cheating except using performance-enhancers are OK is because it’s written in some sacred book somewhere.

In fact, right here it states that all those types of illegal-substance-balls are clearly banned with the penalty of a ten-game suspension. HatGuy does not seem to know the rules of this game.

Or is he talking about an unwritten sacred book of sportswriters that are designed to crucify steroid users? I wonder who wrote this book. Probably Bill Simmons. I want a copy of this book.

Are there suspicions that anyone in the current game is throwing spitballs?

The book says that if a player takes something that helps him hit more home runs, he’s cheating. If he doesn’t hit more home runs, it doesn’t matter what he does.

Tell that to this list of guys, who were suspended for using corked bats.

Also, unless I am very mistaken, the use of the spitball has been effectively curtailed, putting pitchers on the same level playing field. Obviously, only now has steroid use been effectively curtailed.

Most fans don’t make such fine distinctions.

Most people don't make fine distinctions in anything. That hardly strengthens your argument.

They also don’t have their home pages set to baseball-reference.com and don’t give a rat’s patoot about the sacred numbers that give meaning to the lives of true believers everywhere.

I see what you're doing here, HatGuy. Really, this whole article is about HatGuy's praise of the common baseball fan and his criticism of the ivory-tower blogointellectualfan, who might actually know why OBP is important, or care that hardworking, reasonably-honest players' records are being surpassed by roiding sluggers.

HatGuy's homepage is probably yankees.com

I understand where the true believers are coming from, and it’s kind of touching that people can be so obsessive about it all.

You don't really believe that. Now you're patronizing me, you asshole.

Baseball, like physics, is numbers. There’s nothing in the game that hasn’t been broken down by the wonks and given mystical meaning.

I think balks have never been broken down by the wonks and given mystical meaning. But yes - anything that might have a bearing on how baseball games work and how they might turn out... might actually be fun to think about.

I have to admit, it’s pretty cool, and I’ve bought Bill James’ books and spent more time wandering around baseball-reference.com than is probably healthy.

I'm pretty impressed that he bought them, though he chooses his verbs carefully enough to suggest that maybe he didn't actually read them. And I have no doubt that HatGuy's exprience on b-r.com was truly wandering, since he never goes there with a focused research goal in mind.

But what leaps out at me in baseball’s immutable numbers is that they are always changing. You want unfair? How about 1930, when the National League hit better than .300 and the Giants as a team hit .319? You don’t think that skewed the numbers?

It did skew the numbers. As a result, baseball took action and introduced a less lively baseball in 1931, hoping to bring the game back into a normal competitive balance and preserve the integrity of the numbers.

1920, 1931, 1968... and now in the early 2000s, baseball has always taken steps to retain the competitive balance between hitters and pitchers, no matter what the fans have thought. That's why McGwire's 62nd in 1998 was such a big deal - because it was actually comparable to Ruth and Maris. What other sport can consider a statistical season in 2009 (Pujols possibly hitting 62) somewhat statistically comparable to a season in 1927?

The great majority of fans understand that in their guts. They’re sports fans, and baseball is the sport they follow in the summer.

I wonder if this is the case - are there more or less "dedicated baseball fans" than just "average sports fans who watch baseball in summer". But even then: the great majority of the fans probably still want Manny and other steroid users punished. But they still want to come to games.

They’re used to the collective yawn that greets steroid abusers in the NFL. Their interest in numbers is confined to how their fantasy teams are performing, and if one of their guys hits 89 home runs, they’re not going to complain about it.

Disagree. Well, maybe the home fans won't complain about it, but you can bet the rest of baseball will. See: San Francisco Giants fans.

They’re at the park not to worship numbers or to watch perfect human beings play a perfect game. They’re there to have a beer and a brat and cheer for the home team and have fun.

And go home and punch nerds in the face. For HatGuy, apparently enjoyment of the historical tradition and numerical comparison aspect of baseball is mutually exclusive with eating and drinking. I think I can do both.

In their view, Manny had a slip-up. He got caught. He paid for it. Now he’s back, and ain’t that grand?

Sort of, maybe if you like the Dodgers.

They love Manny because he’s a character who does goofy things and has crazy hair and hits the ball like few others ever have. Guys like him are the reason we buy tickets.

Wild generalization.

The fans got over it a long time ago. It’s getting to be time for those of us in the press box to do the same.

It's never going to be time for those of us in the FJM press box to get over your ignorance.




Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Closed for the Holidays

Hello everyone. I'm here to announce that Fire Jay Mariotti is going on hiatus until December 26th. We're not planning on seeing any new bad examples of sports journalism until then. So, to all eleven of you reading, I apologize, you're not going to have any extra distraction to run off to on the computer while all your relatives are busy telling boring stories this holiday season. We're just not going to be there for yo--

Wait a second....

Whoops.

I can only assume this is your doing, Celizic.

Yankees have all the pieces of a new dynasty

They sure do! Brett Gardner is currently their starting center fielder! They've got possibly the two most well-constructed teams in the rest of the league (both now, and in the future) clogging up their division! They have the "best" defensive shortstop in the world!

Wait, wait.....these are bad things! What gives, Mike?

The Yankees just became the team to beat — and not just in the American League.

That's quite a claim. You're saying the Yankees are absolutely, without question the team to beat because they signed this guy. With all due respect to him, he's nowhere near as good as this guy (seriously, look at that WARP difference!). Yet you're acting like he is.

New York reportedly has landed first baseman Mark Teixeira, continuing one of the most profligate spending sprees in baseball history. If true, the team that has clearly not given up on the idea that champions are purchased, not born, has all the big pieces of a new dynasty in place.

Aging shortstop, aging catcher, aging closer, aging (albeit awesome) third baseman, aging....whatever you want to call Johnny Damon at this point. This is a fucking dynasty!

All the Boston Red Sox can do is watch and wonder what the Evil Empire will do next.

The Tampa Bay Rays apparently don't care about this at all.

And all indications are that there’s more to come. It could be Manny Ramirez, although he would strain even the Yankees' budget.

Probably not.

It could be another front-line pitcher.

There's only one left available, so you might as well be specific.

It could be center fielder Matt Kemp and more bullpen help in a trade with the Dodgers for second baseman Robinson Cano.

Hey, did you hear that everyone? Dave Littlefield somehow assumed control of the Los Angeles Dodgers!

The difference between this and previous spending sprees is that the Yankees so far have spent their money on players in their primes, and not on aging all-stars on the down slopes of their careers. They’ve also signed guys who should fit in well with their teammates.

There's something I feel like I should be saying about that last sentence, but I can't quite put my finger on it......

What’s most impressive with the normally impulsive Yankees is the methodical way that general manager Brian Cashman has gone about his off-season labors.

Step 1) Sign pitching.
Step 2) Sign hitting.

It wasn't all that complicated.

The Yankees’ first need was pitching, and that’s already been taken care of with the signings of CC Sabathia, the best free-agent pitcher on the market, and A.J. Burnett, arguably the second-best of the group. Those acquisitions alone propelled the Yankees into contender status in the AL East with Boston and the Rays.

Methodical. Not impulsive.

The next need was a big bat in the heart of the lineup to replace the power the team lost with the departures of Bobby Abreu and Jason Giambi. Teixeira’s 162-game average over his six-year career is 121 RBI, 101 runs, 36 home runs and a .378 on-base percentage.

He’s a superior defensive first baseman and best of all, he’s a switch hitter.


Scott Boras: I think the Yankees need to sign Teixeira if they want to stay competitive.

Brian Cashman: Hmmm.....I dunno...what makes you think he'll help the squad for that astronomical sum you're asking?

Scott Boras: Well, he's a real run producer. He's driven in an average of 121 runs per season, and he's scored 101 himself!

Brian Cashman: Ehhh...tempting, tempting....what else ya got?

Scott Boras: Well...he's a real power threat. 36 homers per year, dontcha know!

Brian Cashman: Yes...you see I'm still not sure he's worth the 8 years, $180M....

Scott Boras: He's also a pretty good on-base guy. You can't sneeze at a .378 OBP!

Brian Cashman: But I can be completely and utterly bored with it!

Scott Boras: UGH! Well, he's great with the glove, too, if you think that matters....

Brian Cashman: Ehh....that's good, but he's just a first bas-

Scott Boras: He's a switch hitter.

Brian Cashman: Sold.

Best of all, he’s no aging superstar.

You JUST SAID something else was "best of all". You can't do that twice, man! That's pure butchery of the English language!

They’re not a perfect team, and they’re still probably not the equal of the team that won four out of five World Series from 1996-2000. They’re weak in left field, where age and bad arms have caught up with Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui. New acquisition Nick Swisher has potential, but will be a downgrade if he is plugged in for Bobby Abreu in right.

Thanks for acknowledging this. You're a real sport, Mike.

Perhaps more importantly, we've just learned that yes, it is possible to will people out of existence through the power of ignorance.

Jorge Posada, a potent switch-hitter, will be back at catcher after losing most of 2008 with shoulder problems, but his skills as a catcher are beginning to erode. Center field is unsettled, with Swisher being a candidate to play there along with youngster Brett Gardner. Gardner is blessed with extraordinary speed, but he has yet to prove he can hit at the major league level. Melky Cabrera, once the center fielder of the future, fell so precipitously last year he was exiled to the Yankees’ Scranton farm club.

Hey, now careful, if you keep this shit up, your case for them being a dynasty may lose some momentum.....

Cano also took a huge step backwards last year, and needed a feverish run at the end of the season to get his average up to .271, more than 30 points below 2007. His RBIs were down to 72 from 97, and he had 15 fewer extra-base hits and scored 23 fewer runs than he had a year earlier.

Woahhhhhhh....you just listed legitimate problems at 5 of the 9 offensive positions! You know what word I'm thinking of when I hear stuff like that?

DYNASTY!!!

But the biggest parts of a contender are in place. The Yankees have a rotation that should stand up to Boston’s and Tampa’s. They have a lineup that will stand up to anyone.

"Stand up to" must now equal "dominate". Unless that's what dynasties do nowadays. They don't need to win, they just need to give the other guys a run for their money!

Now, starting at first base, they have the Teixeira, a great kid with a great bat and glove.

"The Teixeira". I smell a fucking SICK nickname for this guy catching on!

They’re back on top — on paper, at least.

Wrong. You, yourself have given at least 4 reasons why in this very article.

And all Boston and the rest of the league can do is sit back and wonder what they’ll do next. Because the Yankees aren’t done yet.

They...they might be done.

Dynasty, thy name is Teixeira.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

I'm Back With a Vengeance, Bitches

Sorry about that hiatus there, folks. No one in the media has seemed to care about baseball lately, and nothing egregious was really written about the few trades that have happened so far. But at least I've got my rock, my main dawg, HatGuy, to lean on.

Sorry, but Ramirez was NL's most valuable

No.

Pujols put up big numbers, but midseason acquisition carried Dodgers

Yes. This does not prove thing (1).

If I had an MVP vote in the National League, I’d have given it to Manny Ramirez.

This is one of the 23409234 reasons you do not have a National League MVP vote.

I don’t know how anyone could have voted differently.

1) Using stats
2) Using logic
3) Eliminating completely from consideration players who only played half a year for their respective team and didn't turn in the absolute greatest half season performance of all time
4) Thinking
5) Drawing names out of a hat, and not drawing Ramirez's name

I say this with full appreciation for the season that Albert Pujols had for the Cardinals

You said it with maybe 26% of "full appreciation" of that.

Albert Pujols is a future Hall-of-Famer, barring some disastrous injury. And he just turned in the absolute best season of his career. But here's the kicker, Mikey.

The 2008 Cardinals won more baseball games than the 2008 Dodgers.

If the Cardinals played in the cupcake-y AL West, you'd be preaching to the motherfucking world how Pujols carried his team to the playoffs. Now you're damning him because of the Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee Brewers, Houston Astros, and Jason Isringhausen.

and with awe for the power numbers of Philadelphia’s Ryan Howard.

Or, you know, the 30 or so other people in the NL who played better than Ryan Howard this year. But yeah...Howard...I guess Howard works.

(I am not exaggerating when I say 30. There is a very real chance that I understated it.)

But Manny put the Dodgers in the playoffs all by himself.

Quite a thing to say about a guy who finished 6th on his team in WARP.

(Actually, interesting factoid -- if you narrow the discussion to Ramirez and Ryan Howard, Manny takes the award if you go by WARP.)

There shouldn’t be an argument.

This is the first thing you've said that made sense. Yet here I am. And here you are.

The legend on the award says “Most Valuable Player.”

Ugh, I thought maybe you didn't know! This is difficult for me to figure out, Mikey! You know there's no question who should win the award, and you know what the award is for.....so where....where was this misstep in logic between the correct steps and the correct conclusion? I feel like you're so close....

It doesn’t say “Most Popular Player,”

That's why Pujols won. It was a fucking popularity contest! And Pujols is so popular, that's why no one shut up about how great a season he was having the entire year! Why couldn't people pay some attention to the true greats like Ryan Howard, Josh Hamilton, and K-Rod?

“Thumper of the Year,”

So, you're not taking Ramirez over Pujols for hitting reasons? I hope to God you don't want to talk defense with me.....

“Best All-Around Hitter,”

"Best All-Around Player" would do just fine.....

“Best Season”

STOP!

The award absolutely means "Best Season." You can argue for centuries about what constitutes having the "Best Season." But the award absofuckinglutely belongs to whoever people believe had the "Best Season." You are a fucking idiot.

or “A Really Nice Guy.”

You know, Sean Casey has been winning way too many MVP awards lately.....

It’s about value to a team’s success; nothing else.

And Pujols was more valuable to what success the Cardinals had than what success the Dodgers had. Period. Take Pujols off the Cardinals, they were never once in the playoff discussion. They lose more wins than the Dodgers would have without Manny, especially considering their outfield logjam (say what you will about Juan Pierre, but he's solid in the "4th outfielder" category.)

In my mind, players for teams that don’t at least contend strongly for the playoffs should never win the MVP. If your team finishes down in the standings, how valuable could you be?

If I think hard enough about this, I'm pretty sure if I took that paragraph as true, I could use it to disprove the most basic fundamentals of logic. Like, maybe that syllogisms were fallacies or something.

Okay, so I can't think of one, but check out this pair.

P1) Putting up a comparatively high OPS is valuable.
P2) Player A put up the highest OPS in the world.
C) Therefore, Player A is valuable.

P1) The same Player A plays for a bad team.
P2) Players who play for bad teams are not valuable.
C) Therefore, Player A is not valuable.

To me, the MVP is the player that a contending team could not have lived without.

Okay, fair. The Dodgers won the division by 2 games. There were 19 players on the Dodgers with a WARP of 2.0 or higher. We're going to have to make many copies of this award!

There’s no question that Pujols is the player the Cardinals can least afford to lose, but St. Louis faded from contention in the NL Central by mid-August.

Because their bullpen was the baseball equivalent of your writing. It was not Pujols's fault, so don't deprive him of the hardware, dude!

They finished third

They finished fourth.

(wow)

— a position they probably could have attained even without Pujols’ help.

Stop everything. I have no clue what the hell is going on here. There are a few possibilities.

1) HatGuy does not realize that the Houston Astros exist, and there are only 5 teams in the NL Central. He then believes (probably accurately) that without Pujols, the Cardinals still beat out the Reds.

2) HatGuy thinks that the two teams were actually tied for 3rd, and he also believes that without Pujols, the Cardinals would have wound up tied with the Astros anyway (i.e. Pujols is worth zero wins).

3) HatGuy mixed up the Astros and Cardinals while looking at the standings, and thought the Cardinals had the .5 game lead at the end of the year. This means he thinks Pujols was worth between 0 and 0.5 wins.

4) HatGuy wrote this sentence just so picky, angry nerds like myself would have their blood pressure raised and increase their risk of heart failure.

He's going to kill us all.

My God.....

Ryan Howard has a better claim to the award than Pujols.

Please, if I do not go into work tomorrow, please e-mail HatGuy's column to my boss. The first place he will look for me is the mental asylum, I know it.

The Phillies fought to the season’s last day to win, and Howard saved his best for last, carrying the team down the stretch. In any other year, Howard would be my MVP.

Your two favorite MVP candidates were not even one of the five best players on their respective teams.

But Philly has a powerful lineup, and Howard wasn’t the sole reason the team won.

I can't even try to be funny with this.

NEITHER WAS MOTHERFUCKING RAMIREZ.

Besides, there was a better candidate than Howard, Pujols or Brewer Ryan Braun, the third-place finisher.

Who?

That is Ramirez

Oh.

the only player who can be mentioned with Pujols in discussions of who is the greatest active right-handed hitter in the game.

But you...Yankees obsession...how did you forget.....

Huh?!???!??!?!?!??!?!?

Manny played for the Dodgers for just over two months, and some voters doubtless felt that mitigated against his candidacy.

I am still willing to watch baseball next season because of that fact.

But rather than arguing against his candidacy, the brevity of his service should have argued more forcibly for it.

My God.....

(I've had to say that far too many times in this post than is healthy for my emotional stability.)

The fact that Ramirez played only two months (that's 1/3 of the season) in the league in which you want him to be considered the Most Valuable Player....is an argument in his favor????

I just tried to think of a superlative form of the word "wrong". All I'm coming up with is FWAP. We'll go with FWAP.

FWAP, Mike Celizic! That is pure FWAP!

The facts are incontrovertible.

awh[p32[DIO32PFJ'A3W;FK'AWKLFNAW'EFLSEFASDF

Before Manny arrived in L.A., the Dodgers were fighting to play .500 baseball and stay in contention in the game’s worst division. After he arrived, L.A. started playing at a championship level that carried them to the playoffs.

Any player who has a (partially coincidental) positive impact on any team ever should discount anyone anywhere from any sort of any kind of consideration for anything ever.

His stats were absurd: 53 games, 53 RBIs, 17 home runs, 14 doubles, .489 on-base percentage, .396 batting average, .743 slugging percentage.

Those numbers are incredible. Chipper Jones hit .410 through two months. Give him the fucking MVP award.

(Please do not reply with angry comments explaining that Manny's August and September were better than Jones's April and May. I am well aware, and just wish to point out how 2 months can yield really fluky rate stats.....please....PLEASE don't kill me!!!)

If ever one player carried a team to the playoffs, it was Ramirez and the Dodgers. Without him they were a mediocrity. With him, they were division champs.

And....still kind of a mediocrity. They won 84 games in the NL West, which was not the NL Best, if you catch mah da-rift.

I don’t care that he played just two months.

Sentences like this are why you humiliate yourself any time you try to talk about anything.

I do care that he was the reason the Dodgers won. He’s the very definition of an MVP.

I don't want to continue with this. Anyone else notice that he's just saying the same thing over and over again? I'm....I'm actually fresh out of reasons why this guy's wrong! Fresh out!

My God....he wore me out. I thought I could sit here and be sarcastic and angry forever. But I can't! This article is a test of my endurance. I just don't have it!

Unfortunately, too many people think that the MVP should go to the player most responsible for a team’s success

Now there's a lunatic idea.

Haven't you been using this description of MVP to attempt to prove why Manny is the MVP the entire time? Now you're saying it's unfortunate people think like that?

I can't take it anymore. Don't care anymore. GREAT sentence, HatGuy.

— unless somebody has a really phenomenal year for a team that didn’t have much success.

Whatever. Not offensive at all. Don't care that Pujols had a phenomenal year. Let it go. Serenity. Can't let him make me blow a gasket.

Alex Rodriguez once won for being indispensible to the Rangers’ last-place finish, and Ernie Banks once won for distinguished service to another lousy Cubs team.

That's fine. Roll with the punches, logic. Just ride it out. He can't write forever. He'll get sleepy or hungry or something soon. Most likely hungry. For desserts.

The other factor voters consider that they shouldn’t is popularity.

Just....let it go that no one cared that Manny was a dick. Don't worry there Nolesy, hang in there. You don't need to mention that Manny being a jerk was as much a reason for people loving him as hating him by the end of the season.

Give them a chance to punish a guy they don’t like in favor of someone they do, and they’ll take it more often than not. Ted Williams twice lost MVP races to Joe DiMaggio because the voters liked Joe D. better than they liked the Splendid Splinter.

Stuff from the 1940's. Great. Don't worry about it. It's....it's ok. What people did back then is probably relevant, because baseball thinking hasn't advanced at all (at least I think it hasn't). Nothing can make me angry.

Also, the NL MVP award wasn’t about Boston or anything other than who meant the most to the success of his team. And there’s no question about it. Manny’s your man. The fact that he finished fourth is no discredit to him, but to the voters.

You know, even if I'm probably going to hell for writing on this blog and spending so much of my free time disparaging someone I've never met and has honestly caused me no harm whatsoever, it's comforting knowing that ol' Mikey will be right there beside me. He broke the 8th Commandment at least 400 times in this article, and I'm sure there was some adultery or whatnot thrown in there as well.

Come to think of it.....he also worshipped a false god (Manny), did not honor his mother and father (they'd be embarrassed of having a son that can't read the MLB standings and tell others in what place a team finished), stole people's time, coveted more qualified people's MVP votes, raped logic, murdered reason.....

Well heck, at least you didn't write it on a Sunday, didn't take the Lord's name in vain, nor did you make any reference to coveting a woman (interesting....). 3/10 ain't bad, Mike.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Rays Get Edge in World Series by Losing Game 5 to Boston

Normally, when I write a stupid headline like that, I'm kidding.

This time, that case is actually being argued by...

::sigh::

HatGuy.

Rays' momentum should make Phillies nervous

Wait a minute...momentum?

Philly should be rusty entering World Series, while Tampa is coming in hot

That's true. The Rays have won one (1) game (game) in a row. Their current postseason baseball winning streak total is at....one. The Phillies have won their last two, and are 7-2 in the postseason. Ice. Fucking. Cold.

Nobody in Tampa thought this at the time, but losing Games 5 and 6 of the ALCS to the Boston Red Sox may prove to be the best thing that could have happened to a young team making its first-ever postseason foray.

Even the Rays sweeping the Phillies in 4 games would not "prove" that.

We can say that because the Rays didn’t collapse. They didn't cave to the pressure of Game 7 against the defending World Champions. And in refusing to blink in the white glare of the national spotlight, they’ve been given a huge boost in confidence going into their first World Series.

More confidence than, say, dominating (one of) the best team(s) in baseball?

They’ve also got another weapon they weren’t even aware they had

#1 overall draft pick David Price? Trust me, they were aware of him.

a big-game left-handed closer with blistering speed and composure far beyond what a kid who started the season in Class A should have.

David Price racked up his first major league save ever on Sunday. (You had to listen really closely, but under his breath, one of the commentators mentioned that he's never saved a regular season game before. I don't think he knew his microphone was on.) He's a "closer" now. Funny thing is, ol' Mikey here has no clue that he's ticketed for the rotation pretty darn soon.

The kid’s name is David Price, and if it weren’t for him, Boston would be celebrating its third improbable ALCS comeback in the past five years.

I love this blip here. I really do. It implies that no other pitcher in the world could have come in the game in the 8th inning, bases loaded, 2 outs, TB up by 2, and won the game pitching the last 4 outs. News flash, Celizic. Even though J.D. Drew is really good at baseball, he's gonna fuck this up at least 60% of the time. Price got the job done, but it isn't like it was some inexplicable feat of pitching.

These are huge advantages for a team that had never had a winning record before this season, a team that had finished last season with the major's worst record. The last two season have't been kind to those teams coming in rested.

"Have't" is the world's newest favorite contraction.

Thank you for pointing out something that has more to do with luck than an actual, sustainable trend. Use it to argue whatever idiotic point you want. I, however, will counter with this.

Teams entering World Series with five or more days off and how they fared
Year Days Team Opp. Result
2007 8 Col Bos L, 4-0
2006 6 Det StL L, 4-1
2005 5 ChW Hou W, 4-0
2002 5 Ana SF W, 4-3
2001 5 Ari NYY W, 4-3
1996 6 NYY Atl W, 4-2
1995 6 Atl Cle W, 4-2
1991 5 Min Atl W, 4-3
1990 5 Oak Cin L, 4-0
1989 5 Oak SF W, 4-0
1988 5 Oak LA L, 4-1
Source: Elias Sports Bureau

THIS IS PRINTED ON THE FUCKING SAME PAGE AS YOUR ARTICLE. The team with >5 days rest has gone 7-4 over the last 11 occurrences. You are a fucking idiot for trying to claim something based on the most recent two.

Last year’s Rays were the Colorado Rockies, another young team that hadn’t known much success.

Only the 2008 Rays are significantly better than the 2007 Rockies (sorry Larry).

The Rockies did have more veteran experience, mainly in the person of Todd Helton, but, like the Rays, the postseason was unfamiliar territory.

What the hell is your point? The Rox choked it in the World Series. Why are you mentioning this in an article devoted to explaining why the Rays will win?

The Rockies won 14 of their last 15 games to reach the playoffs, then won eight straight to get to the World Series. At the time, we all thought it was wonderful. It turned out to be the worst thing they could have done because they had eight days to rest before the Fall Classic began.

Dude, I'm going to call the Cause-and-Effect police if you don't shut the fuck up right now.

The problem was that with two weeks to go in the playoffs, the Rockies couldn’t even imagine the playoffs.

THIS is the problem? The Rockies tore apart the Phillies and Diamondbacks, followed by losing to the Red Sox because they couldn't even imagine the playoffs??? Something was wrong with the neural synapses in their brains, inhibiting this concept from entering their minds???....you know what, fuck it, I'm drunk (yeah!!!! awesome!!!!), and know nothing about neurological science, and just want to point out cleverly in some way that Celizic is a motherfucking moron for attributing (any)% of
the outcome(s) of the Rockies' 2007 playoff run to how many days of rest they've had.

When they got to the World Series, they were flatter than Kansas.

There's like 20313231231e094 celebrity women who would have made for a funnier punchline at the end of this sentence than "Kansas".

(I am aware that "e" appears as a digit in that number. I wrote it in hexadecimal. Base 16, dontcha know.)

And when the Red Sox lit into them, they had no idea how to fight back.

Huh. "Hitting", "pitching", and "fielding" never entered their minds. Go figure. Major league team. Didn't even think of those things.

The same thing was true for Detroit in 2006, when they entered the World Series on six days of rest, but lost to a Cardinals squad in five games.

Again, what happened the prior 6 times a team entered the World Series on >5 days of rest?

The Tigers had won 96 games that season and trounced the Yankees and A's en route to the World Series. St. Louis barely finished over .500, escaped against the Mets in the NLCS, yet rolled in the World Series. Clearly, the Cardinals were helped by staying on a roll.

THE CARDINALS WERE MUCH BOLSTERED IN THEIR EFFORTS TO WIN BECAUSE THEY HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF PLAYING REALLY GOOD!

This is in the running for "Most Useless Paragraph of All-Time".

The Rays could have been in a similar situation had they beaten the Red Sox in five games, as they might have if manager Joe Maddon hadn’t started fiddling with his pitching rotation.

Woah woah......is this Celizic PRAISING the Rays for adjusting their pitching rotation so that they might more likely LOSE game 5???

What the FUCK???

I'll drop this little tidbit for ya. Scott Kazmir got in an argument with Derryl Cousins, the home plate umpire for Game 6, earlier in this season. You think that might have had something to do with the switch? Or also, if you have to win one game out of three, the best chance you have is to adjust your pitchers to favor your team heavily in one specific game. Getting Shields to pitch at home, not against the Boston ace, Matsuzaka, is absolutely the correct move.

They’d have come into the World Series having lost just one of eight playoff games with no clue what it feels like to face a must-win game.

A situation that absolutely crippled the 2005 White Sox, who lost the Series in 4 games to the Houston Astros.

Actually speaking of the White Sox, they won 4 straight do-or-die games this season. Why the hell are the Rays doing this much better than they are? Why didn't the confidence of winning from having their razorbacks against the Great Wall of China propeller blade them deep impact into the playoffs?

See, it's fun to insert nonsense words into arguments that make no sense to begin with.

But they lost Games 5 and 6 and then had to find out just what they had inside. As things turned out, it was more than enough.

Here's some counter-anecdotal bullshit to that anecdotal bullshit.

"The Rays, in losing a dramatic Game 5 on the road and a demoralizing Game 6 at home, squeaked by in Game 7 to barely salvage the American League title. However, they move on to the World Series, their minds scarred by the fact that they almost blew everything. What happens when a good team finds out just how vulnerable they are? Just ask the super-confident Phillies."

Yeah. That oughta show ya.

Just as important as what the Rays know is what their opponents, the Phillies now know. They’ve been sitting around with nothing to do but watch the ALCS since they eliminated the Dodgers on Oct. 15. Besides getting rusty with inactivity, they’ve watched the Rays first dig themselves a hole and then climb out of it. As surely as the Rays now know they can come back against one of the game's best teams, so do the Phils.

The Phillies now know that they're supposed to try super hard EVEN IF they are leading in the World Series, the ultimate championship of all that is baseball. Brilliant point!

Wait, what the fuck? The worst the Rays were losing this series was 1-0. They were NEVER in a significant hole.

As fans, we want a seven-game series and the maximum drama. But the reality is that this World Series could easily turn into a rout, just like the past four Series, three of which were sweeps and one of which ended in five games.

You've yet to make any cogent point about why this will happen. Like, using the past matchups (which were comprised of completely different teams) is totally stupid for doing this.

In the past 10 years, there have been just two Series that went the distance. In the 2002 Fall Classic, the Angels prevailed over the Giants in seven, and in 2001, the Diamondbacks plunging a stake through the heart of the Yankee dynasty with a walk-off Game-7 hit.

The odds of the World Series going 7 games is 31.25%. With all likelihood, 3 of those 10 Serieseses, rather than 2, would have gone 7 games. Huh. When you use facts, that hardly seems worth pointing out at all, eh?

This year’s participants are more likely to go short than long, and the team that is probably in more danger of being swept is Philadelphia. There are several reasons to say that. One is that the Phillies are facing more pressure.

With all due respect to the fans and everything, I don't think that Brad Lidge and Pat Burrell care about what happened to the Phillies in like the 90's or anything.

Blame their history for that. As bad as the Rays have been before this year, the Phillies have been bad for almost forever. They have lost more games than any team in major league history, a distinction helped by the fact they’ve been playing the game since 1876.

Again, Shane Victorino probably doesn't give a shit.

They’ve also been waiting since 1983 to get back to the World Series and since 1980 to win it again. That 1980 flag remains their lone championship banner.

See, this is absolutely terrible. The Phillies made the World Series in 1993. Before you think this is a typo, they made the World Series in 1983 as well, making it perfectly plausible that HatGuy is a fucking moron that knows nothing about anything. That's all I'm trying to prove here. It's not a lot to ask that you just....you just believe me.

In Tampa, the newspapers are congratulating the Rays. In Philly, they’re writing about the Phillies' past failures and asking the players why this year should be any different than all the others.

Again, you failed to point out the part where Carlos Ruiz and Brett Myers get negatively affected by this.....

There are no curses in sports, or in life.

Finally, reason wins.

But prolonged losing streaks are helped along by the pressure heaped upon the teams.

We would also have accepted: variance.

Players tend to try so hard to prove they’re not losers that they make the mistakes that turn them into losers.

Jamie Moyer lost all ability to throw hard way before he was a well-known, crafty pitcher. You think he needs to win this World Series to prove he's not a loser? How about Ryan Howard? That 2006 MVP screaming "loser" in the back of his mind?

The only curse Tampa has worked against during the franchise’s lifetime is lack of talent and money. They’ve got the talent now, and they know it. They also know that they can come back because they’ve already done it.

BECAUSE THEY CAME BACK FROM A STEEP 1-0 DEFICIT TO WIN THE ALCS????

Actually, this is hilarious. This is the 2nd time that Celizic has made this awful inference, but he clearly believes that the Rays "came back" by winning game 7 of the ALCS when the series was tied.

The Phillies are a powerful team, but they don’t know what they can do.

What kind of thing to say is that? "They don't know what they can do????" You disgust me.

They only know that they were swept in the NLDS last year by the Rockies and they sailed past the Brewers and Dodgers this year, never facing a game that they absolutely had to win.

Might I remind you that before Game 7 of the ALCS, the Rays were never in a situation when they absolutely had to win the game, and they still won that game anyway.

Last year, The Rockies sat for a week waiting for the Series to start. Once it did, all their momentum was gone.

They were the inferior team, and weren't very fortunate in the World Series. Nothing else to say here.

Had the Rays taken care of business in Game 5, I would've said the Phils had the edge. But they didn’t, and in losing they became stronger.

This is the most ridiculous sentence I have ever read. Not only does the fact that the Rays didn't win in only 5 games mean NOTHING, but you would have honestly taken the Phillies? You'd take the Phillies over the team with home field advantage that won 97 games in the best division in baseball? REALLY????? Fuck you and your unjustified having-a-job abilities.

They’re no longer strangers to winning, to post-season play or to must-win games. They’ve been there and done that.

If I were a Phillies’ fan, I’d be afraid. I’d be very, very afraid.


Because they're a worse team and Evan Longoria owns Brad Lidge's soul?

Yeah, that's what you're getting at.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Unfunny Jokes, etc

HatGuy's officially back, I think. This is his second baseball column of the week.

Cubs or Brewers will blow their playoff spot

Why?

Both star-crossed franchises have a lot of practice at falling apart

Let's stop you right there. The Brewers have historically never been in a position to
do that. 2007 is pretty much the only thing that comes to mind. Lots of practice.

This thought just in: Somebody is going to blow a certain playoff spot in the National League, and it’s going to be almost as ugly as the Mets’ all-time meltdown last year.

That isn't possible.

The candidates are the Cubs and the Brewers, and they’re well qualified for the job. The Brewers have never won a World Series and they haven’t been there for more than 25 years. And the Cubs have a century’s worth of losses packed in their emotional baggage.

See? The 1983 Brewers and 1956 Cubs have more bearing on this year's pennant race than you thought!

Don’t think they don’t know it. The newspapers and electronic media are regurgitating all the stories of past failures. The Brewers are reminded almost daily that they once had an 8 1/2-game lead in the NL Central last year only to blow it all to the Cubs and finish out of the playoffs entirely.

Isn't it counterproductive to argue that TWO teams are good at falling apart by saying one dramatically overtook the other for the division lead?

The Cubs are already hearing about billy goats and black cats and Bartmans and every other evil stroke of fortune that’s befallen them over the decades.

Don't forget "baseball." That starts with 'b' too. Right, Jay Mariotti?

Let’s face it. Both of these star-crossed franchises have a lot of practice at this sort of thing. They’re good at falling apart in the clutch. It’s in their DNA.

Oh you are just the worst type of person.

Watching the Brewers and Cubs trying to get to the postseason is like watching someone with an inner-ear problem and poor hand-eye coordination walking a tightrope stretched over an alligator pit while juggling chain saws. Blindfolded.

.
..
...
....

Throw your tomatoes, people!

("chainsaw" is one word.)

It’s not fit viewing for small children and people with weak stomachs.

You are an unfunny human being.

When September began, both teams were sailing serenely through the schedule, the Cubs 4 1/2 games ahead of the Brewers, and Milwaukee well ahead of everybody else fighting for the wild card. St. Louis was 11 games out and Houston was just a dim speck in the rearview mirror, 14 games behind the Cubs and 9 1/2 behind the Brewers.

Since then, both the Brewers and Cubs have been unraveling like a $2 sweater in a briar patch. Both are falling into panic mode, and with good reason.


$2 sweater in a briar patch. Awesome. Who says these things? I don't even have to do any work on this post. Just copy and paste the words, and let HatGuy embarrass himself.

In Milwaukee, it’s a sudden failure of the offense. CC Sabathia, the best trade-deadline pickup in memory, has been unbeatable, and Ben Sheets hasn’t yet imploded, but the team’s not scoring any runs.

I'm sorry, where do you get off saying this? Ben Sheets hasn't yet imploded? Is the fact that Ben Sheets is pitching very well like, unbelievable or something? Ben Sheets is a very very very good major league pitcher. He's either good or injured. Implosion-free, relatively speaking.

It will be hard for both teams to finish out of the playoffs, if only because so many teams are fighting for two spots, and most of them have to play each other. But it’s not out of the question for the Brewers and the Cubs to go into their final three games in Milwaukee with one playoff spot on the line for both teams.

Fate would have a tough decision if it comes to that. Which perennial loser would you favor? The guys who haven’t won in 100 years, or the ones who haven’t won in forever?


The one with the best team this year for crissake. I guess in your eyes things like that are irrelevant completely.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

HatGuy's BAAAAAAAACK!

Wow. It's been so long, Mikey! Welcome back to baseball. I haven't even read your disaster on how awesome the Red Sox are yet, but I'm going to fire up teh ol' bloggomakerfunnerofer anyways, just because you and Gene Wojc-eafiwoe;faw (I legitimately forgot how to spell his name this time) are the only people who awful enough at writing to have a 100% FireJay-worthy spew rate. On we go, fuckheads.

Move over, Yankees: Red Sox are 'It' team now
Boston’s fight for the division lead is worthy of a great dynasty


Hear that, Red Sox? You're "It" now. Like Miley Cyrus, or whatever those dagnabbed kids are listening to these days. I would like to reveal my identity now. I am P. Nelson Olesdorf, a crotchity 71-year-old man from Florida.

The American League East is used to the big, bad team with great pitching, a super bullpen, clutch hitting up and down the lineup and a swagger in its gait grabbing the division by the throat in September and not letting go.

A "swagger in its gait"? Hey HatGuy, the 1950s called, they want their lingo back.

Oh wait, he's talking about the Yankees, and they were good in the 1950s. Maybe he means those (Damn) Yankees(!)?

No....he said "American League East"....a phrase that would have made the world riot back then.

It’s just not used to that team suiting up in uniforms that aren’t decorated with pinstripes.

BOOM! Gotta love that twist.

The Red Sox aren’t just coming. They’re banging at the door of the division lead, and whether they grab it right now from the amazing Rays or wait another week to get the job done isn’t important.

....apparently the Rays hanging on to the division lead isn't an option.

What is worth taking a moment to gawk at in wonder is how quickly and emphatically Boston has asserted itself.

Syntax, man! You're a professional writer for crissake. We'd better get dan-bob to find a written copy of this crap to mark it up in red frowny faces and stuff.

What Tampa’s doing is one of the great stories that baseball has ever given us. But they’re a young team that doesn’t know what they’re not capable of, a team that’s caught lightning in a bottle for the first time in franchise history.

I understand that this is common sportswriter bullshittery. But isn't "a young team that doesn't know what they're not capable of" a good thing? Like they don't know their limits, so nothing's holding them back or something? Whatever. I'm not here. GREAT paragraph, HatGuy.

What Boston is doing is just as impressive — maybe more so. The Red Sox are doing the hardest thing in sports: living up to expectations.

Tampa Bay: Exceeding expectations.
Botson: Living up to expectations.

HatGuy feels that the latter is more impressive.

Whatever.

They’re coming off their second championship in four seasons, and with what they’re doing this year, it’s fair to start talking about them the way we used to talk about the Yankees. They’re a dynasty now, a powerful team that overcomes injuries, adversity and other teams that think they can knock them off.

Valid valid valid!

You don’t become a dynasty because a bunch of pundits with laptops say you are. You get there by doing it on the field.

It's true. Did you know that a bunch of pundits with laptops consider the 2002-2008 Toronto Blue Jays a dynasty?

::looks at what he's typing on::

Oh shit! He's making fun of me! Hey man, I'm not a pundit! I don't even know what that means!

::quick trip to dictionary.com::

pun·dit (n) - A learned person, expert, or authority.

Why are you making fun of people who are learned and have expertise?

I'll still deny that title. But it doesn't take a pundit to disect this garbage. See, I use that word in everyday language now! I'm learning! But....but learning's apparently frowned upon and made fun of. I'll stop.

The Red Sox were such an outfit 90 years ago. Now, with their two titles and their performance this year to back it up, they are that again.

Who fucking talks like you? "The Red Sox were such an outfit?" Do you go to baseball games, sit in the stands, and talk like this to the drunken fanatics around you? "I say, gents! The Red Sox were such an outfit 90 years ago. But the current resume of our squad suggests we're...how do you say this....kicking it old school!" No one needs the fourth definition of "outfit," Mike. It's just there to take up space in the friggin dictionary.

There’s an aura about such teams.

Bad journalism 101: Invent stuff that isn't there.

Call it swagger if you will, but it’s more than just the insouciant self-confidence that term implies.

Advanced Bad Jouralism: Use dumb words like "swagger." Use large, unnecessarily strange and rarely-used words like "insouciant" in place of simple ones like "relaxed" to give the reader a false sense of inferiority.

I swear, this guy fucking goes to thesaurus.com at least 15 times per article, then just plays eeny-meeny-miney-mo with the synonyms.

Opposing teams talk about it as if it were a palpable thing. They come into the home field of a dynasty and they go weak in the knees telling reporters about what a special place it is.

Bad Journalism Honors for Pundits: Blow out of proportion one quote you probably thought you might have once heard from a player and blow it out of proportion and accept the new, exaggerated stance as complete and total truth.

In the days when Boston was a lovable group of losers, opposing teams gushed about Fenway Park, but the discussion involved the quaint contours, the looming Green Monster, the Pesky Pole and everything else that makes the cramped old bandbox baseball’s crown jewel.

Today, opposing teams talk more about how hard it is to play there, the way they used to talk about Yankee Stadium. There are ghosts of past greatness collecting in the nooks and crannies of the old ballpark, a history of success that players feel.


I will sum up this up in 5 words.

"The Red Sox got better."

Sign me up, msnbc.com!

That word “tradition” is the telling one. Just a few years ago, if you said “tradition” in connection with the Red Sox, you were talking about seventh-game losses in October.

::whew:: OK. I'm sick of going back through baseballreference.com. The only time the Red Sox have lost a game 7 of any kind in recent memory was 2003. I don't know what the hell you are talking about. That does not constitute a "tradition."

Dynastic teams pack their aura and swagger along with the bats, balls and gloves when they go on the road. And when autumn looms on the calendar, they play their best. The Red Sox are doing that. They’re the big, bad team from the AL East now, the team nobody wants to face.

And they’re coming after first place.


Wow. Thanks for the disaster, Mike, you didn't disappoint. Hey, I don't know if this is relevant, but the entire "dynasty" was built by a pundit with a laptop from Yale.

Monday, June 9, 2008

Holy Fucking Shit You Guys.....

Is HatGuy really NOT a Yankees fan?

Did he really just say that he wanted the Red Sox in the World Series???

It may be early, but Red Sox-Cubs is my dream
Boston, Chicago currently baseball's best — let's hope it holds


My God......the entire sports journalism world just broke down.

It's like our number system. Every complicated mathematical proof rests on a few basic axioms. What a plus sign does. What zero is.

In sports journalism, one such axiom is, "HatGuy loves the Yankees more than whipped cream and chocolate sauce."

I am not sure if this site can continue to exist.

It's dangerous and probably dumb to draw conclusions about a baseball season when barely one-third of the games are in the books.

::panting:: Whew. Sorry guys. I just ran all the way back from Mike Celizic's house. I stole his personal dictionary, and the.... ::vomits:: ...the fucking guard dogs chased me all the way back here. But I've got it, and I'm safe.

Let's see here....here's a random section of words to read!

predicament
predicant
predicate
predicatory
..
predigest
predilection
predispose

Huh? What's that? There's a word missing in there? Heh. Well, whatever it was, I can only assume it was dangerous and probably dumb.

But it’s also fun, especially this year, when it's possible to legitimately dream in June of what may be the best World Series matchup in memory.

Oh I don't know if that's safe there Hattigan. The thought police are all over this town, and if they catch you doing such a dangerous and probably dumb thing, they'll lock your brain up in brain prison.

How does Red Sox-Cubs sound to you? They’re arguably the two best teams in baseball. My colleague, Tony DeMarco, disagrees.

It actually is tough to beat Red Sox-Cubs right now in terms of team quality. Tony DeMarco, usually intelligent, is clueless. The Angels are only +11 in run differential right now, a few starting pitchers are performing over their heads, and they have a .247 team EqA. I'm convinced msnbc.com hires Angels fans deliberately, because Michael Ventre loves them too much as well.

HatGuy pauses here and actually uses stats and run differentials and the stuff that happened last year, which is more shocking than anything I'll print here. But we get down to the meat of his argument here.

So if you want to argue nothing will change this year, there are numbers to back you up. And if you want to argue that everything will change, there are numbers to back that up, too.

Damn it! Take a side for once, numbers!

But there are reasons to believe that the magical matchup between the Red Sox and Cubs is realistic.

Because they're in first place in their divisions and anyone can make the World Series once they're in the playoffs? Bold claim there Mike.

Both teams have offenses that should be pretty much recession-proof

I'm sorry....recession proof? On the Cubs, Soriano and Ramirez are famous for their month-to-month inconsistency. On the Red Sox....did you see the way Ortiz started this year? How about the way J.D. Drew was last season....that can't happen again? Don't get me wrong, they both have very good offenses, but there's really no such thing as a recession-proof offense nowadays.

The Cubbies have four guys who have scored 40 or more runs — Ryan Theriot, Aramis Ramirez, Kosuke Fukudome and Derrek Lee —

Oh goody....cherry-picking individual runs! Couldn't think of a better way to say an offense is performing.

Moving on....he's talking about how no team in the AL matches the Red Sox.

The Red Sox lead the AL in on-base percentage and are second in runs scored. They have four guys with 39 or more runs scored and six with at least 36 — remarkable balance up and down the lineup.

Whoopde fuckin' doo. They have 334 runs. That's the bottom line. Who gives a shit who scores them?

You could say the White Sox may be Boston’s match, especially with Carlos Quentin carrying the offense with his 16 homers and 53 runs batted in. Chicago leads the AL in home runs with 78, but

Whatever follows after this "but" has to be pretty good. Maybe talk about how the White Sox are 22 OBP points behind the Red Sox. Talk about Joe Crede and the chances he can keep up this power surge. Maybe something about the pitching staff being likely to regress.

Quentin is also the only player on the roster with at least 40 runs scored

Here's a fun exercise for the next Reader Extra Participation Friday. What unpleasant things would pnoles rather do than continue to read this crap?

and the next-best RBI man is Joe Crede with 39

They have 305 runs.

after him is Jim Thome with 32

Three-oh-five.

and no one else has 30.

Three hundred five runs.

Bottom line:

The Red Sox have scored 334 runs this season. The White Sox have scored 305.

Boston has more people who can hurt you — other than the Rangers, who have no pitching.

You have not proven that at all.

No team is close to Boston in slugging percentage

I know that you just mentioned the Rangers, but this is an independent thought. Boston is 2nd in the AL in slugging to the Rangers. And it's only a 15 point difference between the Red Sox and the Yankees/White Sox. Here's how you get to the White Sox from the Red Sox XBH column. Subtract 24 doubles, subtract 3 triples, add 12 homers. It honestly isn't a big enough difference to talk about.

the real mark of power, whether team or individual.

I prefer IsoP, because that doesn't let you inflate your SLG with AVG, but to each his own.

There are a lot of teams that have never met in the World Series, and plenty of teams that have either never been to the game’s biggest stage or that haven’t been there in a generation or more. Philadelphia is one of them.

Still have that dictionary open....another random excerpt.

relevant - bearing or relating to the matter in hand; pertinent; to the point.

But even with two championships in the past four seasons, the Red Sox have a unique sentimental hold on baseball fans everywhere.

We all hate them. Except Bostonians and psuedo-Bostonians who show up at all our fucking ballparks with megaphones and cowbells (well okay....that was ONE TIME).

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

This Just In: All Current Baseball Players Suck

Hattigan's up to his old tricks again. The Yankees are in 4th place, so we have to hear about how there aren't any interesting players in baseball.

Baseball is missing must-see players
Pujols, Ortiz are good but not memorable like Bonds, Clemens, McGwire


Oh man, you didn't even make it past the tagline this time without saying something outrageously stupid. Do you know WHY Pujols and others are not consider-....

Hold on....Alfonso Soriano just hit a solo homer to lead off the game, much like other selfish assholes would. I just wanted to absorb that and spend a couple moments hoping Jay Mariotti was watching and thinking about the fact that Jay thinks Soriano should have done something better to help the team....-

ed as memorable as these players??? Albert Pujols is fucking 28 years old. We're not "remembering" him, we're watching him make memories. The dude's averaging over 10 WARP per season for crissake. And what about A-Rod? A-Rod might turn out to be the greatest player ever. Is that not worth watching?

Maybe baseball has spoiled us over the past 10 years. It’s given us too many moments, too many heroes — even if they were flawed heroes — doing too many once-in-a-lifetime things.

Mark McGwire broke the home run record in 1998. Sammy Sosa broke it in the same season. Three years later, Barry Bonds broke that record. Once-in-a-lifetime things.

Remember when ESPN used to interrupt whatever it was broadcasting to show Barry Bonds’ latest at-bat? Remember when we logged into MLB.com to track each pitch that Roger Clemens threw? Remember the home run chase?

Yes, because Barry Bonds was chasing one of the most sacred records in sports. Forgive 25-year-old David Wright if he's not doing that right now.

That stuff about Roger Clemens is absolutely bogus. You just needed more examples. I do the same thing with Carlos Quentin (man, talk about someone playing amazing that no one has said anything about...seriously, I looked at every major sports site's "suprise players" list and never saw his name because they're gushing over Cliff Lee and his megafluke season thus far).

OK, I know that there’s a likelihood that some, if not all, of these guys were getting illicit help. Just the same, from 1998, when Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire where chasing down Roger Maris, until last year, when the BALCO Bomber was adding to his all-time home-run total, we’ve had people whose moments on the diamond and in the batter’s box we didn’t want to miss.

Are you saying that there are no superexciting individual players just because there aren't any home run records in danger of falling anytime soon? I shouldn't be excited about A-Rod and Pujols? Quentin? Edinson Volquez (guy has been freakin' awesome!)? The Hammerin' Hebrew Ryan Braun?

When we found out what was going on, we got all over them like green on grass. We were glad when McGwire slunk off into a retirement in which he doesn’t want to talk about the past. We delighted when Sammy disappeared, then came back and couldn’t hit the ball nearly as far or nearly as often.

You wrote an entire column celebrating how impressive his comeback was. Remember?

It’s not as if it’s a bad baseball season. There are plenty of stories to follow, few as remarkable as Chipper Jones’ sustained run of .400-plus hitting and Cliff Lee’s — Cliff Lee? — 6-0 start to the season for Cleveland with an ERA you need an electron scanning microscope to find, and Brandon Webb’s 8-0 start with Arizona.

Okay, take Webb. Why isn't he a "can't miss" pitcher? He's won 8 fucking games in 8 tries. Don't you think that if this continues that Brandon Webb will be a "can't miss" player come August and September? If Chipper Jones is hitting .400 in August, he'll be the type of player that people will schedule bathroom breaks around. This is May. May 14th. Suprisingly few single-season records are in jeopardy on May 14th.

Chase Utley with the Phillies is having an MVP season. The Cubs are in first place and some guy named Fukudome is one of the reasons why. St. Louis is right there with them, thanks to the incomparable Albert Pujols and the surprising Ryan Ludwick.

Incomparable? You just said that those other guys from the past 10 years were way more awesome and memorable than he was!

Greg Maddux has 250 wins and with four more will pass Clemens.

Because this is Celizic, I'm only 85% sure that was a typo.

You should have never pissed off Jeffrey Conway and made him leave to edit Mariotti's garbage.

Manny is closing in on 500 home runs and Junior Griffey is about to hit 600. Florida is the best team in baseball and the team formerly known as the Devil Rays have the AL's third-best record.

Totally uninteresting stuff, right?

So it’s not as if there aren’t a superfluity of reason to watch baseball. But it’s teams we’re watching more than individuals.

Huh? You just mentioned Webb, Lee, Maddux, Jones, Ramirez, Griffey, Pujols, Ludwick, and Utley.......

The individuals are either not compelling personalities or overpowering at what they do. It’s not their fault. I love watching guys like Justin Mourneau and Pujols and Manny and Big Papi hit, but I don’t think most fans plan their evenings around those at-bats.

You are the first person in history to say that David Ortiz is neither a compelling personality nor overpowering at hitting.

Does anyone want to watch Maddux pitch six cagey innings for the pathetic Padres? Maybe Pujols is great, but we don't watch his every at-bat. Same goes for Manny.

This is valid, because at this specific time, these players are not shattering records. But you can't fucking tell me that Pujols isn't exciting because he hasn't done anything like that yet.

After all, 500 homers, like the dollar, aren’t what they used to be. The same goes for Griffey. He’s worth watching, but he’s playing for Cincinnati, and nobody’s showing their games.

ZOMG! ESPN isn't putting the Cincinnati Reds on TV! Griffey isn't interesting!

Besides, 600 homers is also a devalued currency. He may have done it the right way — that’s the perception, at least — but there are five guys with that many ahead of him. When Aaron got to 600, just two had been there before him.

Fuck you Griffey! You should have played baseball in an earlier time!

In another four years, we’ll be watching A-Rod start to chase down Bonds.

But the home runs he's hitting today don't count as much towards that.

We’ll watch Jeter beat him to 3,000 hits

Jeter is at 2398. A-Rod is at 2276. I'm thinking A-Rod gets more hits over the next 4-5 years than Jeter, so this could actually get pretty interesting.

and eventually Pujols will start to reach historic numbers. Maybe someone will one day make a run at the triple crown, and grab out interest that way.


You know, most triple crown frontrunners are typically determined on May 14th. I wonder why one hasn't emerged yet this year.

Bu there aren’t any superhumans out there — at least not yet. The great pitchers don’t strike out 20 a game, or even 15.

Who the fuck in the last 10 years struck out this many guys per game?

And even if someone hits 50 home runs, it’s no longer special. If Ryan Howard or Prince Fielder wants to try a run at 61, we’ll watch the chase, but that’s months — or years — away.

WHO SIMPLY NEEDED TO SEE MARK MCGWIRE OR SAMMY SOSA'S EVERY AT-BAT ON MAY 14TH IN 2008???

For the moment, it’s the teams, not the players. The biggest draw in baseball is not Bonds or Clemens; it’s the Boston Red Sox. After them are the Yankees. The Cubs cause a stir wherever they go.

Or, for people who give a shit about things besides how big of a city a team plays in, the Diamondbacks and Rays are pretty damn exciting too.

The game is still great, but it’s games we watch now, not moments. That’s not necessarily bad, but it sure is different.

This is a totally false and stupid generalization that assumes the way you think is the way the world thinks about baseball.

There’s still time to sign Barry.

Yeah. Have the Tampa Bay Rays sign Barry Bonds. Then I bet that baseball fans everywhere will need to see Barry's every at-bat and ESPN will start showing tons of Rays games, because Bonds has this superhuman presence that no players today have that makes people give a shit about his every move when he's NOT chasing a record. False, sir. Fucking FALSE. When Bonds isn't on the verge of breaking records, people care about how he's hitting just as much as they do any other of the game's great hitters.

I'm getting tired of your stupid "here's what people care about right now in sports" columns. Stop it. Just stop.