Headline from Ed Hardiman of The Daily Fowl:
"Parker Brothers Signed to Replace Milton Bradley
LOLLERSKATES! Another great joke, Ed.
He's apparently funny enough to have Gene Shalit commenting on his posts.....
Well Ed, Milton always seems to be playing the 'TROUBLE' game, and then he's 'SORRY. He's up and down like 'CHUTES and LADDERS', which tends to make up his game in 'LIFE'. I don't care 'TIDDLEY WINKS' about Milton. He should get a 'CLUE'.
the scene: tonight's giants/padres tilt at AT&T park. bottom of the second. fred lewis on first. omar vizquel laces a ball into the huge right center field gap, and ends up on third when all the dust clears. guy standing behind me:
"Wow... an in field triple!"
what the hell? i mean, i guess he's right... sort of.
how many goddamn baseball cliches can cbssportsline's scott miller cram into one stinking article? a few weeks ago i wrote this, in which i pointed out how joe morgan loves gushing all over the los angeles angels of anaheim for "not waiting around for the three run homer", "moving runners", and "playing angels baseball." well now that i've seen what scott has to say about the halos, unfortunately i must report that joe isn't alone in loving their gritty gutty approach to the game. let's count scott's angel-loving cliches together. it'll be fun.
the front page teaser, before we even get to the article itself, reads:
1) They don't wait around for three-run home runs. They don't wait around for anything.
this is why the giants are playing so poorly this year- they're waiting around for "anything," unlike the angels who are not. hey giants, if you want to win, get out there and start not waiting, you lazy sons of bitches. (now on to parts and pieces of the actual body of article.)
2) This is an emerging dynasty,
they've won three division titles in the last four years. yup, sign them up for dynastic status. they will certainly be remembered as one of the all time greatest AL west teams from the mid 00s.
3) "We have to get used to beating them because they're going to be here year in and year out," John McLaren, the interim Seattle manager and longtime coach to former Mariners skipper Lou Piniella, said.
as opposed to the a's, who will only be participating in mlb competition every other year from 2008-2017. or the rangers, who will be using a two years on/two years off system during that time period.
4) Most importantly -- and this is no small part of why the Angels could wind up with the game's best record -- they all believe in manager Mike Scioscia's way of doing things.
scioscia's way of doing things. you know- trying to score more runs than your opponent while playing the game of "baseball." good thing the angels believe in this or they'd really be up shit creek.
5) "I remember walking one day with Lou in Peoria (the Mariners' spring training site), and they had two huge buses parked there," McLaren said, noting the oddity because most clubs travel to spring games in one bus. "They were pinch-hitting, running the bases ... they beat us something like 14-1."
i count this as a cliche because of the "pinch hitting, running the bases" part. as if nobody but the angels do this. in fact, it's really alarming teams like the yankees and diamondbacks have had such success this year, considering they don't instruct their players to run the bases. and amazing, the rockies are still in the NL wild card picture despite not using a single pinch hitter yet! at least they've gotten some hilarious at bats out of their relief pitchers.
6) "Afterward, I asked Lou, what was that about? He said, 'They wanted to beat us. They wanted to beat us bad.'"
a continuation of the previous cliche, and one of my favorite sports cliches out there- the oft-used and never relevant "they wanted to win." you think the royals want to win this year? do the red sox just want to win more than anyone else right now? is that why they've got the best record in the league?
7) "We had a lot of young guys in the organization, and the only way to evaluate them was to play 'em," he said.
well, you could always have an arm wrestling tournament with all of them. or maybe a spelling bee.
8) They bid farewell to Bengie Molina two years ago because of the young catching on the way. And anybody who watched Molina with the Giants this summer knows he can still play.
molina did have a good season; i'm not making fun of this statement as if he didn't. i'm just highlighting an underappreciated cliche. of course he can freaking play. he's 32 years old and in good health. he didn't suddenly lose all his ability overnight.
9) "A lot of teams have injuries. It's what you do with them that counts."
thanks garrett anderson. personally, were i the general manager of a baseball team with injuries, i would try to replace the injured players with the best available healthy guys. genius. that's why they pay me the big bucks. got any other story cliches/cliched stories?
10) "I've been on teams that were good but had no depth whatsoever. And that ship didn't sail right."
great. much appreciated. but if your team has no depth, is it really any good?
11) This one does for a couple of reasons: talent, and an aggressive, in-your-face style that is baseball's equivalent of a full-court press.
i'd love to see basketball's version of a sacrifice bunt.
12) "They're a National League club," McLaren said. "They can beat you in a million different ways."
literally, they can beat you exactly one way- by scoring more runs than you. figuratively, i really have a hard time believing you could list 1,000,000 different ways to beat someone at baseball. here, i'll try:
1) wait around for them to wait around for three run homers (note: does not work against angels)
2) steal as many bases as possible
3) go from first to third on all singles
4) utilize hustle, grit, and gristle
5) be david eckstein; if you are not david eckstein, play with as much heart and determination as possible
whew, i'm exhausted. what else is there?
6) want to win more than your opponent
i think that's it. shoot, i came up 999,994 short. getting back to the original point of this post, we need one more cliche for a lucky set of 13. chone figgins, do you want to do the honors? how would you describe your team's approach to the game this year?
13) "It's playing the game. It's playing baseball." (emphasis is scott's/chone's, not mine)
thanks buddy. couldn't have said it better myself. this is not bowling. it's not cribbage. it's motherloving baseball.
Jay Mariotti has started writing "exclusive online columns every day". Basically he pumps out like 4 new briefs a day onto the Sun-Times web site.
Hooray!
This is more of just an ironic/funny thing than a bad article. I thought it was worth pointing out because it makes me very, very angry.
Sox-paganda exposed!
Gee, I think this is the proudest day of my career. A piece in Columbia Journalism Review says professional sports franchises, such as the White Sox, orchestrate specific campaigns against sportswriters they don't like based on smear strategies derived from -- drum roll, please -- the Bush administration and political public-relations firms.
Let's take a minute for Jay to change his pants.
OK. Good. On we go. (I couldn't find the article he's talking about online, but if anyone does, please post!)
Let me get this straight: You mean to say a baseball team is so obsessed with what I'm writing that it would resort to using Bush-like tactics against me?
This really puts writing on a blog called "Fire Jay Mariotti" into context, eh?
Is that why Hawk Harrelson is always drooling over his flower shirt to say something about me 10 times every telecast -- because he's being told to follow the Dubya handbook? The CJR piece lists me and Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star among organized targets.
Yeeesh.
I'm asking for a raise. I had no idea I was this important.
This is the reason that this situation pisses me off.
I also had no idea the Sox were so petty and devious. Actually, I did have an idea, but between covering major stories involving the Cubs and Bears, starting this perpetual Web column, writing my regular column for the paper, doing five ESPN shows a week and making plans to cover the Beijing Olympics, I kind of forgot the Sox were still around.
Forgot? I wasn't aware you knew anything about them at all besides:
1) Ozzie Guillen is an embarrassment and the reason the White Sox suck
2) Their record, up to the minute, since July 2, 2006
3) They are, on average, less popular than the Cubs
Of course, fans are smart enough to see through any silly Sox-paganda attempts. The franchise should stop worrying about the media and try to dig out of its monstrous hole since July 2, 2006, a period in which the Sox have gone 105-133 and fallen back into their irrelevant two-hole on the local baseball food chain.
There it is.
Isn't that right, Scott Miller?
Saying bye to Bonds shows that Giants finally mean business
When the premise of an article is that a team giving away the only offensive force in their lineup is a sign of "meaning business", you know you've got a winner. But I mean, Barry is an asshole, right? And that means that his homers actually count as negative runs for the team.
What San Francisco's split with Barry Bonds means is that the baseball people are back in charge of the Giants.
There are about a hundred different threads running through this story, many of them with soap opera twists and controversial turns, but the most important thing for the organization and its fans is that baseball people again will be making baseball decisions.
Keeping the guy with the highest EqA in the world: not a baseball decision.
Cutting ties with aforementioned man: baseball decision.
Thank you, baseball people, for re-taking charge of this baseball team, and letting one of the best baseball hitters hit the baseball free agent market. Baseball.
That sounds patently simple. It isn't. Last winter, general manager Brian Sabean and his people wanted to cut ties with Bonds and begin fixing what they viewed as a flawed roster. The business department, headed by president Larry Baer, wanted Bonds back.
Made sense from the standpoint that Bonds was going to set baseball's all-time home run record this summer. The turnstiles would be clicking and the money would be flowing in.
That was the main reason. The other reason (and the one more relevant to your article) is that he doesn't make an out nearly half the time he comes to the plate.
Didn't make sense from the standpoint of, what are the Giants attempting to do, win or stage a circus?
Is this a sentence?
Everyone knew Bonds, at 43, couldn't play the outfield and was brittle as a saltine. With him, the Giants were going to be older, slower, less athletic and far more one-dimensional.
Mr. Slow, Unathletic, One-Dimensional and Circus-y: 7.4 WARP3
Mr. Multi-Dimensional, Winning, and Athletic: 3.4 WARP3
For the record, saying that keeping Barry Bonds would make the Giants more one-dimensional is bogus and retarded-vagina-ish. Barry Bonds is good primarily at two things: 1) getting on base, and 2) hitting home runs. The Giants are 27th in MLB in HR and 29th in MLB in OBP. How the fuck does losing Barry Bonds make them less one-dimensional? Nay, my friends, nay! Keeping him would INCREASE the quantity of dimensions that this team has!
Scott Miller, you are a moron.
The business people carried the day. This was, as predicted, good news for the bean counters as the Giants played to packed houses both at home and on the road for most of the summer until Bonds hit No. 756. It also was, as predicted, bad news for Sabean, new manager Bruce Bochy and anybody who cared more about Giants W's than individual records.
Find me a left fielder available to the Giants this season that would contribute to more wins than Barry Bonds. I dare you. It certainly isn't fucking Fred Lewis, if that's what you think (man, his life sucks!).
Bonds is batting .279 with 28 home runs and 66 RBI over 125 games and, in his website farewell, writes that the Giants told him that he's "far exceeded" any expectations they had for him this season.
Because he played well and contributed to winning.
That's all well and good, but what's notable is where the expectations were to begin with this spring. At their camp in Scottsdale, Ariz., all you heard was how well Bonds was moving around. He was -- compared to the Willie Mays statue outside of AT&T Park. And almost as if to prove it, Bonds stole a base on opening day. It was almost as if he was staging a public viewing of his quest for the Fountain of Youth.
The Giants would lose that day, 7-0 -- a precursor of many days to come. And as for Bonds' theft, what we now know is this: San Diego couldn't throw out the corpse of Ty Cobb. Of those attempting to steal bases against them this season, the Padres have thrown out only 10 percent. They're about to set a major league record for most stolen bases allowed.
That's pretty valid, but in large part due to Chris Young being absolutely awful at keeping runners on, and he wasn't pitching that day. Also, does anybody know if the Padres have added any bad defensive catchers since the beginning of the season that may have contributed to that stat?
No, Bonds still barely covered any ground in left field and he still was more a threat to clog the base paths than he was to steal 30 bags.
Yeah, and the asshole clogged them 48.3% of the time, because that jerk decided to be an ASSHOLE and clog the bases by getting on base that often. What a cloggy cloghead. Very few people steal 30 bags. I want to literally write a 3-page essay full of shitty metaphors and comparisons about how bad that sentence is. Who cares if he's slow and doesn't steal bases? If he leads THE FUCKING UNIVERSE IN EqA THAT MEANS HE'S STILL THE MOST PRODUCTIVE CARBON-BASED LIFE FORM PER PLATE APPEARANCE.
His power numbers are solid, but they're no longer stratospheric enough to carry a team into the upper division of the standings.
Really? A 1.053 OPS isn't that great? I wasn't aware.
At the time of Friday's news conference to announce the divorce with one of the greatest players in club history, the Giants were 67-86, last in the NL West. Only Florida (66-87) and Pittsburgh (66-88) had worse records in the NL.
This is 100% Barry Bonds's fault. Fuck you, Barry Bonds, for being a terrible baseball player. I can't think of any other reasons why the Giants have such an unproductive offense that doesn't get on base very much other than that Barry Bonds is terrible.
Fuck, there's another page of this crap and I don't really have the time. So one last fun blip.
Third baseman Pedro Feliz has been a middle-of-the-order hitter too often this season. He's Bochy's kind of player, but he's also a No. 6 or 7 hitter in a winning lineup.
Pedro Feliz has a .287 OBP and is a bad offensive player. He's a 6 or 7 hitter in a winning lineup when the team has Sandy Koufax, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Don Drysdale, and Johan Santana in their primes as the starting rotation.
Want to change your mind, maybe, Scott? I expect a full apology for this trashpiece tomorrow.
credit where credit is due: saw this on deadspin. more important credit where credit is due: someone out there is about $15/year poorer because of this. and i think we can all agree it's money well spent. go to:
http://www.retardedvagina.com/
here's to you, unknown person with more money than they know what to do with and a well expressed disdain for for one mr. mariotti. your effort is appreciated.
but i am 100% sure it counts as stupid. bob griese, calling the penn st.-michigan game on abc, talking about how michigan needs to establish a ground attack because they don't want to put too much pressure on their freshman quarterback:
"Once they get that running game going, anything else is just the cherry on top of the iceberg."
you sure it's not gravy at the end of the tunnel?
So I've been busy lately. I missed a few updates on the Reds. I went back and read the write-up on Reds.com after the Reds' victory over the Cubs on Tuesday and I found this gem, which makes the somewhat-valid point that Aaron Harang is underrated.
CHICAGO -- Aaron Harang could nail a performance as "Hamlet," and the nation's critics would likely rave first about Shakespeare's writing or how great the costumes or lighting were.
Actually, I think that if Aaron Harang nailed a performance as "Hamlet", the nation's critics would likely write headlines like "Daring Director Casts Gigantic Hamlet" or "Enormous Hamlet Dwarfs Role". If Shakespeare envisioned Aaron Harang playing Hamlet, the script would've only been one act long and Hamlet would've beat the shit out of Claudius right away. I doubt any production of "Hamlet" has ever had a 6-7 275lb star.
Also, I don't know why Mr. Sheldon put "Hamlet" in quotes. Is he envisioning Harang doing a one-man rendition of the entire play? Because that would be downright ridiculous! I'm sure Aaron has a lot of acting talent, but I don't know if he could handle both Hamlet and Ophelia!
The point of the article is somewhat valid; Harang has been a top-10 pitcher in the NL two straight years. You hear more about blowhards like Zambrano, who will not win the Cy Young because he hasn't even been the best pitcher on his team, and has been a great deal worse than Tom Gorzelanny. Good, Mark. Valid point. But your article's hook is either whimsical or stupid, based on your literary affections.
There are four guys involved with professional sports I wouldn't mind seeing as a quadriplegic for the rest of their lives, spending the rest of their miserable days shitting themselves, unable to even twitch a finger. The list includes:
1. Barry Bonds
2. Tom Brady
3. Ray Lewis
4. Skip Bayless
Note there's only one sports journalist (I use the term liberally) on my list. I really, really hate about 90% of sports media, but not enough to wish pain and suffering upon them. Bayless is the obvious exception. larry b left this comment on the last post:
skip bayless really gets too much of a free pass here at firejay. i need to crack down on him a little bit. the problem is ESPN doesnt let him near a keyboard anymore, so in order to do this "cracking down", i'm going to have to watch first and 10. ugh. i'll consider it.
That's right: the website that still lets people like Jerry Crasnik and Jemele Hill write for them took away Bayless' column. That's like being kicked out of the special olympics because "sorry , you're just a little too retarded"
Now that his inconsistant, rampling, half-brained trolling isn't in written form anymore, it's like 100 times more difficult to make fun of him. It requires a DVR, and anybody who has comcast knows how godawful those pieces of shit are. But I'm gonna make the effort from here on out: SKIP BAYLESS YOU ARE A MARKED MAN.
Today's "First and Ten" was ripe with fodder to make fun of. He started out by saying that the Mets lost to the Marlins because The Philles have a "mental stanglehold over the Mets." I don't even need to make a clever remark, because what he says is so obviously, painfully stupid. That's the best part about writing about Bayless. Just quote him, baby. No need for well though out counter points. Just jokes about how he's retarded, and you wished he was dead. Better not go to Texas after trash talking the Coyboys Skip. They have no problem finishing off the mentally challenged.
Anyways, on to Skip's NFL picks for this weekend of marquee games (marquee because they involve teams from New York or Boston)
-Picked the Packers over the Chargers. He's not sure the Chargers “know who or what they are under their new coach norv turner.” Also he's not a big fan of Turner.
-Picked the Patriots over the Bills, but no way will they cover the spread. Because “after getting so high for San Diego, surely NE will have just a little bit of a letdown for this game.”
-Picks the Redskins over the Giants, but this one will also be a squeaker, because “it's so difficult to get high for a Monday Night Game.”
Welp that's it. Expect more Skip Bayless over here at firejay from now on, because it has to be done, dammit.
hey remember when I did this?
What MUST Jeff Pearlman think about our gratitude. This time it's cw "soapboxes" edition...and doesn't have so much to do with Jeff.
In a recent interview with our noble patron Jeff "Fire Joe Torre" Pearlman, Larry B. asked the erstwhile columnist about regional bias. Larry inquired whether this bias was a natural side-effect of the print media or something that should be looked at as a serious problem. Pearlman gave his honest opinion, and should be commended for that. However, his opinion is problematic and full of leaps in logic (and judgment). It's not that Pearlman's the problem--far from it. The problem is that sports journalism, more and more, has become a black hole of flawed mentalities of coverage.
Far be it for me to tell ESPN how to market their "sports entertainment programming," but...well...I'm going to tell them how to market their "sports entertainment programming."
Here's Pearlman's response to Larry's question:JP: I don't have a problem with it. Eight million people live in New York City. That's eight million people (well, not all of them) who live and die with the Mets and Yankees. Milwaukee, on the other hand, is home to approximately 550,000. To suggest fans care about both teams equally is illogical. When I was in college at the University of Delaware, our student newspaper would give the same coverage to swimming and diving as we did men's basketball. Then we realized six people were reading swimming and diving stories. So we stopped writing about it.
Basically, Pearlman makes some valid points here on a very general level: sports are not politics, science, or any other sphere covered by the American press. Sports are entertainment, plain and simple, and should be treated as such. Sports isn't news except to the extent that they effect the economy or impose on the society as a whole (i.e. The Juice and his endless string of murders and memorabilia robberies). Therefore, it stands to reason that the biggest news should be reserved for the biggest fan bases--supply and demand and so forth.
Fine. Good. I'm the last one to say the WNBA should get any sort of coverage because of "Good Fundamental Basketball". I'm the last person to care how the L.A. Clippers are doing, even if they're doing reasonably well and that's a "Good Story". I'm the last person to demand MLS air on prime time tv just because "The Rest Of The World Cares About Soccer So We Have An Obligation To Care About Soccer." I'm not that guy. Seriously. The only obligation sports journalists have is to report the biggest stories in an informed, professional manner.
That's the issue--what determines the "biggest stories"?
In the answer to Larry's question, Pearlman tellingly mentions the New York area and how its disproportionately large fanbase makes sports in that region a bigger story than in the much smaller area of Milwaukee, WI. This is a telling argument in that it exposes the flaw in the perceived righteousness of nationwide sports journalists (particularly ESPN journalists).
Fact of the matter is, the New York Yankees do merit coverage on popularity alone. NY is a much bigger city than any other city in the US. Excellent. However, this appeal to numbers begs the question of why teams in relatively small markets (Boston, Philadelphia) get preferential treatment to teams in large markets like Houston or Los Angeles. Is this the East Coast bias we've heard so much about?
Perhaps.
But most likely the answer lies in what the producers of sports related websites, magazines and television programs WANT to be a big story. Take for instance my oh-so-beloved Irish's cataclysmic embarrassments on the field. Truly this is a story for the ages--traditionally excellent football program has unimaginably horrible season. All the stats prove that this is a historically awful season for a once proud franchise.
HOWEVER, the coverage of this collapse by ESPN is telling in regards to how a portion of the sports media manufactures a self-replenishing story. Observe:
1.) Notre Dame is no longer a football powerhouse. If they're lucky they'll be ranked in the top 15 come year end (it's been 14 years since they have had a legitimate claim to National Title Contender). If they're real lucky they'll win a bowl game (though they haven't in more than ten years).
2.) Notre Dame is having an awful year, but the statistics used to prove how awful they are are distorted at best. Current sports media manufactures artificial stats at an alarming rate. To digress, how many times do we have to hear "this is only the third person to take a no-hitter into the seventh inning against a team with a .274 batting average or better."? What do these stats prove? What does "this is the first time Notre Dame has lost 4 games in a row by a total of 35 or more" do to prove anything besides that they have been losing by a relatively large margin? It has no historical significance, even in the context that Notre Dame is nowhere near the program it was 15 years ago.
3.) Overexposure followed by complaining about overexposure. Do we really need segments on SportsCenter interviewing current ND students about their thoughts on the season? Do we need Regis Philbin on SportsCenter talking about how he feels about the Irish's offensive line? All this will do is give female-genitalia-faced Mark May more ammo when he talks about the overexposure and constant overhyping of the Irish. Sure, this start is awful and the Irish offense has been surprisingly bad, but this exposure is unprecedented for an 0-3 team...especially one that all the experts predicted to be lousy.
So thus the process is set in motion:
1.) take a non-story
2.)pump it up with artificial statistics and sound bytes that you get from round-the-clock mic-pushing until it seems like a much bigger deal than it is
3.) assure that even if the story disappears, THE ACTUAL ACT OF YOUR DISTORTION will be a story
You see this beyond ND, with stories like TO (I actually heard discussions on ESPN whether the media's constant mic-pushing is the reason for his bad rep, and debating the reasons why he's been relatively uncontroversial this year), Bill Belichek-gate, Ron Artest, and so on.
But the big reason why I bring this up, and now I come full circle, has to do with Mr. Pearlman's employer's pet-team:
The Boston Red Sox. A team from a non-huge metro area that gets nearly round-the-clock coverage. Can an argument be made that they have their merits (sort of big, widespread fanbase, general success and postseason aspirations, colorful personnel) but not much more so than any big city team (LA, San Diego, NY Mets, Phillies, Indians). The problem is that the media (particularly ESPN) members just so happen to be Red Sox fans. Period. Therefore, they're convinced, like any fan of any team, that their team is totally definitely interesting to the world. Is it unconscious or conscious? is a question that is hard to answer, but this process is in full-swing:
1.) Boston New York is a generally interesting rivalry with some historical significance, including some extremely memorable moments, but on the whole no more rich or interesting to non-fans than rivalries between other historical teams with an equally large fan base (Giants/Dodgers, Cubs/Cardinals)
2.) network plays it up in interest of good story, focusing more on sporadic moments and stats of interest instead of that largely the rivalry has been uninteresting and a non-rivarly between teams that were alternately non-contenders
3.) consequently the ensuing media circus ensures that there are high tensions, both among the players AND the viewing public, during the series so that broadcasters can focus on that in subsequent broadcasts, harping on things like "wow, this is the most exciting rivalry in baseball."
Think back 10 years. Did anyone really give a shit about the Yankees/Red Sox rivalry, aside from Yankees or Red Sox fans? Think back 20 (before my time so someone will have to help me out). This is a relatively new thing that we are ALL supposed to care about this rivalry.
This is a self-feeding story--one that's made villains out of players (who subsequently become embarrassingly huge stories and the subject of the purplest of prose...i.e. A-Rod) and heroes out of players, and fucking most embarrassingly of all, has raised our awareness of a now dead dwarf. A fucking dwarf.
In conclusion, thanks for the interview, Jeff Pearlman, but I fucking hate ESPN
