Now the Cubs are Really Screwed

In honor of our new friends at jaythejoke.com, I've decided to take some valuable (sarc) time out of my day and pick on the latest Jay article. Cub fans, whatever shred of hope you still had remaining should be gone. Yes friends, Jay is throwing in the towel (after 3 months of sucking Piniella's dick).

You want me to roll out the gush and the goo, the ``Go Cubs Go'' chorus, the Pat-and-Ronnie bop. You want me to suggest an emergency Bill Murray visit, an Ernie Banks pep talk, a Harry-and-Jack seance and all those desperate devices Cubdom pulls from its tail when 99 Seasons of Fear on the Wall are about to become 100.

First off, "Fear on the Wall"? Has "Cubdom" been terrified of something through all of these past 99 seasons? This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Jay Mariotti sucks at writing. I'll even throw out that Jay is wrong about 99 about to become 100, because it's 98 about to become 99.

Here's how that little phrase got in there. Jay realized that it's been (or going to be) 99 seasons of losing. His brain searched for a phrase with the number 99 in it. "Hmmm....99 bottles of beer on the wall, maybe? 99 seasons of....something on the wall? I need a word that rhymes with beer. Cheer? No, that's the opposite. Queer? No, that's what I had to convince the world I'm not after Ozzie made fun of me. Fear? Hmmm...seems like the best one. But it doesn't really make sense. Ah well, I'll toss it in there and hope people just read it as a clever phrase and don't think about it."

Too bad.

But why would I do that?

Gee, Jay, because you've been saying nothing for months but that Piniella is a baseball Yoda who will carry the Cubs to the promised land, first past the Arizona "Smoke-and-Mirrors" (as you have been calling them for weeks). I don't know, I'd think a dude with any sort of spine would stick with his prior convictions and maintain some sort of shred of hope. But you don't have a spine. (BAD JOKE ALERT!) That's why you flop on every issue.

You say the Cubs are due. I say they're too deep in doo-doo.

Jay, can you imagine yourself saying that terrible play on words out loud, like on Around the Horn or something, in front of thousands of people? You're a fucking embarrassment.

It's easier to make a case why Bartman should throw out the first ball today than why they'll win Game 3 behind erratic Rich Hill, win Game 4 behind a short-rested Carlos Zambrano and then return to Arizona and conquer the Diamondbacks behind The Mad Leather Whipper.

Really. The Cubs still have like a 10% chance of winning the series and you think it's easier to argue that Steve Bartman, a man upon whom most at Wrigley Field wish serious harm upon, should step out into the middle of all of them and throw out the first pitch of the game?

Meh, you've never really made sense before, not like I expected you to start now.

The Cubs need to sweep the next three games. I'm thinking January thongs on Oak Street Beach are a more likely scenario.

Right, if I might be of the opinion that you're overreacting juuuuust a tad, you wouldn't hold it against me, would you?

The Cubs haven't even been competitive in crawling into their 0-2 crater.

Really? Wasn't Game 1 a 1-1 tie until the late innings? Ask Carlos Zambrano if he was competitive that day.

Sure, they do. Rule No. 1: Pitch the ball out of the strike zone and make a lot of stinkingly wealthy hitters look silly, striking out 23 Cubs in two games. Rule No. 2: Make the Cubs' pitchers pay by scoring on four of six walks Thursday. Rule No. 3: Play grinder ball, throw down a suicide squeeze, have fun and apply even more pressure to an uptight team that is feeling the weight of 99 years.

Grinderball????? That's how the DBacks are doing it?

Game 1: 2 solo homers, then walk-double-sac-fly

Game 2: single-walk-sac bunt(rendered meaningless by...)-homerun. Single-triple. Single-walk-triple. Walk-walk-single. Okay, we've scored 7 runs and we're up by 5. Now let's play some fucking GRINDER BALL and lay down a suicide squeeze. GRINDING IT OUT. That's what the Diamondbacks are doing. GRINDING for all these runs. Look up the fucking definition of GRINDER BALL, would you? I mean, you'd have to look it up in a fictional dictionary containing stupid media-invented terms that don't mean anything, but for the love of shit, ask yourself, "when you are putting down a suicide squeeze after scoring 7 runs (hence, proving you don't need to "grind out" runs) and attaining a 5 run lead, is this GRINDER BALL?" IS IT?????

The only saving grace: The games are on TBS. No one's watching.

Yes, no one is watching baseball, because baseball becomes less interesting when it's not on a major station, where we could hear Joe Buck and Tim McCarver struggle through broadcasting while the former doesn't know shit about baseball and the latter spews ridiculous expressions that don't make sense. I mean, yes, the audience is more restricted, but most people owning a TV have basic cable, Jay.

As if life's odds aren't already stacked against the Cubs, examine the history they must overcome. In the wild-card era, no NL team has come back from an 0-2 hole and claimed a best-of-five series. When the Cubs have started 0-2 in a postseason series, they've lost all five times dating to 1910. There is a shred of hope involving Piniella, who overcome an 0-2 deficit in 1995 to beat the Yankees. But he was managing the Mariners then.

What does past Cubs teams failing in this situation have to do with the chances of the present Cubs team? No. Tell me. Why the fuck does what the Cubs did in 1946 (year picked at random, don't sue me) have anything to do with the odds of the 2007 Chicago Cubs beating the 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks in the 2007 National League Divisional Series in 2007???

Okay, brace yourselves everyone, because for the first time ever, Jay is about to do some analysis, and it's actually interesting and informative and shows that he's researched something.

Should the Cubs find their thrill on Rich Hill, Zambrano returns Sunday on three days' rest at home, where he is wildly inconsistent. When Piniella tried Big Z on three days last month, it didn't work out. Nor does the three-day theory succeed much in the playoffs. When managers have brought back starters on short rest in best-of-five series the last 10 Octobers, those teams have lost nine of 14 series. Expand that to all rounds, and teams have gone 4-17 in short-rest games.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? Good paragraph, Jay! (except for the thrill/Rich Hill wordplay) Just think, if you made sense like this more often, the entire city of Chicago wouldn't want to dump a large container of hot tar on you!

I'm actually guessing that this was written by either Jay's editor, Jeffrey, or Jay's secretary, Rachel.

When asked if he'll view the year as a success if elimination comes quickly, Piniella said yes. ``Look, this team finished last in the division last year, the most losses in the National League, and here we are in the postseason in one year,'' he said. ``If that's not a success, well, I really don't know what it is.''

Then, a minute later, he waxed philosophical about what this all means in the grand scheme. ``It's only a game,'' said Yoda Lou. ``It's not life or death.''

If the Cubs lose tonight, he'll come to realize how many millions think otherwise.

I'm guessing the latter quote is taken totally out of context. And also, I assure you that zero people in Chicago feel that Game 3 is of life-or-death seriousness. Millions of people, however, think you should be thrown out on your fat ass, because the Sun-Times is getting less talent per dollar spent on you than the White Sox are getting from their players! BURN! PWNED KENNY WILLIAMS!

Displacing the Blame Here, Maybe?

Scott Miller points the finger at Soriano.

Leadoff man Soriano has not been a threat at all, going 0-for-5 in Game 1 and then fanning in each of his first two at-bats in Game 2 before finally collecting a single in the fifth inning. In the two games, he is 2-for-10 with four strikeouts.

Fuck you, Soriano for having 2 hits in 10 ABs. If you were clutch, you would have gotten 2.99 hits like your batting average says you should. Asshole.

Never mind that the team is hitting .179 in the series, that .200 is a higher BA than the team's BA, that Aramis Ramirez is 0-9 with the same number of K's as Fonz, or that Ted Lilly showed the world that he does a fantastic impression of Casey Fossum

more comedy at the expense of old people

since the big lead linked us last week, i guess it's only fair that we link them. after all, both our sites are roughly equal to each other in popularity so fair is fair.

anyways, read the post below where i make a quick little joke about gregg easterbrook talking like a curmudgeony old man. then, go to this link, for perhaps the best curmudgeony old man rant i've ever seen from a professional journalist. gregg's got absolutely nothing on beano cook. (well, obviously. i mean, it is beano cook. but still... you've got to be kidding me.) stick around for the full two and half minutes; the conclusion is amazing.

weekly gregg easterbrook report

nothing too extraordinary going on here; just a belated review of what the TMQ had to say earlier this week. as usual, there's at least a little bit of baloney. (check the "gregg easterbrook" label if for some reason you find this entertaining and want more.)

this first part is not sports related, but so hilariously cliched from a "crusty old guy who complains about kids and their rock music" angle that i have to include it.

Now think what has happened in technical and artistic trends in the 50 years since 1957. Scientific endeavors have made fantastic strides in quality, complexity and significance. Consumer product quality has increased dramatically -- new cars are packed with features unknown in 1957 yet are far safer and more reliable, and the cell phone in your pocket and the computer you're reading this on, to say nothing of the Internet it's transmitted over, would have been viewed as supernatural by the engineers who built Explorer I.

At the same time, the quality of art has plummeted. There hasn't been a musical of artistic merit to open on Broadway in many moons -- right now, it's all vapid dreck. (In fact, I think the show "Vapid Dreck," based on a remake of a remake, opens at the Brooks Atkinson soon.) And although good books are still written, what truly great novel has been produced in the past decade or two? Fifty years ago, technical stuff was buckets of bolts and art was splendid; now, the technical stuff is splendid and the art is in poor repair. This tells us something -- I just wish I knew what.

here's what that tells me- you're old, and no longer appreciate new art because it's scary and unfamiliar to you. i hope to god i have the kind of forum gregg has in which to express this exact same (inevitably held) opinion once i'm old. i bet writing this kind of thing in his columns really helps his blood pressure/arthritis/aching back/other old man ailments.

later, some of easterbrook's trademarked WRONG clock management analysis (if you're familiar with him, you know he writes something dumb like this basically every week):

Bills note 1: Leading 17-14 with less than three minutes to play, the Ivies faced third-and-short and threw incomplete, stopping the clock. At the end, the Jets reached the Buffalo 38 before turning the ball over on a desperation play. Had the Bills simply run up the middle for no gain on their final snap, the clock would have expired with the Jets far from Buffalo territory.

no. no no no. you don't know that with any certainty whatsoever. i don't even have to explain why this is wrong. anyone with a brain and a basic understanding of football knows exactly why.

some ridiculously misguided thoughts about running up the score:

Florida, Rutgers Punished by Football Gods: Every college season has an Upset Saturday, and it fell last weekend for 2007. Top-10 teams Florida and Rutgers were upset almost immediately after displaying poor sportsmanship by running up the score: Oh ye mortals, trifle not with the football gods. Reader Jeffrey Camp notes that against hapless Norfolk State, Rutgers showed terrible sportsmanship by calling all three of its timeouts in the final minute of the first half, frantically trying to score again before intermission -- although Rutgers was ahead 45-0 at the time. Camp asks, "Aren't Knights supposed to be honorable and chivalrous?" Reader Chris Shirley notes that when leading Tennessee 49-20 in the fourth quarter, Florida still had Tim Tebow on the field and still had him throwing deep; leading 52-20 with first-and-goal with less than two minutes remaining, Florida could have taken a knee to end the game, but instead, Urban Meyer had his charges pound the ball into the end zone to run up the final score to 59-20. As Tuesday Morning Quarterback often notes, running up the score is little-bully behavior that evinces lack of character. And it always comes back to haunt you because when the pressure is on, little bullies fold.

yes, running up the score is generally kind of lame (particularly against a non-conference opponent, like in rutgers' sitaution... i can sort of see why florida did it because they were playing a hated conference rival). no, that last part about "little bullies fold[ing]" is not legitimate analysis. i'm too tired to do this right now, but i guarantee if i had fifteen minutes to burn i could find plenty of instances in recent college football history where a team ran up the score at some point in the season, and went on to win multiple "high pressure" games later in the season. hell, i bet plenty of national title winning teams have run up the score on opponents. this is like saying "this mean kid i knew in middle school who used to beat me up and take my lunch money broke his leg in a skateboarding accident. it just goes to show you: people with no character always break their legs in skateboarding accidents."

finally, one of the worst explanations for a team's dominance i have ever read:

What is [patriots offensive line coach dante] Scarnecchia's secret? It's so, so simple, yet few NFL teams understand it: New England offensive linemen never stand doing nothing, watching the play. On a shocking number of NFL plays, there is at least one gentleman simply standing there doing nothing at all, and often that gentleman is an offensive lineman. New England's offensive linemen never stand around doing nothing. More than anything else, never standing around doing nothing is what separates the Patriots from the rest of the league, and this approach pays the most dividends on the offensive line.

i beg, you please pay attention to the offensive line on a reasonable number of snaps in the college and non-patriot NFL football games you watch this weekend and see if this analysis is anywhere close to correct. (hint: it is not. i'm going to go out on a limb and say the patriots are good because they have a fantastic coach, fantastic coaching staff and fantastic players. but go ahead, check out some other teams this weekend for yourself and see if easterbrook's theory holds water.)

This helps explain why Belichick has such great luck with retreads and unknown players. He takes players who were in environments where people were standing around, or where success was judged by individual stats rather than team outcomes, and puts them in an environment where no one ever stands around and team outcomes are all that matter.

wow... more anecdotal bullshit, please! i really don't think this attempt at an explanation for new england's success has enough of it. if i thought easterbrook would reply to me, i would email him about this and ask for a complete explanation and some objective evidence. but i know he wouldn't and i'm lazy anyways. needless to say- there is no way to prove this. none. there's not even a good way to sort of start going about the process of beginning to establish that it might be the case.

thanks gregg, see you next week! and hey, could you please put more science fiction blurbs in the non-NFL parts of your column then? i really feel like you're not covering enough of that crap.

now, let's cut to dayn perry with some breaking mlb playoff news!

dayn, are you there? please, give us your expert opinion about who the "players to watch" in this year's postseason are. i'm going to be extremely brief in my intro here and just flat out say this is one of the least-needed-to-be-written articles that ever didn't need to be written. if that makes any sense. you'll see what i mean.

October stars: These guys have to step up

These are the guys who are going to be in the spotlight this post-season and, to a great extent, these are the guys whose teams need them to rise to the occasion. In other words, these are the guys upon whom the fate of the World (Series) may rest. Let's have a look ...

get ready for some mind numbingly boring analysis that contains exactly one new thought/mildly interesting piece of analysis.

1. Alex Rodriguez, Yankees

from out of nowhere! who'd have guessed he'd be on this list? what a bold inclusion.

Rodriguez was actually a highly accomplished October hitter until the last two times he and the Yankees appeared in the ALDS. Against the Angels in 2004, A-Rod "hit" .133 AVG/.381 OBP/.200 SLG, and last year against Detroit he authored a paltry batting line of .071 AVG/.071 OBP/.071 SLG.

you can't be serious. a-rod didn't play well in the yankees' last two playoff appearances? i never heard anything about that. i wish the media would have covered it; that's the kind of thing i could read about for months and years on end.

2. Joe Borowski, Indians

pshh. a closer? like they ever matter during the playoffs.

3. Carlos Zambrano, Cubs

When Zambrano's on, he racks up ground balls and strikeouts by the truckload and he's one of the best in the business. When he's off, he's distracted, frustrated and unable to find the strike zone. The Cubs' fate to a large degree depends on which Zambrano shows up.

wow. another dark horse candidate! the media lightning rod that will start games 1 and 4 in the NLDS and potentially start games 1, 4, and 7 in the NLCS is important to his team's postseason success?

(god, i am using way too many sarcastic rhetorical questions in this post. i just don't know how else to illustrate my point. which is why i am an angry nobody blogger and not a national sportswriter like dayn perry. you know what, let's just breeze through the rest of these before i waste any more of your time or mine with nitpicky analysis.)

4. Manny Ramirez, Red Sox

what? no way. no freaking way. he's only their #3 hitter and a probable HOFer who, while beginning to decline at age 35, is still a moderately huge power threat. i'm sure they don't expect too much out of him.

5. Kelvim Escobar, Angels

the #2 starter on a team with a struggling offense? this is madness.

6. Roger Clemens, Yankees
7. Jamie Moyer, Phillies

you know, at least these guys aren't #1 or #2 starters, closers, or #3 hitters. so their inclusion on the list is a little less annoying. still... gag me. just blow out your elbow and retire already, you jackass. (that's directed at roger, not dayn or jamie! if dayn retired i don't know where i would get my bad baseball analysis from. and jamie i'm just kind of neutral on.)

8. Travis Hafner, Indians

how thought provoking. another middle of the lineup power threat.

9. Augie Ojeda, Diamondbacks

here we go! non-sarcastically, this is actually a great item for the list. he's orlando hudson's injury replacement. the d-backs have a very questionable offense, so they need all the production they can get out of a guy filling in for one of their better hitters. i wonder who told dayn to include him.

10. Matt Holliday, Rockies

there we go. that's more like it. who would have thought- the rockies' playoff chances apparently depend on their #3 hitter/MVP candidate!

so let's summarize- dayn perry decided to write an article about 10 guys who will have a big impact on the baseball postseason. he chose: four power threats who hit cleanup or in the #3 spot for their teams, two top of the rotation starters, two middle of the rotation starters (who used to be top of the rotation starters and also happen to be media darlings), one closer, and..... augie ojeda. what journalistic gusto! thank goodness for professionals like dayn who bring us these in-depth stories filled with information we could never discern on our own.


[firejay BONUS! here's an imaginary list of dayn's perry's "players to watch" (!) in the NFL this season:

1. peyton manning
2. brett favre
3. ladanian tomlinson
4. vince young
5. terrell owens
6. brian urlacher
7. carson palmer
8. frank gore
9. adam podlesh (punter, jacksonville; critical to the jaguars' field position game)
10. tom brady

i think that list pretty accurately drives home my point, if for some reason the rest of my rantings and ravings did not.]

If Anyone Knows Anything About Playoff Success, It' Reggie Jackson

You sure can't tag this article "anecdotal bullshit", because this is Reggie F'in Jackson talking. I realize that the baseball world is inundated with A-Rod and Yankees crap lately, but this article from the NY Post seems particularly egregious to me. So here goes:

"Meet the New Mr. October: Reggie Believes A-Rod Will Keep On Rollin"

"Rollin"?

October 3, 2007 -- The man who spit in the face of October pressure believes Alex Rodriguez won't be smothered by it for the third straight postseason.

“I think he will do super well," Reggie Jackson said yesterday ...

"SUPER" well, Reggie? Is that really what you meant to say? "I think he willl do SUPER well!"? Up until now, I thought Reggie Jackson was pretty manly; now I think he's a bit effeminate.

“Look at the year he had. You can't have a better year than he had. Who was the last guy to roll into the postseason with the kind of year he had this year?"

Albert Pujols, last year.

Jackson knows what makes Rodriguez tick;

Which is? A watch battery? Lime jello? Strippers? Boos? His Collector's Edition DVD of Mallrats?

Oh. You're not going to tell me. Darn.

understands that despite the MVP season, there are people waiting to empty their lungs with boos for the one guy who the spotlight will be on from beginning to end.
“They booed him from the start this year," said Jackson, who will be with the Yankees for today's workout at Jacobs Field.

Yawn.

Loudly booed when he dropped a foul pop in the first inning on Opening Day, Rodriguez turned the boos to a summer full of cheers, and chants of “MVP, MVP" and finished with 54 homers, 156 RBIs and a .314 average. Now, that success is something Jackson believes Rodriguez is going to lean on.

“He got off to a great start and never stopped," Jackson said. “And it wasn't all smooth. He couldn't have gone through anything tougher than what happened to him in Toronto and the family situation. It wasn't like he got a free pass."

Hyperbolic crap. He could've gone through something much worse. In fact, word has it that A-Rod and his wife are expecting another child. It could've been much tougher; he could've been hit by a bus. Except most bus drivers are better at driving buses than baseball writers are at writing about baseball.

Is Rodriguez's regular season enough for him to bounce back from an 0-for-4 effort in a Game 1 defeat?

This is quite the non sequitur Is he referring to the past or speculating about the future? The Yankees haven't even started playing their series yet!

Remember in 2005, Rodriguez was coming off a year in which he would be voted the MVP and soiled the bed in the ALDS against the Angels when he batted .133 (2-for-15) and set the record for the most inhales and exhales at the plate. The deeper the breath, the worse the at-bat.

I am good at remembering this because writers like you have mentioned it in every article this season.

Rodriguez promised in March this year was going to be different, and it was. Instead of his life being an open book,

huh?

what he said was measured and rarely in depth. Now, on the verge of his fourth - and possibly last - postseason as a Yankee, Rodriguez is poised to wash away the stench of 2005 and 2006 (1-for-14; .071 against the Tigers).

“I am focused on 2007," Rodriguez said following a brief workout at Yankee Stadium. “It's a whole new year. I am taking one pitch at a time."

I feel like sports stars have to give cliched bites to writers because that's all the feeble-brained writers can handle. I think it'd be funnier if A-Rod announced, "Fuck it. It's a whole new year. I am taking it TWO pitches at a time, and when I hit TWO home runs at a time maybe you goddamn writers will stop writing about those thirty goddamn at bats!"

Since Indians starter C.C. Sabathia is murder on lefties - they hit .203 (41-for-202) against him - a larger responsibility falls on Derek Jeter and Rodriguez, who are a combined 19-for-39 (.487) against the lefty they haven't seen since Sept. 1, 2004.

Poorly written. Sentence is too long; separate last clause into independent sentence. I will now stop picking on grammar.

And you know who will get the blame if Jeter and Rodriguez don't hit Sabathia and the Yankees lose, right? It won't be Jeter.

Which is a damn shame, because it seems to me that in your previous sentence, you said that Jeter and Rodriguez share the responsibility. It's too bad you asshole writers are willing to assign Jeter a share of the responsibility, but you know goddamn well that you won't assign Jeter a share of the blame.

“When you come to New York you get invited to the dance every year," Rodriguez said. “You keep getting chances."

Wow. This is competes with the opening quote for "Most Effeminate Thing Said By Current or Former Yankee Superstar". I wonder if A-Rod was sad about not getting invited to dances every year when he was in high school. Or maybe when he played in Texas.

With the right to opt out of the final three years of his contract, this could be Rodriguez's final chance to win a World Series in pinstripes. It's a chance Jackson believes Rodriguez will finally cash in on.

“He has got to be digging himself," Jackson said. “If that was me, I would be digging myself once a day. The year he had was unbelievable."

Digging himself? I don't think I even know what that means. Speak English, Reggie, or at least spit your candy bar out when you're talking.

Now we will see how it ends. Will it be a springboard or an albatross? The guy who had put Mr. in front of October is betting on the former.

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

If you think A-Rod is cool, turn to page 81, then buy this poster and send it to George King.

If you think A-Rod sucks, go back to page 1 and realize that this is what real baseball fans want to do to you.

dear mlb.com: please don't hire writers who suck at their jobs

honestly. picture this: you're an executive assistant junior vice president for major league baseball. one of your (very limited) responsibilities in this position includes managing the league's official website. wouldn't one of your first moves be hiring an editor who actually knows the difference between good and terrible writing? evidently, whoever is filling this imaginary vice president post in real life failed to make such a hiring. because no editor with half a brain would allow articles like this one by barry bloom onto a major entertainment corporation's site. we're really facing a double fisted attack of bad journalism- shitty analysis and overall clunky writing. let me show you what i mean. this guy could benefit from coherency lessons given by woody paige.

Ten good reasons to watch postseason
From Yanks to broken curses, playoffs sure to bring excitement

oh good. you say the yankees made the playoffs? when did this happen!?!?! do they have any newsworthy players on their team?

It's that time again when all the formulas for postseason matchups have come to an end.

aaaand... the crap begins. what does it mean to "end" a formula? we have subject/verb disagreement problems already.

The playoffs are starting, baby, and from Wednesday's opening of three first-round series to a possible Game 7 conclusion of the World Series on Nov. 1, we'll have nearly a month of non-stop thrill-a-minute Major League Baseball action.

Not that there's anything wrong with it. The month of September was incredible, with nearly half the 30 teams in the Majors still in the hunt on Labor Day.

remember what i said about clunky writing? here's a great example. the sentence "not that there's anything wrong with it" is referring to baseball in the month of september, as in, hey, october is great but let's not sell september short. but this is so poorly written that when i first read that sentence i thought it was a continuation of the previous paragraph. as in " get ready for some non stop thrill a minute baseball action... not that there's anything wrong with that!" come on, barry. organize your sentences/paragraphs like you actually make a living as a professional writer.

Heading into the final weekend, seven National League teams were still standing. After Monday's one-game Wild Card playoff game at Coors Field, only the Mets, Brewers and Padres didn't make the dance.

With all this as the background, this could be the best rock 'em, sock 'em postseason in history. And here are 10 good reasons to watch. Hold on to your caps.

i'm not sure what the list of top ten "rock 'em, sock 'em" postseasons looks like. not that i want to overhype the whole yankees/red sox thing, but i assume 2004 is probably on there. 1997 as well? maybe 1991? whoops, no time to think! better hold on to my cap as we go through ten (eight, for the purposes of this posting) atrociously explained reasons to watch the 2007 playoffs.

1. The Yankees are the only American League team returning from last year's postseason.

that's right, here you have it, folks. the number one reason this year's postseason is going to be great: THE YANKEES ARE INVOLVED! thank goodness. what would we have done without them?

And having the Yankees around is always a good thing. They're the team that everyone loves to hate, except Yankees fans world-wide who now share the passion of their principal owner, George Steinbrenner, the self-acclaimed "Boss."

what an absolutely god awful run-on/incomprehensible sentence. the average american 6th grader would be able to identify that as poor writing. furthermore, did steinbrenner really give himself that nickname? i'm not saying i know that's false, i'm saying i'm skeptical.

You know, 26 World Series titles are never enough. And the last one came over the Mets in 2000, shudder the consequences.

shudder the consequences? what the hell are you talking about? shudder the consequences isn't even a real figure of speech. are you saying it's bad for the mets to lose to their crosstown counterpart? or that it's bad that the yankees haven't won a title since 2000? if i as a reasonably discerning and intelligent reader need to ask these questions, you have failed abysmally in your role as a writer.

2. The Commissioner has been crowing about parity for years, and now he's got it. The demise of the defending champion Cardinals cements the fact that there won't be a repeat World Series winner again this fall. It hasn't happened since the Yanks won three straight from 1998-2000. Since then, Arizona, the Angels, Florida, Boston, the White Sox and Cards have won in succession. Bless revenue sharing.

now here's a place where i really have a problem with bloom's analysis. bless revenue sharing? what the hell are you talking about? true, no one has repeated as champ since 2000. great. cute. yay underdogs. but the playing field in terms of player acquisition in baseball is still horrendously uneven. look at payroll distributions across the league's 30 teams. when good free agents become available, let's be honest- there's really only 10 or so teams that are going to be able to sign them. and now teams that try to build from within instead of through free agency are beginning to face increasingly exorbitant contract demands by prime draft picks, making going after premium talent in that way much more difficult. let's just say the gap in player acquisition capability between the yankees and baseball's bottom feeders is a whole lot larger than between the new england patriots and football's bottom feeders. (and yes, i know the NFL has a salary cap, thanks. the point still stands. baseball is certainly not rife with parity.)

3. Any postseason that includes the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox and Phillies has to be a good one.

why? because these teams are older and play in bigger media markets than other teams?

These are storied franchises with storylines to spare.

i think you mean, "these are storied franchises with media friendly storylines to spare."

The Phillies haven't even been to the playoffs since the 1993 World Series. And we all remember how that one ended. Right, Mitch Williams? The franchise of 10,000 losses has won once, 1980 against the Royals in the World Series plagued by George Brett's hemorrhoids. There's enough collective angst here to fill a Boston teapot.

what? what the fuck? where does a boston teapot and "angst" fit into this whole thing? boston (obviously, famously) won it all in 2004. they're really not that angsty anymore. the yankees might have angst issues but it has nothing to do with lack of recent success (and by recent, i mean the last 15 years... spare me the dramatics about how they haven't won a title in a whopping 7 years). the phillies haven't won it all in 27 years, but that's not THAT bad. the cubs and their fans obviously have tons of angst due to their extended championship drought, but that's not what you chose to highlight in this bullet point, was it barry? get a clue.

5. This has got to be the year that the Billy Goat curse goes away, don't you think?

the cubs are maybe the 2nd best playoff team in the NL. maybe. they would be sizable underdogs in a world series against any of the AL playoff teams, if they even get there. there are many good reasons they had the fewest wins out of all 8 playoff teams. but the real problem here isn't this sketchy, "hey, why not?" analysis. it's the way barry decides to end his paragraph.

After all, the Red Sox broke their drought by whacking the Cardinals in 2004, and the White Sox followed suit by sweeping the Astros in 2005. Both hadn't won since just after the first World War. The two numbers to keep in mind are 1908 and 1945 -- the last time Cubbies won and the last time they played in the World Series. Fair is fair.

fair is fair? what the fuck does that even mean in this context? i can't even guess. it looks completely thrown in. like if you were hanging out with a friend who suddenly said "hey, i'm hungry. i think i'm going to make a sandwich. fair is fair."

6. The Tribe is suffering from its own mini-curse, having last won in 1948, the second-longest drought behind the Cubs. At least it's been to the World Series three times since then -- 1954, 1995 and 1997, losing on the last pitch of the latter to the Marlins in Game 7. Props to Bill Veeck for breaking the color line and putting Larry Doby and Satchel Page on the 1948 team that defeated the Boston Braves. For that alone, the Indians deserve better.

if you're really into karma and all that crap, they got what they "deserved." they won the world series that year. you just said so yourself. or are you really saying they should win another world series for something progressive they did 60 years ago that already won them a world series?

7. This edition of the Diamondbacks is reminiscent of the posse that was chasing Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. No matter what they did, they couldn't shake them, forcing Butch to constantly turn to his partner asking, "Who are these guys?"

you have antecedent problems in that sentence, barry. big antecedent problems. and besides that, where the hell is this going?

Well, the rest of the baseball world is about to find out. They can't hit, they wear Sedona Red now and their closer sprints out of the bullpen at Chase Field to the soulful strains of a rap tune called, "Big Papa." All they do is win.

you also have "incredibly awkward reference problems." so the diamondbacks are like the posse chasing butch cassidy and the sundance kid... because butch and sundance don't know who they (the dbacks) are? also, i love "all they do is win." one of my favorite nonsensical sports cliches. i'm pretty sure they do other things. like lose occasionally. and go through all the other things baseball teams do, like practice, go to team meetings, and attend the occasional charity event.

8. The Curse of the Bambino is behind them, but the Red Sox can't seem to shake the cursed Yankees.

why not? because boston has won a world series more recently? because they just won their first division title over the yankees in like 10 years?

They came back from a 3-0 deficit to win the 2004 AL Championship Series. They just won their first AL East title since 1995.

excuse me, 12 years. but go on, tell me why the red sox can't shake the yankees.

But they didn't make the playoffs last year, and this year they've spent a whole lot of money on Japanese pitchers just to get back. Can the world take another Yankees-Red Sox ALCS? You bet. We'll let you know in a week.

thanks so much for not answering the question. i think what you were actually getting at is the fact that baseball fans nationwide "can't seem to shake an insufferable amount of yankees/red sox media analysis day in, day out, and from every conceivable and forced angle." yeah. that sounds about right.

10. Baseball in November. You can't get enough of it. Game 4 of the 2001 World Series between the Yanks and D-backs was a seminal one in the history of postseason play. It began on Oct. 31 and as the game spun into extra innings, the clock above the Yankee Stadium scoreboard struck midnight, sending baseball into November for the first time ever. Derek Jeter hit the homer in the bottom of the 10th to win it, and he was dubbed "Mr. November" by the New York tabloids. Who will be Mr. November this year?

the only way baseball gets played in november this year is if the world series goes 7 games (hasn't happened since 2002) or if it goes to a game 6 which then goes past midnight. in that case, rather than a new "mr. november" being crowned, i'm pretty sure that regardless of which two teams were involved in the series we'd just be treated to a 2001 jeter montage to remind viewers nationwide that there will only ever be one "mr. november." and of course, let's not forget that jeter will forever also be forever remembered as "mr. clutch", "the captain", and "the sexiest goddamn human being ever to wear a baseball uniform." thanks ESPN.

that's all for this horrible column. thanks, barry bloom. you almost talked me out of watching the baseball postseason. asshole.

Cry about it some more, pussy....

I know that the meaning of this site is to knock on sportswriters who write about sports as a career, but I couldn't resist this cry baby Padres fan's post on his well read MVN blog.

Matt Holliday never touched the plate and Tim McClellan knows it. He absolutely knows it. He stood back and did not make a call because he knew it. A thought process happened, and then he made the call in slow motion. They are interviewing Matt Holliday on TBS at this very moment and even he won’t say he touched the plate. Quote, “The umpire said I did, so"

First of all, shut the fuck up you bitchy, sore-loser faggot. Second, maybe Holliday didn't know if he touched the plate or not because HE SLAMMED HIS HEAD INTO THE DIRT as he was sliding in. And although I believe that he probably didn't touch the plate after watching the replay, all video evidence is inconclusive. So even if the MLB had a video official with replay rules, it still would have been too close too call.

What’s more, I am flat out, right now accusing Tim McClellan of making a call that, if not downright influenced by a desire to punish Sandy Alderson and the Padres, was at the very least a call that ended a ball game which he had no evidence to make. A call that ended a team’s season. I can’t prove that it was consciously or subconsciously influenced by any bias. But I believe it. See, the non-call was already a call. It was saying he did not touch the plate. Never seen an umpire reverse a call? Guess what? You just did.

Apparantly you don't watch much baseball, because if you did, you'd know that McClellan takes FORRRRRRREVERRRRR to make any call.

And fucking hell... there is no conspiracy against the Padres. Maybe next time take a second or two before you post hyperbole filled shit like this.

ESPN and other idiots like this guy keep stirring the pot (as they always do), trying to make a huge story out of Holliday's slide. This really is a non-story. Please ignore the blown call on Atkins' HR, and the fact that close calls like this happen all the time in baseball. You got screwed, boo hoo hoo.

Shut the fuck up, and go back to watching the Chargers win the AFC west--- oh wait

pleading for leniency will get you nowhere

espn's michael knisley, re: colorado's 13 inning win over san diego in the NL wild card playoff game:

A long, stressful, extra-inning night finally ended a long, stressful, extra-game regular season Monday in Denver, and the Colorado Rockies flew away to Philadelphia and the National League Division Series ...

... on Holliday.

Matt Holliday.

please don't make dumb puns like that. i promise you, less than 2% of your readers are impressed. yet, 2 paragraphs later-

In that sense, if you'll excuse the pun, the game was a baseball holiday...

what the shit did i just say? if you're a professional writer, and feel the need to preface a pun with "if you'll excuse the pun..." that should be your first hint that it was a terrible idea to write it in the first place. idiot.

Michael Ventre Is The Worst Writer We Make Fun of

Don't believe me? Exactly one of his articles I've read has not shown up here. Exactly one was just acceptable enough for me to not completely tear apart. Now, let's hear him talk about grit, hustle Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

They don’t have A-Rod. They don’t have Big Papi.

No. They have Vladimir Guerrero, a stupid, Spanish-speaking moron with a .311 EqA who is awful at baseball.

In the estimation of many, they don’t have much, or at least, they don’t have enough.

6th in baseball in runs scored. Lackey. K-Rod. Vlad. A little thing called Kelvim. Who says this team doesn't have enough?

Many onlookers don’t quite know what to make of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. They peruse their lineup and wonder how such a team can maintain their membership in the American League, let alone qualify for the postseason.

Then the onlookers actually do some fucking research (a concept foreign to you, Ventre) and realize that the Angels have a .345 team OBP, good enough for 3rd in the AL.

The Angels consist of low-key manager Mike Scioscia, a bashful superstar who speaks little English in Vladimir Guerrero, a veteran slugger who is even quieter than Guerrero in Garret Anderson, and a bunch of fellows unknown in most households.

Yes, slugger Garret Anderson. 16 HR. .272 EqA. Slugger. Garret Anderson. I guess Ventre didn't quite expel all of his man-juice all over Garret Anderson when he got 10 RBI in a game.

With an unorthodox assemblage comes unorthodox ways. The Angels don’t do things flamboyantly.

Are "unorthodox" and "flamboyant" antonyms now? (that's just a different word for "opposites", Mikey)

They’re rarely the opening story on “SportsCenter” or even “Baseball Tonight.”

Well sound the alarm. This must mean the world thinks they suck! Same with the Indians, Padres, Phillies, and Rockies! Stupid non-firsties!

And even though they have had spirited in-division rivalries with Seattle, Oakland and Texas over the years, such clashes generate a mere fraction of the attention that is received whenever the Yankees and Red Sox tangle.

I'm not saying that this is wrong, but everyone knows why this is true. Nobody except complete idiots think that the Angels aren't a good team for the reason that they aren't constantly in the national limelight.

The Angels thrive primarily because of their outstanding pitching, led by the three starters set to trod the bump in the division series — John Lackey, Kelvim Escobar and Jered Weaver.

No. This is false beyond reason. This is living proof that Michael Ventre has never seen a page of statistics in his life. The Angels have the 11th best ERA in baseball. This is not outstanding. Can anyone refute that? Above-average, yes, but not outstanding. They have scored the 6th most runs in baseball. Their offense is better than their pitching. How can someone argue that the Angels are thriving primarily because of outstanding pitching?????

But the Angels have to score runs, they don’t have many big sticks to do so — they ranked 12th in the AL in dingers this season — so what turns out to be special about them is their ability to act as scavengers, collecting runs by whatever aggressive means possible.

5th in OBP, 6th in runs. Correlation? I think so. But go ahead and attribute it to their scraptacular ability to manufacture runs.

The Angels like to run. Their mantra is to take the extra base. They knock base hits and keep a constant flow of runners zooming around the base paths. They have the personnel to play that way, a lineup that includes Chone Figgins, Orlando Cabrera, Gary Matthews, Jr. and rookie Reggie Willits.

Fuck. I want to make fun of this so bad, but I just can't. Like I mean it's all true....it's not why they're scoring runs or anything, but it's true.

They’ll swipe bags whenever they seen an opportunity, too. Figgins led the team in steals with 41, followed by Willits with 27, Cabrera with 20 and Matthews with 18. The Angels ranked third in the majors in thefts with 139, behind the Mets and Orioles. Of course, only one of those three clubs managed to abscond with a playoff berth.

Which makes an argument for how irrelevant the stolen base is in the long run. It can have a significant impact on an individual game, but getting caught stealing wipes out the expected run value of roughly three stolen bases. That's the whole reason that SBs don't mean all that much unless you have a guy who steals at an absurd success rate.

It’s a little odd to think that Scioscia would preside over this bunch. He had an illustrious career as a catcher, and as such, was more of a tank than a hot rod. In 13 major league seasons, all with the Dodgers, Scioscia amassed a grand total of 29 steals.

Gotcha. It's completely unrealistic for Scioscia to think steals are useful because he was slow. I mean, even though he was a catcher, and the stolen base is something a catcher needs to be thinking about all the time when the other team's guys are on base, I think you have a great point here. Simply awesome. Also notable: Billy Beane was the first MLB executive to understand the true (high) value of a walk, and he was terrible at walking as a player! 11 BB in 309 AB! This should, theoretically, make it impossible for him to think walking is good!

No, this is less of a tribute to Scioscia’s personality than it is to his intellect. He happens to be managing a club that is in a mid-major market — yes, it’s Southern California, but no, it’s not really Los Angeles — and as a result, owner Arte Moreno and general manager Bill Stoneman have opted to keep the payroll low and rely on the kids.

I told you last time. The Angels have the 5th highest payroll in baseball! They pay their players $109M! This is not a mid-major market. This is a major market. They have the 5th highest attendance in baseball. How many more ways can I say this? Only the Red Sox and Yankees spew significantly more money at the players than these Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. You, Michael Ventre, are grossly stupid and completely fucking ignorant.

Guerrero injured his elbow and might be used as a designated hitter against the Red Sox — since he may not have the throwing power to handle right field — and Scioscia knows Guerrero is more comfortable at the plate when he’s playing the outfield than he is as a DH.

Vladimir Guerrero, last 3 years, as DH: .318/.372/.536
Vladimir Guerrero, last 3 years, overall: .328/.389/.572

I'm not convinced that's true. I'd attribute such a small difference to something called slight varaince over 233 ABs.

Figgins was slowed in the month of September by a wrist injury.

I bet it's as dramatic as the last one.

Chone Figgins, 2007 season: .330/.393/.432
Chone Figgins, 2007 September: .302/.390/.413

Granted, he's been worse/not playing in the past week, but word choice there is Ventre's, not mine.

But the Angels have to hustle to get even. The Red Sox merely have to hope for a sudden clap of thunder from one of their longball specialists.

Pitching, hitting, and defense are nice, but no, the key to the Angels winning this series is hustle.

Despite all the comparative stats and past performances, the Angels are hoping that battling pays dividends, that taking the game to the opposition in small flurries instead of waiting around for a haymaker will prove beneficial.

And then they can point and laugh at the Red Sox who are just "waiting for the 3-run homer". That's all the Red Sox do to score runs, anyway. I mean, don't even look up that the Red Sox are 4th in MLB in runs scored despite being 18th in HR. No, that's totally fine. Publish it. I don't care.

Actually I do. It bothers me. I don't like you.

Hey, it’s worked so far. Why tamper?

And that's the end. Look Ventre, you have done a great job of attributing the Angels success to the wrong thing in pretty much every feasible way. Let's recap, you think:

Angels pitching > Angels offense
Importance of Angels hustling, running, stealing > Importance of Angels getting on base

You're a fucking joke, Ventre. You're a worse writer than Mariotti. There. I said it.

(I still hate Jay more)

(and Jay Mohr)

(I just earned myself an awful, awful play on words label for this post)