Quick Hits

I'm back with another episode of "Quick Hits", items that need to pointed out, but not necessarily big enough to warrant their own posts.

Dan Dakich Show

I generally like the Dan Dakich show. It is nice to have a local sports radio talk show and Dan does a decent job of hosting the show. However, he had a couple of trip-ups on Friday's show.

Regarding perfect games in baseball, "Perfect games never happen." Uhh, Dan it has happened 16 times in the modern era and 18 times overall. So they do occur. Really.

Regarding the NL Central Division, "The (Chicago) Cubs are in first place because they are one loss up on the Cardinals." No, dickhead, the Cubs are not in first place. The Cards were 52-46 while the Cubs were 48-45 before Friday's games. You can't assume that just because the Cubs have played five fewer games that all of them would be won by the Cubs. If you look at the standings, the Cards have a winning percentage of .531 versus the Cubs .516. By every statistical rule I know of, this would put the Cards in first place, Danny.

All-Star Game

Yes, I know that the American League now has a thirteen game unbeaten streak, which is the longest such streak in the series. However, I am tired of hearing all of the pundits go on and on and on about the woeful National League. The NL may be taking it on the chin since 1996, but I have not heard any of them mention that the NL won eleven straight from 1972 to 1982 and won 19 of 20 from 1963 to 1982. I guess since that occurred over 25 years ago, no one ever thinks to look back that far.

Hall of Fame & Steroids

This will be a bigger post at some point, but I still take the stand that if a player took steroids before it was made illegal by MLB, then technically, he did not do anything wrong. Yes, there are numerous players that are suspected to have taken steroids and several that have tested positive or been identified. Did it give them an advantage? Most likely, otherwise, players wouldn't have been taking them. Did it give them an UNFAIR advantage? No, because at the time it was not illegal and therefore, not unfair. So no asterisks are needed for those records that were broken.

Now in the case of someone like Manny Ramirez, it does bring up an interesting discussion about players who have tested positive and been suspended by MLB for PEDs. Do you start putting asterisks on their records? Do you throw out certain seasons of statistics? Do you totally bar them from consideration? Makes you think.

All right, its late and I need to get up early to drive to Chicago for a Cubs game...sweeeeeeet! Now, if they win today (Sunday) and the Cards lose, then the Cubs WILL be in first place.

Simon Says - "You're an Idiot!"

Any All-Star sporting event that is fan-voter driven typically has the problem of fans voting players who do not deserve to be All-Stars due to their popularity or based on their career stats and not their current year production. The MLB All-Star voting generally is no exception. How many times has a player that has been injured the entire season gets enough votes to be an All-Star without even playing a single game! Five? Ten? Twenty? Honestly, I do not know the answer and frankly I do have the time to research that one, but you get my point.

I ran across this interesting tidbit earlier this week, I just have not been able to post it yet. Mark Simon in his "Simon Says" section noticed that the following players we're left off the All-Star rosters this year.

ESPN researcher Mark Simon digs deep, looking for the night's best baseball numbers.

Tonight, he takes a look at the All-Star rosters and notices a rather large omission. Not a single player in the top 10 for career home runs among active players is headed to St. Louis for this year's All-Star Game.

Staying Home Most HRs, active players
Ken Griffey Jr. - 621
Alex Rodriguez -567
Jim Thome - 554
Manny Ramirez - 534
Gary Sheffield - 509
Carlos Delgado - 473
Chipper Jones - 417
Jason Giambi - 407
Vladimir Guerrero - 396
Andruw Jones - 381

When I first read this, I thought Mark was trying to say that these players were woefully snubbed by being left off this list, i.e. how can you leave the Top 10 active HR hitters off the All-Star rosters? If this is the case then, Mark, you are one ignoramus fucktard! Upon reading a few times more, now I'm not so sure. Since I do not know what Mark's take is on the data he uncovered, it seems to be that he has found an interesting gem of data. One that shows that voting fans may be getting, not necessarily smarter, but more knowledgeable of the game.

Before anyone else objects to those players left off the rosters, let's look a little deeper shall we?

Four of the players on the list, Griffey, Jr., Thome, Guerrero and Andruw Jones, are all designated hitters in the AL and since the All-Star game is hosted in St. Louis, a National League city, there is no DH. So none of the players are going to get enough votes at a fielding position and have been left off the roster.

A-Rod and Manny's steroids issues relegated both of them to the cheap seats for the '09 All-Star game. Not many fans are very tolerant of steroids it seems anymore.

So that leaves us four of the top ten that had a viable chance of making the rosters this year.

Mets outfielder Gary Sheffield in 2009 is batting .259/.394/.455 with 5 HRs. Not horrible, but currently ranks below all of the other current NL All-Star outfielders.

Hawpe - .327/.401/.584 - 13 HRs
Pence - .300/.368/.485 - 11 HRs
Braun - .324/.407/.556 - 16 HRs
Ibanez - .312/.371/.656 - 22 HRs
Beltran - .336/.425/.527 - 8 HRs
J. Upton - .291/.369/.532 - 15 HRs

So I do not feel that Sheff was snubbed by getting left of the NL roster.

Carlos Delgado, the Mets 1B, (.298/.393/.521 - 4 HRs) may be All-Star worthy, but probably the unfortunate loser in that four other Mets are on the roster. Delgado lags way behind Pujols (.331/.459/.725 - 31 HRs) and Fielder (.309/.431/.611 - 22 HRs), but you might have an argument for Delgado against Howard (.252/.328/.520 - 21 HRs) and Gonzalez (.256/.398/.543 - 24 HRs).

Chipper Jones, 3B for the Braves, is also having a decent year like Delgado (.292/.408/.472 - 9 HRs). Unlike Delgado however, Chipper seems to be a victim of the fact that David Wright (Mets) won the 3B voting and the other 3B is Ryan Zimmerman, the "token" National to make the team, since all teams must be represented. Carlos and Chipper are probably the most All-Star worthy in the Top 10 among those that did not knowingly test positive for steroids.

That leaves us with Yankee 1B Jason Giambi (.195/.331/.371 - 11HRs). Do I really need to make a point on this one?

Frankly, I do not have a problem with any of these players getting left of the All-Star rosters. Congrats to the voters this year for not committing the "career player honoring" voting that tends to plague All-Star rosters.

OK, so Simon may not be an idiot...maybe...but it has shown us that the fans may not vote for just the most known person at that position anymore. Here hoping that the trend continues.

Have a great weekend all!

Murray Chass...(an idiot)...On Baseball

So what kind of conundrum is created when a person who hates blogs and bloggers creates his own blog? Murray Chass, writer for the NY Times, has created his own baseball blog and proceeds to tell us that he hates blogs. I guess he circumvents that by stating that his site is for baseball columns, not blogs. You can say that cow manure is fertilizer, but it is still cow shit.

FJM did an excellent job of reviewing Mr. Chass' blog site and had some insightful thoughts on what his page is about.

However, I am not here to rehash what his site is about. I am here to bash Murray Chass on his first blog, er...column or whatever he wants to call it, regarding the All-Star Game. Murray does not like the All-Star Game format in which the winning league receives home-field advantage in the World Series. The "added" significance to the All-Star Game has not had much influence on the television ratings since its inception after the tie game in 2002. Murray has some better ideas than the "silly scheme" of awarding home-field advantage for the All-Star Game winner.

One way would be to reward the team with the better won-lost record. But that idea wouldn't work logistically. Baseball can’t wait until days or even a week before the World Series is scheduled to start to determine where Series game will be played. Airlines and hotels don’t work that way.

Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure I could reserve a flight and a hotel room a couple of days before I leave.

So let me get this straight. This would not work for baseball even though this is how the finals NBA and NHL determine home-field advantage? Even with the current format in baseball, MLB officials can only narrow down which team will host games 1 and 2 in the World Series to two teams prior to the completion of the Championship Series. If they used the better won-lost record that would only expand the possibility to four teams.

As a Cardinals fan, if I wanted to go to a World Series game in 2006, I new that if the Cardinals won the NLCS, they would be playing in either Detroit or Oakland for the first two games. Since the Tigers swept the A's and the Cards took seven games to beat the Mets, I would have known where the Cards were playing before the end of the NLCS. However, I would have either had to take a chance that the Cards would win and make my flight and hotel reservations early or wait until the end of series knowing that game 1 would start in only a couple of days.

I think MLB officials would be able to handle the additional strain of coordinating everything with four possibilities versus the current two possibilities. I just think you are an absurd idiot for thinking this would not be possible.

Chass has another idea for awarding home-field advantage...

If baseball, on the other hand, based homefield advantage on the outcome of interleague games, the winning league this season would have been known before the end of June, leaving three months, or half the season, to make travel plans.

Using interleague games may actually be a slightly better idea for determining World Series home-field advantage as it uses a bigger statistical sample than one exhibition game and can show which league is better (at that time). However, Chass is either The Amazing Kreskin or an amazing, fucking retard if he knows where the World Series would be played using interleague games results! Yes, you would know if the American or National league pennant winner would have home-field advantage, BUT YOU DON"T KNOW WHICH TEAM, ASSHOLE!!!

Man, what a fucktard!

But the outcome of the interleague schedule would do nothing for Fox and its ratings for the All-Star game. Don’t let a sound idea get in the way of greed.

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", or at least it was in Wall Street.

It may be a sound idea, Chass, but those greedy little networks are what help MLB pay the bills. So if Fox or ESPN want to have some input on the game and will put up some extra dough along with that input, MLB may agree.

There is a reason why you receive so many emails from angry readers. When you are wrong, people like to point that out to you, just like I am doing now. That does not mean you are doing some thing "right" by getting such a response from your readers.

I can't say that I'm looking forward to more "columns" from Murray Chass, but I believe we will be seeing a lot more of him on this site.

Joe Morgan - All-Star Game of Death

Lom Henn's favorite baseball commentator and turdmeister, Joe Morgan, puts in his two cents worth on the decline of Major League Baseball's All-Star Game.

Morgan: All-Stars of old had more fire

Joe Morgan looks at what has happened to the All-Star Game and doesn't like what he sees.

The Hall of Fame second baseman remembers when the top stars played all nine innings, when the All-Stars drew huge ratings.

Joe, your last All-Star game appearance was 29 years ago! I bet Ted Williams, Stan Musial and Jackie Robinson may have felt the same thing about your generation playing in the All-Star Game in 1979!

Not anymore.

"Part of the reason the game doesn't bring that energy is it's a different game now," he said Thursday. "Now it's considered an exhibition, whereas before it was considered life and death."

That's because it is an exhibition!!!!!!

Life or death??? That really would have been a game for the ages. I would have liked to have been there for the announcement of, "This year's MLB All-Star Game has been changed. The players on the losing team will be killed by the winning team's choice immediately following the game," and then watch the players drop a turd in their shorts. It's the MLB All-Star Game of Death!!!!!! You bet I'd tune in for that one.

Really, Joe, the decline in the All-Star Game is not due fully to the players playing the game now. I'll give you a few reasons why the decline is not due to just the players.

• When you played, the top-ranked TV shows had ratings in the 30s. Today, the top-ranked shows are lucky to make it into the 20s. Back in the 70's, the #30 ranked show had a higher rating than this year's top show, American Idol (16.1 rating).
• When you played, the only times the NL and AL players faced each other were in the World Series and the All-Star games. Since the inception of interleague play, we get to see teams from each league play each other roughly 18 times each year. While this has been a boon for the owners and generally regarded as a success by the average fan, many traditionalists continue to hate interleague play...but that is another story for another time.
• Giving the winner of the All-Star Game home-field advantage in the World Series probably has not helped, but I have not heard from the players what their take is on this one.
• The fans who elect the players to the game are mostly morons. Fans vote for their favorite player, not the most deserving player. I get that, but every year we see someone voted into the game that hasn't played all year do to an injury or is batting .125 and strikes out every other at bat. Although, the players were not any better this year in electing Jason Varitek to the 2008 All-Star AL team.

The last time the All-Star Game was at Yankee Stadium, in 1977, Morgan led off the game with a home run off Jim Palmer. A 10-time All-Star with the Cincinnati Reds and Houston Astros, Morgan's National League teams were a perfect 10-0 against the American Leaguers.

The All-Star Game has seen winnings streaks for both leagues. The National League won 11 in-a-row from 1972 to 1982 and won 19 of 20 from 1963 to 1982. The American League have won 10 of the last 11 with the odd one being the tie game in '02.

What does this really have to do with Joe's rant on the decline of this game? Oh, that's right, this is Joe Morgan.

"If you had Willie Mays and those guys with the attitude that they had playing now, you'd have that same awareness," Morgan said. "I don't say the players don't play hard. I'm saying that before, Willie Mays might play the whole game. Hank Aaron might play the whole game."

Mays went the distance in 11 All-Star Games and Aaron nine, according to the Elias Sports Bureau. When Carlos Beltran went all nine innings at Pittsburgh in 2006, it marked the first time a player had started and finished an All-Star Game since Ken Griffey Jr., Brady Anderson and Ray Lankford in 1997 at Cleveland.

Yes, there are probably times where a player may earn the right to play the entire game. But as we saw in 2002, the managers for each time seem to have this desire to make sure everyone plays in the game. I'm still somewhat irritated about the 2002 game where the managers had to make sure everyone got in the game, and when the game went extra innings, they had to cop out and call a tie. I understand WHY they called the game, but it should not have been an issue as there should have been at least one additional relief pitcher for each league available. If it was still tied after 12 or 13 innings, then you can call the tie.

The players are not noted for "playing" in the All-Star Game, they are noted for being "elected" to the All-Star Game. Obviously a player would prefer to play in the game and be in the spotlight, but I don't think it needs to be a requirement.

Morgan said having the game decide which league gets home-field advantage in the World Series, an innovation that began in 2003, doesn't help."

See bullet point above.

Unless the players buy into it, it doesn't matter what you say," he said. "You can say, 'This one counts,' you can say anything you want, but the players are the ones that make the game, not the marketing."

Yes, the drive to defeat the opposing league has waned over time, but I just can't place the blame fully on the players. The game has changed, the fans have changed, the owners have changed, the money has changed (OK, yes players are still paid in dollars, but they just get many, many, many more of them), TV has changed, the internet has come about, and so on and so on. The game IS an exhibition and with 500 channels and so much more available things to do, we should not be surprised that the ratings have declined. The Home Run Derby typically out draws the All-Star Game because it is more fun to watch. I don't know what can be done to raise the ratings for the All-Star Game, but we shouldn't be surprised by what has happened.

BTW - I am shocked that I did not see "consistent" or one of its variations anywhere in the article. Although, it could have been removed by the Tribune.