Murray's Not So Magnificent, Either

It's been awhile since we've looked in on our friend Murray Chass...

NOT THE MAGNIFICENT METS
By Murray Chass

I've said this before, but it kills me that Chass has to add a byline to each story he writes on HIS OWN BLOG.

As the mid-point of the season approaches, the Mets do not seem prepared to attain the position they need to avoid a third consecutive late-season collapse.

This is painful. I mean, this is a mess of a sentence. And technically, it's wrong--the Mets are 1 1/2 games behind the Phillies in the NL East. If the Mets stay that way, they'll avoid a late season collapse by never being ahead.

Before the season began, I boldly proclaimed that the Mets could exorcise the Phillies from their shattered psyches forever more if they built an 18-game lead with 17 games to play.

Oh, so this is about your goofy prediction. Except that what you've written isn't much of a prediction, it's merely an obvious statement. If Chass had written "I boldly proclaimed the Mets would be happy if they won the NL East this season," he'd have said the same thing.

And would the Mets "exorcise the Phillies from their shattered psyches forever more" if they had a 25-game lead over the Phillies with 17 to play, or does it have to be an 18-game lead?

The 17-games-to-go juncture, after all, was the point of the schedule the Mets reached the last two years leading the National League East before they did their Phillies fade. They led Philadelphia by 7 games with 17 to go in 2007 and by 3 ½ games with 17 to go last year, and they finished first neither time.

Note the big 'ol [sic] that belongs with "neither."

I'll give Chass the point that blowing the 7-game lead with 17 to play in 2007 qualifies as a collapse, but losing a 3 1/2-game lead in 2008? I'd say that Chass was just using the 17-games to play mark as an arbitrary number to make 2008 identical to 2007, but the Mets' biggest division lead in 2008 was on September 10, with 17 games remaining.

But I will say that losing a 3 1/2 game lead with 17 left is not much of a collapse. The Mets went 7-10 over those final 17 games. Not exactly great baseball, but not a full-scale chokefest. The Phillies went 13-3 over their last 16 games to take the division. I know that media pundits like to focus on the negative and Chass is New York-focused, but I think the more accurate thing to say about 2008 is that the Phillies took the division, rather than the Mets having collapsed.

It seemed to make sense, then, that the Mets would have to take drastic action to avoid a three-peat; building an 18-game lead seemed to be pretty drastic. Right now it’s impossible, too.

Building an 18-game lead is not doing something "drastic;" it's a goal every team has. I mean, who wouldn't want to go 122-40 and eliminate the rest of your division before Labor Day?

And I know Chass is no slave to accuracy, but the Mets trail the Phillies by 1 1/2 games in the NL East with 89 games remaining. I think it's mathematically possible--i.e., the opposite of impossible, as Chass says--for the Mets to build an 18-game lead at some point.

Bruised, battered and broken, the Mets remain in the division race only through the generosity of the Phillies, who may be repaying past favors.

So Chass is suggesting that the Phillies are intentionally losing games?

For example, after losing two of three games to the Phillies 10 days ago, the Mets lost two of three games each to the Yankees and the Orioles and were in danger of falling so far behind that even with more than half the season to go they would have been hard pressed to catch the Phillies.

But the Phillies lost five of six to the Red Sox and the Blue Jays, enabling the Mets to gain a game on them, and the Mets gained yet another game Friday night, slicing their deficit to two games.

Yeah, those Phillies sure are underachieving! How can a team lose five out of six to teams like the Red Sox and Blue Jays? I mean, the Red Sox only have the best record in the American League. And the Blue Jays are well over .500--they'd be in the lead now in 4 out of the 6 MLB divisions.

Perhaps the Phillies aren't winning because the have their own set of problems. Closer Brad Lidge has been on the disabled list. Jimmy Rollins has been in a season-long slump. Even the Phillie Phanatic has been less phanatical. Yes, the Mets are fortunate, but it's not because the Phillies are waiting on them.

The Mets remain in the race despite encountering a multitude of problems, including a season-long siege of injuries, an offense too impotent to put teams away and a bullpen that is vastly improved over last year’s but still capable of relinquishing late-inning leads.

Almost EVERY bullpen is "capable of relinquishing late-inning leads." That sentence says nothing.

Chass then goes on to detail the Mets' injury woes this season. The beginning of the article sets the tone as if the Mets have underachieved all season; Chass then goes on to undermine the tone HE set and shows the very legitimate reasons the Mets have struggled.

Murray, ever hear of story unity?

In the meantime, while the Mets tread water awaiting the return of their injured starters, they need to figure out how to convert late-inning leads into victories. In the space of nine recent days, leading to the weekend, they lost four games which they led after the fifth inning.

After the fifth inning? That's barely half the game! That's like saying the Los Angeles Lakers can't finish because they've lost four games in which they led with 11 minutes remaining in the 3rd quarter.

The Phillies have lost three games in the last 10 days in which they led after the fifth inning. The Dodgers--who have the best record in baseball--lost two such games in the last 10 days. I know that I've only looked at two other teams, but I think it's enough to show that his "statistic" is not very informative. Especially when Murray's next line is this:

The losses resulted from a combination of their relief pitchers giving up runs and their hitters shutting down and not producing late-inning add-on runs.

I suggest that ALL losses for a team result from a combination of its pitchers giving up runs and its hitters not producing. Again, Chass says nothing meaningful in his analysis. This is a recording.

So what did we learn today? That the Phillies are still in first place, but not by much. That the Mets have had a lot of injuries. That the Mets would like to win a division title, which makes them no different than any other team (possible exception: the Washington Nationals). And that Murray Chass doesn't know a lot about baseball.

In other words: absolutely nothing.

Murray, Welcome to the Internet Age

Hey, Murray Chass! I know you are an aging sports writer who, supposedly, writes a blog. No, wait, Murray doesn't like blogs. He writes online articles. Crappy, online articles at that.

Murray's latest whine? He is saddened that Major League Baseball is no longer printing the Green and Red Books that detail information on each club - team records, finishes, managers, executives, statistics, etc. There is one book for the AL (Green) and one for the NL (Red). MLB has printed these for 70+ years.

Now, before you jump on the Murray bandwagon and light your torches or grab your pitch forks to march on the MLB offices, let's make one thing clear. Yes, the MLB is no longer printing these books. However, for the first time, the books will only be available online.

The books do include a vast amount of information that new and old writers should access for writing various articles. MLB and the teams have determined that there was just not enough interest for the amount of expense to print and mail the books every year when most of the information is duplicated every year. In this age of the Internet and companies going green, I can understand why this decision was made. Murray! If you can supposedly write an online article, I don't see why you cannot easily get this information.

I love how he bemoans in his article how woeful it is he will no longer have his printed copies. It is not like you have to access the Internet every time you want to access the information. You log on and download the information once! If you really want a printed copy - then print the fucking things off you lazy fucktard! Are you pissed because it will not be in a nice green or red book cover?

If you are not going to advance with the times, then get off the Information Superhighway. The last thing we want is you slowing us down with your turn signal stuck on.

Hey, Murray, Puck You!

Murray Chass is getting an early start for a run at the 2009 FotY. Murray is appalled that they played a sport other than baseball at the "Friendly Confines" of Wrigley Field. No way! How could they do something like that to a sporting venue?

(NOTE: this segment is at the end of the full article. While I have issues with most of the entire article, this part was the most offensive to me.)

NHL Ices Cubs for 100 More Years

Nice, a shitty title for a shitty article.

The National Hockey League has desecrated one of America’s great cathedrals. It installed an ice rink at Wrigley Field and played a hockey game there last week. Just the thought of it is painful.

Umm, Murray, you do realize that they have played other sports at Wrigley Field, right? I know you are a Red Sox fanatic and a baseball writer and might not be versed on topics outside of those two areas. Really, Murray, they played professional football AND soccer there. And is it so much of a shock to have a facility host an event other than for its primary function?

Can you believe it? A hockey game in the friendly confines? Ice within the ivy-covered walls? Violating the home of the lovable losers?

Well, it is not like it was 70 degrees outside and you were trying to play hockey? (Although, it would have been interesting if Chicago had had a winter "heat" wave and been in the 50's or 60's.) I think it was a smart move to be able to host something in the off-season. The game was the most watched NHL game in 34 years! And I read next year's game will be at the new Yankee Stadium. So are you going to bitch about that as well or is that OK since it is a brand new stadium?

Personally, I would have loved to have gone to that game. I like hockey (Go Blues!) and I think the atmosphere would have made for one hell of a game. The fact it WAS one hell of a game between two of the "Original Six" teams on the ice would have been the icing on the frozen cake.

They laid the rink right where Ernie Banks always wanted to play two, where in 1930 Hack Wilson produced 116 (according to Elias Sports Bureau) of the 191 runs he drove in, where Ryne Sandberg played virtually his entire Hall of Fame career, where Leo Durocher blew a division championship in 1969, the first year of division play, and in the process tossed me out of his clubhouse.

Let's not also forget:

• Where the Chicago Bears played for 50 years and won eight of its nine championships.
• Where George Halas coached and Bears' greats such as Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers and Brian Piccolo played most or all of their careers.
• And where the Chicago Sting played the other kind of football in the 80's - that 's soccer for you illiterates.

Based on available information, the N.H.L, didn’t even pay for the use of the field and thereby lighten the financial load of Wrigley’s bankrupt owners.

Generally, a league does not pay for the use of a venue. I'm not sure if the NHL "paid" for the use of the field, but I imagine Wrigley Field got to keep most or all of the concession revenue and that is likely to be pretty good sum of money for a sold-out event. I'm betting that either the Blackhawks had to give a portion of the ticket sales as a use fee or Wrigley Field got to keep a larger portion of the concession revenue. I don't think Wrigley hosted the event for free. The owners may be bankrupt, but they are not fucking idiots. But without seeing more details, that is just speculation on my part.

If the Cubs think they have been cursed in their inability to win the World Series for 100 years, wait ‘till they see what happens the next hundred years.

Murray, I don't think that hosting a non-baseball event is going to "curse" the Cubs anymore than they are already "cursed". Their inability to win a World Series is do to the fact they have not played well enough in the playoffs to go to the World Series. For all we know, the Cubs might turn out winning the most World Series in the 21st century...or they may have a 192 year drought streak by then. Either one is just as likely at this point.

Murray, you are such a fucktard on this one. I imagine you will have a brain aneurysm when they try and have this event at Fenway Park in the future.

2008 Fucktard of the Year Nominations

Welcome everyone to the inaugural Fucktard of the Year nominations for 2008. We here at Lom Henn have blasted and lambasted several worthy candidates this year and now it is time for us to pick that person, group, team, etc. who most deserves the distinction of becoming the first Fucktard of the Year.

All of us at Lom Henn will have a say in the voting and I will make the final call on the ultimate winner. For this year, we will just have a straight vote for the most worthy nominee. Perhaps next year we might try a bracket system to add a bit of flavor. So on to our nominees...

1. Bob Kravitz

Our first nominee and front-runner is our favorite hack, Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star. Bob was the object of our first post and leads with the most entries for 2008. Bob has an atrocious writing style and has a flair for stating the obvious, backing up his opinion with hot air and writing as many words as possible without actually doing any research on a topic.

I could go on hours about how I feel about Bob, but that is not why we are here. Suffice it to say that we do not think much of his writing or now, thanks to WFNI, co-hosting a sports talk show. Now he gets to annoy us even more!

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Bob Kravitz is supposedly a journalist

Bob Kravitz Is Wrong Even When He's Right

Remain Calm. All is Well!
This Explains Everything

2. Tony Kornheiser

I don't think any of us can write exactly how much we think Tony Kornheiser sucks. Slut and Zinglebert even went to the upper deck below the announcing booth during a MNF game last year and shouted, "Kornheiser sucks!" repeatedly. Security was not called because everyone agreed that the statement was true. Pretty much anything out of this man's mouth is worthless crap and the NFL nation is unfortunately forced to put up with it. At this point, a blind, deaf mute would be more knowledgable and literate commentator than Kornheiser.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Why Kornheiser Sucks

This Explains Everything

3. ESPN NFL Analysts

Chris Berman, Tom Jackson, Trent Dilfer and John Saunders have been NFL football players and/or analysts for many, many years. So why is it that the do not seem to have a clue about the sport? They either do not know what they are talking about or they are spouting off some drivel that the other talking heads follow along. Berman has gone from likable to 'I will turn you off automatically' status. The only reason many of us can put up with him and the others is so that they can end up here.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

I Have Seen the 7th Layer of Hell...

You Probably Know More Than An ESPN Analyst

4. Bowl Championship Series (BCS)

There is a split at Lom Henn between those who want a college playoff and those who do not. However, we all agree that the BCS does not work as it is currently structured. There is too much emphasis on the "human" polls and teams that lose early in the season have too big of an advantage versus teams that lose late. It also penalizes teams like Ball State (before they lost to Buffalo in the MAC Championship) if another non-BCS team (Utah) goes undefeated. Meanwhile, slightly above average teams like Cincinnati and Boston College get to go to a BCS Bowl game because they were able to "win" their conference championships. Then you have the issues of which two teams get selected for the championship game. The list of problems can go on and on and on and on and...

Yes, we know that there will probably never be a perfect solution for college football and, yes, we know that the BCS is better than the before the BCS started. Yet, it is still a piece of shit and smells worse than one of Hildegard Bembledack's diapers.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

Playoffs...we don't need no stinking playoffs!

Let's All Pile On Bob Kravitz And the BCS

College Football Potpourri

And lastly we have...

5. Murray Chass

There is debate as to whether Murray Chass' website is actually written by Murray Chass or by someone else. Regardless, it is a testament to why there are editors at newspapers and what happens at newspapers when the editors are either asleep or drunk in their offices. We have not picked on Murray lately, but I think that will change after talking to Slut and Zinglebert this week. Murray is obviously a Red Sox fan and will go to almost any extreme to make sure that he can fit "Boston Red Sox" into every post, regardless if the article has even a remote connection with them. Not to mention that he has great difficulty in getting to the point and getting that point across. It sometimes barely passes for English...kind of like this site sometimes.

2008 LomHenn.com Highlights

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

Trading for Dummies

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

There you go, folks, the 2008 LomHenn.com Fucktard of the Year Nominees. I will also allow write-in candidates for this year in case I missed someone I should not have. You can either email me your selection(s) and why or you can post them on the site. The winner will be announced on Wednesday, January 7th.

Bob Kravitz is probably the Vegas odds favorite at the moment, but there are some definite dark horses in the mix. Good luck, I think, to all of our nominees and our voters here at Lom Henn. I look forward to seeing all of the responses.

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

An old article from our good friend, Murray Chass (and by good friend, I mean douchebag):

Rays Feeling A Red Sox Rush

By Murray Chass

I love that on a blog entitled "Murray Chass On Baseball," Murray feels it necessary to add a byline to his posts, even though he's the only one who writes for his OWN blog.

By now, you should realize that the Red Sox are going to win the American League East title and finish in first place for a second successive season for the first time since 1916.

Yes, of course--I'm sure you're right.

Or not.

Let me be fair. The main point of this post is not to point out a prediction that Chass got wrong in an article written two weeks ago (though that is fun). There is some other garbage in the article, too. We'll get to that. I am, however, going to make fun of his prediction a little more.

The Tampa Bay Rays have waged a scrappy, valiant fight for first, occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game. It would be nice to have them rewarded for a surprising, stupendous season, but even after beating the Red Sox twice this week they seem to be ready to have Boston overtake them.

For fuck's sake--what a shitty sentence. "...occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game." It's like a five year-old trying to make an argument: "...mom said I could go outside and get some ice cream and climb on a ladder and go over to Harold's house and look at his dad's dirty magazines and watch reruns of Bosom Buddies and then come home and have a cookie."

Okay, maybe it's an argument for someone a little older than five. Maybe six.

And what the fuck does "they seem ready to have Boston overtake them" mean? At the time, the Rays were holding their own against the Red Sox. Perhaps this is what Chass imagined:

Rays clubhouse after a game. Manager Joe Maddon has called his team in for a meeting.

Maddon: "Guys, we've done a great job all year. Our pitching's been great, we've had enough hitting to win games, the younger players have done very well. Now I think we're ready to take that next step--to have Boston overtake us in the standings. We've been waiting for just the right moment, and since we've been in first place since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when we've played a game, I think now is the time. We're ready."

B.J. Upton: "But coach, shouldn't we keep trying to win?"

Maddon: "No, we're ready to have Boston overtake us. That means we have to start losing."

Carlos Pena: "We just beat Boston. We're still in first. We can actually win the division!"

Maddon: "You guys don't get it. We're not just playing for us; we're playing for Murray Chass. And he says we're ready to have Boston overtake us. He's right--we weren't ready in August when we had the big lead. NOW we're ready. So stop winning."

(Maddon leaves room, goes to his office to look at dirty magazines).

By now, you should also realize that the Yankees aren’t going to make the playoffs for the first time since 1993, their 13-year American League record run going down in flames. Unlike the Red Sox, the Yankees haven’t stayed close enough to the Rays to overtake them for the wild card.

No, because the Yankees would have had to overtake the Red Sox for the wild card, not the Rays. The Rays were ahead of the Red Sox at the time.

Chass got it right about the Yankees, but even Anne Frank could see that by the time this article was written.

As the Red Sox and the Yankees have shown, a team can make up a 5½-game deficit in the last month of the season (see 1978).

Fuck the heck? Are you kidding me? We need to go all the way back to 1978 to see an example of a team making up a 5 1/2-game deficit in the final month??? Just because it was the Yankees overtaking the Red Sox? Is that the only fucking time this has happened? Gosh, I can't think of any other time--oh, wait--last goddamn year it happened twice: the Phillies erased a 7-game deficit to overtake the Mets in the final 17 days, while the Rockies won something like 1463 games in a row at the end of the season to make the playoffs (note: I may be exaggerating the number of games the Rockies won in a row, but I'm sure I'm within 1450 of the actual number).

Again, do we really have to go back 30 years for the best example? How about 1987, when the Blue Jays lost seven in a row in the final week to lose the division to the Tigers? How about 1995, when the Angels blew a 9 game division lead and an 11 game lead in the wild card over the final five weeks of the season?

Why does Chass use 1978? Because it involved the Red Sox and Yankees, so therefore it was more meaningful than the other collapses. Presumably, every one cares about the AL East and the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry more than anything else regarding baseball.

I'm using Chass as the example, but he's hardly alone here. Most of the national media ram the Boston/New York thing down our throats all season. When the Red Sox and Yankees play, forget seeing anybody else on Sunday Night Baseball--in fact, the first series they play in a season, ESPN usually shows two out of three games, with the Saturday game being the national game on FOX (assuming it's a weekend series).

This was never more evident than last Sunday night's Yankee Stadium Lovefest on ESPN. Despite neither team being in playoff contention, ESPN chose to air the final game at Yankee Stadium (Yanks/Orioles) rather than a game with playoff implications. Obviously, the network chose to do this because it was the last regular season game at the Stadium. I suppose that makes sense. However, ESPN went way over the top with it. It's true--because of all the championships and the legendary players (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio), Yankee Stadium does have the richest history of any ballpark. It's closing is a huge story. But on a night after a full day of NFL games and some good pennant-race baseball matchups, the lead on SportsCenter was the closing of Yankee Stadium! This, right after the game had aired for 4 hours on the channel! As much as I appreciate baseball history (which is quite a bit), this was unwarranted given the other sports news that happened Sunday.

I get that the Yankees and Red Sox get higher ratings on ESPN, so we'll see them more often. I understand the business of it and the myopic view TV programmers get when making decisions. The one thing that ESPN programmers don't factor in to their decisions is that some of the higher rating for the Red Sox/Yankees is inflated because that's all ESPN ever shows. If ESPN would do a better job of exposing some of the other teams in baseball on a regular basis, that would help fans in other areas of the country get to know those teams. Of course, that doesn't mean that ESPN should show a game between two last place teams just to get them on the air. But a Tampa Bay/Minnesota matchup would have been very appropriate this year, given that they were both at or near the top of their respective divisions all year. However, ESPN is on the east coast, and they want the short term ratings boost. So no small-market teams, and more Yankees/Red Sox.

The rest of the Chass article (yes, I was critiquing an article, remember?) is just a poorly-written look at why Boston would end up in first place. For an article that mentions the Rays in the headline, he hardly talks about them at all. But he does go on to write more about the Yankees, even though the headline seems to indicate the article isn't about them.

It seems that Chass, like many others who cover baseball, just can't see past the Red Sox and Yankees--even when the story of the year is standing right in front him.

Trading for Dummies

Murray Chass' latest article focuses on the recent trades at the trade deadline. Chass feels that teams are stupid for trading their stars or superstars for prospects or platoon players. Among the trades he mentions over the past couple of years, the recent Pirates-Yankees trade caught my attention.

The Pirates gave the Yankees an established good-hitting outfielder (Xavier Nady) and a serviceable reliever (Damaso Marte), and what did they get in return? Three minor league pitchers, two of whom have spent time with the Yankees but didn’t stick, and a-once-but-no-longer-touted outfield prospect, Jose Tabata.

Let's look at this trade a little closer.

The Pirates gave up Xavier Nady ($3.35 million for 2008) and Damaso Marte ($2.15 million) and in return got minor leaguers Jeff Karstens, Dan McCutchen, Ross Ohlendorf and Jose Tabata.

So the small-market Pirates gave us $5.5 million in payroll for 4 minor leaguers, one of which is currently pitching for the lowly Pirates, whose payroll that combined is under $1 million.

Most teams that make a trade like this are either trying to (1) get rid of a problematic player (i.e. Manny Ramirez) or (2) lower their payroll. Since the Pirates are once again fighting for cellar rights in the NL Central, management has decided to raid the locker room and slash payroll. Obviously, a team prefers to get something in return in a trade, so if you are slashing payroll, you get prospects in return.

On a team with a total payroll of about $40 million, knocking $5.5 million of that number and adding less than $1 million is a good chunk.

The trade prompted a friend of mine to ask if the Pirates have become the modern-day Kansas City team that years ago served as a major league feeder for the Yankees.

Between 1955 and 1960 the Yankees and the Athletics completed 16 trades involving about 60 players, including Roger Maris, Clete Boyer, Ryne Duren and Ralph Terry, all of whom went to the Yankees.

Whether Nady and Marte help the 2008 Yankees win anything will be seen in the next couple of months, but more interesting to watch will be the teams that benefited from the Athletics, now of Oakland, and their trading practices.

Over five years the A's and the Yankees had 16 trades involving roughly 60 players, per Murray.

How many have the Pirates and Yankees had over the past five years? Two. Yessiree, a whopping two trades involving a total of 8 players between both teams.

How is that a fucking pipeline to the Yankees?!?!?!?!? Just because you think one trade maybe lopsided for a team, it does not make them rival the Athletics-Yankees major league pipeline of the 50's.

I also enjoy that fact that his friend asked the question about the Pirates and Yankees, Murray informs the audience about the A's-Yankees trades, in case the reader didn't know, and then proceeds to not answer the question. What's the matter Murray, did you get distracted by shiny object and forget about the question at hand? Joe Morgan will at least give us some drivel or a "consistent" answer.

---

The article goes on to bash Billy Beane for getting trading away three of the A's starters over the past 8 months and getting a measly 13 players in return. What the hell was he thinking!

Well, Billy was probably thinking that I have few or no prospects in my organization and I have three good pitchers that will start commanding big payrolls when their contracts expire. Let's see how many players I can fill my major and minor league teams with for only a few of my good players. Billy understands that he is in the middle of a rebuilding process and is will to sacrifice a year in order to have several strong years and hopefully a playoff run or two.

Chass also states that the Cubs and Brewers were brilliant in their trades because they gave up prospects in exchange for Harden and Sabbathia, respectively. Yes, in the short run those trades could make the difference in winning a World Series. Or, you could be an injury away from a Mets'-like flame out should those players get hurt. What happens if your teams starts racking up the injuries? I bet you wish you had some prospects to fill their place, huh?

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.