For
Other Federal League News-Click Here
The Big
Kahuna's Essay Column-Archives
March,
2008-Clemency For Bonds, A Bond Hearing For Clemens?: Despite
dire predictions to the contrary, it appears that Barry Bonds
will not be unfairly convicted of perjury based on his skin
color and that Roger Clemens may not avoid criminal prosecution
based on his alleged political connections.
The sordid details of these two cases have already begun to bore
most true baseball fans, but the issue of whether these two
icons are being treated fairly or unfairly leads the
conversation into an entirely different direction from my
perspective.
It has become an everyday fact of life in America for people to
accuse every institution, from the courts to Congress to Major
League Baseball, and most anything else one can think of, of
being unfair. This becomes particularly true in almost every
instance where someone emerges from a situation on the losing
end.
It's not that the other side was better, it has nothing to do
with which participant was more prepared, it's that those who
make decisions (judges, cops, umpires, etc.) are unfair.
Have you ever noticed that on television court shows, and it
doesn't matter which one: People's Court, Judge Judy, Joe Brown,
Judge Alex, and the rest, that when a claimant loses their case
and they are interviewed afterwards, almost without exception,
the first words out of their mouths convey how the verdict was
unfair? This, even after the judge has painfully explained the
clear and logical decisions for the ruling.
This can only lead to one conclusion: we have turned into a
nation of crybaby losers.
I know that sounds harsh, and it is, but it doesn't make it any
less true.
My own belief is that in an effort to spare our children of
learning to cope with the pain of losing, as became popular
through the pyscho babble of the 1970's and 80's, we have taught
them to relinquish all responsibility for the losses and to
always try to blame others for their shortcomings.
If you don't believe it, just listen to all the ridiculous
nonsense that comes out of the mouths of baseball players,
coaches, and fans at every level from the Major Leagues all the
way down to Little League.
The concept of letting everyone feel like a winner, to avoid a
negative self image, has made some (maybe most) people incapable
of dealing with losing and feeling an entitlement to
winning, regardless of the circumstances.
So, I ask you, what is worse, a negative self image of a
completely false self image?
Here's your answer, a negative self image can be improved by
actual accomplishment and facing responsibility. A false self
image probably cannot be repaired.
It would be nice to think that Bonds and Clemens might both
realize that this applies equally to them as well.
It would be only fair.
Relevant Question Of The Month: Do you really believe
Barry Bonds will walk on his perjury charge?- E. B., Hollywood,
FL
Well
he is the all time leader in walks, so I guess he has got a
pretty good shot.
January,
2008-You Say You Want A Resolution: Last
year around this time, I posted an article about how I don't
make New Year's resolutions. At least, I think I did.
If I didn't, I'm pretty sure that I meant to, although I may
have forgotten.
I was supposed to take a memory course, but I think I forgot
about it. Then again, I may have taken the course and just can't
remember it.
Anyway, I meant to write the article and thought about it, and
isn't that half of the battle?
Confused? Forget it. I obviously have.
One thing I haven't forgotten about is how much sillier our
speech patterns are getting. As if to personally denounce
Darwin's theory of evolution, some people are resorting to
speaking in such a way that belies the concept of society
advancing.
Here are some examples:
That's what I'm talkin' about!- This is something people
say when they want to take some credit for something they have
absolutely nothing to do with.
Have you ever noticed that when people exclaim, "that's
what I'm talkin' about!" that they weren't just talking
about the thing that caused them to exclaim?
This is only slightly more annoying than speaking with someone who asks, "do
you know what I'm sayin'?"
People who end almost every sentence with this question are, in
my opinion, really curious as to whether you might happen to
know what they are saying. I'm convinced that this is because
they are unclear as to what they are saying. They are looking to
us for help and clarity.
Tell me about it- I love it when I make a simple
observation and somebody says, "tell me about it",
because I almost always take them up on the invitation.
Here's an example: suppose I say, "man, it's really raining
out there" and somebody says, "tell me about it."
I feel compelled to respond, "well, you see, rain is a type
of precipitation,
a product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that
is deposited on the earth's surface. It forms when separate drops
of water
fall to the Earth's
surface from clouds.
Not all rain reaches the surface; some evaporates while falling
through dry air."
Or something like that.
Perhaps nothing rises (or lowers) to the level of stupidity as
much as the current trend in some sports with regard to trash
talking. What, with it being the off season for much of the baseball
world, I, like a lot of you, spent the past few weeks watching
way too much football.
Pro football, college football, playoff games, and bowl games.
The one thing that I've noticed about football, as opposed to
baseball, is the seemingly unending devotion players and coaches
have to in game trash talking.
I've never understood the value of any talking, much less trash
talking, during a game. Based on what people are saying, I have
started to draw the conclusion that people should say less
whenever possible.
One more thing before we go. Last year around this time, I was
asked to give some predictions for 2007. As you can see here,
I pretty much batted 1.000.
In closing, I'll just say that I'm a firm believer in the old
adage that the less said, the better. On that, I am resolute.
Relevant Question Of The Month: Hey, man, what I really,
really wanna know is, what do you think of this whole Roger
Clemens deal? Was he juicing or was he just taking care of
business?- E. A. P., Memphis, TN
I have no idea as to if Clemens used the performance
enhancing drugs he was accused of using or if he is telling the
truth. I doubt anyone will ever really know for sure. I am
almost past the point of caring.
My point here is that baseball fostered the culture of steroid
abuse, I've been writing about this for almost 10 years, by turning a blind eye towards it and then reaped the
benefits of the steroid era. Just as they are reaping the
benefits of all of the publicity surrounding the hearings and
reports and suspensions and accusations and denials.
Do you think the power brokers in professional baseball are
upset about all of this publicity occurring during the off
season? They most certainly are not.
Bad press is better than no press. Just look at the attendance
figures for the past few seasons.
Did Clemens, or anyone else that has never failed a drug test,
cheat? I don't know: maybe, probably, possibly. Take your pick.
It almost doesn't matter as the truth will never be fully
revealed and there will be no resolution.
And one more thing, happy birthday King.
September,
2007-Take A Proper Gander: Believe
it or not, Bud Selig was presented with an opportunity to become
my favorite sports commissioner of all time, including yours
truly. If you are stunned by this statement, imagine how I feel.
Now, don't worry. Bud, as is his predilection, blew the chance
to do the right thing and did what he does best, which is
nothing.
The situation that caused this anomaly occurred a few weeks ago
when Phillies pitcher Brett Myers concluded a post game rant by
calling a reporter a pejorative for the mentally handicapped.
Now, had Myers chosen to call the reporter by a racial, ethnic,
or religious slur, Selig, no doubt, would have expressed outrage
and, likely, would have suspended Myers. At the very least,
Myers would have been given a severe reprimand. But, because
Myers chose to use the mentally handicapped as a means of
insulting someone, nobody said a word.
No one picketed the
Phils' ballpark. No one held a press conference. Apparently, few
cared. Unfortunately, the profoundly handicapped have to much
else to deal with, trying to live with as much dignity as
possible under extreme circumstances, to have an effective
public relations strategy.
To be fair and accurate, Myers, who has had plenty of other
troubles, apologized the next day and said that he hoped that he
hadn't offended anyone. But this really isn't about Myers. It is
about the hypocrisy of our politically correct society.
In our supposed sensitive society, we are programmed to express
immediate shock and horror if someone offers an opinion that
can, in any way, be twisted into a racial or religious insult,
even if this is not the speaker's intention. It is this expected
knee jerk reaction that is part of our culture's desire to show
its evolution and its enlightenment.
On the other hand, it is completely acceptable to use derogatory
terms for the handicapped as synonyms for negative connotation
or for comedic purposes. People, in every day life as well as in
movies and on network television, use the "R" word
with impunity.
What does that say about our society?
It says that we are quick to be offended
on behalf of others, unless, of course, those being offended are
people who can't stick up for themselves.
Worse yet, we are clearly stating that we, as a society, are
only willing to pick on those who are incapable of fighting
back.
Now,
let's be clear about this. I don't advocate racial, religious,
or ethnic slurs either. And I'm not saying that people should be
told what they can or cannot say. In fact, I think it's a good
idea to let the bigots and jerks of the world reveal themselves
through their words. But, I just believe that if we are
censoring ourselves and others we should at least be consistent
and not cowardly about it.
Okay. End
of sermon.
We received an awful lot of
positive feedback regarding the last column that concerned my
wish list for baseball.
Because getting pleasant and laudatory correspondence is such an
unexpected and refreshing change, I thought that I would offer a
few more items that escaped the last column.
Now that the Boston Red Sox have begun the playoffs, you will
undoubtedly hear announcers refer to something called "Red
Sox Nation" again and again and again. And then a few more
times.
Let me clear something up about this moniker. Although virtually
every team, pro or college, refers to its fans (or more
accurately, the fans refer to themselves) as a nation, I believe
the term originated with the St. Louis Cardinals half a century
ago.
The reason the Cardinals' fans were a nation was that the
Cardinals had the most powerful radio station broadcasting their
games.
KMOX, emanating from downtown St. Louis, could be heard from the
Eastern Seaboard all the way out to the Rocky Mountains. As a
result, the Cardinals had fans scattered all over the country
well before games were regularly broadcast on television.
Now, it
is true that the Red Sox, as well as some other teams, have
legions of fans spread across the country, but the reason for
this is that many people have moved away from New England (and
New York and Chicago, etc.). I cannot imagine that a nickname
that celebrates the fact that people have flocked away from your
home territory is a good name to promote.
Sometime during the
baseball playoffs and World Series it is possible that one team
will hit three consecutive home runs. If this occurs, you can be
sure that an annoying announcer will refer to this as
"going back to back to back."
Well, I hate to be the one to tell you that back to back to back
is a physical impossibility. Don't believe me? Get three friends
and try to line them up that way. Unless one of them has two
backs, it cannot be done.
You should also be advised that heighth is not a word despite
some baseball announcers using it. The correct word is height.
I would also appreciate it if announcers would stop lumping
playoff and World Series records into a common pile. If Yogi
Berra's Yankees would have to go through extra playoff rounds,
like Derek Jeter's Yankees must, Berra would have set post
season records that would never be approached. It is just flat
out inaccurate to suggest that playoff achievements are the same
as World Series accomplishments.
Finally, I would be greatly pleased if baseball could find a way
to not have the World Series leak into November. I dread the day
that the series is decided by an outfielder losing a ball in the
snow.
Relevant Question Of The Month: In the past, you have
railed against the current playoff system in Major League
Baseball, but even you would have to admit that this season has
vindicated the system, wouldn't you?- N.C., Brick, N.J.
The short answer here is no.
The longer answer is, that although the playoff chase in the
National League may be compelling or exciting, it is certainly not good baseball.
You have a bunch a mediocre teams limping toward the playoffs,
being chased by a couple of mediocre teams that got hot at the
end of the season. What you don't have is a clear picture of who
is the best team in the league. And isn't that what a
championship is supposed to determine?
The baseball season is six months and a 162 games (per team)
long. The team or teams that were the best over this long haul
are subject to elimination, in a short series, by a team that
was clearly inferior for half of a calendar year.
So, I ask you, what is the point of crowing a champion? To
determine which is the best team? Or merely who won at the end
of the season?
If you conclude, as logic dictates, that the purpose of awarding
a championship is to reward the best overall team, then you are
forced to admit the current Major League Baseball playoff system
is not efficiently equipped to do so.
August,
2007- Wishing And Hoping: It's the middle of summer, so Christmas is months
away. Additionally, my birthday has long since passed. Despite these facts of
the calendar, I find myself wishing for things.
One of the first things that
I wish for is that, as Henry Aaron is passed on the list of all time Major
League home run hitters, that people refrain from disparaging the memory of the
man that Aaron passed.
Oh, I know that most astute baseball fans recognize
Babe Ruth as one of, if not the, greatest player of all time, but the picture of
Ruth is often portrayed inaccurately. Contrary to popular belief, Ruth was not a
big fat guy who only hit home runs. Granted, at the end of his career, from
which, unfortunately, most of the film of him exists, Ruth's weight did get away
from him, but for most of his career, Ruth was a very athletic player. There is
significant evidence that Ruth had better than average speed into his thirties.
Virtually
everyone who knows anything about the subject concedes that had he remained a
pitcher for his entire career, he would have, barring injury or unforeseen
circumstances, been a Hall of Fame pitcher. I just wish that the picture of Ruth
that dwells in the minds of baseball fans were more in line with the player he
actually was.
Further I wish that revisionists would stop making alibis for
the bad behavior of modern day players by dragging Ruth's name through the mud.
Far too often, when a current or recent player is admonished for some
transgression, someone is always too quick to offer that Ruth was a womanizer, a
drunk, or something worse. This is as unfortunate as it is demonstratively
false.
Ruth may not have been a perfect person, or even a perfect player, but
according to those who saw him and knew him, he was pretty good in both
departments.
While, I'm at it, I'd like to add that I wish
that in the new Yankee Stadium, the deep left center field gap known as Death
Valley, would be restored to a more historical distance. Indications are that
the dimensions of the new stadium will be the same as in the current
configuration of the old ballpark. That's a shame. Left center field at 399 feet
is more like Injury Valley. If you want to call it Death Valley, I think you got
to push the wall back, at least, 30 feet.
Here are some other things on my wish list (in no
particular order):
I wish that batters would stop feeling the need to adjust their batting
glove straps after every pitch. This pointless waste of time galls the heck out
of me.
I wish that people (fans and players) would learn that a batter does not
get an RBI when a runner scores on a wild pitch or passed ball.
I'd love
announcers to stop using the word "unbelievable" every time they see
an exciting play. Look, if a baseball player hits a home run or makes a great
catch, regardless of the situation, it may be wonderful, it may be terrific, but
it's probably not beyond belief. Now, if a baseball player kicks a game winning
field goal in the World Series, that would be unbelievable.
It would be nice
if fans would not yell "balk!" every time a pitcher makes a pick off
throw. Most fans who engage in this behavior could probably not identify a real
balk if one happened.
I wish players, managers, and coaches, would stop
asking for an appeal from an umpire when what they really want is a reversal of
a call that they disagree with. Asking an umpire that is over 100 feet away from
the play to overrule an umpire that is three feet away from the play is as
idiotic as it sounds.
I would be greatly pleased if the sports media would
stop using the term "small market to identify teams that have ownerships
that are poorly financed or that do not like to spend money. How can San
Francisco be a large market and Oakland be a small market when they are part of
the same metropolitan area and share much, if not all, of the same media market?
I wish that Major League teams would stop posting radar gun readings of every
pitch on the scoreboard and on TV. If a pitcher throws a fastball and a good
hitter swings and misses, do you know how fast it was? Fast enough.
Further, these readings are normally grossly inaccurate, It's probably no
secret that the speeds are inflated, but, even more ridiculous is how often
pitches are misidentified. I've seen pitchers being credited with having curve
balls that, according to the radar gun, are faster than their fast balls.
I
wish that people would stop saying that a batter hit by pitch is not entitled to
first base because, "he has to get out of the way." A batter has an obligation
to attempt to avoid a pitched ball. This really means that a batter cannot get
hit by a pitch intentionally. If a batter truly could not be awarded first base
unless, as they say, he got out of the way, than no player would ever reach base
by being hit, because, if you get out of the way, you're not getting hit.
I'd
be very happy if stations and networks broadcasting baseball could do away with
those annoying sound effects that accompany every reply. When we are being shown
a replay and that play is being described by an announcer, I think most of us
realize that it is not the same exact play happening twice. We don't need a
sound effect to tip us off. Replay has been around for 45 years, we get it.
Finally,
wouldn't it be nice if baseball had a real commissioner with real authority over
the game? It would be a major improvement if, somehow, baseball could once again
have a central authority figure rather than a figurehead that only represents
the interests of ownership.
I know it's a pipedream, but, probably, so are
all my other wishes.
Relevant Question Of The Month: What do you think of the
Yankees building a new stadium one block to the north of the
current Yankee Stadium?- P.F., Clearwater, FL
Obviously, as a traditionalist, I don't really like it. It is
almost inconceivable to me that, within two years, the Yankees
will be playing on ground that is not where Babe Ruth homered,
Lou Gehrig made his "luckiest man" speech, DiMaggio
played flawlessly, Mantle hit tape measure bombs, and the
Pinstripers made baseball history.
As an optimist, I remain ever hopeful that, in a few years, the
new park will become obsolete and the Yankees will return one
block to the south where they belong.
May,
2007-
Riding The Opine:
Let us begin with a premise on which
most people will agree: everyone is entitled to express their
opinion.
I firmly
believe that this premise is true and, for good measure, it is
guaranteed, by implication anyway, in the Constitution.
The problem is
that far too many people use the right to express their opinion
to try and offset facts which contradict their argument. At that
point, the right to express an opinion turns into the right to
express an opinion even if it makes you look stupid.
The reason that
I bring this up is, like a lot of internet sports columns, my
articles generate a lot of mail. With this mail come many
different opinions. Most of them are anonymous opinions.
No column of
mine has ever spawned as much commentary as the recent Pete Rose
column (see below).
Without
rehashing the thing, let us just say that there were a great
many people who expressed opinions that made them look stupid.
Not for disagreeing with me, mind you, but for reducing their
opinions to a series of insults or gross inaccuracies.
I won’t even
comment on their spelling and grammar.
Okay, yes I
will.
The general
state of spelling and grammar on the internet is atrocious. I
can make peace with that, but few things are as stupid as the
accepted insistence on adding as many o’s as possible to the
word so, as in sooooo. (By the way, this is correctly pronounced
as "sue".) Adding extra letters does not connote greater importance,
especially in such a non essential word. (I realize that I’ve
lost half of you. That’s good; I’m not talking to you,
anyway.) Years from now, people will realize what a ridiculous
practice that this is, like leisure suits, pet rocks, mood
rings, and reality shows.
Virtually every
jackass with an opinion rattling around in his head feels the
need to write and tell someone about it before it dies of
loneliness. Now, I’m not referring to well thought out
reasoned replies, regardless of whether they agree or disagree
with the author. No, I’m referring to the ones that usually
have the words “moron” or “idiot” in the title. I’m
referring to the people who think they’ve won an argument by
typing “Yankees Suck” (or the equivalent) in capital and
bold letters.
I am constantly
receiving correspondence from people who disagree with my column
and think they’ve outsmarted me by calling me names or telling
me to “get a life”.
I’d
like to thank each and every one of them. It is such a pleasure
to be able to laugh so much while at work.
All that being
said, I’d like to express a few opinions as they relate to
baseball.
1)
I still think the wild card is an abomination.
Baseball was meant to have pennant races.
2) Divisions in Major League Baseball should have no
fewer than six teams. If this means that baseball should realign
and that the wild card is eliminated, so much the better.
3) Interleague play, which only further dilutes the
schedule and does very little to help the smaller market teams,
ought to be abolished.
4) Pink Yankee and Red Sox hats look almost as silly
as the people who buy and wear them.
5) Luxury suites, in all stadia built in the future,
should be in the outfield or above the upper deck. This opinion
is offered on the premise that people in luxury suites aren’t
really there to watch the game anyway, so why put them in the
areas with the best sight lines?
6) Umpires should wear blue.
Not black. Not gray, or
red, or white. Blue.
7) Batters who are hit with pitches while wearing
elbow (or any other kind of) armor and still charge the mound
should receive double the punishment.
Any day now,
Barry Bonds is going to surpass Henry Aaron’s all time home
run mark of 755 and become the most prolific home run hitter in
Major League Baseball history. When this occurs, there are a lot
of people who are going to be unhappy about it. The toxic
combination of Barry’s abrasive, and sometimes condescending,
personality mixed with the foul odor of the widely held belief
that Bonds began using steroids around the time that he started
shattering records has made Bonds a less than popular choice to
be baseball’s next home run king.
For most
anti-Bonds people, this is not a racial issue. Had it been Ken
Griffey, Jr. breaking Aaron’s record, a vast majority of those
who detest Bonds would be perfectly comfortable and even
ecstatic at the prospect of the impending new record. Certainly
Hank Aaron’s cold shoulder toward Bonds suggests that
antipathy toward the Giants’ slugger is not a racially
motivated issue in many cases. On the other hand, there will
always be some people who value skin color more than anything
else (Oddly, a lot of those people spend a lot of time and money
trying to get a tan. Go figure.)
The point is
that a resounding majority of people don’t like Barry Bonds
simply because he is Barry Bonds.
Now, I’m not
going to indulge the debate of whether or not Bonds is a worthy
Hall of Famer, other than to say this: the people who claim that
Bonds was having a Hall of Fame career before
he started using illegal substances (if ever proven) are missing
the point. Shoeless Joe Jackson was having a Hall of Fame
career, too, before he was involved in the throwing of the 1919
World Series.
While Bonds
will surely be voted into the Hall of Fame, regardless of
whether the steroid allegations prove true or false, a lot of
people will probably always look upon Bonds’ post-1998
accomplishments as tainted.
This
may end up being unfair, but, I’m told, people are entitled to
their opinions.
Relevant Question Of The Month: Is Sammy Sosa, should he
hit more than 600 career home runs, a Hall Of Fame caliber
player?- G.N., Evanston, IL
If I were to have a vote, there would be a bunch of players
who I would be more inclined to vote for before I would even
consider Sosa. While only four other players have ever hit more
than 600 career home runs, you must understand, the home run
does not mean what it once did. For me, it's not a question of
whether Sosa is good enough (it's debatable anyway), but,
rather, which deserving players are still not in.
March,
2007-Contrition By Subtraction: I'm sorry for not writing sooner.
Really, I'm sorry. I apologize. I realize I was wrong and I
sincerely wish to make amends.
Pete Rose, are you taking notice?
When you use poor judgment or make a mistake and you wish to be
forgiven, it is usually best to apologize first. Pete Rose
apparently believes it is only a good idea to admit your
misdeeds after getting caught and then, instead of apologizing,
to suggest that everyone overlook his trespasses in the name of
"moving on".
To review: In 1989 Pete Rose, baseball's all time hit leader,
signed an agreement with then commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti
which resulted in Rose's banishment from baseball on the premise
that he violated baseball's gambling policy while manager of the
Cincinnati Reds.
Even though virtually every baseball fan knows that gambling on
baseball while being an employee of that industry is a severe
breach of one's contract and that the normal penalty for such an
action is a lifetime ban, Rose's fans, and many fans in general,
favored Rose's reinstatement.
As far back as 1989, I supported Rose's ban. My logic was always
pretty simple. I felt that, if he hadn't bet on baseball, Rose
would have never signed the agreement with Giamatti.
For 15 years Rose denied ever betting on baseball. For 15 years
I argued with many other baseball fans about Rose's guilt and
the appropriate punishment. Finally, in a book he published in
2004, Rose admitted to betting on baseball while managing the
Reds. However, instead of apologizing for A) betting on
baseball, and B) flat out lying about to just about everyone for
15 years, Rose basically told the baseball world to get over it.
Now, almost every time he speaks, Rose implores the present
commissioner (if you can call him that) Bud Selig to reinstate
him. But Rose is really talking to you and me. The fans.
This irritates me and it should irritate you. First, for being
lied to. Second, for being lumped together with Bud Selig.
Unfortunately, too many fans are still arguing on Rose's behalf.
Usually, their arguments center on the fact that he bet on
baseball while he was managing as opposed to when he was
playing. As if that, somehow, mitigates the offense.
Look, here's the bottom line: Rose bet on baseball. He then lied
about it for 15 years. He is unrepentant about betting and
equally unrepentant about lying. As great of player as Rose was,
he deserves to be outside of baseball. And that includes the
Hall of Fame. Which is really all that Pete cares about now,
anyway.
Anytime you hear him talk about how good for baseball it would
be to reinstate him, you can be sure that all Pete really means
is, "I want to be inducted into the Hall of Fame."
While he definitely earned his spot in the Hall of Fame with his
tremendous playing career, he also earned the banishment that
keeps him from getting his plaque.
While we are on the subject of the Hall of Fame, a small
controversy is taking shape on the worthiness of Mark McGwire as
a Hall of Fame candidate. A lot of sportswriters seemed to feel
that the suspicion regarding McGwire's possible steroid use and
his refusal to deny using steroids, particularly in his very
regrettable congressional hearing appearance, would be
justification for keeping McGwire from getting a plaque in the
Hall.
This may surprise a lot of people, but I'm not completely
convinced that he deserves to be a Hall of Famer regardless of
the steroid issue.
I can hear the screams of protest and indignation, but follow my
logic.
McGwire's main claim to fame is his 70 home run season and his
583 career home runs. Taken at face value, these are impressive
credentials, but put in context, they are far less convincing.
McGwire hit a lot of home runs in an era when almost everyone
hit a lot of home runs. Granted he hit a few more than anyone
and he may have hit the farther, but still, hitting 70 is not
nearly as meaningful as it seems when Sammy Sosa is hitting 66
and several other guys are hitting more than 50. Which may be
why McGwire never won an MVP award.
The 70 home runs stood as a record for only three seasons before
Barry Bonds hit 73. Roger Maris, who won two MVP awards and
played on seven pennant winning teams in a 12 season career,
held the home run record for 37 years. Placed in its proper context,
Maris' record, and career, would seem to be the more noteworthy,
but hardly anyone bangs the drum for Maris to be inducted into
the Hall of Fame.
Some people dismiss Maris as a .260 hitter, which he was, but
McGwire only hit .263 for his career, and did so in an era of
inflated batting averages. Maris played his entire career in an
era of suppressed batting averages, meaning that his .260 was
more valuable than McGwire's .263.
Now, I'm not saying that Maris is a definite Hall of Famer, all
I'm saying is that if McGwire gets in, Maris' plaque ought to be
already hanging there.
Relevant Question Of The Month: Should Pete Rose ever be
allowed in the Hall of Fame?- P.P., Oakland Park, FL
I suppose if he buys a ticket at the ticket booth and
presents it at the door, they should let him in, but as far as
awarding him a plaque and conferring upon him the title of
"Hall of Famer", I think he should get in line behind
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson and continue to serve as
warning to other that believe the rules apply to everyone but
them.
T.Z.
from Coral Springs writes: There
should not be a HOF without the name of Pete Rose in it;
whatever Pete did in regards to betting on Baseball, he did it
as manager.
His
accomplishments in the field were done as a player and nobody
can take that away from him; the fact that he bet on Baseball
doesn’t necessarily makes him the only one who has done this,
but the only one that got caught doing it.
Other
players have done things worse than betting on Baseball and have
gotten many opportunities (Darryl Strawberry, Steve Howe among
others) what message do we send our kids by doing this? Is it Ok
to do drugs, but it is wrong to bet on your own team?
Let
the people judge him and decide whether or not he deserves to be
in the HOF; I still remember the ovation that he receives when
the team of the century was introduced a few years ago in an All
Star game.
Big Kahuna Replies: I appreciate
your response, but I think you may have totally missed the point
here.
First off all, you brought up the fact the Rose's admitted
betting on baseball occurred during his managerial tenure and
not during his playing career. Despite the fact that I covered
this in the article, you seem to think that this caveat excuses
the offense. It does not. Rose gambled on baseball while in the
employ of the organization. Period. If he chose to violate
the rule, it matters not that he did so after his playing
career.
Second, you note that he should be forgiven or enshrined
because he may not be the only person in baseball whoever bet on
the game. In the words of my friend, the Geico Caveman,
"uh...what?!"
You may not realize this, but you are defending Rose's
obviously inappropriate actions by suggesting that other people
have committed the same offense. That's like saying that someone
who murders several people shouldn't be punished on the grounds
that they didn't invent murder.
You then finish off the paragraph by stating that Rose was
somehow victimized not for what he did, but merely for being
caught. Come on, upon reflection, that has to sound silly to
you, too.
Your third point references Major League Baseball's terrible
record with regard to drug abuse by its players. On this point
you are correct. Major League Baseball does, indeed, have a very
poor record on dealing with this issue, but I might point out
two things: 1)It is a completely separate issue and 2)I don't
see Steve Howe or Darryl Strawberry getting inducted into the
Hall of Fame, either.
More than that, while drug offenses are serious, insider
gambling is still a much greater threat to baseball's existence.
If drugs permeate the game, the game suffers. If gambling
permeates the game, no one can ever be sure the game is being
played on the level.
Your final point recommends that Rose should be judged by the
fans, preferably the same ones that gave him a standing ovation
at the All Star Game in 1999 when he was named to the All
Century team. One basic flaw in your theory is that in 1999 Rose
was still lying to your face about having bet on baseball and
most of the fans still believed him. Five years later, Rose
admitted he had been lying all along. He might not get the same
reaction today.
Moreover, some of Rose's former teammates, including Hall of
Famer Johnny Bench, have spoken out against reinstating Rose.
That, my friend, speaks much louder to me than any ovation.
In summary, let me restate that Rose was a great player, his
accomplishments on the field were legendary, but his
transgressions far overshadow his on field greatness. Someday,
hopefully, Rose, and his most ardent fans will understand
that any other conclusion would be a disgrace.
January,
2007-That Was The Year That Was, Or Was It?: The new year always
brings with it a few things. A bunch of checks mistakenly dated
with the previous year, an immense collection of unfulfilled
resolutions, and a plethora of recaps of the year gone by.
This column is no exception. I will not only look back at 2006,
I will resolve not to write any checks with last year written on
the date line.
Before taking a backward glance at 2006, I'd like to comment on
another year end phenomena. To wit, the following two clichés:
1) "I can't believe it's...(fill in the number of
the coming new year)".
Why is it so hard to believe that it is now 2007? Wasn't last
year 2006? Don't they always seem to go in ascending numerical
order?
Despite the fact that the answers to the preceding three
questions are all "yes", who will hear, or have
already heard, someone express their disbelief that this is 2007
enough times to make you start questioning it yourself.
2) "I can't believe that...(fill in the name of year
just past)".
Again, why is it so difficult to comprehend that 2006 is over?
Didn't it contain 12 months? We didn't skip any, did we? The
fact that people say this during the last week of December, you
know, when every year ends, and they say it every year, year
after year, never ceases to amaze me.
Since it is 2007 and 2006 is, in fact, really over, and, more
importantly, I couldn't think of anything else to write about.
Let's look back at last year.
The year began with our continuing effort to recover from
Hurricane Wilma. As devastating as the storm was to so many
people, the fact the we have recovered so sufficiently and did
so reasonably quickly, despite dire predictions to the contrary,
it seems so far in our past. Life got back to normal for a large
majority of people much quicker than anticipated.
Baseball here in South Florida recovered a lot slower due to
widespread damage to all of the league's facilities. The result
was the league's first post season playoff tournament instead of
the normal playoffs.
The Parkland Braves won in the Original Division and the Margate
Sentries won in the Expansion Division.
The Braves added another title in the 2006 Spring/Summer season,
their fourth in a row and 12th overall, before shocking the
baseball world by abandoning the team's identity and renaming
themselves the KWB Mets.
On the other hand, the Sentries were unable to continue their
reign over the Expansion Division as they lost the 2006
Spring/Summer Expansion Series to the Lighthouse Point Beacons,
three games to one. The series was marred by some of the
fiercest bench jockeying in league history.
The Sentries finished the year with a new manager as Steve
Caplan resigned his post on November 28. Phil Laufman was named
as Caplan's replacement.
Several other clubs changed managers in 2006.
The Tile Market Cubs replaced Dave Boczkus with Felix Sanchez.
The Sunrise Sunsets named Carlos Rodriguez as a successor to
Dave Lopez. The Tritons elevated Mike Whittaker into a
co-managerial position with David Bourns. But the biggest
managerial change occurred when Randy Kierce left the Playball
Academy after 20 seasons and two league championships. Craig
Stoves took over the Cadets in Kierce's place.
As shocking as Kierce's retirement was, the biggest news story
of 2006 may have been the dissolving of the DAS Enterprises
Black Diamonds.
The Dark Gems, also known as, the Compressed Lumps of Coal, the
Rocks Devoid of Light, and the Shmuelimen ceased operations
after the 2006 Spring/Summer season. In 24 seasons, the Diamonds
won three championships.
The year ended on something of a happy note as the Baltimore
Orioles managed to secure public financing for a remodeled Fort
Lauderdale Stadium. The upgraded stadium, and surrounding
complex, will serve as the Orioles spring training home, as
well, as the Federal League's South Florida base of operations.
City officials, who had originally agreed to their part of the
deal, backed out at the last minute in a late December vote, but
the city commission was coaxed into a special meeting and, upon
a revote, changed their minds again and approved the deal.
Work on the new facility should begin after the Orioles' 2007
spring training is completed in April. The new complex will open
in 2008.
Wow, 2008. By then, some of you will have a hard time believing
2007 is over.
Relevant Question Of The Month: What do you think 2007
will hold for major league baseball?- A.M., Phoenix, AZ
Big contracts for guys you've almost never heard of, home
runs, strikeouts, lots of commercials between innings of
televised games, some controversy involving Barry Bonds, way too
many pitching changes in almost every game, news stories about
steroids, at least one ridiculous comment by Bud Selig,
increased ticket prices, and more talk about a new stadium of a
possible relocation for the Florida Marlins that turns out to be
all talk.
I think that about covers it.
Send your question for the Big Kahuna to:
bigkahuna@federalleague.com
October
2006-Why Baseball Is Still Better Than Football: The
opening of the World Series, not to mention Federal League's
Fall/Winter season has set me to thinking.
About 20 years ago, the noted writer, Thomas Boswell, presented
a list of 99 reasons that baseball was better than football. It
was a mostly light hearted article. It was, however, not
materially wrong.
For the past 30 or 35 years or so the public has been told, and
convinced, that baseball is far slower paced than football and
that football is the more exciting, and therefore better, game.
This is nonsense, and I'll prove it.
Taking Major League Baseball and the NFL as the prime examples,
there is far more activity in baseball. Activity also occurs
more frequently in baseball. In football, plays are run every 40
to 45 seconds when the clock is running. In baseball a pitch is
delivered, or a pickoff is attempted, usually, within 20 seconds.
The vast majority of football plays, line plunges, short passes
with no run after catch yardage, incomplete short passes, and
fair caught kicks, have less action than a pitching change.
Those plays account for about 60% of the average NFL contest.
100% of NFL plays, exciting or boring, are subject to replay
review and cancellation due to penalty. Baseball plays stand
forever.
People like to talk about how football was a game made for
television. This is particularly true if you are a network
salesman. Baseball broadcasts have a lot of commercials, but NFL
games are absolutely loaded with them. Check this out sometime:
A team has the ball deep in opponent territory and calls timeout
which leads to a commercial break. After the break, the team
runs a play and happens to score, which leads to another
commercial break. After the break, the team kicks off, the kick
is not returned, and we are treated to another commercial break
so that, in the middle of a game, the ball has been advance once
and we have been subjected to approximately eight minutes of
commercials.
Even with frequent pitching changes, baseball has nothing to
compare with that.
So, with some apologies to Mr. Boswell, here is my list of
reasons that baseball remains better than football.
Celebrations- In baseball, we celebrate a game winning
hit, a no hitter, a championship, you know, important stuff. In
football, they celebrate everything. A touchdown (regardless of
the score or its importance), a sack, a tackle, a holding
penalty, a play overturned by replay, etc. I have seen fans give
the kicker a standing ovation for driving the opening kickoff
out of the endzone.
Running Out The Clock- Unless the score is reasonably
close and the trailing team has a bunch of timeouts, the
last three minutes of a football game is almost always a farce.
The winning team, if it has the ball, will, essentially, quit
playing in an attempt to run out the clock. The quarterback will
fall on the ball to keep the clock moving and then the offense
will stand around as long as the officials will let them until
they repeat the process. This is excitement?
In baseball, the game is truly never over until it is.
Theoretically, no matter how far behind a team is, they always
have an opportunity for a comeback.
Replay- Is there anything more paralyzingly dull in all
of sports than waiting for football officials to rule on a
replay? Several minutes pass by with absolutely nothing
happening on the field while the officials watch the replay
before deciding if the play stands or not. Ironically, the
networks almost never cut to commercial during a replay break.
Baseball doesn't have replays to decide plays and I hope it
never does. Sure, occasionally a bad call, such as in Game 6 of
the 1985 World Series, might decide a championship, but even
with replay, the officials are still subject to getting some
calls wrong (see last season's Super Bowl).
T.O.- This is self explanatory. Football has Terrell
Owens, baseball doesn't.
Steroids- Baseball's policy on steroid use has been a
joke, but, at least baseball gives lip service to eliminating
performance enhancing drugs from the sport. In football, at
least up until recently, steroids were practically a necessity.
Ties- Baseball resolves ties in the most sensible way
possible, by playing more baseball until a winner is achieved.
Football resolves ties by playing a basically different game.
Overtime football is so fundamentally different than regulation
time football that, from a strategic point of view, the game is
played in almost a completely unique way. In regulation, teams
try to score touchdowns, but, on occasion, settle for field
goals. In overtime, teams play for field position that will
enable them to attempt a field goal and are almost totally
disinterested in trying to score a touchdown. And don't get me
started on college football overtime.
Frozen Tundra- Just a note here, because as the weather
cools, you will begin hearing this term over and over. Tundra,
by its very nature, is frozen. You can't have unfrozen tundra.
Frozen Tundra is redundant.
Baseball has a lot of things that need fixing. Anyone who has
ever read this column before knows that I truly believe that,
but, even in its current imperfect state, baseball remains far,
far better than football.
Relevant Question Of The Month: Why does the Super Bowl
seem to be a bigger deal than the World Series when the Super
Bowl is usually boring and the World Series usually isn't?- D.F.,
Saginaw, MI
First off, I think, the Super Bowl gets more hype because as
a one day event it lends itself to being hyped.
Secondarily, I think Major League Baseball has missed an
opportunity to showcase itself by playing its post season games
almost entirely at night with, mostly late starts. Additionally,
network coverage, with its added commercials, makes those late
starting games become late ending games. This is totally
unnecessary. Games should start earlier and the league and the
network should get together on making them shorter.
Having an occasional daytime World Series game would also help.
It makes the game seem more like an event. Currently, World
Series games, played in primetime, are made to seem like just
another prime time program. In other words, it's no big deal.
Lastly, a lot of people watch the Super Bowl even though they
are not football fans. Basically, there is usually nothing else
going on, particularly on Sunday, during that time of year. A
lot of people use the Super Bowl as a convenient excuse to have
a party during a dead time of year. Hopefully, the World Series
will never be reduced to that.
Send your question for the Big Kahuna to:
bigkahuna@federalleague.com
July,
2006-Random Thoughts Of A Long, Hot Summer: It is most
regrettable, but it must be said. Style now rules over substance
in our culture. It has become much more important to appear
to be good than to actually be good. That's why a whole
generation of young players seem to be far more concerned with
the angle of their caps rather than how well they actually play
the game. Pointless fads and trends, including, but not limited
to, the pulling out of you back pockets, wearing odd colored
socks, having your pants tucked into your shoes, having your
pants draped over your shoes, have become popular recently. Good
habits of fundamental play have taken a back seat.
A long time ago, when most people in this country were farmers,
nobody told you how good they were. Their actions told you. We
even had a pretty cute saying about that. It went, "actions
speak louder than words."
Since becoming a more cosmopolitan society, it seems, that
humility is a bygone trait. And since words are as, if not more,
important than deeds, why not call attention to one's self as
much as possible. Even if you're not particularly good. Which is
how these fads get started and promulgate. People, when given
the freedom to choose, will often imitate one another.
Anyway, now that Dontrelle Willis is struggling to keep his
record at, or near, .500, can players go back to wearing their
hats correctly? I mean, and this is no knock on Willis, it is
one thing to be stupid. It is entirely another to make the
conscious choice to broadcast that stupidity.
Speaking of stupid, what the heck is up with ESPN. Is it me, or
are their announcers just getting dumber as time goes on. I
can't watch a highlight anymore without some empty suit saying
something completely idiotic. I mean, can't they just call a
home run a home run every once in a while?
While we are on the subject of ESPN, anybody else notice how
they have recently decided to become the official network of the
drunk, fat, stupid, lazy guy sitting in a potato chip crumb
encrusted recliner? Come on, highlights of old poker
tournaments? And now, for your entertainment...darts. What's
next? Pachinko?
By the way, have you ever noticed that the vast majority of
Sportscenter's top ten plays usually are made by the losing
team. Check it out, sometime. Style over substance.
However, when it comes to cheap gimmickry, nobody tops the brand
new Continental League, an independent outfit set to begin play
in 2007. Bear in mind that, around here, we are big fans of
independent pro baseball, but we are rooting like heck for these
guys to fall on their faces. The league is touting a new rule
that would allow the first home run hit in a specific inning (I
believe it is the seventh inning) to count double.
You read that correctly. A home run will count double.
So, if a guy hits a two run home run his team will get four runs
(I'm not sure if he gets credit for four RBI or how the
pitcher's ERA is affected, but it's such a dumb rule, I don't
really care), if he hits a three run homer, it's worth six runs,
and so on.
I guess ESPN and Bud Selig and everybody else in league with
Satan have finally convinced enough people that baseball is not
good enough on its own, it needs gimmicks. And lots of them.
Baseball, dear reader, actually needs fewer gimmicks. A little
less noise at the ballparks, a little less of the glitzy
megatron scoreboards and hyper predictable canned music and
sound effects. When was the last time you were even mildly
amused by the sound of breaking glass coming over the PA system
after a foul ball? I long for the days when a major league park
was a palace instead of a casino, which is what they now most
resemble.
Baseball is a quiet, reflective, thoughtful game that has plenty
of excitement if they would simply play the games a little
quicker.
I find it ironic that new stadiums are constructed with an eye
toward getting the fans closer to the action, but that the
volume of prerecorded crap that comes out of the PA system,
prevents those fans from hearing the sounds of the players that
they are supposed to be closer to.
Way off the subject, but probably far more interesting, is this
little nugget. Did you know that three teams have never had a
player hit for the cycle?
The Tampa Bay Devil Rays, in their brief, but painful history,
have never had a player hit for the cycle. The Florida Marlins,
in their slightly longer, and much more successful though still
painful, history have yet to have a player complete the cycle.
Surprisingly, the San Diego Padres, in business since 1969, have
not had a player hit for the cycle either. (I just figured you
needed a break from my complaining about virtually everything I
cast my eye toward. Okay, back to live action.)
This next item is for people who still think that the
wild card system is a good idea. Do you realize that two of the
following teams will not make the playoffs this season? The
Boston Red Sox, the New York Yankees, the Detroit Tigers, the
Chicago White Sox, the Minnesota Twins. Three of those five will
make it, two will not, while the American League West will send
a team to the postseason. Shouldn't you, as a fan of baseball,
be outraged by that? The Texas Rangers might be in the playoffs
while the Twins (or Tigers, or Red Sox, etc.) might not. That's
just plain wrong.
Semi-relevant Question Of The Month: Why are the foul
poles called foul poles when they are in fair territory?- B.M.,
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Ah, the old chestnut resurfaces.
Actually, I have two answers, the more clinical of which I will
present first. The foul poles are called what they are called
because that is what they are named. You might be called Bob
only because that's what your mother named you and not because
you actually bob. Some people are named Angel who are clearly
not.
I think
the original intention was simply that the pole (and foul line,
which is also in fair territory, but somehow escapes the intense
scrutiny focused on the poles) was just there to mark the border
of fair and foul. Naming it, the pole which demarcates foul and
fair, must have seemed like a mouthful, so people, as they do,
shortened the name to its present moniker. I doubt, back in the
old days, anybody gave any thought to the fact that someday guys
would be hitting balls off the poles for home runs, because,
back then, the poles were normally way out of range for the dead
ball batters. The poles merely served as a guide for the umpire
to better judge when a ball had gone foul. Hence the name.
I think the name has only come into question since the rise in
popularity of the home run. Our home run obsessed society can't
imagine that the pole served any other function than sitting
there waiting to be hit by some curving line drive, thus
enabling us to celebrate yet another home run.
Of course, there is my other theory, which is that the first
poles were actually made of chicken wire and were intended to be
called "fowl poles" in honor of their building
material. This notion, was, of course, ridiculous, so, most
people, when they heard "fowl pole", thought, instead,
"foul pole", and that's how this whole thing got
started.
Send your question for the Big Kahuna to:
bigkahuna@federalleague.com
May, 2006-The DH Factor or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love
The DH Rule:
I am frequently misidentified as a baseball
"purist". Since I am not totally clear on what being a
"purist" really entails, I cannot really deny or
accept the charge. On the other hand, I do consider myself a
traditionalist. That is, I believe that many baseball traditions
should be preserved and passed on to succeeding generations as
opposed to Major League Baseball's policy of discarding or
destroying many of baseball's endearing traditions, only to
rediscover them well past the point of their preservation or
revival and to wistfully celebrate them as some sort of
nostalgia.
Having said that, and at the risk of having my traditionalist's
membership revoked, I will admit I prefer the American League
version of the game, the one with the designated hitter, to that
of the National League, where pitchers bat.
Before our office becomes flooded with your indignant e-mails,
let me assure you that I already know the vast and detailed
reasons why most fans, including ones that like interleague
play, the wild card, micro-divisions, etc. (you know,
non-traditionalists) hate the DH rule.
I know all about the anguished cries of the DH taking strategy
out of the game (I don't buy the premise, by the way, after all,
pitcher up, runner on base, less than two out...you know the
pitcher is bunting. Same situation, late in a close game, you know
a pinch hitter is coming up. That's not strategy. Since the
role of the starter has changed to one of six to seven innings,
the whole argument is kind of moot). The theory that pitchers,
not having to bat will make them more likely to throw at
opposing batters (the DH rule has been in force in the American
League for 33 years and there is no evidence to support this
claim) doesn't wash either.
So, while the DH position, is sort of odd and has only
grudgingly gained acceptance, it is still better than watching
most pitchers try and bat. While I'm not going to claim that the
DH adds strategy to the game (because, although I suspect
that this is true, I'm not sure I can offer sufficient support),
I will submit that the DH changes the dynamic of in game
strategy. And that's not necessarily bad.
Having said all that, here is my idea for reconciling all of the
arguments against the DH, while preserving the best element of
keeping the DH.
Ready? Okay, but before I reveal it to you, remember that this
is a copyrighted column and that you heard this here first.
To fix the DH rule and make more acceptable to almost everyone,
all that needs to be done is to allow each DH to only be allowed
to bat for one pitcher per game.
It's so simple, and yet, it needs an explanation.
Let's say that a player, we'll call him Ted Williams, is DH'ing
for a pitcher, let's call him Bob Feller. Williams can bat in
place of Feller as long as Feller remains in the game. As
soon as Feller is pulled for a relief pitcher, Williams is also
out of the game. New pitcher? New DH.
To modify this slightly, I would suggest that a manager does not
have to declare his new DH until the spot in the order is
actually due. This would enable managers to change pitchers will
almost the same regularity as they do now without wasting their
entire bench. Or you don't have to. Use six pitchers? You are
going to go through six DH's or some of your pitchers will have
to bat for themselves. Personally, I prefer the former, as
opposed to the latter, concept.
However, this new DH rule would still add a great deal of
strategy to the game. Example: Feller isn't pitching that well,
but Williams is hitting like, well, Ted Williams. Do you pull
Feller and lose Williams' bat from your lineup or do you try and
let Feller work it out? This immediately will change managers'
attitudes regarding the rather cavalier use of their bullpens.
It's so simple and yet it's nearly profound (alright, I'm
getting carried away, but you have to admit it's a wonder no one
else has thought of it in the past 33 years, or, if they have,
why it hasn't been adopted).
With the advent of this new rule, DH's like David Ortiz are
going to be less valuable (which, I think, is fair) unless they
can spend a larger part of the season playing a position instead
of DH'ing.
Now, I'm sure someone in Major League Baseball or the Major
League's Player's Association will find some asinine reason to
object to this proposal, but that only would affirm what a great
idea it really is.
Even if this new DH rule never goes any further than this
column, hopefully, it would at least serve as a guideline for
the way baseball should affect its changes. Baseball should
concentrate on subtle changes that may enhance the game, rather
than radical, sometimes irreversible, changes that dramatically
alter the game, especially if money is the primary, or sole,
reason.
Making the DH better would be a subtle rule change that, while
not drastically changing the game, would, in my opinion, make an
existing rule, a tradition, if you will, better. And I am, after
all, a traditionalist.
Relevant Question Of The Month: Should a designated
hitter be allowed to win a league's MVP Award?- D.D., Lynn, MA
The short answer is, yes.
The long answer is that a player that is, pretty much, a DH only
had better have way better numbers than an MVP candidate that is
a position player to get my vote (not that I have one).
Otherwise, you are declaring that defense is virtually worthless.
A great many of baseball's researchers and statistical gurus
have tried to reconcile the question of how much a player's
defensive abilities should count toward assessing a player's
overall value. While most experts disagree on the correct
proportion, I'm sure they all agree that the answer is
considerably higher than "not all all".
So, in my opinion, DH's can be considered for MVP Awards, but
their lack of a defensive contribution should, without question,
be held against them.
Send your question for the Big Kahuna to:
bigkahuna@federalleague.com
April, 2006-Heard Around The Ballpark:
You hear a lot of interesting
things at the ballpark these days. Some if it funny, some of it
enlightening, most of it downright silly.
You can't attend a game anymore without hearing some yutz
yelling, "you're pulling your head!", almost every
time a batter swings and misses.
This has become such a kneejerk reaction to a swinging strike
that people who might not have even been watching the batter
feel inclined to yell it. Here's a quick question: is it
possible for a batter to swing and miss without pulling his
head? Answer: of course it is. It happens quite frequently. So,
why has this overused phrase become so popular? Well, my guess
is that there are a lot of folks at baseball games who want to
try and sound like they are experts. Those kind of people have
picked up on this phrase as some sort of time tested batting
advice. It has remained in vogue because no one ever really has
contested its validity.
Until now.
While it is true that "pulling your head" is not conducive
to batting success, it is not the root cause of all swinging
strikes. Nor is it the cause of most swinging strikes. It
is a problem that plagues some hitters some of the time.
Sometimes a batter swings and misses because the pitcher threw a
really, really good pitch. Yelling it out as reflex, every time,
a batter swings and misses is not only kind of ignorant, it can
also be detrimental. If a coach or trusted teammate offered this
nugget of wisdom to batter that was not moving his head too
much, it is possible, in some instances, that the batter may
overcompensate by focusing too much on his head (which he wasn't
pulling anyway) rather than focusing on the pitch.
So, while yelling the "pulling you head" thing may
make a player or fan feel like they are giving expert advice,
let the baseball world now know that when your hear someone cry
out that phrase, odds are that you are hearing someone who
probably doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.
The problem here is that the "pulling your head" cry
is most often heard by players.
Here are some other ridiculous things players have become fond
of saying.
Players have become enamored with asking for an appeal in
situations where appeals are not applicable. Normally this
occurs when a player or manager disagrees with an umpire's call
and wants another umpire to reverse the decision. While umpires
almost never will reverse a call unless they had a better view and
the first umpire asks for help because he knows that he may
not have had the best angle to make the call, players have
started to try and get umpires to ask for help on every play
that they disagree with. Calling this an appeal is incorrect.
Asking to have an umpire that's 90 or more feet a way from a
play overrule an umpire that is right on top of a play is just
plain stupid.
This just goes to show that players who do not understand the
rules and protocols of the game, shouldn't argue.
Here's something that you'll probably hear several times this
season: "there are no ties in baseball."
First of all, of course there are. While tie games are almost as
extinct as complete games by pitchers, they still exist.
In Japan's Major Leagues, ties are fairly common, but for those
who think that they do not or should not exist in the United
States, I quote from the Major League rule book, rule 4.10,
paragraph d, "if each team has the same number of runs when
the game ends, the umpire shall declare it a 'Tie Game."
Sounds to me like they are ties in baseball, even according to
the Major Leagues.
Occasionally, when a pitcher is throwing exceptionally well,
particularly if he has recorded a few strikeouts, a batter will
offer that, "this guy has got nothing."
I'm almost always forced to conclude in these instances that if
the pitcher really does have nothing and he just struck you, and
most of your teammates, out, than logic dictates, that you, in
fact, must stink. Yet batters say that all time.
Some batters like to mention, after a strikeout or particularly
bad at bat, that they can't hit slow stuff. And while this may
be, it appears that most of the players who say that they can't
hit slow stuff, can't hit fast stuff either.
Pitchers are not immune from this type of hilarity. Occasionally
after throwing a pitch that was called a ball, a pitcher will
query to the umpire, "where was that." The obvious
answer, of course, is, "outside the strike zone."
A lot of funny and nonsensical things get said in the stands,
but when players reveal how little they know and understand
about the game, it can be truly funny. And a little sad.
So, allow me to mention a few things that shouldn't have to
mentioned, but do.
Home plate is in fair territory. A ball that bounces past
first or third base in fair territory but lands in foul
territory is still fair. The hands are not part of the
bat.
And most importantly, while I can't speak for any other league,
in this league, the umpires do not care who wins and no, they
are not just in a hurry to go home. They may blow a few calls
now and then, but it is not because of favoritism or dereliction
of duty.
Which brings us to the infield fly rule.
You want to laugh? Ask any 10 people at the ballpark to explain
the infield fly rule.
Whenever the infield fly rule is called in game, bewilderment
runs rampant through the stands. And sometimes on the field.
To avoid confusion, here's a primer on the most important things
you need to know about the infield fly rule:
A) There must be two forces in effect. In other words, there
must be runners on first and second or bases loaded.
B) There must be fewer than two out.
C) The ball must be fair for the rule to be in effect.
D) The play, in the umpire's judgment must be a fly ball (or pop
up, if you prefer) that can be caught by an infielder with
ordinary effort. This applies even if the infielder in question
fails to catch the ball or if someone other than an infielder
(an outfielder, for example) makes the play.
That's really all there is to it, yet you'd be surprised by how
much confusion reigns when the play is called.
And don't let me get started on balks.
If you did not enjoy or comprehend this column, you must have
pulled your head.
Relevant Question Of The Month: If, in fact, some of the
noted sluggers who have broken records in the past few years are
proven to have used steroids to achieve these marks, what should
baseball do about their entries in the record books?- T.M.,
Redding, CA
As much as I have been railing about the steroid thing in
baseball since, oh, about the time Brady Anderson hit 50 home
runs in a season, my answer with regard to what should be done
about the record books is nothing.
It grieves me to say it, but Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire hit all
those home runs and if, someday, it is conclusively proven that
they cheated to do it, it does not change the fact that they hit
them and that baseball fostered a system that enabled them to do
it.
It would
be a great shame if Babe Ruth's and Roger Maris', among others,
records were wiped from the books because of doping, but since
Bud Selig (why am I always picking on this poor man?) and his
cronies, not to mention the player's union, chose to allow this
to happen by turning a blind eye to what was an evident problem,
than failing to sanction the records after they effectively
sanctioned the actions would be hypocritical.
So, if any record holder is found to be guilty of steroid use,
let their records stand as testimony to the owners and the
union's culpability to yet another stain on the history of the
game.
Send your question for the Big Kahuna to:
bigkahuna@federalleague.com
