Wow. It appears some guy named Castro just got a life sentence without possibility of parole -- plus 1000 years. So if I have this right -- after he dies in his cell, his remains have to stay in that cell for another 1000 years before they can be buried? That sounds a bit over the top -- not to mention creepy.
All hail Eldrick. He just tied the course record with a 61 in the second round of the Exploding Tires, ahem, Bridgestone National PGA tournament. For whatever reason, Tiger Woods seems to own this particular course. He's already won the same tournament 7 times before. And now he's tearing it up again. Assuming Tiger doesn't experience yet another of his recent colossal week-end meltdowns -- he should easily cruise home to victory at Firestone Country Club in Akron, Ohio.
Ah yes. One can only imagine how proud the late, great tire tycoon Harvey Firestone would be to have Tiger Woods as his champion once again on the course named after him.
Speaking of Tigers, I never knew Detroit Tiger ace pitcher Max Scherzer had one brown eye and one blue one. That must be a little spooky for an eagle-eyed batter to look at standing out on the mound.
You know how dogs have those "night eyes", where by day their irises are almost black, but under the moonlight reveal a different color? I have two male yorkies. At night, one's eyes are bright yellow, and the other's are blood red. How that came to be, I have no idea. But I do know the one with the yellow eyes is pretty mellow, while his counterpart is an agitator. He's always trying to stir the pot, in one way or the other.
So I suspect if Tiger manager Jim Leyland's eyes were to be closely examined, they would glow like embers as well. No wonder the reporters shine such bright lights on him.
And no matter what, I hope they continue to keep a tight leash on the Marlboro Man when a full moon is out. The way that facial hair of his seems to come and go so quickly reminds me of Lon Chaney in the old classic wolfman movies.
Leyland going on a rampage and ripping and tearing at the umpires is one thing.
But if he somehow breaks loose and runs totally amok, the last thing I need is to find Leyland in my back yard howling at a full moon.
One agitator with red eyes is quite enough, thank you.
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Alex Rodriguez dilemma
According to most available sources (those being the usual gang of anonymous, not authorized to officially speak, but familiar with the goings-on, sound familiar?) Alex Rodriguez appears to be faced with a dilemma.
If such "reliable" sources can be believed, Major League Baseball is threatening A-Rod with a liftime ban, ala Pete Rose, if Rodriguez fights whatever punishment/suspension MLB is about to slap him with over his ties to the now defunct Biogenesis "anti-aging" (see PEDs) clinic in Florida. Those same sources seem to think a rather lengthy suspension, perhaps 200 games, is what MLB is considering.
So just for kicks, put yourself in A-Rod's shoes. What would you do? Once a super-star, you've recently turned 38 years old and are fully aware your production on the field has been in serious decline for the last several years. But the Yankees still owe you about $100 million in guaranteed money as long as you don't flat-out quit.
If your're looking at a roughly 200 game suspension scenario, you realize that will wipe out the rest of this season, likely all of 2014, and you'll be pushing 40 before you can put on the Yankee pinstripes again. In the meantime, a couple years away from the game are likely to erase whatever skills you still have left. In other words, even accepting such a suspension is likely akin to kissing your baseball career goodbye anyway, though you'd still be able to collect mega-bucks from the Yankees for a few more years -- not that you need it -- because you're already incredibly wealthy.
Right now, it appears Bud Selig and his henchmen are giving you a choice. If you resist, a death sentence will be imposed and carried out immediately. If you accept their arbitrary punishment, in effect you'll still be getting a death sentence on your baseball career, but it will take a couple more years as you twist in the wind and see your name, career stats, and reputation shredded by the media. Tick, tick, tick. What to do indeed?
Incredibly, there's a clause in the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the players' union that forbids either of them from disclosing the details as to why a player was suspended for "violating" the drug policy. Translation? Whatever happens, it will be like one of those secret courts that have been semi-outed in recent years. Nobody will ever know the whys and wherefores, it's just a done deal. Case closed. I can understand this from MLB's standpoint, but what kind of players' union in their right mind would ever sign on to such a thing? Aren't they supposed to represent these guys? Demand full (public) disclosure of conclusive evidence before allowing one of their own to be convicted and punished? What the hell is going on here?
Given those choices, if I'm Alex Rodriguez I stand firm and fight. At this point there's really nothing to lose. Stare down MLB and see if they indeed follow through on their threat of a lifetime ban.
If they do, there's certainly no shortage of shrewd attorneys that will be chomping at the bit to take on such a case in real courts. For that matter, despite his considerable wealth, it likely wouldn't cost A-Rod a dime for such legal prowess. Such a case would have the potential of rocking MLB like it's never been rocked before. Yes, it would no doubt take years to wind it's way through the judicial system, up to and including the Supreme Court, but such a ruling, if favorable, could well be in the billions of dollars. Tell me some very smart attorneys wouldn't take that on a commission basis, and I'll tell you you're wrong. They'd be all over it.
Thing is, if it came to real courts, all this secretive nonsense would quickly go out the window. Everybody would have to show their hand. Depositions under oath would be taken and the discovery process, full disclosure, and all of that would kick in. And then people would be forced to testify and be cross-examined. All the evidence, or lack thereof, would eventually be laid bare for the world to see. Can you imagine how messy that might get?
So yeah, if I'm A-Rod, I look MLB in the eye and say "no deal". There's no criminal charges in play and I've already got enough money to last me 10 lifetimes in the lap of luxury. I would further tell them that if you attempt to end my career, you just opened a Pandora's box and I hope you're ready for whatever pops out. Because whatever it is, it ain't gonna be pretty.
It will be interesting to see which choice Alex Rodriguez decides to make. Even more interesting if the immovable object winds up meeting the irresistible force. Something's got to give.
We'll see.....
If such "reliable" sources can be believed, Major League Baseball is threatening A-Rod with a liftime ban, ala Pete Rose, if Rodriguez fights whatever punishment/suspension MLB is about to slap him with over his ties to the now defunct Biogenesis "anti-aging" (see PEDs) clinic in Florida. Those same sources seem to think a rather lengthy suspension, perhaps 200 games, is what MLB is considering.
So just for kicks, put yourself in A-Rod's shoes. What would you do? Once a super-star, you've recently turned 38 years old and are fully aware your production on the field has been in serious decline for the last several years. But the Yankees still owe you about $100 million in guaranteed money as long as you don't flat-out quit.
If your're looking at a roughly 200 game suspension scenario, you realize that will wipe out the rest of this season, likely all of 2014, and you'll be pushing 40 before you can put on the Yankee pinstripes again. In the meantime, a couple years away from the game are likely to erase whatever skills you still have left. In other words, even accepting such a suspension is likely akin to kissing your baseball career goodbye anyway, though you'd still be able to collect mega-bucks from the Yankees for a few more years -- not that you need it -- because you're already incredibly wealthy.
Right now, it appears Bud Selig and his henchmen are giving you a choice. If you resist, a death sentence will be imposed and carried out immediately. If you accept their arbitrary punishment, in effect you'll still be getting a death sentence on your baseball career, but it will take a couple more years as you twist in the wind and see your name, career stats, and reputation shredded by the media. Tick, tick, tick. What to do indeed?
Incredibly, there's a clause in the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the players' union that forbids either of them from disclosing the details as to why a player was suspended for "violating" the drug policy. Translation? Whatever happens, it will be like one of those secret courts that have been semi-outed in recent years. Nobody will ever know the whys and wherefores, it's just a done deal. Case closed. I can understand this from MLB's standpoint, but what kind of players' union in their right mind would ever sign on to such a thing? Aren't they supposed to represent these guys? Demand full (public) disclosure of conclusive evidence before allowing one of their own to be convicted and punished? What the hell is going on here?
Given those choices, if I'm Alex Rodriguez I stand firm and fight. At this point there's really nothing to lose. Stare down MLB and see if they indeed follow through on their threat of a lifetime ban.
If they do, there's certainly no shortage of shrewd attorneys that will be chomping at the bit to take on such a case in real courts. For that matter, despite his considerable wealth, it likely wouldn't cost A-Rod a dime for such legal prowess. Such a case would have the potential of rocking MLB like it's never been rocked before. Yes, it would no doubt take years to wind it's way through the judicial system, up to and including the Supreme Court, but such a ruling, if favorable, could well be in the billions of dollars. Tell me some very smart attorneys wouldn't take that on a commission basis, and I'll tell you you're wrong. They'd be all over it.
Thing is, if it came to real courts, all this secretive nonsense would quickly go out the window. Everybody would have to show their hand. Depositions under oath would be taken and the discovery process, full disclosure, and all of that would kick in. And then people would be forced to testify and be cross-examined. All the evidence, or lack thereof, would eventually be laid bare for the world to see. Can you imagine how messy that might get?
So yeah, if I'm A-Rod, I look MLB in the eye and say "no deal". There's no criminal charges in play and I've already got enough money to last me 10 lifetimes in the lap of luxury. I would further tell them that if you attempt to end my career, you just opened a Pandora's box and I hope you're ready for whatever pops out. Because whatever it is, it ain't gonna be pretty.
It will be interesting to see which choice Alex Rodriguez decides to make. Even more interesting if the immovable object winds up meeting the irresistible force. Something's got to give.
We'll see.....
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Riley Cooper. Here we go again
Sadly, Philadelphia Eagles' wide receiver Riley Cooper appears to be the latest to unwittingly cross into the dark side of the politically correct spectrum. During some sort of confrontation with a security guard at a public event, Cooper uttered a racial slur.
In and of itself, of course, this would not normally be a big deal. After all, who would seriously doubt a wide variety of such "slurs" continue to be spoken millions of times every day, in every town or rural area across the country by peoples of different stripes? Let's not kid ourselves. It happens. Always has and likely always will. Sure, there are many who have strived to abolish such words and phrases, but all they've really accomplished is to drive them "underground" and, at that, only for those the biased language police deem culpable in such offenses. In other words, some people can say certain things -- and others can't.
In Cooper's case, there's no denying it. His rant was captured on video/audio, which was posted on-line and quickly went viral. He said/did it. Yours truly, who continues to disdain social networking sites as being somewhat akin to STDs, sans the thrill of victory, has only seen the censored version of the clip on TV. Yet it's probably not a stretch to assume Cooper used the dreaded "n" word. Oops.
Without getting into the on-going hypocrisy of who is OK with uttering such words, and who is not, Cooper quickly found himself under serious fire. The media pounced. Talking heads had fresh meat to carve up. And, oh my, such folks couldn't wait to cast their dragnet as far and wide as they could, hunting down and eliciting sound bytes from those they thought may have been offended by what Cooper said. Anything to hype a story.
So what did Riley Cooper do? He quickly confronted the hoard of cameras and reporters, and owned up to his indiscretion. He apologized to the Eagle organization, his coaches, his teammates, Philly fans, and anybody else that he may have offended. Cooper went on to say that while he had been drinking, that was no excuse for the words that had came out of his mouth. He appeared deeply regretful, and promised it would never happen again.
Yet, that didn't seem to be good enough for some. Hugh Douglas, a former player that's been out of the NFL for almost a decade, said Cooper, a white guy, only apologized because he got caught. As circumstances would have it, Mr. Douglas just happens to be black. Imagine that.
However, in a twisted sense, Douglas' comment may have some merit. Of course Cooper was only forced to apologize because he got caught, and the episode exploded into a media circus. Had Cooper been one of the millions of anonymous people of ALL stripes uttering such "slurs" everyday across the country, this would not have been newsworthy. Nobody would have noticed, hence no apology required.
Then again, one is left to wonder what people like Douglas expect out of Cooper. The man stepped up and owned his misdeed, apologized, and was further fined an undisclosed amount by the Eagles.
So what else could Cooper do? Deny he ever said it? That wouldn't work. Stay silent? In this day and age, that doesn't appear to be an option either. Thrust out his chest, say the same words, and defiantly proclaim, "How do you like me now, Hugh?". Good luck with that.
In the end, Shakespeare had it right. In the whole scheme of things, it's all much ado about nothing.
In and of itself, of course, this would not normally be a big deal. After all, who would seriously doubt a wide variety of such "slurs" continue to be spoken millions of times every day, in every town or rural area across the country by peoples of different stripes? Let's not kid ourselves. It happens. Always has and likely always will. Sure, there are many who have strived to abolish such words and phrases, but all they've really accomplished is to drive them "underground" and, at that, only for those the biased language police deem culpable in such offenses. In other words, some people can say certain things -- and others can't.
In Cooper's case, there's no denying it. His rant was captured on video/audio, which was posted on-line and quickly went viral. He said/did it. Yours truly, who continues to disdain social networking sites as being somewhat akin to STDs, sans the thrill of victory, has only seen the censored version of the clip on TV. Yet it's probably not a stretch to assume Cooper used the dreaded "n" word. Oops.
Without getting into the on-going hypocrisy of who is OK with uttering such words, and who is not, Cooper quickly found himself under serious fire. The media pounced. Talking heads had fresh meat to carve up. And, oh my, such folks couldn't wait to cast their dragnet as far and wide as they could, hunting down and eliciting sound bytes from those they thought may have been offended by what Cooper said. Anything to hype a story.
So what did Riley Cooper do? He quickly confronted the hoard of cameras and reporters, and owned up to his indiscretion. He apologized to the Eagle organization, his coaches, his teammates, Philly fans, and anybody else that he may have offended. Cooper went on to say that while he had been drinking, that was no excuse for the words that had came out of his mouth. He appeared deeply regretful, and promised it would never happen again.
Yet, that didn't seem to be good enough for some. Hugh Douglas, a former player that's been out of the NFL for almost a decade, said Cooper, a white guy, only apologized because he got caught. As circumstances would have it, Mr. Douglas just happens to be black. Imagine that.
However, in a twisted sense, Douglas' comment may have some merit. Of course Cooper was only forced to apologize because he got caught, and the episode exploded into a media circus. Had Cooper been one of the millions of anonymous people of ALL stripes uttering such "slurs" everyday across the country, this would not have been newsworthy. Nobody would have noticed, hence no apology required.
Then again, one is left to wonder what people like Douglas expect out of Cooper. The man stepped up and owned his misdeed, apologized, and was further fined an undisclosed amount by the Eagles.
So what else could Cooper do? Deny he ever said it? That wouldn't work. Stay silent? In this day and age, that doesn't appear to be an option either. Thrust out his chest, say the same words, and defiantly proclaim, "How do you like me now, Hugh?". Good luck with that.
In the end, Shakespeare had it right. In the whole scheme of things, it's all much ado about nothing.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Detroit Lions. Shut up and play
With all due respect to the die hard Honolulu blue and silver faithful fans -- and a few over-koolaided scribes (you know who you are) that continue to peddle the same snake oil every year to the suckers -- there comes a time when it just starts getting ridiculous. Given the fact the Detroit Lions have collectively and historically been the most inept, bumbling franchise in the entire NFL since Super Bowls started back in 1967, one would think the current team would at least keep their heads down and show a bit of modesty and humility. One would be wrong. From the general manager and head coach on down to certain players -- they're flapping their gums once again.
GM Martin Mayhew recently said he's trying to "keep his seat cool". In other words, he doesn't want to get fired. Marty need not be concerned. After all, the Ford ownership of the Lions only seems to emerge from their coma once every 7-8 years to take a look around, make a few other bone-headed decisions, and then go back to sleep. Like his predecessor Matt Millen, the latest clueless version of an MM in charge of the team is probably safe for a few more years until the Fords wake up again. Mayhew's now yapping to the press about how much he likes the current team. Memo to Marty -- shut up.
Head coach Jim Schwartz is definitely spouting off with his confidence in this year's Lions. Um, excuse me, but isn't this the same guy who's team crashed and burned last year to a 4-12 record after having been projected as "contenders" following the previous year? The same guy with a career 22-42 record in Detroit? Note to Jimbo -- zip it.
Linebacker Stephen Tulloch has been vocal of late. Now that he's fully healthy, Stevie thinks to seem he's some sort of Lawrence Taylor or Demarcus Ware. Everybody look-out. He's even gone so far as to say a couple of the "young boys" that will be playing linebacker for the Lions are coming along just fine. Well gee. There's nothing like those young boys looking up to a guy that's been a career loser.
Speaking of loud-mouthed losers -- how about Lions' center Dominic Raiola? He's always had lots to say ever since he joined the Lions back in 2001. This not only includes the press, but also trash-talking to some LIONS fans when they dare to scorn what they're seeing on the field. If he hasn't already, the irrepressible Dom has to at least be closing in on the all-time NFL record for games lost as a center. In his first 12 years, Raiola has been on the losing end of 139 games. That's an average of 11 and a half losses per year. And whoever heard of a center being a spokesman for an NFL team? But still, in typical Lions' fashion, Dominic yammers away like he'll be Hall of Fame worthy someday. Only in Detroit would he be taken seriously. The same two words for D-Rai. Shut up.
Tight end Brandon Pettigrew says he wants to cut down on his dropped balls and fumbles. Yes Brandy, that would be helpful. In the meantime, just go do it, and be glad you're playing for the Lions. Any other self-respecting NFL team would have given you a one-way bus ticket out of town a couple years ago.
Newly acquired running back Reggie Bush is already being hailed as a team leader. He likes what he sees. Well, he should. At least he's got a job. Let's ignore the debacle Bush was front and center in during his college days at USC. After his pro hey-day in New Orleans, he went to the Miami Dolphins. Delusional Lions' fans probably look down their noses at the Dolphins. Yet even Miami didn't seem overly concerned about keeping Bush around. Nor were other teams exactly clamoring for his services. Enter the Lions offering him millions. The man hasn't played a single down yet for his new team, but he's already speaking on their behalf? Please. There was once another Reggie whose baseball exploits earned him the nickname Mr. October. Mr. Jackson no doubt remains proud of that to this day. Come this October, after 5-6 games with the Lions, it might just be a battered and bruised Reggie Bush looks around and says, "What the hell have I gotten myself into here?"
At that, over the decades, there are a few NFL teams that just seem to exude class. I would suggest the Packers, Steelers and Patriots for starters. They might not win every year, but they don't stay down for long. More importantly, you never seem to hear anyone from such successful franchises offering up false bravado, to be eaten up the local scribes and passed along to the die-hard koolaiders that don't know any better. No, they're too busy studying playbooks, watching film, along with practice, practice, and more practice, until they get things as perfect as they can. With very few exceptions, the vast majority of truly great coaches, players, teams, and even GMs over the years are too busy working to sit around flapping their gums about how good they are, or in the Lions case, might be. That sort of talking is shown on the field when the games start.
The perennial losers talk the talk. The perennial winners walk the walk.
There's a big difference.
The Lions are doing a bunch of talking right now, coming off a 4-12 season, including losing the last 8 in a row.
Their local biased scribes have bought into it once again, and are busy peddling their 2013 version of Honolulu blue magical elixir to those that so desperately want to believe.
Well, guess what? Reality check. It ain't gonna happen this year for the Lions, or likely any year in the foreseeable future. All they've had in the last few years is Matthew Stafford throwing a lot of passes to Calvin Johnson. Even now, beyond that, they're a mish-mash of unproven draft choices, free-agent cast-offs, a cocky head coach that talks more than he thinks, and a bunch of guys that would be lucky to make the practice squad on elite NFL teams.
Bottom line? If they catch a few breaks, the Detroit puddytats might go 8-8 this year.
But they really need to shut up.
GM Martin Mayhew recently said he's trying to "keep his seat cool". In other words, he doesn't want to get fired. Marty need not be concerned. After all, the Ford ownership of the Lions only seems to emerge from their coma once every 7-8 years to take a look around, make a few other bone-headed decisions, and then go back to sleep. Like his predecessor Matt Millen, the latest clueless version of an MM in charge of the team is probably safe for a few more years until the Fords wake up again. Mayhew's now yapping to the press about how much he likes the current team. Memo to Marty -- shut up.
Head coach Jim Schwartz is definitely spouting off with his confidence in this year's Lions. Um, excuse me, but isn't this the same guy who's team crashed and burned last year to a 4-12 record after having been projected as "contenders" following the previous year? The same guy with a career 22-42 record in Detroit? Note to Jimbo -- zip it.
Linebacker Stephen Tulloch has been vocal of late. Now that he's fully healthy, Stevie thinks to seem he's some sort of Lawrence Taylor or Demarcus Ware. Everybody look-out. He's even gone so far as to say a couple of the "young boys" that will be playing linebacker for the Lions are coming along just fine. Well gee. There's nothing like those young boys looking up to a guy that's been a career loser.
Speaking of loud-mouthed losers -- how about Lions' center Dominic Raiola? He's always had lots to say ever since he joined the Lions back in 2001. This not only includes the press, but also trash-talking to some LIONS fans when they dare to scorn what they're seeing on the field. If he hasn't already, the irrepressible Dom has to at least be closing in on the all-time NFL record for games lost as a center. In his first 12 years, Raiola has been on the losing end of 139 games. That's an average of 11 and a half losses per year. And whoever heard of a center being a spokesman for an NFL team? But still, in typical Lions' fashion, Dominic yammers away like he'll be Hall of Fame worthy someday. Only in Detroit would he be taken seriously. The same two words for D-Rai. Shut up.
Tight end Brandon Pettigrew says he wants to cut down on his dropped balls and fumbles. Yes Brandy, that would be helpful. In the meantime, just go do it, and be glad you're playing for the Lions. Any other self-respecting NFL team would have given you a one-way bus ticket out of town a couple years ago.
Newly acquired running back Reggie Bush is already being hailed as a team leader. He likes what he sees. Well, he should. At least he's got a job. Let's ignore the debacle Bush was front and center in during his college days at USC. After his pro hey-day in New Orleans, he went to the Miami Dolphins. Delusional Lions' fans probably look down their noses at the Dolphins. Yet even Miami didn't seem overly concerned about keeping Bush around. Nor were other teams exactly clamoring for his services. Enter the Lions offering him millions. The man hasn't played a single down yet for his new team, but he's already speaking on their behalf? Please. There was once another Reggie whose baseball exploits earned him the nickname Mr. October. Mr. Jackson no doubt remains proud of that to this day. Come this October, after 5-6 games with the Lions, it might just be a battered and bruised Reggie Bush looks around and says, "What the hell have I gotten myself into here?"
At that, over the decades, there are a few NFL teams that just seem to exude class. I would suggest the Packers, Steelers and Patriots for starters. They might not win every year, but they don't stay down for long. More importantly, you never seem to hear anyone from such successful franchises offering up false bravado, to be eaten up the local scribes and passed along to the die-hard koolaiders that don't know any better. No, they're too busy studying playbooks, watching film, along with practice, practice, and more practice, until they get things as perfect as they can. With very few exceptions, the vast majority of truly great coaches, players, teams, and even GMs over the years are too busy working to sit around flapping their gums about how good they are, or in the Lions case, might be. That sort of talking is shown on the field when the games start.
The perennial losers talk the talk. The perennial winners walk the walk.
There's a big difference.
The Lions are doing a bunch of talking right now, coming off a 4-12 season, including losing the last 8 in a row.
Their local biased scribes have bought into it once again, and are busy peddling their 2013 version of Honolulu blue magical elixir to those that so desperately want to believe.
Well, guess what? Reality check. It ain't gonna happen this year for the Lions, or likely any year in the foreseeable future. All they've had in the last few years is Matthew Stafford throwing a lot of passes to Calvin Johnson. Even now, beyond that, they're a mish-mash of unproven draft choices, free-agent cast-offs, a cocky head coach that talks more than he thinks, and a bunch of guys that would be lucky to make the practice squad on elite NFL teams.
Bottom line? If they catch a few breaks, the Detroit puddytats might go 8-8 this year.
But they really need to shut up.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Cabrera and Leyland ejected? Good
Recently, Detroit Tiger slugger Miguel Cabera got tossed from a game for arguing ball and strike calls with the home plate umpire. Shortly thereafter, Tiger manager Jim Leyland came onto the field to argue some more, and he got the heave-ho too. Good.
I'm too lazy to look it up, so I don't know what rule it is, but I'm positive there IS one in the handy-dandy Major League baseball rulebook that states players arguing ball and strike calls is a no-no. Regardless if it's a pitcher, catcher, or batter -- thou shalt not do that -- at the risk of being ejected from the game. Yet we see it all the time. Like little kids, players are always pushing the envelope to see just how much they can get away with.
There's another rule that says managers shalt not question ball and strike calls from the dugout either. I mean, c'mon, nobody has a better view of any pitched ball than the home plate umpire. Where does a loose cannon like Leyland get off by charging onto the field and ranting that a certain pitch was an inch or two high/low/inside/outside, whatever. When it happens, guys like Leyland were in a sunken dugout maybe 100 feet away. And they think their vantage point from the dugout should trump what the home plate umpire saw and called? Please.
There are those that would claim certain umpires "have it in" for certain teams, and they may have a point. Yet I would submit that most times the teams, be it certain players or the manager, have gone out of their way to aggravate that particular umpire in the past. Hey, umps try to do the best they can while remaining neutral, but they're human too. They have emotions just like everybody else. Keep pecking away at somebody long enough, and it should come as no surprise that eventually the peckee will develop a rather short fuse towards the pecker.
In the above-mentioned Cabrera/Leyland incident, the umpire was one Chad Fairchild. He and the rest of his crew had had a run-in with the Tigers not long before.
Interesting note: While Fairchild currently lives in Florida, he was born in Sandusky, Ohio -- a Buckeye. Could it be that he hates all things Michigan? Nah. Before an ump graduates to the Major Leagues, his body of work has been closely examined, and he's been pretty well screened and vetted over many years to rule out any such potential biases. So I highly doubt Mr. Fairchild could give a hoot who won a game between the Tigers and the Phillies.
Just a thought, but maybe MLB should consider putting the clamps down hard on those that would protest ball and strike calls. A zero tolerance policy. Mouth off at all -- and the player and/or manager is gone. Not one word, or even gesture, shall be uttered or shown in protest. In other words, respect the umpires. People don't seem to realize that while umpire crews get moved around from city to city to call different series', they're like Cal Ripken Jr. used to be. They don't get many games off either. Further consider that during the course of any given game, the umps, rain or shine, never get to leave the field once the game has begun. Players shuffle on and off the field every inning and get a breather. For the most part, managers like Leyland watch most of the game from the dugout, and have the luxury of sneaking down the "tunnel" for a smoke, beer, candy bar, whatever. Not so the umpires. Once the game starts -- they're stuck on the field until it's over. They can't even sit down. No wonder they're so ornery sometimes.
Idle thought: No stats available, but I'm guessing the majority of them eventually develop some Major League varicose veins as well over the years of performing their duties. Tough job, in more ways than one.
Nevertheless, there's a better way when a player or manager disagrees with ball or strike calls by the home plate ump. Again, I still think players should have the zero-tolerance gag order. No more mouthing off to the umps. One word, and they're ejected. Whether they like it or not, accept whatever call has been made. In the long run, it will even itself out. Just play the game and shut up. They're professionals -- so act like it -- rather than a 6-year-old, whose 7-year-old brother just swiped their lollipop.
As for the managers? Make it like the NFL. Give them a red challenge flag when they disagree with a call. It can only be used once a game. That would necessitate the umpire crew reviewing video of the play that just happened. Perhaps they will change their call, and perhaps not. Instead of guys like Leyland charging onto the field and going berserk with their various antics, let them throw the red flag from the dugout -- which is where managers should stay in the first place. They can run onto the field and scream, spout obscenities, spit, kick dust, throw their caps, and otherwise prance around putting on a show that would make a Jerry Springer guest that just swallowed a whole meth lab look like Shirley Temple -- but in the end, it very rarely results in the original call being changed. So what's the point in all the theatrics?
And on some level, the umpire(s) that just suffered the wrath of such abuse might very well file that into their memory banks for the next time. Again, they're human too.
In my opinion, umpires should be treated like a judge in his courtroom. Once it's "game on", they're supposedly neutral, and in charge as well.
Can you imagine what would happen to a guy like Leyland if he threw one of his on-field hissy fits in a court of law, in front of a real judge?
Methinks the Marlboro Man would get ejected alright -- but not down to a plush clubhouse where he can sit in his office, stew, and cower those pesky reporters a while later.
More like three hots and a cot for a couple days in a place with bars on the rooms, while he pondered the errors of his ways, while cowering himself as his cellmates made the pecking order quite clear to him indeed. Nothing gets a man rethinking his priorities like a major dose of humility.
Bottom line? The umpires should be off-limits. Totally. Period. Leave them alone. They get far more right than they get wrong.
Let them do their jobs and play on.
I'm too lazy to look it up, so I don't know what rule it is, but I'm positive there IS one in the handy-dandy Major League baseball rulebook that states players arguing ball and strike calls is a no-no. Regardless if it's a pitcher, catcher, or batter -- thou shalt not do that -- at the risk of being ejected from the game. Yet we see it all the time. Like little kids, players are always pushing the envelope to see just how much they can get away with.
There's another rule that says managers shalt not question ball and strike calls from the dugout either. I mean, c'mon, nobody has a better view of any pitched ball than the home plate umpire. Where does a loose cannon like Leyland get off by charging onto the field and ranting that a certain pitch was an inch or two high/low/inside/outside, whatever. When it happens, guys like Leyland were in a sunken dugout maybe 100 feet away. And they think their vantage point from the dugout should trump what the home plate umpire saw and called? Please.
There are those that would claim certain umpires "have it in" for certain teams, and they may have a point. Yet I would submit that most times the teams, be it certain players or the manager, have gone out of their way to aggravate that particular umpire in the past. Hey, umps try to do the best they can while remaining neutral, but they're human too. They have emotions just like everybody else. Keep pecking away at somebody long enough, and it should come as no surprise that eventually the peckee will develop a rather short fuse towards the pecker.
In the above-mentioned Cabrera/Leyland incident, the umpire was one Chad Fairchild. He and the rest of his crew had had a run-in with the Tigers not long before.
Interesting note: While Fairchild currently lives in Florida, he was born in Sandusky, Ohio -- a Buckeye. Could it be that he hates all things Michigan? Nah. Before an ump graduates to the Major Leagues, his body of work has been closely examined, and he's been pretty well screened and vetted over many years to rule out any such potential biases. So I highly doubt Mr. Fairchild could give a hoot who won a game between the Tigers and the Phillies.
Just a thought, but maybe MLB should consider putting the clamps down hard on those that would protest ball and strike calls. A zero tolerance policy. Mouth off at all -- and the player and/or manager is gone. Not one word, or even gesture, shall be uttered or shown in protest. In other words, respect the umpires. People don't seem to realize that while umpire crews get moved around from city to city to call different series', they're like Cal Ripken Jr. used to be. They don't get many games off either. Further consider that during the course of any given game, the umps, rain or shine, never get to leave the field once the game has begun. Players shuffle on and off the field every inning and get a breather. For the most part, managers like Leyland watch most of the game from the dugout, and have the luxury of sneaking down the "tunnel" for a smoke, beer, candy bar, whatever. Not so the umpires. Once the game starts -- they're stuck on the field until it's over. They can't even sit down. No wonder they're so ornery sometimes.
Idle thought: No stats available, but I'm guessing the majority of them eventually develop some Major League varicose veins as well over the years of performing their duties. Tough job, in more ways than one.
Nevertheless, there's a better way when a player or manager disagrees with ball or strike calls by the home plate ump. Again, I still think players should have the zero-tolerance gag order. No more mouthing off to the umps. One word, and they're ejected. Whether they like it or not, accept whatever call has been made. In the long run, it will even itself out. Just play the game and shut up. They're professionals -- so act like it -- rather than a 6-year-old, whose 7-year-old brother just swiped their lollipop.
As for the managers? Make it like the NFL. Give them a red challenge flag when they disagree with a call. It can only be used once a game. That would necessitate the umpire crew reviewing video of the play that just happened. Perhaps they will change their call, and perhaps not. Instead of guys like Leyland charging onto the field and going berserk with their various antics, let them throw the red flag from the dugout -- which is where managers should stay in the first place. They can run onto the field and scream, spout obscenities, spit, kick dust, throw their caps, and otherwise prance around putting on a show that would make a Jerry Springer guest that just swallowed a whole meth lab look like Shirley Temple -- but in the end, it very rarely results in the original call being changed. So what's the point in all the theatrics?
And on some level, the umpire(s) that just suffered the wrath of such abuse might very well file that into their memory banks for the next time. Again, they're human too.
In my opinion, umpires should be treated like a judge in his courtroom. Once it's "game on", they're supposedly neutral, and in charge as well.
Can you imagine what would happen to a guy like Leyland if he threw one of his on-field hissy fits in a court of law, in front of a real judge?
Methinks the Marlboro Man would get ejected alright -- but not down to a plush clubhouse where he can sit in his office, stew, and cower those pesky reporters a while later.
More like three hots and a cot for a couple days in a place with bars on the rooms, while he pondered the errors of his ways, while cowering himself as his cellmates made the pecking order quite clear to him indeed. Nothing gets a man rethinking his priorities like a major dose of humility.
Bottom line? The umpires should be off-limits. Totally. Period. Leave them alone. They get far more right than they get wrong.
Let them do their jobs and play on.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Performance enhancing drugs. Here to stay?
While I certainly agree with the vast majority that PEDs should have no place in sports, perhaps it's time to look at things from a different perspective.
Major League Baseball is currently front and center in such news with it's recent suspension of Ryan Braun, and others, notably Alex Rodriguez, likely to follow in the wake of the whole Biogenesis affair/scandal. But let's not kid ourselves. PEDs have not only been around for a long time, but have permeated many other sports as well over the years.
The Olympics and the Tour de France come to mind, but it went way beyond that. Back in the day, many NFL players popped their "greenies", and got their "turn you into a psychotic zombie wrecking machine" shots just before a game and returning to the field for the second half. Thing is, back then, even though it was largely unknown to the public, it's probably a pretty safe bet to say most people wouldn't have cared anyway. It's football. Go kill each other, boys. What great fun this is to watch. And hey, as the late Peter Gent, a former NFLer himself, pointed out in his book North Dallas Forty back in 1973 -- if you're getting down in a 3-point stance and the guy across the line from you has his eyes sunken back in his head, is twitching and drooling, and mumbling something about tearing your mother's head off when he's done with you -- you just might want to have a serious dose of whatever that guy is on-- so you can merely survive what's about to happen next. Did that make it right? Of course not. But that's the way it was. And nobody cared.
Times have changed. Who knows what sort of PEDs have been used in various other sports over the years? Certainly not yours truly, but I'd bet they've been around far more than we know.
Which brings me back to the other perspective mentioned above. Let's look at a few harsh realities.
1). There always have been, and always will be those those who attempt to gain an unfair advantage on their competitors. From Wall Street shysters to loaded dice in a back alley crap game, it's going to happen.
2). In the world of sports, sometimes just the slightest edge can make the difference whether an athlete is successful (see medals, fame, and millions of dollars) or winds up back in Podunk bagging groceries at their local Kroger store. Given those two life choices, the temptation to cheat is understandably high.
3). In the world of sports pharmaceuticals, it's a never-ending chess match. While athletes are "tested" far more often than in the past, and the laboratories that analyze these samples continue to get more sophisticated in their techniques to expose cheaters -- few would doubt the "other side" remains equally busy. In other words, as I write this, there are chemists out there working on the next generation of PEDs that are not currently detectable. The labs will figure that out as well in a couple years, but by then the mad scientists will have moved on to yet their next creation.
While it would be great for any and all PEDs to finally go away, all the rules, regulations, and suspensions aren't likely to stop them.
Let's get real. Regardless of how good/bad an actual product may be, as long as there's a market/demand for it, there will be those working tirelessly to provide it. Cha-ching.
Remember "prohibition"? How did that work out? Bathtub gin, speak-easies, and gangsters slaughtering each other on the streets. Without prohibition, people like Al Capone and Detroit's Purple Gang never would have come into prominence. No need for Elliot Ness and his Untouchables either. The people found a way to drink anyway -- because they wanted to.
Fast forward a few generations and cannabis has morphed from being the "demon weed" that would surely drive one insane into modern-day medical marijuana cards in many states. It's not only legal to use it, but also to grow and dispense (deal) it. Despite the current resistance and blustering of some, it doesn't take much imagination to foresee what the end-game there will be in 10-20 years or so. Oh my. Times are changing indeed.
Whether I, or you, like it or not, pharmaceuticals in the world of sports likely aren't going away either. The powers-that-be can fight it all they want. Like the big bad wolf, they can huff and puff and blow a few houses down, but the sad truth is, in the end, they're basically waging a very costly guerrilla war against a faceless enemy that constantly morphs into something different.
Bottom line? MLB can smack all the players on their current Biogenesis hit list with long suspensions -- even lifetime bans. But if they really think this will deter some future athletes from crossing into the "dark side" so they can make millions, as opposed to cooking french fries for the minimum wage, they're only fooling themselves. Of COURSE, there will be those willing to roll the dice. It's human nature.
Somewhere, in their own laboratories, rather highly paid chemists are quite busy right now developing the next generation of undetectable not-so-goodies for those who would partake. They'll never even be identified, let alone suspended and held up to public ridicule. For that matter, if their latest concoctions are successful in going undetected for a year or two, they might well get a big fat bonus in their paycheck.
No doubt, they are aware of MLB's current witch-hunt going on. They understand examples have to be made, and a few more cows are likely headed to the slaughterhouse.
And I suspect the chemists chuckle -- and get back to work.
Major League Baseball is currently front and center in such news with it's recent suspension of Ryan Braun, and others, notably Alex Rodriguez, likely to follow in the wake of the whole Biogenesis affair/scandal. But let's not kid ourselves. PEDs have not only been around for a long time, but have permeated many other sports as well over the years.
The Olympics and the Tour de France come to mind, but it went way beyond that. Back in the day, many NFL players popped their "greenies", and got their "turn you into a psychotic zombie wrecking machine" shots just before a game and returning to the field for the second half. Thing is, back then, even though it was largely unknown to the public, it's probably a pretty safe bet to say most people wouldn't have cared anyway. It's football. Go kill each other, boys. What great fun this is to watch. And hey, as the late Peter Gent, a former NFLer himself, pointed out in his book North Dallas Forty back in 1973 -- if you're getting down in a 3-point stance and the guy across the line from you has his eyes sunken back in his head, is twitching and drooling, and mumbling something about tearing your mother's head off when he's done with you -- you just might want to have a serious dose of whatever that guy is on-- so you can merely survive what's about to happen next. Did that make it right? Of course not. But that's the way it was. And nobody cared.
Times have changed. Who knows what sort of PEDs have been used in various other sports over the years? Certainly not yours truly, but I'd bet they've been around far more than we know.
Which brings me back to the other perspective mentioned above. Let's look at a few harsh realities.
1). There always have been, and always will be those those who attempt to gain an unfair advantage on their competitors. From Wall Street shysters to loaded dice in a back alley crap game, it's going to happen.
2). In the world of sports, sometimes just the slightest edge can make the difference whether an athlete is successful (see medals, fame, and millions of dollars) or winds up back in Podunk bagging groceries at their local Kroger store. Given those two life choices, the temptation to cheat is understandably high.
3). In the world of sports pharmaceuticals, it's a never-ending chess match. While athletes are "tested" far more often than in the past, and the laboratories that analyze these samples continue to get more sophisticated in their techniques to expose cheaters -- few would doubt the "other side" remains equally busy. In other words, as I write this, there are chemists out there working on the next generation of PEDs that are not currently detectable. The labs will figure that out as well in a couple years, but by then the mad scientists will have moved on to yet their next creation.
While it would be great for any and all PEDs to finally go away, all the rules, regulations, and suspensions aren't likely to stop them.
Let's get real. Regardless of how good/bad an actual product may be, as long as there's a market/demand for it, there will be those working tirelessly to provide it. Cha-ching.
Remember "prohibition"? How did that work out? Bathtub gin, speak-easies, and gangsters slaughtering each other on the streets. Without prohibition, people like Al Capone and Detroit's Purple Gang never would have come into prominence. No need for Elliot Ness and his Untouchables either. The people found a way to drink anyway -- because they wanted to.
Fast forward a few generations and cannabis has morphed from being the "demon weed" that would surely drive one insane into modern-day medical marijuana cards in many states. It's not only legal to use it, but also to grow and dispense (deal) it. Despite the current resistance and blustering of some, it doesn't take much imagination to foresee what the end-game there will be in 10-20 years or so. Oh my. Times are changing indeed.
Whether I, or you, like it or not, pharmaceuticals in the world of sports likely aren't going away either. The powers-that-be can fight it all they want. Like the big bad wolf, they can huff and puff and blow a few houses down, but the sad truth is, in the end, they're basically waging a very costly guerrilla war against a faceless enemy that constantly morphs into something different.
Bottom line? MLB can smack all the players on their current Biogenesis hit list with long suspensions -- even lifetime bans. But if they really think this will deter some future athletes from crossing into the "dark side" so they can make millions, as opposed to cooking french fries for the minimum wage, they're only fooling themselves. Of COURSE, there will be those willing to roll the dice. It's human nature.
Somewhere, in their own laboratories, rather highly paid chemists are quite busy right now developing the next generation of undetectable not-so-goodies for those who would partake. They'll never even be identified, let alone suspended and held up to public ridicule. For that matter, if their latest concoctions are successful in going undetected for a year or two, they might well get a big fat bonus in their paycheck.
No doubt, they are aware of MLB's current witch-hunt going on. They understand examples have to be made, and a few more cows are likely headed to the slaughterhouse.
And I suspect the chemists chuckle -- and get back to work.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Max Scherzer. 15-1. A 30 game winner?
I don't think so. In fact, it's impossible. Unless the game of Major League baseball radically changes it's pitching strategies, there will never be another 30 game winner.
Consider the last, and only living pitcher to have won 30 games in a single season . Of course that would be Denny McLain. He pulled it off for the Detroit Tigers back in 1968, going 31-6. Not so well known is the fact he had an eye-popping 1.96 ERA over that entire year. For a starting pitcher, that's an incredible stat. I dare say even most of the elite modern-day "closers" would be quite happy with that particular number.
Thing is, McLain started 41 games that year. Given his 31-6 record, and a 162 game season, simple math dictates he not only started every 4th game, but got the win, or loss in all but 4 of them. Back in those days, teams lived and died with their starters a lot more than they do today. For better or worse, they rode those horses hard. In recent years, most clubs feature a Baskin-Robbins bull-pen of relievers. Lefties, righties, long/middle/short relief, a set-up guy, and a closer. Anymore, most MLB managers will tell you they're happy if they can get 6-7 innings out of a starter. Then again, with 7 or 8 multi-million dollar different flavored ice creams sitting out in the bullpen, doing nothing more than playing euchre or texting their girlfriends, it only seems fitting they should get tasted once in a while. But I digress.
After beating the Phillies earlier tonight, Scherzer has now run his 2013 record to a dazzling 15-1. Having started only 21 games, math again says Mad Max has taken the decision in all but 5 of them. In other words, and to his credit, Scherzer has been quite the work horse himself.
But here's the rub. Scherzer has no, as in ZERO chance of winning 30 games. Why? Because even if he won every game he started for the rest of the year -- he'd still fall quite short of that mark.
Consider: The Detroit Tigers have now played 103 games this season. That means 59 more to go (any post-season stats don't count). Unlike pitchers of yore like Denny McLain who started every 4th game, the modern-day variety only starts every 5th game -- at best. Because he just pitched last night, Scherzer likely won't start again until there's only 55 games remaining. Sorry about harping on the math, but do it again. Fifty five games divided by starting every 5th one equates to 11 more starts. Even if he runs the table, he'd wind up at 26-1. Sure, that would mean a slam-dunk Cy Young Award, and quite likely make him the American League MVP as well.
But 30 wins? Fuhgettaboutit. Not even close.
Think of Denny McLain as you will. A chicken farmer, organ player, TV personality, convicted felon -- whatever.
But 31-6, with a 1.96 ERA for a starting pitcher?
You'll never see numbers like that again.
Ain't gonna happen.
It's a matter of simple -- well -- you know.
Consider the last, and only living pitcher to have won 30 games in a single season . Of course that would be Denny McLain. He pulled it off for the Detroit Tigers back in 1968, going 31-6. Not so well known is the fact he had an eye-popping 1.96 ERA over that entire year. For a starting pitcher, that's an incredible stat. I dare say even most of the elite modern-day "closers" would be quite happy with that particular number.
Thing is, McLain started 41 games that year. Given his 31-6 record, and a 162 game season, simple math dictates he not only started every 4th game, but got the win, or loss in all but 4 of them. Back in those days, teams lived and died with their starters a lot more than they do today. For better or worse, they rode those horses hard. In recent years, most clubs feature a Baskin-Robbins bull-pen of relievers. Lefties, righties, long/middle/short relief, a set-up guy, and a closer. Anymore, most MLB managers will tell you they're happy if they can get 6-7 innings out of a starter. Then again, with 7 or 8 multi-million dollar different flavored ice creams sitting out in the bullpen, doing nothing more than playing euchre or texting their girlfriends, it only seems fitting they should get tasted once in a while. But I digress.
After beating the Phillies earlier tonight, Scherzer has now run his 2013 record to a dazzling 15-1. Having started only 21 games, math again says Mad Max has taken the decision in all but 5 of them. In other words, and to his credit, Scherzer has been quite the work horse himself.
But here's the rub. Scherzer has no, as in ZERO chance of winning 30 games. Why? Because even if he won every game he started for the rest of the year -- he'd still fall quite short of that mark.
Consider: The Detroit Tigers have now played 103 games this season. That means 59 more to go (any post-season stats don't count). Unlike pitchers of yore like Denny McLain who started every 4th game, the modern-day variety only starts every 5th game -- at best. Because he just pitched last night, Scherzer likely won't start again until there's only 55 games remaining. Sorry about harping on the math, but do it again. Fifty five games divided by starting every 5th one equates to 11 more starts. Even if he runs the table, he'd wind up at 26-1. Sure, that would mean a slam-dunk Cy Young Award, and quite likely make him the American League MVP as well.
But 30 wins? Fuhgettaboutit. Not even close.
Think of Denny McLain as you will. A chicken farmer, organ player, TV personality, convicted felon -- whatever.
But 31-6, with a 1.96 ERA for a starting pitcher?
You'll never see numbers like that again.
Ain't gonna happen.
It's a matter of simple -- well -- you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)