Don’t Tell Me how to
Feel I absolutely hate
being told how I should feel after a win or a loss. A feeling is a naturally occurring phenomenon
and if my feelings don’t match the way some clown thinks I should feel, that doesn’t make me an “####.” Following the recent three game sweep that
the White Sox handed the Cubs at U.S. Cellular Field this past weekend, an
associate claiming to be a neutral—that is, he is a fan of both the Sox and the
Cubs—told me I’m an #### for being happier than usual after the three wins.
His reasons? We’ve all heard them
before. Because the Cubs are not in the
White Sox division—they aren’t even in the same league—so I should be happier
if they were to sweep the Twins, Tigers, or Indians. While true that sweeping one of the latter
teams benefits the White Sox in the standings more so than the Cubs, that doesn’t
mean I can’t put something extra into my celebration.
For the record, I didn’t celebrate any more than I would
normally have if it were any other team.
After all, the Cubs swept the Sox last weekend at Wrigley Field. But I was happy today that I didn’t have to
walk around with my head hanging low, trying desperately to avoid the fans of
the other team and their inevitable humiliating comments. You know the feeling. At the office, you walk down five flights of
stairs just because if you take the elevator, you have to walk right past the
desk of that obnoxious fan of your team’s rival. Sure, you’re out of breath when you return
from your smoke break, but at least you didn’t have to hear that annoying guy
rhetorically ask with a big silly grin “Hey, how about them Sox?” Guys like him—I’ll call him Loudmouth—make my
life hell. What’s great is that when the
Sox win I don’t have to say a darned thing to him. My joy is that Loudmouth hangs his head low
and tries to avoid me for a change. I
love that.
Besides that, who are you to tell me who I can root for and
root against, and why the heck can’t I
have both? Why is it “Don’t worry about
what the Cubs do, just worry about what the White Sox do?” That’s absurd. I hate
the Cubs. I love the White Sox. I'm going to be happy when the Sox win, and
I’m going to be happy when the Cubs lose.
If both happen in the same game, double the pleasure! I root for the White Sox when they don’t play
the Cubs, and I root against the Cubs when they don’t play the White Sox. That’s how it has always been, and that’s how
it always will be. That doesn’t make me,
or anybody else who is the same way, an ####.
What’s interesting, is what would happen if the White Sox
and Cubs (who have both dominated their respective divisions and have both been
in first place for several weeks) were to meet in the World Series. If the Sox won, I’d be happy that they won
the World Series. I wouldn’t be even more happy because they beat the Cubs. But if the Sox lost, I’d be disappointed about the loss, and I’d be even more disappointed
that they lost to the Cubs. I'd rather
die than face Loudmouth if that ever happens.
Cub’s Chances of
Landing Sabathia From everything I’ve been hearing, the Cleveland Indians are
on the verge of trading their Ace, left handed pitcher C.C. Sabathia, to the
highest bidder. The Cubs would seem to
be in the mix of possible suitors, and there is no doubt that GM Jim Hendry has
a strong interest and prospects to deal.
But, on second though, does he really have prospects the Indians want?
I’ve heard the names Felix Pie, Eric Patterson, Rich Hill,
Shawn Marshall, and Ronny Cedeno thrown around.
On paper it sounds like an impressive package of talent. But after much thought, I’ve ruled that the
Cubs would have to give up much more if they realistically expect to acquire
the services of Sabathia.
The Cubs better be prepared to meet the Indians' demands.
Pie has been a disappointing prospect up and down between the Cubs and their
Triple-A affiliate. When in the majors,
he is almost exclusively used as a defensive replacement or spot starter. He has similar problems to former Cub Corey
Patterson, such as the big question of whether he is a leadoff hitter with
speed, or a middle of the order power hitter.
Eric Patterson simply looks lost in the field, and lacks plate
discipline. He doesn’t look like an
every day major league hitter to me. Hill,
like Pie, has been up and down, and can’t find a spot in a starting rotation
that features Jason Marquis and his 4.96 ERA.
If Hill can’t supplant Marquis, how good is he really? Same goes for Marshall, who is only pitching
right now in the majors due to an injury to Ace Carlos Zambrano. Ronny Cedeno has “tools” but he is a career
platoon and/or utility player. Ditto another AAAA outfielder named Matt Murton.
So, if I’m GM Mark Shapiro of the Indians, what does interest me on the Cubs? If I'm Shapiro, the next time Hendry calls
me, I tell him, start with your starting SS Ryan Theriot, and build the package
from there. Get back to me when you’re
ready to include an actual major league player instead of five players you can’t
wait to get rid of.
Does Hendry have the sand to agree to such a swap of blockbuster
proportions? That I don’t know, but I’m
anxious to find out.
It's June 10th and, against all odds, both of Chicago's baseball teams are in first place. The Chicago Cubs at the beginning of the season seemed like an odds on favorite to take the NL Central crown, but nobody expected them to have the best record in all of baseball. On the southside, the White Sox, just as they were in 2005 when they won the World Series, were predicted by many to be nothing more than 4th place team. They sit atop the AL Central and hold MLB's biggest divisional lead. Here are the top 10 surprises; some for better, some for worse; for both of Chicago's baseball teams. I also predict whether the player(s) is likely to keep up the pace, fall off a bit, or get better as the season wears on:
10) Kerry Wood. Not only has he miraculously managed to stay off the disabled list, but he earned the role of closer in spring training and has gone on to convert on 18 out of 22 save opportunities, all the while striking out 40 and walking only 7. Verdict: I think Woody can keep up his pace as long as he doesn't get injured. It's close, but I'll say he keeps going steadily.
9) Jim Thome. The 38-year-old Sox DH is on pace to have the lowest OPS (.800) in any season in which he has played more than 100 games. Though that's still above league average, he is still striking out more often and walking less often than he normally does. And he was demoted from 3rd to 5th in the batting order. Verdict: Despite an obvious depreciation of talent due to age, Thome will improve at the plate as the season progresses.
8) Scott Linebrink and Octavio Dotel. If the White Sox are leading after the 6th inning you might as well turn off the lights and go home. Dotel, who normally pitches the 7th inning, is averaging 12.4 strikeouts per 9 innings with a 2.86 ERA. Linebrink is the 8th inning guy and has recorded 15 holds with a WHIP of only 0.89. The White Sox as a team, meanwhile, have the second best bullpen ERA in the majors. Verdict: I actually believe Dotel will improve a little bit but Linebrink can't continue to pitch out of this world. As a whole, I'll average them out and say they keep it up.
7) Alexei Ramirez. It took some time and an injury to Juan Uribe, but Ramirez has supplanted Uribe as the everyday secondbasemen and has produced in a big way. He's now hitting .291 with 4 home runs with an OPS of .762. In addition, he flashed ungodly range with a rifle arm in the field. Verdict. It's hard not to imagine Ramirez getting better as he gains experience.
6) Ryan Theriot. Many thought that Theriot could never be an everyday shortstop at the major league level, but all he's done so far in 2008 is hit .323 with a .404 OBP. He's also second on the team with 40 runs scored. Verdict: Though his average and OBP will come back down to Earth, Theriot's run production and stolen bases will remain and/or go up. However, overall, he's due to regress.
5) Gavin Floyd. The White Sox starter leads the team in wins and has a 3.10 ERA with a 1.07 WHIP. Amazingly, he's taken a no hitter into the 5th inning, 8th inning, and 9th inning this season! That's in only 12 starts, folks. Verdict: Though Floyd seems to have found a longterm home with the Sox, he's unlikely to pitch like this forever.
4) Carlos Quentin. Not many people had ever heard of the former 25th overall pick out of Stanford before this season, but Quentin may now be the best player in MLB history with a last name beginning with 'Q." He's near the top of the AL leaderboard in homers (16), RBI (54), OBP (.383), and OPS (.933). Verdict: Because he's young and plays in a hitter's park, Quentin will continue his assault on AL pitchers.
3) Jose Contreras. After last season, it was hard to envision Contreras would ever pitch at an elite level again. But the former All-Star and 30-something Cuban pitcher has regained the forkball, and more importantly the confidence, that made him one of baseball's better pitchers in 2005-06. He has a 2-1 strikeout-to-walk ratio and a 1.13 WHIP. Verdict: Contreras will stay at his current pace for the season.
2) Ryan Dempster. The former starter who turned closer is now a former closer turned starter. If that sentence wasn't confusing enough, try reading this one: In over 80 innings pitched Ryan Dempster is 7-2 with a 1.13 WHIP and a 2.90 ERA. Verdict: Dempster is due to wear down due to the comfort level lowering as he approaches 200 innings on the season. Though he'll still win plenty of games, his runs allowed will increase.
It's early, but Soto has proven to be one of the best catchers in all of baseball.
1) Geovany Soto. Before this season, I predicted that Soto would be a future All-Star. Little did I know that the future is now! Soto is now a lock to make the All-Star team in 2008, and is a front runner for the rookie of the year. Dare I say he makes a run at MVP? He's got an OPS of .898 with 10 longballs. Verdict: The kid is for real. He'll keep it up.
Young/Vazquez Trade a Good One for D-Backs and White Sox CF Chris Young of the Diamondbacks looks to be a stud prospect boasting speed, power, and outstanding defense. Much has been made of the former White Sox farmhand, who, on December 20, 2005 was traded along with Orlando Hernandez and Luis Vizcaino to Arizona for SP Javier Vazquez. I've heard general comments from White Sox fans saying that it was a mistake to trade Young, and recently Foxsports.com's own Ken Rosenthal quipped that this past offseason's acquisition of Carlos Quentin from Arizona would finally help ease the pain of losing out on Young to Arizona. What seems left out in this talk every time is that the White Sox acquired a bona fide #1 or #2 starter in Vazquez, who is MLB's second leading strikeout pitcher since 2001 and went 15-8 with a 3.74 ERA in 2007 while playing his home games in hitter friendly U.S. Cellular Field for a 4th place team that lost 90 games. Sure, the White Sox could use the speedy CFer in their leadoff spot right now, but something tells me that their GM Kenny Williams wouldn't be willing to give up Vazquez to re-acquire him. A potential 30/30 OFer is about the going rate these days for an Ace.
Rays' Seeason a Pleasant Surprise But... This in response to Foxsports.com's Dayn Perry'scolumn that the Tampa Bay [Devil] Rays winning season is great for baseball. It sure is nice to see somebody besides New York and Boston atop the A.L. East, but I greatly fear a Tampa divisional title would give MLB execs a false sense of parity in baseball. (By the way, they will always be the Devil Rays to me, just as the Angels will always be the Anaheim Angels, or occasionally, the California Angels). Before this season, I'd have given the Devil Rays a 0% of ever making the playoffs under MLB's current structure. I now see that they are a legitimate contender for the not only the division, but the pennant. However, these types of seasons are few and far between. MLB is in desperate need of a salary cap that would give other small(er) market teams a more fair chance more often. All top notch free agents have three teams that can afford to sign them: the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets; once in a while the Cubs, Dodgers, or Angels will join the mix. In a couple seasons when the Devil Rays' players hit free agency, they will let them walk and they'll stink again... that is if they don't head towards Marlin-i-zation and trade them all before it even gets that far. The Red Sox and Yankees will never stink so long as they are allowed to throw money around like it's candy.
Whatifsports (WIS) a Must See for Any Sports Fan Here is a unpaid advertisement for www.whatifsports.com, a subsidiary of Foxsports.com. WIS is just an amazing website, and if you're a sports fan who hasn't heard about it yet, you should check it out immediately. Ever been sitting in a bar with your buddies and argue about who would win a series between the 1927 Yankees and the 1969 Mets? Or how about Grant Hill and Christian Laettner vs Bobby Knight's undefeated Indiana team? '72 Dolphins against the '85 Bears? Jordan's Bulls against Wilt's Lakers? Whatifsports uses a highly complex simulation to match any historical teams in MLB, NFL, NBA, CBB, NHL, and CFB, and then generates a box score with play by play so you can read it as if the game were actually played. I've simmed all these games and hundreds more and I can't get enough. WIS also has SimLeagues where you can mix and match players from any era on any team and form your all time dream team (How about Nolan Ryan throwing pirtches to Ivan Rodriguez behind the plate with Brooks Robinson, Ozzie Smith, Roberto Alomar, and Keith Hernandez as their infield defense?). My favorite though is the Dyansty leagues. I'm in a MLB Hardball Dynasty where I get to play GM of a baseball franchise complete with 5 minor league teams. There's a Rule 5 draft, amatuer draft, international free agents, and full trades and free agent signing. It's just absolutely awesome.
Bears Should Keep Benson Count me in the minority of Bears fans who think that they should not release RB Cedric Benson, even in spite of his most recent run-in with the law. The Bears drafted the back whom they obviously believe will carry the bulk of the load in Matt Forte from Tulane. First, I don't think it's ever a good idea to hand a starting job to a rookie unless the team is in full-blown rebuilding mode, and the Bears think they can compete in the NFC North, especially with the retirement of a certain quarterback famous for a number '4' on his jersey. It is quite obvious at this time that Benson will never pan out to be the back the Bears thought he would be when they drafted him fourth overall in 2005, but that doesn't mean he can't be productive. Benson had a couple of halfway decent seasons as a backup to Thomas Jones before taking the starting reigns last season. He's also the best available insurance policy in case Forte gets hurt or dissapoints.
Announcers have duty to disclose the No-Hitter I was driving home late last night listening to the White Sox-Twins radio broadcast on Chicago's WSCR 670 AM on Tuesday. Late in the game, the Sox had a significant lead, but the Twins, I knew, had one run on the board. The White Sox radio team of Ed Farmer and Steve Stone, declined to announce over the waves that Sox starting pitcher Gavin Floyd had yet to yield a hit to Minnesota. As a White Sox fan, I sure would have appreciated the knowledge of history possibly in the making. I definitely would have listened more intently, as my mind often wonders while listening to baseball games on the radio. Farmer, the play-by-play man, instead said "One run and two errors for the Twins," instead of blurting out "Gavin Floyd has a no-hitter." It never dawned on me, until Justin Morneau doubled to left center field and Farmer finally came clean, that the White Sox had come this close to one of baseball's remarkable feats. While other players should not mess around with their teammate's head by making him aware of the situation, it is the announcer's job to tell the whole story, and Floyd's possible no-no was a big part of the picture.
Chiefs' fans don't expect to win Don't worry, I'm not going to beat a dead horse. This isn't going to be a rant on how much I hate Carl Peterson, or Herm Edwards. This is actually to point out that fans of the Kansas City Chiefs have grown content with losing. In recent blogs (in which I have lambasted Chief's management and called for their heads on sticks outside Arrowhead Stadium) other Chiefs' fans have accused me of over-reacting (among many other things). One Chiefs' fan commented that "13 [draft] picks this year and [next year's draft] should give [the Chiefs] a chance to compete for the AFC West title in 2010." Another posted "Even if they do finish 8-8, I will know that they are on there [sic] to greatness the following year." There was also talk of "getting ready for a championship run," and one guy even said "I don't mind being a .500 team as long as we beat the few teams we need to (you know, division rivals)." Chiefs' fans are pathetic in this manner. They are ok with rebuilding, and then two or three years later making a run at winning the division. They are ok with finishing .500 as long as they beat the stupid Raiders. Frankly, they are ok with mediocrity. Quite simply, any sports fan content with mediocrity for any reason is a loser. Sports isn't about competing for the division, beating your division rivals, or making a run at a championship. Sports are about winning the championship. If that doesn't happen, the season was a failure, but fans of the Chiefs often seem to overlook the biggest, most important part of sports.
As currently constructed, here is how I would lineup the 2008 version of both Chicago's baseball teams.
Cubs
1 - LF Alfonso Soriano 2 - SS Ryan Theriot 3 - 1B Derek Lee 4 - 3B Aramis Ramirez 5 - RF Kosuke Fukudome 6 - 2B Mark DeRosa 7 - CF Felix Pie 8 - C Giovanni Soto 9 - (pitcher)
Analysis: While many Cubs fans clamor for Soriano to be moved down in the order, perhaps to the number six slot, I strongly disagree with this move. The only places I would bat Soriano are leadoff or third. Clearly, Soriano's statistics are much higher leading off because of the pitcher's propensity to deal him plenty of fastballs, which is about the only pitch Soriano can hit out of the park. But hitting him third followed by Lee would accomplish the same thing, while also giving him the freedom to steal bases at will. If the Cubs acquire 2B Brian Roberts from the Orioles, the top of my order would be Roberts, Theriot, Soriano and everybody else would move down a slot. I think Pie is currently the Cub's best option in CF, and I have Soto eighth instead of Pie because of his plate patience. Soto's good batting eye allows Pie to be aggressive on the basepaths ahead of him, while also letting him draw plenty of walks in front of the pitcher.
White Sox
1 - CF Jerry Owens 2 - SS Orlando Cabrera 3 - DH Jim Thome 4 - 1B Paul Konerko 5 - RF Jermaine Dye 6 - LF Nick Swisher 7 - 3B Joe Crede 8 - C A.J. Pierzynski 9 - 2B Juan Uribe
Analysis: This lineup 2-8 is potent, but obviously there are question marks at leadoff and 9 and there are injury questions as well. Without Owens, this team has a terrible problem of having only station-to-station speed, which was a major inhibitor of the Sox's offense last year. Owens stole 32 bases last year, and hit .279 in the second half of the season. Cabrera is the ultimate run producer from the number two hole, so Owens should score plenty of runs. If Crede's back is still hurting, if he can't produce anywhere near his 2005 or 2006 form, or if he is traded (as speculation has), Josh Fields would fill in nicely at number eight, while Pierzynski moves up to seven. The White Sox have deep quantity but little quality at the second base position. At this point in time, I feel Uribe is their best option. Because of all these question marks, this lineup is considered tentative, but if healthy, they could be dominant.
Every once in a while there is a moment in sports
broadcasting that prompts us to beg the question.
What is with the celebrity appeal in sports broadcasts?
The most recent Monday Night Football telecast on ESPN is the latest
example. The guest in the booth,
comedian Jimmy Kimmel, made a smart
alec retort directed towards former MNF analyst Joe Theismann. Whether or not Kimmel and Theismann have any kind of
adverse history is unclear, but the point is a moot one. Kimmel had no business being on the air in
the first place.
If I want to laugh (or more like contemplate suicide) I'll watch his show. Otherwise, keep him away from my NFL games.
ESPN has had other “guest announcers” in recent Monday Night telecasts,
including NBA Hall of Famer Charles
Barkley and movie star and Chicago
area meatball Jim Belushi. I couldn’t tell you what these folks add to
the presentation or what the clowns who are in charge at ESPN were thinking
when they invited them on, but I could tell you that most football fans could
do without their irrelevant comments and opinions.
Chuck knows his basketball, but there's no reason for him to spew his mouth about the NFL
MNF on ESPN isn’t the only culprit. NBC
had singer Pink doing their
introductory song in 2006, but apparently ratings weren’t high enough, so this
year Faith Hill gets the honor. Anybody who has watched a Super Bowl on any
network knows there is almost as much hoopla made of the commercials and
halftime show than there is about the game.
Fox is guilty too. Raise your hand if
your baseball intelligence is insulted by Scooter,
the talking baseball who teaches us the physics of different pitches thrown by
the starting pitcher. In football, they
have those ridiculous football playing robots and celebrity analysts giving
predictions on the pre-game show.
Every single network showing college and professional
football games have decided that more people tune into their relay if a
past-her-prime female who knows nothing about football updates us on coaches’
halftime speeches and player’s injuries.
The same occasionally is true for NBA games.
The point of all this complaining is that fans watching the games are more
annoyed by this than “turned on.” I’m
not more likely to watch the upcoming Monday Night game between the Colts and
Jaguars because I’m curious to know who the guest in the booth will be. No, I’m going to watch the game because I
want to see how Peyton Manning will fare
against one of the top three defenses in the NFL and while playing on the
road. I’m going to watch because Maurice Jones-Drew is on my fantasy
team. I’m going to watch because I like
football. Period. End of freakin’ story.
In the absolute best case scenario, many fans are prone to mute the T.V. and/or
listen to the play-by-play on the radio.
In the worst case, sports fans will watch “How I Met Your Mother.”
Getting back to ESPN and their Monday Night debacle, could anybody out there
explain what Tony Kornheiser is
supposed to bring to the table? I enjoy
him on “PTI,” but he knows less about play-by-play than Mike Tirico and knows absolutely nothing about analyzing, so what
are they paying him to do besides annoy listeners?
Here’s hoping that one day networks will wake up and tailor their sports
broadcasts to sports fans and not pray these promotional stunts grab the
attention of people who don’t care anyway.
The one NLDS series that is already set will pit the Chicago Cubs, who emerged from the heap of garbage that is the Central Division, against the Arizona Diamondbacks, the surprising winner of the West. Neither team really deserves to be there.
The Cubs, who finished the season with a .525 winning percentage (85-77) played in statistically one of the worst divisions in Major League history. The five teams that the Cubs beat out to win their division combined to finish 62 games under .500. Playing against these pitiful excuses for baseball teams, they only managed a 45-34 record. They went 8-4 in interleague play (which includes 5-1 against the awful White Sox), which means their record against other National League teams was only 32-39 (In case you’re wondering, they went 2-4 against Arizona in 2007).
Arizona used magic to win the West
The Diamondbacks won 90 games and went 50-31 at home this year. However, they were actually outscored 732 to 712 for the entire season. Using the Pythagorean W-L on baseball-reference.com, they should have finished the year with a 79-83 record, an 11-game swing which would have put them in 4th place.
The Cubs bullied on terrible teams to win the Central
Predictions and Analysis
These are some remarkable statistics against two playoff teams. They’ll play against each other in the first round, and Game 1 starts Wednesday at Chase Field in Arizona. Given the D’backs exceptional home record and their home field advantage for the series, my pick is for Arizona. I believe that the Cub’s decision to leave Jason Marquis off the playoff roster will be a costly mistake. Manager Lou Piniella has stated that he’ll use a 3-man starting rotation of Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, and Rich Hill, which I agree with. However, I am a big proponent of using the end of the rotation starters as long relief men in the playoffs. If Zambrano or Lilly get roughed up and leave the game early, one of the first few games goes into extra innings (say 14 or 15), or if they have an injury to one of those three starters, they are in serious trouble. Instead of taking Marquis as an insurance policy, they’ll put three catchers on the roster. I don’t understand that move. Neither Giavani Soto nor Henry Blanco will able to contain Arizona’s running game and Brandon Webb will shut down the Cub’s offense in Game 1, and Arizona will advance to the NLCS.
The Chicago Cubs are potentially on the verge of adding yet another chapter to the book of historical misery; a book of colossal collapses; a book of terribly bad luck. As of press time (I've always wanted to say that!) the Cubs have lost 3 in a row to the last place Florida Marlins and sit 1.5 games ahead of the Milwaukee Brewers in the N.L. Central Division. No team since 1962 has blown a lead of more than three games with a week to play in the season (Chicago's lead was 3.5 at week's beginning).
For the record, I do believe the Cubs will hold on to the lead and make the playoffs. But if I'm wrong and the Brewers should come back, Cub Nation shouldn't consider this as one of the worst moments in franchise history.
This is the team, after all, that in 1969 led the division by 8.5 games on August 14th and went on to miss the playoffs. In 1984 the Cubs won the first two games of the NLCS and then dropped the next three to the Padres. They eventually lost the Series in 7 and held a lead in games 3-5 prior to losing. In 1998 the Cubs won a one-game, tie-breaking playoff over the Mets only to get demolished by the Giants in the first round of the playoffs. 2003? Anybody ever heard of Steve Bartman? They led the NLCS 3-1 over the Marlins, had arguably the two best pitchers in the National League, Mark Prior and Kerry Wood, pitching in Games 6 and 7, at home, and still lost in 7 games. The next year, they went on a run after acquiring Nomar Garciaparra at the trade deadline, and led the Wild Card race in September before bowing out in heart wrenching fashion. History has not been friendly to the team playing at the "Friendly Confines."
But enough sob stories. Missing the playoffs in 2007 would hurt, there is no denying that. But it's a bruise, not a gunshot wound.
Those Cub's teams in the past had potential. The Cubs circa 2007 are playing in a pathetic division, and can still manage to barely stay alive in the division race. Here's an astonishing statistic: The opponents the Cubs have faced in their own division this year (Milwaukee, Houston, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis) are a dismal 73 combined games under .500. Any team worthy of making the playoffs would have clinched 3 weeks ago playing against that (lack of) competition.
At the risk of using politically incorrect analogies, winning the 2007 N.L. Central is akin to being the tallest midget. Heck, might as well be the smartest ####.
That may have crossed the line, but that just goes to tell you how sad this Cubs team is.
Even if they make the playoffs, they'll win no more than 1 game in the Divisional round. They'll be on the road, most likely facing the Diamondbacks who are a league best 50-31 at home.
Had the Cubs played in any other division, not only would they have never stood a chance to make the postseason, but their record would have reflected the below average team they are. Playing against actual Major League teams, a .480 winning percentage would have been likely. If/When the Cubs play their first playoff game, they should be viewed as a below average and underachieving, yet very lucky, team, not a division champion.
They don't stand a chance of making the World Series. Sure, you can point to the 2006 Cardinals and say that anything can happen once you make it to the playoffs. But last year was the exception for the ages. It was the first time in my lifetime that I can legitimately say that the best team didn't win. The odds are severely stacked against them. And the Brewers too, for that matter, if they overtake their southern I-94 rival.
So, Cubs fans. If your team should disappoint you yet again, you can look back at the season and say "Well, they wouldn't have done anything with the opportunity anyway."
There is no doubt in my mind that many of today’s superstars of Major League Baseball took performance enhancing steroids to aid their quests of breaking some of the game’s most cherished records. But this post isn’t about the evidence for steroid usage amongst today’s players, because as far as I’m concerned, it’s a forgone conclusion that Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa did in fact use steroids. Instead this post is a rebuttal to some of the common arguments given to support these players in the wake of their steroid implications.
In recent weeks even some of Bonds’ biggest supporters have admitted to me or in public that they believe Bonds cheated his way past Hank Aaron’s career homerun record. These Bonds cohorts (and other non-believers for that matter) have given a few reasons why an asterisk is unnecessary or even riposte that BabeRuth should have an asterisk next to his 714. Here are some of these arguments and my two fundamental differences between the so called “cheating” from players of the past and the cheating from players of today and the very recent past.
One of the points I’ve heard thrown around is that Ruth never faced black or Latin players, and that the competition of his time was far inferior to what Barry Bonds might face today. I’ve also heard the notion that since a ball that bounced in the outfield and went over the fence in Ruth’s day was ruled a homerun (today that is a ground rule double), that Ruth’s total would have been less if he played today. Some of baseball’s most strict statisticians placed an asterisk next to the 61 homers hit by Roger Maris in 1961. The reason? The season was longer in those days compared to when Ruth hit 60, so Maris had the advantage of playing in more games.
This is asinine. Players of the past cannot have held against them rules of their time. Ruth had no control over the quality of the pitchers he faced. Maris had no control over the number of games the league made his team play. This is Fundamental Difference #1: Barry Bonds made a conscious decision to ingest performance enhancing drugs. Players of the pre-steroid era did not have a say in the number of games they played, the quality of their competition, or the rules governing the difference between a homer and a double. Players of today had every option to not take steroids, but did so at their own peril.
Defenders of Jose Canseco and other juicers claim that since MLB had no steroid policy in place during that time, the bulked up hacks who did drugs did not break any rules. Au contraire. In 1990 the federal government passed legislation that made possession of steroids without a prescription a punishable crime in all 50 states. Therefore, every single one of baseball’s juicers were breaking the law. Fundamental Difference #2: Barry Bonds committed a felony when he used The Cream and The Clear.
I don’t care if Bonds never goes to prison for his acts of selfishness and stupidity. I only submit that all stats from baseball’s most notorious steroid sluggers be marked with an asterisk or erased completely, all of their post-season awards (Most Valuable Players, Rookies of the Year, Silver Sluggers, etc) be stripped and given to the player next in line, and that none of them ever see their busts enshrined in Cooperstown, New York. That’s not asking too much, is it?
Here are two other common arguments I’ve heard in defense of the steroid users and my rebuttals:
There were so many players cheating and Bud Selig knew what was going on, so you can give no punishment to them. So if 20 guys all get busted robbing a bank does the police let them go because they had strength in numbers? More importantly, and more realistically, if the CEO of a tax firm turns a blind eye to his accountants fudging numbers on purpose would the public brush the incident off its collective shoulders and chock it up to an oversight? Hell no! They’d all be punished, all arrested, all fired. Selig is just as much to blame as the McGuires and Sosas of the world.
Barry Bonds never tested positive for steroids so you cannot punish him without proof. Again, I am not asking for Bonds to be imprisoned, just banned from the Hall of Fame. The first commissioner of baseball, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, banned all 8 members of the Chicago “Black Sox” even after they were all acquitted of charges by the judicial system. Selig should do the same to today’s players. Then, the powers that be should fire Bud Selig for not doing something 10 years ago.
Folks, no matter how you try spinning it, cheating is cheating is cheating. Bonds and all the other steroid cheats should never under any circumstances be observed in the same company as Aaron and the rest of baseball’s prized Hall of Famers.
So Yankees thirdbasemen Alex Rodriguez shouted something (some reports say it was "I got it" while others contend it was more along the lines of "hey" or "hah") that indirectly led to a popup landing harmlessly on the ground, which helped the Yankees defeat the Toronto Blue Jays on Wednesday night. Big deal. Psyching out and tricking the opponent is part of playing sports.
I'm far from being a fan of A-Rod or the Yankees, so I wouldn't be defending either of them unless I felt strongly about it. I have a problem with Blue Jays skipper John Gibbons referencing the play as "bush league."
"Bush league" would be what A-Rod tried to do to the Red Sox in the 2004 ALCS, when he batted a thrown ball away from the first basemen while hustling down the baseline. The umpire in that instance correctly saw the play and ruled Rodriguez out at first, ordering Derek Jeter, who came around to score, back to second base.
I have no problem with ball players faking out the other team in any way, as long as they don't physically interfere by touching a fielder or the ball. Shouting, singing, or doing a little dance? Heck, go for it if you think it'll help the team. Tell him his mother is on the phone waiting for him.
A million times in the past I've seen outfielders throw up their glove like they are about to catch a fly ball in an attempt to freeze a baserunner and nobody has ever complained of this as foul practice, so why can't a baserunner do a bit of the same in return? Why stop there? I mean, if you can't try to psyche out or mislead the other team, then maybe they should just announce over the PA system "the runner on first will now attempt to steal second," or "the next pitch will be a curveball on the outside corner?"
Instead of hating on Rodriguez for "cheating," I applaud his awareness and instincts.
As the Chicago White Sox hover within a few games of .500 and seem to drift further from the division leader Cleveland Indians on a daily basis, I am hearing rumblings from fans expressing the desire to re-acquire former CF and current Phillie Aaron Rowand. As the rumblings increase in frequency, so does my disgust.
For Rowand, the White Sox acquired Jim Thome, the team’s current leader in batting average, on-base%, slugging%, and walks. If not for a muscle injury that kept him out of the lineup for more than two weeks, he’d also be leading the team in homers and RBI. Anybody who points out Rowand’s leadership and overall welcomed presence in the clubhouse should take note of Thome’s longstanding reputation as being the same person.
The Rowand trade has been one of the better trades in the successful career of Sox GM Ken Williams. But Sox fans want the “grindy” player back in Chicago. The current CF on Chicago’s southside is Darin Erstad, whose mold was used the form Rowand (or so it would appear if such a thing were actually possible). Even with two LFs likely out for extended periods of time with injuries (Scott Podsednik and Pablo Ozuna), the Sox are stacked with serviceable options. Rob Mackowiak has improved his outfield defense tremendously from last year, and up-and-comers Ryan Sweeney and Brian Anderson loom in AAA.
The Sox already have a couple of players similar to Rowand in their outfield
Despite Rowand’s hot start to 2007—he’s batted .325 through the first 51 games—I just don’t see enough room for him on the team unless Williams is willing to give up so soon on Anderson, a move I strongly oppose. Besides that, the Phillies just don’t have any interest in dealing Rowand.
In the end, I can only think of one question to ask those Sox fans clamoring for Rowand’s return: Would you rather have the reckless, fence-crashing, “small baler,” or the soon-to-be member of the 500 home run club and surefire future Hall of Famer?
I am a big proponent of interleague play for several reasons. One of the few things Bud Selig, MLB’s often detested commissioner, did right was adding interleague play to the schedule in the mid-90’s following the highly unpopular player’s strike. Several changes have been made since then and just about all of them are for the better, but interleaue play is still a work-in-progress. Here are some changes that need to be made:
Scatter Interleague games throughout the entire schedule The interleague games have been around long enough that there is no longer any point to scheduling every team in the league to play them all at the same time. Scatter them randomly throughout the whole season (much like the NBA and NHL would do) and make it more convenient for scheduling road trips (The Red Sox could stay in town for 3 more games against the Giants while they are playing the A’s, thus saving a long flight back later in the year).
Make up your mind with the DH It really doesn’t matter which way baseball goes, but either add the DH to the National League or remove it from the American League. Different rules for different venues is unconditionally ludicrous. The rules need to be the same for every single team in both leagues. If I’m going to suggest changes then I might as well suggest which change to make, so as a fan who mostly watches American League games I’m going to add the DH all around. I have always backed the argument that it adds several years to the careers of players who otherwise couldn’t play the field, such as Frank Thomas, Harold Baines, Eddie Murray, Edgar Martinez, and the most recent example, Mike Piazza. Watching a pitcher bat is like watching the handicapped kid try to play in the YMCA with everybody else. Fans pay money to see homeruns (or least base hits). I no longer want to watch a pitcher bunt a guy over from second to third with 1 out or, just as bad, strike out swinging on three straight pitches.
Without a DH rule, his career may have ended in 2001
Play one 3-game series with every team in the opposite league The first step in this rule change is actually getting rid of the awkward “Rivalry Weekend,” which seemingly forces rivals upon some fans who don’t necessarily see it that way (the Blue Jays and the Rockies, anybody?). Every team in both leagues should then play one 3-game series against every team in the opposite league every single season, and the series would alternate home-and-away with each new season.
Move the Brewers back to the American League Central, and the Royals to A.L. West I’ll never understand why Selig pushed so hard to move Milwaukee to the National League, thus having 14 A.L. teams and 16 N.L. teams, including only four in the A.L. West and six in the N.L. Central. Playing a balanced schedule and making it fair for all parties involved is going to require having the same number of teams in every division.
Go back to the balanced schedule As a fan who watches and/or attends upwards of 140-150 White Sox games every season, I’m sick of playing the Indians, Tigers, Twins, and Royals almost every week. Well, actually, my proposal would still be unbalanced, but yet, more balanced than what it is now. Based on the above rule changes, if my White Sox played every National League team for one 3-game series, they would play 42 interleague games. They could then play 80 combined games vs the A.L. West and East (this equals out to two 4-game home-and-away series against each of the 10 teams). This leaves enough room on the schedule to play each team within the division nine times each. These changes cut the interdivisional games down from 19 to 9, add a little bit more pizzazz to an otherwise predictable and lackluster schedule of baseball.
I don’t understand it.
So many publications, experts, and baseball gurus have picked the
Cleveland Indians to run away with the American League Central title in 2007,
and I’ve heard a number of these predictions going as far as to say they will
win the Pennant and/or World Series.
I’ve been mulling it over for weeks, and even after seeing the Indians
take 2 of 3 from my White Sox at U.S. Cellular Field last week, I’m still
convinced that Cleveland is at
least one year away from moving any higher in the standings than fourth place.
This American League Central sure is one tough division; the
toughest in Major League Baseball by a landslide. I think the division will come down to
whoever has the better head-to-head record between Chicago and the Detroit
Tigers, while the Minnesota Twins, dearly missing Fransisco Liriano and Brad
Radke, take third, and Cleveland handily finishes above Kansas City but
more than 10 games behind the Tigers and White Sox.
Seriously, what do the Indians have that the Sox don’t?
Both have excellent young managers and comparable
lineups. The Indians possess more
balance from 1-9 in the batting order, but no team in baseball can stack up
with Chicago’s 3-6 of Jim Thome
(.288 BA, 42 HR, 109 RBI in 2006), Paul
Konerko (.313, 35, 113), Jermaine
Dye (.315, 44, 120), and Joe Crede
(.283, 30, 94). The Indians would have
to clone both Grady Sizemore and
their best hitter, Travis Haftner,
just to hold a candle to that fearsome foursome.
Hafner (left) and Thome (right) are similar hitters, but Thome has far superior protection behind him
The Indians don’t even come close to matching up with Chicago’s
depth. Rob Mackowiak, Alex Cintron,
and Pablo Ozuna help to compose the
best and most versatile bench this side of the Mississippi.
But, the lineup isn’t even close to being the biggest
problem in Cleveland. The Tribe will score runs by the ton in
2007—even though they’re not as good (on paper) as the White Sox. No, no, Cleveland’s
biggest problem is pitching. You think
the White Sox have question marks on the pitching staff? Then the Indians have QUESTION MARKS ON THE PITCHING STAFF!
Cleveland ace C.C. Sabathia is almost the exact same
pitcher as White Sox starter Mark
Buehrle. And fear not, White Sox
fans, Buehrle’s 2006 stats. Last year
was the exception to his spectacular career, not the rule. Jon
Garland backed up his “fluky” 2005 18-win season by winning 18 games again
last year. Jose Contreras may be past his prime, but he’s more dependable than
the Indians’ Jake Westbrook. The well-traveled Javier Vazquez is inconsistent, but no GM in the league would turn
him down in favor of Paul Byrd or Cliff Lee. Both teams have inserted young, highly
touted, and yet unproven phenoms into the rotation. The Indians have 23-year old Jeremy Sowers and the White Sox will
use 21-year old John Danks.
You think the White Sox have question marks? The Indians will throw this man every 5th day
Cleveland’s
bullpen was made over this off-season, but they might as well have put a
band-aid on a corpse. Adding 35-year old
Joe Borowski and 42-year old Roberto Hernandez, both of whom have
had major arm surgeries at one point during their careers, will make little or
no noticeable difference. Matt Miller, 35, when and if he comes
of the disabled list, is no spring chicken himself. The rest of Cleveland’s
relief corps (minus lefty Aaron Fultz)
are holdovers from one of the worst bullpens in the American League in 2006.
Meanwhile the White Sox counter with one of the best
bullpens in the league and they will hold leads at a far better success rate
this year compared to the Tribe.
Combining both youth and experience, the Sox will feature six relievers,
all of whom throw fastballs at 95+ mph.
Lefties Matt Thornton and Andy Sisco are downright nasty to both
left-handed and right-handed batters,
and setup man Mike MacDougal has
experience closing out games—he even made the All-Star team in 2003 as the
closer for the Royals. Closer Bobby Jenks, who saved 41 games last
year, has ice in his veins, demonstrated by his outstanding performances during
the 2005 post-season and World Series.
When it comes right down to it, I don’t see how “experts”
like Foxsports.com’s Dayn Perry can
rank the Cleveland Indians #1 in Baseball, so far ahead of the Chicago White
Sox. If the Indians played in the A.L.
West they would easily make the playoffs.
If they played in any division in the National League they would easily
win the Pennant. But in this division, I
just don’t see any way they stack up to the team I see as the favorite, the
Chicago White Sox.
The Chicago Cubs should have hired former catcher Joe Girardi as their next manager. While Lou Piniella has the hardware (one World Series Championship and two AL Managers of the Year) he has compiled only a career .517 winning percentage despite owning the luxury of several Hall of Fame players performing under his supervision. Don Mattingly, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield, Barry Larkin, Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Edgar Martinez, and Randy Johnson are all in the Hall of Fame or will be one day, and all of them played under Piniella with the Yankees, Reds, and Mariners.
Piniella has a better chance of seeing God than winning a Series with the Cubs
Piniella had many talented young players with Tampa Bay (Rocco Baldelli, Carl Crawford, Julio Lugo, Danys Baez, and Aubrey Huff) and could do nothing to harness their talents and take them anywhere above fourth place. The Cubs, in a probable rebuilding year, figure to field several young players in 2007, and Piniella has proven he cannot win in the absence of proven Major League veterans. Girardi on the other hand, took a Marlins team with only one regular fielder (backup utility man Wes Helms) and three regular pitchers (starter Brian Moehler, closer Joe Borowski, and setup man Matt Herges) age 30 or over to within a handful of games of the NL Wild Card. The Marlins, $15 million payroll and all, played young castoffs like Dan Uggla, Miguel Olivo, and Joe Borchard routinely, and exceeded everybody’s expectations. It’s hard for me to believe Piniella will win more than 75 games with the Cubs in 2007 while whatever team hires Girardi can expect a major turnaround next season. As for the ’07 Marlins, they’ll see a 10 or 15 win decrease with new manager Freddi Gonzalez.
Smith Right to Ditch “Victory Monday”
Today Bear’s coach Lovie Smith scheduled a morning practice at 7:00am. Ordinarily, after a victory, the Bears would have had Monday off. But they beat Arizona last week 24-23 so ditching Victory Monday looks peculiar. But it was an ugly win, and coming off the bye week, the Bears could be rusty while playing San Francisco this week. Both the offense and defense were sluggish against the Cardinals, and Chicago needed a dose of reality. Getting this past weekend to relax means the Bears have enough energy to practice an extra day this week, and it will pay dividends down the road.
I have never seen pine tar before, but I know dirt when I see it
Roger’s Game 2 Performance Reeks of Conspiracy
This one is short and simple. As Tim McCarver pointed out during the broadcast, “If it’s not illegal, then why did they ask him to wash it off?” And why didn’t he get ejected? I don’t know what that “foreign substance” on his left palm was, but it wasn’t dirt. And it wasn’t there by accident. Kenny Rogers should have been thrown out of the game, and can you imagine what the consequences of that would have been? Detroit may have gone on to win the game anyhow, but their bullpen would have been forced to pitch eight innings. That’s quite a big difference.
