The Little Summer Classic

Issue: How much do you love the Little League World Series (hereinafter LLWS)?

Short Answer: You might be surprised.

Reasoning: I think the LLWS stinks.  Now, before you start calling me a cynic, please, let me explain.  In fact, allow me to parse it out, so everyone can understand why I think it stinks (notice I said "I"...I am not trying to convince anyone that it stinks, because I realize a lot of people enjoy watching the LLWS, for some odd reason).  How about a "pro" and "con" list:

PROS:

1. What an experience for a bunch of 12-year old kids.  There is a team in the LLWS this year that is from Pennsylvania, in fact, they are only about 40 miles from Williamsport (where the LLWS is held), and, you know how many people were in attendance for their first game?  Over 41,000.  No joke.  Could you imagine being 12 and playing in front of that many people?  A few times in my career I was lucky enough to play in front of 10,000+ people.  It was an experience I wish I could put into words, but I can't.  Let's just say, in a sports context, it was the coolest thing that I have ever done.  To put it simply, those kids will never forget that game.  Ever.  My point to this post is not that the LLWS should cease to exist, just that it should cease to be on my TV.  Forever.
2. At least these kids are playing some sort of baseball and aren't sitting in front of the computer or TV.  I give them credit for that.  That is the last entry on the list of "pros."

CONS:

1. Let's just say, hypothetically, you could find the abosolute, very best 12-year old baseball players in the entire world.  About 30 of them.  Then, you split them into 2 teams and played them against each other.  There is still no freakin' way that I would want to watch it.  Why?  Because they are freakin' 12-years old.  Hell, if I ever have kids, it is going to be painful having to watch them play baseball when they are 12.  Really?  Watching 12-year olds play baseball is fun?  No, not a bit.
2. Little League baseball is a joke.  Do you realize why a team with a dominant pitcher always wins?  It's because the pitcher's mound is about 6 feet away from home plate.  A dominant Little League pitcher throws the equivalent of a 6,257 mile per hour fastball.  Not only can you not hit that, you can't even see it.  It's like fast-pitch softball without chicks in shorts, instead you have 12-year old boys.  Only Herbert from "Family Guy" likes that trade-off.
3. Little League baseball is a joke, part II.  Is there a reason the players can't lead off?  Is this a safety issue?  Or is it the fact that if leadoffs were allowed, even the fat kids could steal bases, because the bases are only 60 feet apart?  Again, what we have here is fast-pitch softball played by 12-year old kids, on a mini-baseball diamond.  Fact is, leadoffs and baserunning in general are often undercoached and misunderstood (ever watch the Cincinnati Reds run the bases?).  If kids aren't leading off at age 12, learning it later is going to be difficult, because other kids not playing Little League have been doing it their whole lives.  It makes no sense.
4. Little League baseball is a joke, part III.  Have you ever wondered why there are so many home runs hit in Little League baseball (unless, of course, there is a pitcher throwing 6,000+ mph)?  It's because the fences are 200 feet.  I could find 8-year olds that can hit a baseball that far.  The home runs these kids hit are outs in real baseball (meaning not Little League baseball).  Lazy fly balls.  Yet, I see these kids hit a 215-foot fly-ball, and pimp it.  It's a can-of-corn, deal with it.
5. Little League baseball is antiquated.  The Little League game is not played by the best amateur players anymore.  The total number of Major League players that played Little League baseball?  31.  The total number of those 31 Major League players to play in the LLWS?  23.  The LLWS was founded in 1947.  That means, people who tune into the LLWS see, on average, 1/3 (yes, that says "one-third") of a future Major League player, every single year.  Sweet.  The most recent Major League player to have played in the LLWS?  Lastings Milledge, who appeared in the LLWS in 1997.  At 12-years old, these kids should be playing baseball on bigger fields, a regulation pitching mound, while leading off and running the bases the proper way.  Playing Little League baseball only serves to stunt the development of players.  And in a game like baseball, it's hard to catch up.

Now, I know some of you out there might think I am being a little harsh, you know, bagging on a bunch of 12-year olds, but, I want you to know, I'm not bagging on 12-year olds kids, I'm bagging on 12-year old kid's parents, for being dumb enough to sign-up their 12-year old kid for Little League.  Idiots!

A Win For The Ages

Issue: Dude, where have you been?

Short Answer: August is a slow time for sports.  Bear with me...

Reasoning: This has been an especially slow month for sports, given the NFL lockout, the Reds stinking it up, and golf without one Tiger Woods.  And, well, it has shown in my blog.  Working full-time doesn't help either, but, I have to be honest, I just haven't seen much interesting to write about lately.  There hasn't been much going down in the world of sports.  However, this weekend was the 93rd PGA Championship held in my second hometown, Atlanta, at the fabled Atlanta Athletic Club (which, in case you were wondering, isn't in Atlanta, nor is it really even near Atlanta).  My guess is that most of you didn't watch, as the biggest names on the leaderboard were David Toms (boring), Lee Westwood (seems like a jerk), and Scott Verplank (old).  While I enjoy watching those three guys play, they don't exactly draw in the casual golf fan.  And, if you are one of those casual golf fans, you missed one of the best tournaments in recent memory.  I am not going to recap the tournament (only because I am long-winded and I have limited space), but I will pass along two tidbits that made the PGA Championship special.  Or odd.  Or just plain strange.

First, let me quickly discuss Keegan Bradley's (that is the young man who actually won the tournament, for those of you who had more important things to do on Sunday - or for those that just don't like golf) place in golf history.  See, this was Keegan Bradley's first ever appearance in a major championship.  Never had he played in the Masters, the U.S. Open, or the British Open.  Commentators always talk about the "experience" a golfer needs to win a major championship because the pressure becomes too much for those who have never experienced it.  That is why you don't often see a "no-name" win a major.  Sure, it happens, because luck is part of the game, but you see Tiger, and Jack, and Phil, and Arnie, and Ben, and Sam win majors; you don't often see a Keegan.  Yet, Keegan Bradley stared down the competition in his first ever major, and came out on top in the end.  I am here to let you know how uncanny Bradley's victory was.  Here is the ENTIRE list of golfers who have won a major in their first ever major appearance:

1. Keegan Bradley - 2011 PGA Championship
2. Ben Curtis - 2003 British Open Championship
3. Francis Ouimet - 1913 U.S. Open

Not very long, is it?  Many of you have probably heard the story of Ouimet, who was a caddy at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts, when he was allowed to enter the U.S. Open being held there in 1913.  He beat two of the top players in the world in a playoff, and his victory is widely regarded as one of the biggest upsets in the history of sport, not just golf.  Keegan Bradley just did something that absolutely never happens.  He won a major in his first ever try.  He faced the pressure and came through when it mattered.  I'm just glad I was around to watch it (even if you weren't).

Secondly (and lastly, for that matter), Keegan Bradley became the first ever winner of a major while using a long putter.  For those that aren't familiar (what do you do?), a long putter is a putter, that is long.  Adam Scott uses a long putter that comes right underneath his chin.  Keegan Bradley uses a long putter termed "belly putter" as the butt end of the putter basically lodges in, or near, one's belly button.  Supposedly long putters allow for more stability, and, therefore, more consistency in putting.  I would question how consistent they are, when a person using one has never won a major, prior to yesterday.  Most players who go to the long putter do so when they encounter "the yips."  The yips are basically a mental block over short putts.  Players who experience the yips have a hard time making a smooth, consistent stroke, which often ends with missing 2 and 3 foot putts, something you cannot do and expect to succeed at the highest levels of golf.  Players using long putters today, however, aren't necessarily suffering from the yips.  Some, like Keegan Bradley, have chosen long putters because they believe it makes their game better, not because they are attempting to cure some sort of mental block.  In fact, many commentators are suggesting Lee Westwood (who has 6 top-10's in his last 9 majors) go to the long putter, not because he misses short putts, but because he doesn't hole a lot of putts from 8-20 feet.  Here is what I do know:

1. Keegan Bradley will be responsible for a huge boom in amateurs using long putters, whether those amateurs really need them or not;
2. You may even see a few PGA Tour members go to a long putter;
3. Players should examine their brains before they examine their putters;
4. I will NEVER use a long putter.

See, putting, like most anything in golf, is mental.  Those that have the confidence on the greens are going to be the better putters (i.e., Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson).  The long putter creates artificial confidence for a golfer, for at least a while.  That's not to say the long putter can't boost that confidence enough to where a golfer truly believes he is a better putter because of it, which, in turn, gives golfers exactly what they need - the confidence to believe they WILL make the putt, not HOPE they will make the putt.  Long putters are for some, but not for all.  See, confidence has never been my problem (even though I stink), so I will never need a long putter (even though I stink).  If I had to stand over a 4-foot putt, in front of millions of people, for millions of dollars, and a championship trophy, maybe a long putter would help.  Until then, I will stick with a regulation putter, and continue to stink.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: You realize you don't do this column on a "weekly" basis, right?

Short Answer: Sue me.

Reasoning: I have been busy, damn!  Seriously though, "The Odd Stat of the Week" sounds better than "The Odd Stat of the Time Between Now and the Last Time I Did an Odd Stat Column," doesn't it?  Plus, in the days when I was writing more, I did write the column once a week.  Almost.  Now that we have that taken care of, let's move on to some crazy stats.  It is now the beginning of August, meaning there are only two sports going on that I care about (baseball and golf, for those of you that pay zero attention), and golf doesn't usually lend itself to "odd" stats, per se, so that leaves me with the greatest game of all, and one in which stats may very well have been invented for (man, that was a long sentence).  To prove how odd baseball is sometimes, I have two crazy stats for you, both of which happened in the last two days.

The first stat deals with the team that I (and almost everyone else) hates with a passion: the New York Yankees.  The Yankees, just yesterday, finished up a four-game sweep of the Chicago White Sox.  No, that is not the odd stat.  In fact, that is not odd at all, as the White Sox stink.  What is odd is the fact that the Yankees, in a four-game sweep, walked exactly ZERO hitters.  Sounds odd.  Sounds crazy.  I wish the Reds could win one game without walking a hitter, but I digress.  One may not understand how odd and crazy this stat actually is.  The feat the Yankees just accomplished had happened only twice in modern (since 1900) Major League history.  What makes this stat even more odd is that the Yankees are only the second team to accomplish the feat, as the Boston Red Sox are responsible for the only two prior occurrences.  The last time a four-game sweep occurred with zero walks by the winning team, was in 1968, when the Red Sox swept the Chicago White Sox (weird in and of itself).  Prior to that, the Red Sox swept the Washington Senators in a four-game set in June/July of 1905.  Wow.

Part II of the Odd Stat of the Week involves a player to whom I have a connection.  Dan Uggla was drafted in 2001 by the Arizona Diamondbacks, exactly four rounds before I was drafted by the Oakland A's.  In 2001 he played in the Northwest League with the Yakima Bears at the same time I was playing for the Vancouver Canadians of the Northwest League.  Uggla began the his 2002 season with South Bend of the Midwest League, but was eventually moved to Lancaster of the California League, at the same time I was playing for Visalia of, you guessed it, the California League.  My connection with Uggla doesn't end there, as after my playing career ended, I dated his ex-girlfriend for a couple of months.  And that is all I have to say about that.  Uggla has been a good, not great, Major Leaguer.  He has a career .257 average, so what, you may ask, does he do that earned him a 5-year, $62 million contract from the Atlanta Braves?  Well, he hits more home runs than any other second baseman in the league, hands down.  He has hit 177 home runs in almost 6 seasons, which means he AVERAGES 30 home runs a year, at a position where home runs are usually the exception, not the norm.  This year has been a struggle (other than the home run category - he has 23) for Uggla.  Through 86 games this year, he was hitting a paltry .173.  Not what you're looking for out of your $62 million man.  However, since that 86th game, Uggla really started to make history - he has gotten at least one hit in his last 25 games.  Now, a 25-game hit streak is not all that odd (30+ seems to be the benchmark).  But, a player having a 25-game hit streak in a season as bad as Uggla is having now, is as historical as it gets.  When Uggla went 2-for-4 on Wednesday (8/3), he raised his season average to .215 (that is not a typo).  That batting average is 50 POINTS LOWER than any other average, after the players 25th game of a hitting streak, in the history of baseball.  Let's let that one soak in for a second...or two...the previous low*?  Hobe Ferris of the St. Louis Browns was hitting .265 after his 25th game of his hitting streak...in 1908.  That's right, Uggla just broke a record that stood for 103 years, was set in the dead-ball era (before 1920), and he broke it by a landslide.  The moral to the story?  Bad hitters don't usually put together long hitting streaks.  However, I'm sure the $62 million Uggla will make over the next 5 years will take away some of the sting.  Call me crazy.

*The previous low in the live-ball era (beginning in 1920) was Willy Taveras in 2006.  He was hitting .278 after his 25th game of a hitting streak.

Heeeeeee's Baaaaaack

Issue: Who?

Short Answer: Tiger.

Reasoning: I know I write about golf a lot.  That's because golf is awesome.  Pick up some clubs and find out.  I dare ya.  And, well, most of those posts are about the one and only, Tiger Woods.  Would you rather me write about Briny Baird?  Most of you probably think I just made that name up.  I didn't.  That is the biggest problem with golf right now - there aren't many recognizable faces or names.  The players are possibly better now than they have ever been, but, it is really hard to root for anyone not named Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Steve Stricker, Bubba Watson, or, well, that's about it (seriously, I can't stand Nick Watney, Ricky Barnes, and some of the other toolbags out there).  So what happens when there is a tournament when none of those fellas are in contention?  Let me welcome you to last weekends Greenbriar, Classic.  First, the tournament took place in West Virginia which makes it automatically no fun.  However, the Greenbriar resort and golf course are absolutely gorgeous (p.s. the absolute only thing in the entire state of West Virginia that can be classified as "gorgeous") which is enough to draw avid golf fans, e.g., me, but it is not enough to get the casual fan to watch.  Tiger does.

As I sat and watched the entire round on Sunday (one too many on Saturday night for me), I often wondered why, or possibly who, the heck I was watching.  Funny thing is, the tournament was unbelievably compelling.  (Keep in mind, you may not recognize any of these names) Bob Estes, a 45-year old former winner on the PGA Tour, fired a 64 on Sunday to take the lead (-10) in the clubhouse.  Bill Haas birdied the 17th hole to move to -10 and tie for the lead.  Scott Stallings was tied for the lead going into Sunday, but he shot 4-over on the front 9 to end his chances, or so I thought.  Stallings birdied 5 of the first 7 holes on the back nine to move to -10, and he still had the reachable par-5 17th ahead.  It was his tournament to win or lose.  When he drove his ball into the hazard on the 17th, it looked like he would choke.  He saved bogey, then birdied 18 to join Haas and Estes in a playoff.  The 18th at the Greenbriar is a par-3, which makes for an exciting, if not quick, playoff.  Haas hit it to 20 feet and missed the putt.  Estes hit his to 12 feet and missed the putt.  Stallings hit it to 6 feet and made the putt for his first (for some reason I am thinking his last - seriously, the most impressive thing about him were his man boobs) PGA Tour victory.  It was fantastic to watch.  Unless you aren't as serious about golf as I am.  There was nothing to draw the casual fan, especially after Phil missed the cut.  So, what does golf need?  You guessed it.

When Tiger is in the field, everyone watches.  No matter what he does from now until the end of his career, he is one of the best golfers of all time, and even casual fans enjoy watching the best, no matter what the sport.  Even when Tiger is 8 shots back going into Sunday, don't you (and by "you" I mean those that do the things I am about to write...) watch just for the chance that he makes a patented Tiger comeback?  Don't you watch when Tiger is blowing away the field by 9 shots, just to watch the amazing things he can do with a golf ball?  I know I do.  This is how good Tiger Woods is at golf: He has played in only 7 (he withdrew from The Players after one round, so, 6 1/4) full events this year (out of 34) and he is still 135th on the FedEx Cup points list (the top 125 head to the playoffs) and ranked 28th in the world rankings (his lowest ranking since his first full year on tour).  I mean, seriously, all he has to do is play decent golf over the next few weeks and he will make the playoffs easy, which means he could still win the FedEx Cup, and he hasn't played competitive golf since May 12th.  Even crazier is the fact that he is still ranked in the top-30 in the world.  That is how much ahead of the competition he was when his career crashed like his Mercedes that fateful night over a year-and-a-half ago.

By the way, I love the fact that he got rid of Steve Williams (his caddy), because it shows he is trying to clean the slate and start anew.  That's what he needs to do.  I don't think it was anything personal, he just needed to move in a new direction.  And I, for one (just in case you haven't figured it out yet), cannot wait until he gets there.