Ben Petrick

Issue: Uhh, who?

Short Answer: Just keep reading...

Reasoning: This is what Wikipedia tells us about Ben Petrick:

Benjamin Wayne Petrick (born April 7, 1977) is a former Major League Baseball player.  Petrick, who was born in Salem, Oregon, was a highly accomplished athlete while attending Glencoe High School in Hillsboro, Oregon. He was recruited heavily to play both football and baseball, and ended up going straight into the Colorado Rockies' farm system when they drafted him in the second round (38th overall) of the 1995 amateur entry draft. Petrick became a solid prospect, finding a great deal of success with the Rockies' AAA affiliate, the Colorado Springs Sky Sox. He was called up to the Rockies for the first time in 1999 and hit .323 with 4 home runs in only 62 at-bats. In 2000, he hit .322 in 52 games for the major league club. However, he soon experienced a dramatic dropoff in production, hitting only .238 in 85 games in 2001. On July 13, 2003, Petrick was acquired by the Detroit Tigers from Colorado in exchange for pitcher Adam Bernero. After an unsuccessful stint with the Tigers, Petrick was released. He attempted a brief comeback with the AAA Portland Beavers, and then retired.

This isn't a story about baseball.  This is a story about life.  See, I am a fairly unemotional person (just ask any girl I have ever dated).  I like to think I am always smiling, as I absolutely love life, but very rarely am I moved to tears.  Jim Volvano, in his famous speech at the ESPY's in 1993, told everyone   they should have their emotions moved to tears on a daily basis, but that is easier said than done.  Especially for me.  Perhaps it was because I was raised in a family with 3 brothers and...hold on, who cares why I am that way?  This isn't a blog about me and my emotional deficiencies.  Geez.  Let's move on...

I saw the following piece on E:60, a news show on ESPN.  I have been a baseball guy my whole life, so when I heard the name Ben Petrick, I remembered him, although vaguely.  I recalled him as a heck of catcher, who was turned into an outfielder, who could crush a baseball.  In short, he reminded me of myself (only he was a heck of a lot better than me).  But, then I heard his story and the comparisons to me stopped.  I want you to know that the piece did move me to tears, it is sad, but I promise you it has a happy ending.  I wouldn't post it here if it didn't.  It's a moving story about how sometimes life isn't fair, coping with that fact, and moving on.  You may have never heard of Ben Petrick before today, but something tells me you won't ever forget him.

Leave it to ESPN (yes, I still hate them) to not allow embedding of videos.  Click here to watch the video.

The Wisdom of Tim McCarver

Issue: Uh, Wisdom?

Short Answer:  I was being facetious...

Reasoning:  I have to be honest.  After the Reds were knocked out of the playoffs (by themselves), my attention turned to football.  I didn't watch much of the NLCS or ALCS.  However, the World Series is different.  It's quite possibly my favorite sporting event.  So, last night, with Game 1 starting, I settled on my couch with a cold beer and a high definition television, and I prepared myself to be a bum for the next 3 hours.  Sometimes baseball can be boring (no, really, it can be), so I was thinking of a way to keep it interesting, even in the face of what turned out to be an 8-1 Giants victory.  And then it hit me.  Why not keep track of all the insanely stupid things Tim McCarver says during the game?  Yes, I will need multiple notepads and pens, but let's just see how stupid he can be.  I thought I might be able to fit a whole series worth of McCarverisms into one post, but, after only one game, I may already have too many (plus, I may not always have 3 hours to sit down and listen to everything McCarver says, thankfully).  The following is a list of quotes from McCarver last night.  They are NOT direct quotes, as I wasn't going to take the time to rewind and get it exactly right.  I would hear something, wonder if I was dreaming or tripping, shake my head and write down what I could remember.  Here goes:

• With the Tigers' young outfielder Avisail Garcia at the plate, McCarver noticed that he had his left hand (he's a right-handed hitter) down below the knob of the bat.  McCarver said "you don't see a lot of young guys with the grip off the bat like that.  That is VERY unconventional."  Oh, Tim.  First, it's called cowtailing.  Second, almost every freakin' player does it.  A lot of players actually get tapered knobs on their bats to make it easier to cowtail.  Tim just said this to say this, knowing most people would have no idea one way or the other.
• After Justin Verlander gave up an 0-2 homer to Pablo Sandoval, Tim and Joe Buck quipped that Verlander had probably never given up an 0-2 home run.  Then they checked.  McCarver: "There were 192 0-2 home runs given up this year in Major League Baseball.  NONE were given up by Verlander.  NONE.  NONE.  ZERO.  NOT ONE."  This is McCarver attempting to add drama to something that's not dramatic.  Let's do some simple math.  There are 30 teams in MLB.  Most carry around 13 pitchers in the regular season.  That is 390 pitchers, give or take.  Let's say no pitcher gave up more than one 0-2 home run.  That means almost 200 pitchers DID NOT GIVE UP AN 0-2 HOME RUN THIS YEAR.  And, in case you were wondering, Justin Verlander was one of those 200.  He gave up NONE.
• With Omar Infante at the plate, after he was way out in front of a changeup: "He tried to hook that ball down the line."  Uh, Tim, no one tries to hook the ball down the line, ever.  Hitters try to hit the ball hard, period.  Where it goes, it goes.  Didn't you play baseball??
• After Pablo Sandoval's second home run, and the cameras caught Verlander saying "Wow": "Even a 'wow' from Verlander!"  Wrong "wow" Tim.  Verlander was shocked that the ball left the yard, not at how awesome Sandoval is.
• After an unconventional double play where Delmon Young dribbled one in front of the plate, was tagged by Buster Posey, who then threw to second where a tag was applied to Prince Fielder: "Delmon Young refused to run to first.  Had he run, Posey would have had to go to second to get the force and it's doubtful they would have been able to turn two."  He didn't refuse to run, he thought it was going to be foul.  Doubtful they would have turned two?  Have you seen Young and Fielder?  That would be like turning two on the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man and the Pillsbury Doughboy.  Pretty sure they still had time.
• After a commercial break, McCarver continued about the same play.  He explained that if Young had run, the ball would have hit him in fair territory and he would have been called out, which would have negated any chance at a double play because after it hit Young, the ball would be called dead.  McCarver: "Either way, had he run, the Tigers would have been much, much better off."  That you Captain Obvious!
• Verlander was so bad last night, even Barry Zito had and RBI single.  Immediately after, the Giants fans chanted "BARRY!  BARRY!  BARRY!"  Joe Buck commented that, even though it had been awhile, this park has chanted that before.  McCarver: "For Barry Manilow.  At a concert."  I was looking at my phone when he said it and my head shot up.  Surely that was a joke.  Even McCarver has a sense of humor.  Right?!?!  Wrong.  He was dead effing serious.  This is a guy hired to talk about baseball on the biggest stage in the world.  And he gives you Barry Manilow.  For those of you still wondering, Joe Buck was talking about that one dude who used to play for the Giants...Barry Bonds.  Duh.
• In one at bat, Pablo Sandoval accidentally let go of his bat while finishing his swing.  The bat slammed into the concrete wall by the dugout, breaking it down by the knob.  McCarver: "That is a RARITY!  How many times do you see that [the bat breaking by the knob]?!?!"  Well, Tim, you don't.  Unless, that is, a guy lets go of his bat after his swing and it slams into a concrete wall.  This guy is unreal...
• As Tim Lincecum went down to the bullpen to warm up: "Lincecum never needs more that 15 pitches to warm up.  Even when he starts."  OK, this in itself is not dumb.  And it may be true.  But, McCarver left it at that.  No explanation.  Is this common knowledge?  Does he have a source?  For the record, after the commercial break, he changed "never" to "rarely" reaffirming the fact that McCarver just made it up in the first place.
• Lincecum threw great.  For those of you who don't know, Lincecum was relegated to the bullpen late in the year after being one of the best starters in the game for the last 4 years.  In the middle of his performance, McCarver dropped this wisdom on us: "There is a 2-fold reason for Lincecum to pitch well in the World Series: 1) to restore his confidence so he can; 2) get back in the starting rotation next year."  What.  The.  F@#k?  I've got one reason for Lincecum to pitch well - to help his team win the World Effing Series.  That is all.
• As Lincecum went full count on someone, up by 5 runs: "He HAS to throw a fastball here."  Slider.  Strike 3.  Good call Tim.
• With Lincecum still on the hill, McCarver started talking about the "illusions of strikes".  Actually he said it about 20 times.  I still have no clue what he is talking about.  I even rewound it to listen again, because I was so confused.  Still nothing.  Let's move on.
• "Most pitchers are 'individual' and not 'team' guys.  By the very nature of their position.  It's a very individual position.  Nothing happens until the pitcher puts the ball in play."  I don't even know where to start.  This has to be one of the dumbest statements ever.  First off, right field is just as "individual" as pitching.  In fact, all positions are "individual".  Baseball is often described as an "individual team game".  McCarver's logic is pitchers are individual because they control the pace of the game.  Aren't quarterbacks the same?  So, by McCarver's logic (an oxymoron) all quarterbacks are "individual" and not "team" guys too.  Oh, wait, my bad, I forgot McCarver doesn't think before he speaks.  Perhaps he doesn't think at all...
• With Lincecum now dominating the Tigers: "The Tigers are having trouble because they don't have anyone in the American League that throws like Lincecum."  Tim, no one, anywhere, has anyone that throws like Lincecum.  But you'd have to actually pay attention to baseball to know that.  They call him "The Freak" for a reason.

And that is all in Game 1.  I left some things out because they were dumb, but perhaps not dumb enough.  Although, almost everything McCarver says is dumb.  You know it's bad when he makes a comment that makes sense, and it catches you completely off-guard.  Can't wait to watch Game 2 on mute.

The Cincinnati Redlegs {Sigh}

Issue: Is it your fault the Reds suffered the worst collapse in playoff history?

Short Answer: It could be, but...

Reasoning: I had the honor (?) of attending all three of the Reds home playoff games against the Giants, and I have been getting a lot of crap from people about being the bad luck charm for my beloved Redlegs.  I do take some of the blame, but, it's like my brother said as we were walking out of game 4: [spoken in a tone that one would speak to a 2 year old] "Really?  Do you really think you had something to do with them losing?  Really?"  Good point.  So, I give you a few things we can blame the Reds collapse on...besides me:

1. Dusty Baker.  There are a lot of reasons I can't stand Dusty Baker (he never bunts when he should, he manages his pitchers awfully, he gets lucky all the time, he's loyal to a fault, etc.) and there are a lot of reasons I like Dusty Baker (2 Central Championships in 3 years, players love him....OK, that's all I've got).  However, there were a few moves made in games 3-5 that made absolutely no sense.  The first one happened in game 3.  Aroldis Chapman had just set down the Giants in the top of the 9th on 15 pitches.  The Reds were also retired in the bottom of the 9th.  So what does Dusty do?  He brings in Jonathan Broxton in the 10th.  Alright, I get it, Chapman doesn't normally throw more than one inning.  BUT THIS IS THE PLAYOFFS!!  Who cares?!  Aroldis Chapman is not only your best reliever, he is arguably your best pitcher.  Let him throw another inning.  Wouldn't you rather get beat with your best on the hill?  Instead, Dusty put in Broxton - single, single, K, K, passed ball, error - Reds lose and have to send Mike Leake to the hill the next day.  Uh oh.  The other move Dusty made that didn't make sense was his decision to start Scott Rolen in game 5.  I love Scott Rolen.  I love how he plays the game.  I love having him on our side.  However, his time is up.  Rolen started in game 3 and made the error that scored the game-winning run (he did not lose the game for the Reds, but unfortunately for him, that is the play everyone remembers).  Dusty made a good move in game 4 by starting Rookie-of-the-Year candidate Todd Frazier at 3rd.  Frazier went 0-for-3 with a walk and an RBI in game 4.  Not great, but in an 8-3 loss, not at all terrible (especially when being used exclusively as a pinch-hitter...for reasons only Dusty knows).  So, what does Dusty do for perhaps the most important game in his history managing the Reds?  He starts Scott Rolen.  In Rolen's defense, he was 2 for 5.  In my defense, his 2 hits meant nothing, he stranded 3 runners, and made the last out of the game with the tying runs on base.  Again, I love Scott Rolen, but Todd Frazier was the right start in game 5, if for no other reason than to help energize the crowd, which didn't have much to cheer about.  P.S. For those of you whining about the Reds resigning Dusty, stop it.  He's won 2 division titles in 3 years.  You CAN'T let a guy like that go...even if he may not know what he's doing.
2. Johnny Cueto.  He's the Reds best starter, by far.  He's a Cy Young candidate.  He threw 8 pitches in the series.  I realize we actually ended up winning the game he started, but the ramifications of him getting hurt in game 1 were far-reaching.  Game 2 starter Mat Latos has to come in and finish game 1.  Game 3 starter Bronson Arroyo has to start game 2.  He threw a gem and won.  Game 4 starter Homer Bailey has to start game 3.  He threw a gem and the offense falls asleep.  Now we reach game 4.  Do you start Mat Latos on 3 days rest?  If you do, and he loses game 4, who do you start game 5?  Do you start shoplifting-champ Mike Leake?  What are your chances of winning with him on the hill?  Tough call, but I think Dusty made the right one in starting Leake.  Even though, in the end, you are giving the game away.  If Leake starts, and wins game 4, it would have been a monstrous upset.  Leake had a terrible year, and there was a reason he wasn't on the playoff roster to begin with.  Sending Leake out in game 4 was Dusty essentially telling the Giants "see you in game 5."  Stinks that it had to be that way, but I blame Johnny Cueto.
3. The Reds offense.  Or complete lack thereof.  Let me clarify: it wasn't necessarily the Reds offense, it was the Reds complete lack of clutch hitting.  I say this because the lowest batting average of any every day Red was Ryan Hanigan at .200.  Hell, Drew Stubbs even hit .211!  Zach Cozart (.238), Rolen (.250), and Jay Bruce (.263) all had a respectable series.  Ryan Ludwick (.333), Brandon Phillips (.375), and Joey Votto (.389) all had a fantastic series.  Compare that with some of the Giants numbers: Angel Pagan (.150), Marco Scutaro (.150), Buster Posey (.211), Hunter Pence (.200), Brandon Belt (.077), Brandon Crawford (.182).  And the Reds lost.  Doesn't seem possible.  In the end, the Reds stranded 28 runners over the last three games (a stat that has been repeated ad nauseum in Cincinnati over the last few days) and were 3-for-24 (.125) with runners in scoring position.  Oh, let's not forget the fact that after they recorded three hits in the 1st inning of game 1, they recorded just one more hit the rest of the game, one which they lost in 10 innings.  Yes, this was the same game Homer Bailey took a no-hitter into the 6th...and ended up with a no-decision (he did give up a run however, when he plunked the lead off batter, walked the next, sac bunt, sac fly = 1 run, zero hits).
4. Brandon Phillips.  Say what?!?!  Didn't he have a phenomenal series, offensively and defensively?  Yes, he did.  However, he made one play that may have turned the tide of the entire series, and it happened early in game 3.  The Reds had just finished taking 2 games, rather convincingly, in San Francisco.  They headed home to Cincinnati needing just one win to move on to the NLCS.  They had not lost three games in a row at home all year.  After Homer Bailey retired the Giants in order in the 1st, Brandon Phillips led off the bottom of the 1st with a single to center.  Business as usual.  With Zack Cozart at the plate, Phillips took off for second and the ball got away from Giants catcher Buster Posey.  As Phillips took a hard turn around 2nd base, I realized it was all for show because even a 7 year old kid knows you do not make the first or third out at 3rd base.  Hey Brandon, WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!  NO ONE MAKES THE FIRST OR THIRD...and he did it.  He went.  And he got thrown out.  Since I was there, I know why he went: it was the crowd.  45,000+ people screaming at the same moment has a tendency to make someone do something they might not normally do.  And what the crowd made Brandon do was make a HUGE base running blunder.  Cozart walked.  Votto flew out.  Ludwick singled.  Bruce singled, scoring Cozart.  Rolen struck out.  That's 1 run on 3 hits.  Unacceptable.  The Giants came out of that inning feeling like they had won something.  They had to be thinking "did we really get out of that only giving up one run?"  That also seemed like the moment the Reds' offense stopped.  They would only record one more hit the entire game.  The Giants would record 3 hits in the game, all after there were 2 outs in the 6th inning, and would win.  Talk about a momentum shift.  All because Brandon Phillips got caught up in the crowd in the first inning.  If the Reds go up 2-0 in the 1st, they win that series in 3 games.  Since they didn't, they didn't.  Hey, Brandon, just in case you forgot, never make the first or third out at third base.  Thanks.

The worst part about the Reds' collapse in the playoffs is people will remember 2012 for just that reason.  They won't remember the energy the Reds injected into the people of Cincinnati FOR THE ENTIRE SUMMER.  In the past, the Reds have competed, but there always came a time when you knew they would be out of it and going to the ballpark didn't really mean much.  Even in 2010, when they won the Central, you had a feeling the Phillies were just too good.  After Roy Halladay no-hit the Reds in game 1, every one knew they were.  But this year was different.  The Reds had the team.  They had the offense.  They had the pitching.  They had the defense.  They had the bullpen.  They very well could have been the best team in the Majors, on paper.  The only thing the Reds lacked was the moxie to win one game at home, when they had three chances to do so.  Something tells me this winter is going to be a long one.  Can't wait until pitchers and catchers report in February.

The Infamous Infield Fly...

Issue: Was "infield fly" the correct call in the Braves/Cardinals game?

Short Answer: Yes.  And I knew it would take something like this to get me writing again.

Reasoning:  First, let me just say, calm down.  I didn't say I liked the call, I just said it was correct.  And, in order to ascertain why it was correct, we must break down the rule itself.  So, without further ado, Rule 2.00, Definition of Terms, in the Major League Baseball rulebook, states:

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out...When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners....Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) Comment: On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder —not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder. The infield fly is in no sense to be considered an appeal play. The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately.

Whew.  That certainly sounds like it was written by a bunch of lawyers.  Unfortunately.  So, since I was trained as a lawyer (sort of), I will try to walk you through this a bit.  First, one should notice that the author of this rule used the term "ordinary effort".  I'm not sure someone could come up with a more vague or ambiguous phrase, and that's how you know a lawyer wrote it.  The rule book goes on to define "ordinary effort" as: "the effort that a fielder of average skill at a position in that league or classification of leagues should exhibit on a play, with due consideration given to the condition of the field and weather conditions."  One must then ask if Pete Kozma, the Cardinals shortstop, could have made that play with ordinary effort.  The answer is a resounding YES.  I would expect most high school shortstops (and maybe even Little League shortstops) could catch that ball with ordinary effort.  For a Major League shortstop, that ball should be caught with less than ordinary effort.  And, if you watch the video, Kozma is going after that ball with NO MORE than ordinary effort.  He is not sprinting.  He is not panicking.  He is cruising, waiting to open his back pocket so the ball to fall into it. I think we can all agree on this.  Here is the video just so you can review:

The second thing I notice about the rule is the fact that an infield fly can be called even if the ball is eventually fielded by an OUTFIELDER, if the ball in question "could have been as easily handled by an infielder."  Folks, the ball was being called, with waving arms, by an infielder.  It doesn't matter that the ball fell to the ground in the outfield 225 feet from home plate.  Now, I will play the good lawyer and argue the other side of this.  What if someone hit a sky high fly ball, 300 feet from home plate, which gave an infielder ample time to run all the way out there and call the ball.  Is this an infield fly?  The answer is yes.  HOWEVER, I would like to think most umpires would use their best judgment and not call that an infield fly.  I think the whole situation is implausible in the first place, but, under the rule, the umpire would been absolutely correct if he called it an infield fly.  In the case Friday night, Kozma went 225 feet out to make a play he has made 1,000 times in his life.  He was camped.  He was waving.  If I was the umpire, I would have let the play go, but, it is not the wrong call.

Continuing on, we seem to have a contradiction in the rule and in the comment following the rule.  In the rule it says "[w]hen it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an Infield Fly, the umpire shall immediately declare “Infield Fly” for the benefit of the runners." (emphasis added)  Then, in the comment it states "The umpire’s judgment must govern, and the decision should be made immediately." (emphasis added).  What gives?  Well, when deciphering this rule (or any rule or law) one must look at the actual rule.  The comments are there to help in deciphering the rule.  In this case, when the comment says the decision should be made immediately, it only refers back to the rule that says the call should be made immediately, after it seems apparent that the ball could be fielded by an infielder.  In this case, the umpire had to wait until he saw who was going to take control of the play.  I think if Matt Holliday is doing his job and comes in screaming off Kozma, the umpire lets the play happen.  Since the ump saw Kozma take control, waving his arms, he then called the infield fly rule.  Late, yes.  Correct, yes.  Unfortunate that the ball hit the turf, no question about it.

Finally, as in law school, one must look at the intent of the original rule.  And, I must say, this is the ONLY reason I believe this call was incorrect.  But seriously, are we going to hold umpires to knowing  every rule, and the intent of every rule?  Maybe at the Major League level, but I still think that's a stretch.  The intent of the infield fly rule was this: "To prevent the defense by making a double play by subterfuge, at a time when the offense is helpless to prevent it, rather than by skill or speed."*  Now, there is absolutely zero chance that, if Kozma were to have dropped that ball on purpose, that he would have turned a double play.  In fact, he may have been lucky to get one.  Although, seriously, if he were going to drop it on purpose, he would have done so by letting the ball drop in front of him, therefore ensuring that he got at least one out.  However, the spirit of the rule dictates that it was put into the rulebook to avoid double or triple plays because of trickery.  Under that intent, the call on Friday night was wrong.  Kozma wasn't being tricky.  He mistakenly thought he was being called off by Holliday or he heard the umpire call infield fly which caused him to peel off (possibly thinking it was Holliday calling him off).  As a former ball player, when you are going out to make a play on a pop-up, part of you is just waiting to be called off, because outfielders are taught to take control.  But, I digress.  Umpires aren't taught to take the intent or spirit of the rule into account when making a call.  They are taught the rule and how and when it applies.  Under that logic, the rule was applied correctly, period.

Again, I'm not saying I like the rule.  I'm not saying I like the call (especially because it helped the Cardinals advance...is there any chance they don't ride this to another World Series title?  I hope that isn't the case).  However, everyone crying foul, saying this call was wrong, is, well, wrong.  A bad call and a wrong call are two completely different things.  And this call was not wrong.  Bad, on the other hand?  You be the judge.

*H. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years (1960)

The Hall of Fame Shortstop

Issue: Do you think Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer?

Short Answer: He certainly is now...

Reasoning: On January 6, 2011, I wrote this piece about Barry Larkin.  It outlines, in detail, how open-and-shut the case is for Larkin being enshrined in Cooperstown.  However, last year, he did not receive enough votes.  This year, he did.  Larkin received over 84% of the vote (only 75% is required).  My question is: what are the other 16% of idiot sportswriters thinking?  I'm not going to regurgitate the same stats as I did in the linked post above, but, if you haven't read it, click on it, and I guarantee you will be convinced that Larkin is not only a Hall of Famer, but one of the greatest shortstops of all time, period.  I thought people realized this, until yesterday, when I got a text from one of my law school buddies that read: "Sorry, I know you are a huge reds fan but I still can't comprehend how Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer."  (I had to clean up the grammar and spelling a little bit, sorry Mike).  Now, Mike went to Penn State (ouch) and roots for the Yankees (way to be original), so, I don't really take his opinion too seriously.  However, it just reminds me again how people outside of Cincinnati don't appreciate Barry Larkin.  Maybe it's because he played shortstop in the same league as Ozzie Smith for most of his career.  Maybe it's because he played during the heart of the steroid era and didn't hit 60 home runs a year.  Maybe it's because he wasn't the flashiest, didn't talk trash, didn't throw equipment, was well spoken, well educated (although, he did go to Moeller High School, so he can't be that smart), and a son of the greatest city in the world.  Barry Larkin is the first Hall of Famer to be born in Cincinnati (this will change in 2016 when Ken Griffey Jr. is elected, and in 4255 when an MLB Commissioner finally lifts Pete Rose's ban, in the year that matches the number of career hits he has), and this city loves him, for good reason.

Now, I am going to throw out a few more stats, that weren't in my original Barry Larkin post, that prove once again, that he is a Hall of Famer.

• Model of consistency - Barry Larkin's all-time stats versus/at/during (thanks to my brother Casey, via Lance McAlister's blog):
• RHP - .293
• LHP - .299
• Home - .297
• Away - .293
• 1st half - .293
• 2nd half - .297
• w/RISP - .298
• Dome - .297
• Runners on - .303
• April - .270 (it's freakin' cold here people!)
• May - .302
• June - .303
• July - .303
• August - .293
• September/October - .293

I realize that "consistency" doesn't make you a Hall of Famer, but when you consistently hit .300 anywhere, anytime, you are most certainly one of the best ever.

• Better than average? - How about we take a look at Barry Larkin's stats versus the rest of the league, during his career (thanks to Jeremy's Facebook page...not a reliable source?  Who cares?):
• League batting average - .256
• Barry Larkin batting average - .295
• League on-base percentage - .317
• Barry Larkin on-base percentage - .371
• League slugging percentage - .390
• Barry Larkin slugging percentage - .444

Barry Larkin is not only one of the best of his generation, he's one of the best of all time.  Barry Larkin is a Hall of Famer, so for all you non-believers, well, kiss Barry's you-know-what.  Or you can just kiss his golden bust in Cooperstown the next time you visit.

MLB Hodgepodge

Issue: The season is almost over, anything interesting left on your plate?

Short Answer: A handful of things...

Reasoning: I'm thinking this will be my last baseball post of 2011.  See, the St. Louis Cardinals are now officially playing in the World Series, which, quite literally, makes me nauseous. [Sidenote: has anyone else noticed the epidemic going on in our world today with the severe overuse of the word "literally"?  It has become the most superfluous word in our language.  Like this: "I am literally writing a blog post right now."  Is there any reason for "literally" to be in that sentence?  No.  I think people believe it literally adds emphasis to what they are saying.  It literally just makes them sound like an idiot.  I hope you now notice it as much as I do, and it bothers you as much as it does me.  Literally.]  Anyway, if the Cardinals win I will not write a post about their improbable run into, and then through the playoffs.  They have already made history, and I couldn't care less.  My two favorite teams in baseball are the Cincinnati Reds and whoever is playing the St. Louis Cardinals.  So, a Rangers fan I shall become.  Becoming a Rangers fan is not hard for me, as I played an entire summer with Nelson Cruz when we were both members of the Kane County Cougars of the Midwest League.  He was a phenomenal player then, but I remember him as a better person.  See, there is always a bit of a rift in locker rooms between American born players and Latin born players.  Latin players speak a language American players can't understand, and it can cause some friction.  I always remember Nelson as one of the Latin players who could relate to everyone in the locker room.  He obviously had a lot in common with the Latin players, but he made it a point to relate to the American players as well.  Something tells me his fantastic attitude and love for the game led him to where he is today, i.e., ALCS MVP.

I digress.  The point to this post was to give you a few interesting tidbits, mostly about the Reds, that might make you think a bit.  Without further ado:

1. The Reds finished in 3rd place (shockingly enough, this was a disappointment in the Queen City) in 2011.  Did you realize it has now been 28 years since the Reds have finished in last place?  Yes, that says 28 years.  Doesn't seem right does it?  Where the Reds have finished in the last 28 years: 6th (zero - duh); 5th (9 - more than 25% of the time - no surprise); 4th (3); 3rd (5); 2nd (7 - probably the most shocking); 1st (4).  Yes, 1983 was the last year the Reds finished last in their division.  They were 74-88 that year, which doesn't seem like the record of a last place team.  Who has finished last in the Reds' division the last 28 years?  Pittsburgh Pirates (9 - it's nice to always have a team to make fun of); Chicago Cubs (5 - hopefully more to come); Atlanta Braves (4); Milwaukee Brewers (3); San Francisco Giants (3); San Diego Padres (2); Houston Astros (2); Los Angeles Dodgers (1 - who remembers the Braves, Giants, Padres, or Dodgers being in the Reds division??  I'm getting old.).  Here's to the Reds running this streak to 29 next year with a 2012 Central Division Championship.  With or without Votto.
2. Let's play the name association game.  What do all these names have in common: Carl Crawford, Carlos Pena, Matt Garza, Jason Bartlett, Lance Cormier, Grant Balfour, and Rafeal Soriano?  They were all members of the 2010 Tampa Bay Rays.  And, not one of them was a member of the 2011 Tampa Bay Rays who made an improbable run to the playoffs (a la, the Cardinals).  The payroll of the 2010 Rays - $72.8 million.  The payroll of the 2011 Rays - $42.1 million.  This is why baseball rules.  In a division with the Yankees and Red Sox, the Rays, paying their entire team less than the Yankees paid Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez combined, won the AL Wild Card in the most dramatic way possible.  People will be talking about the 2011 Rays for centuries to come, and it is well deserved.  It would be nice if people in Tampa Bay would realize this, however.
3. It's very rare that a player is traded from the Reds and, in turn, lays an egg.  Usually, a player is traded from the Reds and, in turn, becomes an All-Star.  It just the way our luck goes.  It was nice to see a player get traded and lay the egg of all eggs this year.  Adam Dunn stinks.  That's all there is to it.  How badly?  He hit .159 this year for the Chicago White Sox.  No, he wasn't hurt.  Well, his ego may be hurting right about now.  If he had gotten 6 more at-bats, he would have qualified for the lowest batting average ever...by 20 points (Rob Deer hit .179 in 1991).  How about this gem - Adam Dunn vs. left-handed pitching this year: 6 for 94 (.064), 0 HR, 3 RBI.  I swear I'm not making this up.  One more: Adam Dunn hit below .200 every single month this year, save one - he hit a whopping .204 in May.  The only bright spot has to be the fact that he can't do any worse next year.  I think.

That's it and that's all.  Another baseball season has come and gone (sort of).  I can't wait until pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training in about four months.  Go Rangers.

A Baseball Lesson

Issue: You actually going to teach us something about baseball?

Short Answer: Maybe.  Pay attention.

Reasoning: For the record, I thought about entitling this post "Joe Maddon is a P#@$y," but I like Joe Maddon and I like the Rays, so I went with what I went with.  The MLB playoffs is one of my favorite sporting events.  The drama is more than compelling, the talent is simply the best, and the emotion is off the charts.  To have the first 162 games you played come down to a five-game series, makes the urgency palpable.  But, the game remains the same.  Players must play the same way and managers must manage the same way.  Joe Maddon not managing his team the same way may have cost his team a chance at surviving Game 4 against the Rangers (it also may have had absolutely nothing to do with it).  Let me set the scenario for you:

• It was Monday, October 3, and the Ray's and the Ranger's series was tied at one game a piece.  It was the bottom of the 9th and the Rays were trailing 4-3.  With one out, Sean Rodriguez (Tampa's shortstop, i.e., he has good speed) singled to center.  Up next for the Rays was Kelly Shoppach (Tampa's catcher, i.e., he has terrible speed, if any at all).  Shoppach battled the count back from 1-2, to 3-2.  On the very next pitch, I realized the Rays were in real danger of ending the game without sending another hitter to the plate.

And here begins the lesson.  In professional baseball, all the players are really, really, really good.  Yes, even on the Pirates.  Games are often decided on who plays the game the right way, the most often.  And, when teams do things wrong, it often bites them in the ass.  Enter: Joe Maddon.  In professional baseball (and on any team I coach), if there is a runner on first, or runners on first and second, and the count goes 3-1 or 3-2, the runner, or runners, are told to steal on the pitch.  There is no sign for this.  It is taught and understood (there is a sign to alert the runner NOT to steal, e.g., when a runner like myself (SLOW) is on first base).  On 3-1 or 3-2, you go.  Basically, the runners aren't even attempting to steal, they are merely getting a head start.  The coaching staff is banking on the hitter making contact with the pitch, or taking the pitch for ball four.  This is how 99.9% of "strike'em out, throw'em outs" happen.  In fact, in the same day, I saw Tony LaRussa send Albert Pujols, quite possibly the slowest human being on the planet (he is 65 years old, give him a break) on a 3-2 count.  The batter struck out and Pujols actually attempted to turn around and go back to first base.  He didn't make it.  The point is, Tony LaRussa stuck to his guns, he managed in the playoffs just like he would manage in the regular season.  Joe Maddon did not.

• The first 3-2 pitch was fouled off, and the runner was not going.  The second 3-2 pitch was fouled off, and the runner was not going.  Guess what happened on the third 3-2 pitch?  A ground ball to Adrian Beltre, who was playing extremely deep at third base (he was actually in a defense called "no doubles" but we will save this lesson for another blog post - just take it from me, he was nearly in the outfield).  Beltre threw to second base, barely, and I mean barely, beating Sean Rodriguez to second.  Then, Ian Kinsler flipped to first, beating Kelly Shoppach quite easily at first.  Game over.

The point of the lesson is this: if Joe Maddon sends Rodriguez on the 3-2 pitch, Beltre has only one play - first base.  Then, the Rays would have had Rodriguez on second base with two outs.  Does that mean they tie the game?  Hell no.  Does that mean they have a chance to tie the game?  Hell yes.  But, in my opinion, all Maddon could think about is not ending the game on a "strike'em out, throw'em out" for reasons unbeknownst to me.  Instead, he ended the game on a 5-4-3 double play.  I would rather end the game managing the way it should be done, not managing scared.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the Rays are now playing golf, watching the rest of the playoffs on TV.  Alright, that's not the only reason, but it's a reason all the same.

On a side note, I hope the Brewers beat the Cardinals.  I couldn't stand it if I had to watch the Redbirds in the World Series.  It would physically make me ill.

Do the Bartman

Issue: Are we talking The Simpsons here?

Short Answer: Unfortunately for Steve Bartman, no.

Reasoning: For those of you who didn't catch last week's 30 for 30 episode on ESPN, do yourself a favor, and watch it.  The documentary was compelling, revealing, and more than riveting.  It dealt with the foul ball, hit in game 6 of the 2003 NLCS, that Steve Bartman, innocent fan, interfered with, causing Moises Alou, Chicago Cubs left fielder, to be unable to make the catch.  That, in itself, was not a big deal, as it happens all the time at Major League Baseball games.  The Cubs collapse later that inning (they were leading 3-0 at the time) became the big deal.  That collapse began to be blamed on Steve Bartman right then and there.  The Cubs fans started chanting "asshole, asshole" all while pointing at Bartman.  Never mind that Mark Prior started throwing batting practice, or that Alex Gonzalez booted a sure double play ball.  It was Bartman's fault, plain and simple.  They Cubs lost game 7 the following day, keeping in tact their World Series draught (the longest in history), and, who better to blame for losing that game too, than Steve Bartman.  Here are a few things I took away from the documentary:

• Chicago Cubs fans are the worst people on the planet.  For those of you who root for a team in the NL Central (i.e., the Reds) you already know this.  For those of you who don't, take it from me...and Steve Bartman.  When fans discovered Bartman was the one who interfered with the ball, they showered him with pizza, hot dogs, and beer.  One guy actually was interviewed for the documentary and admitted to screaming profanities at him and dousing him with beer.  He was thrown out of the stadium for "maybe the second or third time in my life."  You're a winner dude.  Way to make yourself look like a complete ass on TV, when you probably thought you looked cool.  Typical Cubs fan.
• Fox Sports should be ashamed.  There was always a question in my mind: how did people in Wrigley Field find out Bartman was the interfering party?  Wrigley Field has no jumbo tron replay board, so people inside NEVER saw a replay of the foul ball.  However, Cubs fans outside the stadium (on Waveland Avenue) had televisions with them so they could actually see what was going on inside the stadium.  Fox, who televised the game, showed the replay exactly 12,378,904 times (ok, maybe not that many, but it was close).  People outside started calling their friends inside telling them it was the guy in the green turtle neck (this is the reason I think Bartman took so much crap - I mean, even in 2003, what are you doing wearing a green turtle neck?).  And that is how and when Steve Bartman's life changed forever.  Remember, the Cubs are still winning 3-0 at this point!  But, Cubs fans, like Red Sox fans of the past, looked for omens, and, this, in their (stupid) opinions, was an omen, i.e., "now there is no way we are going to win!  Thanks asshole."  All because the producers at Fox wanted to show the fan interference so many times.  It wasn't a big play at the time, and it should have been treated as such.  But, it wasn't.
• Moises Alou carries the most blame.  This is true because of how he reacted.  He threw a temper tantrum.  And guess what that did to the fans inside Wrigley Field?  They started throwing temper tantrums too.  Even though they were up 3-0.  If Moises Alou reacts like any other fielder would have - by turning to the umpire in an attempt to have "fan interference" called (by the way, it should have been), the fans could have then taken their contempt out on the umpire (who should have been used to it by then), rather than Steve Bartman.  Instead, Alou threw a tantrum, spitting and cursing in Steve Bartman's direction.  In the documentary, Alou complains that the play is the only thing people ask him about to this day.  Well, Moises, that is mostly your own fault, and I don't feel sorry for you.
• The documentary was great, but the premise for it was not.  The documentary started with, and dealt with Bill Buckner, throughout.  And I'm still trying to figure out why.  The premise was basically this: people are remembered throughout history for one thing and one thing only, whether that is fair or foul.  Buckner was a fantastic player in his career, yet people only remember him (justifiably) for one thing.  Kind of like Bartman.  Oh, other than the fact that Bartman was not a professional baseball player.  The similarities between Buckner and Bartman end with the similarities of the teams (Cubs and Red Sox) and their plight through decades without a World Series title, the curses (of the Bambino and of the Billy Goat), and all the near misses that made fans sick.  The similarities are actually quite eerie.  The curses and the near misses explain, possibly, why Cubs fans reacted the way they did, but the director missed the biggest difference between Buckner and Bartman.  Buckner chose to live his life in the limelight by being a professional baseball player.  He knew very well that a ball going through his legs could be a very real possibility (he even gave an interview to that effect just before the World Series started), and that he might have to deal with the rest of his life.  It's called an occupational hazard.  Steve Bartman never chose to live his life in the limelight, he simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  There is a huge difference.  I think Bill Buckner got one of the rawest deals in history.  The ground ball through his legs was the ending to an entire team crapping down their legs.  He didn't lose them that game, nor was he the reason they lost game 7, but he was an easy scapegoat.  Steve Bartman wasn't even close to a reason why the Cubs lost, not even close.  And he wasn't even present at game 7, yet he was blamed for it all.  An innocent fan had his life ruined because of Fox Sports, Cubs fans, and Moises Alou.  I don't see how that relates to Bill Buckner AT ALL.

And that's it.  Steve Bartman got screwed worse than any person in the history of the world.  I'm not even sure there is a close second.

The Odd Stat(s) of the Week, Redlegs Edition

Issue: Does anyone really care about the Reds anymore?

Short Answer: Well, no.  But I live in Cincinnati and so do most of my readers...

Reasoning: The city of Cincinnati was a fun place to be last September.  Jay Bruce's walk-off homer to clinch the NL Central was an excitement the people of the Queen City hadn't experienced in years.  Alright, decades.  Even though the Redlegs laid an egg in the NLDS (remember the Halladay no-hitter?), it was fun to see the Reds back in the playoffs after a long lay-off.  Last season also laid the ground work for another run at the playoffs in 2011.  Or, so we thought.  The Reds had a walk-off win on Opening Day, and we fans thought that was a sign the cardiac Reds would once again find a way to win the NL Central and get swept by the Phillies.  Again.  As it turns out, 2011 was a different year.  I have collected a few stats (mostly emails from my brother, with stats taken from Lance McAlister's blog) that show what a crazy year it has been in Cincinnati.

1. People (especially in Cincinnati) expect too much from closers.  In Cincinnati, not many Reds catch as much grief as Francisco Cordero, our drastically overpaid closer (see?).  Many people want him traded, cut, or tarred and feathered.  Every time he blows a save, someone in Cincinnati inevitably puts together a "how about Drew Stubbs [player we would love to get rid of] for Mariano Rivera [player anyone would love to have]" type trade.  Yeah, keep dreaming.  I have always stood up for Cordero, strictly as a closer.  He is overpaid (as are most closers), but he isn't bad at his job.  As of September 6 (I told you I have been collecting these for awhile), Cordero had 30 saves.  Of those 30, 17 of them came in a perfect inning (i.e., 3 up, 3 down).  Where did that rank him in Major League Baseball (not just the NL)?  3rd.  Behind only the best closer of all time, Mariano Rivera (22) and obvious NL Rookie of the Year, the Braves Craig Kimbrell (18).  Lesson learned?  Cordero will blow saves, as all closers do.  But, when he doesn't blow a save, he is very efficient at his job.
2. Open your eyes Drew!  Drew Stubbs is a phenomenal athlete.  He plays a wonderful center field.  He steals bases.  And, boy, does he know how to strikeout.  Stubbs is a prototypical lead-off hitter, other than the fact that he has struck out more than Adam Dunn this year.  Unfortunately, that is not a joke.  Drew Stubbs has made himself a new friend this year though - Mark Reynolds.  For those that are confused, Mark Reynolds is the third baseman for the Baltimore Orioles.  Why is he Stubbs' new best friend?  Because Reynolds led Major League Baseball in strikeouts in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  Thanks to Stubbs, he won't lead in 2011.  Stubbs has struck out 200 times in in 586 at-bats this year.  For you non-math-majors out there, that is more than once every three times up (1 every 2.93 at-bats).  More than once a game (1.32/game).  More strikeouts than hits (by 57).  How about some comparison - it took Joe Dimaggio (I realize I'm comparing apples and green beans here (because Stubbs isn't even an orange to Dimaggio's apple) 7 years to strikeout 196 times (976 games; 4.417 plate appearances); and it took Tony Gwynn 11 years to strikeout 201 times (1,380 games; 5,705 plate appearances); in 1976 Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, and Dave Concepcion struck out 163 times COMBINED (1,934 plate appearances).  I love Drew Stubbs as a player, but with the number of strikeouts he has this year, he can't be in the future plans for the Reds.  Unless they fire Brook Jacoby (Reds' hitting coach), since he hasn't been able to help much either.
3. Gotta beat the teams you're supposed to.  The Reds basically have the same team they did last year, when the won the NL Central.  So, what changed?  Obviously, the Reds did not have nearly as many come-from-behind wins as they did a year ago.  It just can't happen all the time.  Maybe, if the Reds had beat the teams they were supposed to, the 2011 edition would have been one of "Repeat Champions."  The Reds' record right now is 76-80.  Not good.  However, upon closer examination, the Reds record is so unsexy (if it isn't a word, it should be - think...chicks picking their noses) because of what they did against teams under .500.  The Reds are 36-37 against teams at or above .500, which, in my opinion, is pretty darn good.  Against teams under .500...40-43, which, is nothing short of awful.  This record includes 11-7 against the hapless Cubs, 1-5 against their in-state rival Indians, 0-4 against the Mets, 4-8 against the Pirates (yeah, they were going to hang onto that first-half lead), and 1-2 versus both the Blue Jays and Orioles.  The Cardinals against teams .500 or worse?  59-46.  The Brewers?  68-33.  What a difference a year makes.
4. And then there's Joey Votto.  Votto has 118 career home runs.  I have often said that when it is all said and done, Joey Votto will be considered one of the greatest hitters ever (although, I have heard he won't be considered one of the greatest people ever, but that is neither here, nor there).  He knows how to hit, period.  I watch him hit home runs to left-center field that announcers marvel at ("Look at that opposite field power!!"), but, that is what Votto is trying to do.  He is trying to hit every ball into the opposite gap (just trust me on this one, alright?).  How good of a hitter is Joey Votto?  This good - of his 118 home runs, 29 have gone to right field (24.9%), 16 to right-center field (13.6%), 23 to center field (19.5%), 24 to left-center field (20.3%), and 26 to left field (22%).  One word: ridiculous.  No one hits to all fields like Joey Votto.  No one.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why he will be one of the best, when it's all said and done (too bad most of it won't be done in a Reds uniform - we just can't afford him).

Here is to 2012 being more like 2010 than 2011.  It may be Votto's last year in a Reds uniform (even though I think he may be playing his last now - we ought to trade him while his value is high, and he isn't owed $17 million the next year (he is only (ONLY) owed $9 million in 2012), so we better do it fast.  I still love ye Redlegs, for better or for worse.  Mostly worse.

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.

The Odd Stat of the Week, MLB All-Star Game Edition

Issue: Wasn't that game last week?  Where have you been?

Short Answer: Moving, which means I have been without cable or internet for a few days, which also means the All-Star Game is the last sporting event I have seen.

Reasoning: The MLB All-Star Game is nothing short of an enigma.  After numerous players pull out of the game because they are "hurt" or "exhausted", you end up with people in the game that you have never heard of.  In fact, if you don't make the All-Star Game anymore, than you stink.  Look, Scott Rolen started at 3rd base for the National League.  Enough said.  He may not even be the best 3rd baseman in the Reds organization.  But, after the tie years ago, good ol' Bud Selig wanted to make sure the All-Star Game count for something, which means players have to be replaced, even with players who aren't really All-Stars.  On a side note, I still can't understand why this is the case.  Were baseball fans really THAT upset an exhibition game in the middle of the season ended in a tie?  Why would anyone, anywhere care at all?  Now, that same exhibition game gives the winning side home field advantage in the World Series.  Huh?  I would love to watch a team go 162-0 one year, but their league lose the All-Star Game, and them not get home field advantage in the World Series.  That's how dumb the idea was, and still is.

Anyway, I am here to give you odd stats about this year's game, not tell you how stupid Bud Selig is.  Let the first odd stat be a video (this may be the most boring video ever posted here, but bear with me):

So what does a solo home run early in the All-Star Game have to do with anything?  Funny you (or I) should ask.  Adrian Gonzalez's home run in the 2011 All-Star Game was the first All-Star Game home run since this one:

That was 2008 ladies and gentlemen.  The 2009 and 2010 All-Star Games had exactly zero home runs hit in them.  Two other things make these videos odd: 1) J.D. Drew is long gone from baseball now...I think; and 2) Both calls were unfortunately made by Joe Buck and Tim McCarver, possibly the worst announcing crew of all time, which sucks for everyone.  Sorry you had to listen to that.

The second odd stat deals with actual baseball stats.  The winning pitcher in the 2011 All-Star Game was Tyler Clippard (I told you waaay too many players make the All-Star team...bonus points if you even know who he plays for...3...2...1...the Washington Nationals).  What makes this strange is Clippard faced exactly one hitter in the entire game, Adrian Beltre, who singled to left field.  I realize some of you are confused right now...how does a pitcher face one batter, a batter who reached safely, and that pitcher still get the win?  Here's how: at this point in the game, the American League was winning 1-0 on the above Adrian Gonzalez home run.  Tyler Clippard came into the game with runners on 1st and 2nd and 2 outs.  He gave up the hit to Beltre, but Jose Bautista was thrown out at the plate by Hunter Pence to end the inning.  In the very next half inning, Prince Fielder hit a 3-run homer for the National League, giving them a lead they would never relinquish.  And, who was the pitcher of record for the National League when Fielder hit that home run...Tyler Clippard (since no one else had thrown a pitch for the National League yet).  A guy you have never heard of gets the win in the All-Star Game and gives the National League home field advantage in the World Series.  Man, I love this game.

What a Weekend in Sports

Issue: Uh, dude, it's Wednesday...are you talking about this past weekend or this coming weekend?

Short Answer: Sorry, my days run together...this past weekend was phenomenal.

Reasoning: Sports is my life and always has been.  I even love the sports I stink at.  And, for all you ladies out there, sports is the best reality television available.  There are no scripts (unless we are talking about boxing), no cuts, no second takes, and drama is always abound.  "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings," was coined by the great Yogi Berra, and, it applied in his day, applies in ours now, and will apply in the future as well.  This weekend was full of happenings which demonstrate the greatness of sport and why I love them, all of them, so much.  Let's take a look at what I'm talking about:

• Steve Stricker is the man.  Steve Stricker is an old man competing in a young man's game.  Tiger Woods is aging, and we have seen his health deteriorate, his game deteriorate, and, yes, his marriage deteriorate (I couldn't resist).  Yet, Stricker seems to be flourishing at a time when most men his age are trying to hold on for dear life.  Stricker is 44 years old, which is not old by any means, but most of the guys he is competing against are in their 20's (re: Rory McIlroy, Dustin Johnson, Martin Kaymer, Charl Schwartzal, etc.).  At last week's John Deere Classic, Stricker showed us again that age isn't anything but a number.  Stricker entered Sunday's final round at -20, three shots clear of the field.  Most everyone thought "steady" Steve would run away with the tourney.  However, some bad play by him and a string of 5 birdies on 6 holes by Kyle Stanley had the two tied with four holes to play.  Stricker then did exactly the opposite of what everyone thought he would do...bogey 15 and 16.  Now two shots down with two to play, Stricker needed a miracle.  He drained a 20-foot birdie on 17 to pull within one.  Stanely bogied the 18th with a missed 10-footer, and the players were tied.  However, Stricker had the most unfortunate of lies on his approach to the 18th green.  Take a look at what he did:

No lay-up.  No safe play.  He attacked that shot with one goal in mind...winning the tournament.  And he did.  Kudos Steve, kudos.  Oh, by the way, it was the third consecutive year he has won the John Deere Classic.

• Mark Montgomery's unbelievable pitching line.  (Thanks to my man Tim for finding this one)  I've been around the game of baseball long enough to think I've seen everything.  Yet, every single time I go to the park, I see something I have never seen before.  That is what makes the game so fun to watch.  And, along those lines, here is something I have never seen before, and will probably never see again: Mark Montgomery, RHP, 1 IP, 2H, 1 R, 1 ER, 0BB, 5 K, 2 WP.  Let me explain for those of you who don't follow - Montgomery struck out 5 hitters in one inning!!!  Two of them happened to reach on wild pitches (drop third strike rule), so either this dude has some unreal stuff, or Charleston needs to start looking for a new catcher.  I am willing to bet this is the first occurrence of 5 strikeouts in one inning, ever, above the Little League level.  Truly unbelievable.
• The hapless San Diego Padres at it again.  As a franchise, the Padres have NEVER thrown a no-hitter.  They are obviously not easy, but you would think someone, sometime, would have thrown one, but, since the Padres usually stink, it's not that far-fetched.  Saturday looked like the day Padre history would change (notice I said "looked").  Aaron Harang was making his first start off the disabled list on Sunday (thankfully it wasn't for the Reds this time, but the Padres).  Usually when a pitcher comes off the DL a strict pitch count is enforced by the team.  So, when Harang had thrown 95 pitches after the 6th inning, the Padres pulled him.  What makes this a bit odd is the fact that Harang had not allowed a single hit in those six innings.  Problem is, the Padres only managed one hit in those six innings, and the score was knotted at zero.  Josh Spence, a left-handed reliever, replaced Harang in the 7th and he struck out Andre Ethier.  Chad Qualls then replaced Spence.  An error, a walk, a pop-out, and a ground out later, and the Padres had no-hit the Dodgers through seven.  Mike Adams replaced Qualls at the beginning of the 8th inning.  It was an eventful inning, but Adams made it through without giving up a hit.  The Padres went in order in the top of the 9th, so the game went to the bottom of the 9th tied at zero, and there had been exactly ONE HIT in the entire game (by the Padres Cameron Maybin, if you were wondering).  Luke Gregerson replaced Adams in the 9th and he struck out Matt Kemp and forced James Loney to ground out to 1st base.  That's right, 8 2/3 innings of no-hit baseball...you know what's coming, don't you?  Gregerson promptly gave up a double to Juan Uribe, and the no-hitter ended.  But it gets better.  The very next batter, Dioner Navarro, singled to center field, and the game was over.  The Padres had been one out from their first ever franchise no-hitter, and they lost the game 1-0.  From no-hitter to walk-off loss.  Ouch.
• Derek-freakin'-Jeter.  If he weren't a Yankee, he would probably be my favorite player of all time.  He plays the game right.  He plays the game hard.  He is a smart player, and you can tell just by watching him play the game.  He is a first ballot Hall-of-Famer.  And, he has a flair for the dramatic.  Going into Saturday's game against the Tampa Bay Rays, Jeter needed 2 hits to reach the magical mark of 3,000.  George Brett had already publicly said that 3,000 is the hardest hit to get because of the constant media attention.  Jeter himself had admitted he was going up to the plate with the approach that he was swinging at everything, no matter what.  Some people, I'm sure, were ready for Jeter to take quite a bit of time to reach the magical number.  But, we are talking about Derek Jeter here.  He singled in his first at-bat for his 2,999th career hit.  Then, in the bottom of the 3rd, he did this (I put the Spanish version in here for two reasons: 1) it was the shortest version; 2) I love Spanish baseball announcers (hit numero tres mil!):

Just another tidbit for Derek Jeter's Hall-of-Fame plaque.  Oh, by the way, the fact that he is the first player to ever do this as a Yankee (all 3,000 as a Yankee that is) means absolutely nothing.  The Yankees have historically been a buy and sell team, even when it comes to superstars.  Jeter is just the one guy who the Steinbrenner's never felt like trading, so he had his 1st and his 3,000th hit as a Yankee.  Too bad, it would have been way cooler had he had all 3,000 hits as a Cincinnati Red.

• U.S. Women's soccer beats Brazil in the World Cup Quarterfinals.  I saved this for last because I thought it was the coolest, most dramatic, and possibly, most important sporting event of the weekend.  I realize that some may be surprised by that, given that baseball and golf are my passions, but, I watched this game from start to finish, and it was breathtaking.  The U.S. jumped out to a 1-0 lead on an own goal by a Brazilian chick who's name I can't pronounce or spell.  Then the U.S. got screwed royally.  A penalty kick save by Hope Solo was nullified, and the second chance was all Marta (the best women's soccer player in the world) needed.  She buried the PK to tie the score at 1-1.  She then had a goal that I'm still not sure how it went in (and I'm still not sure how the lineswoman missed the offsides on the play) to put Brazil up 2-1.  In the 122nd minute (the game only lasted that long because of a Brazilian player obviously faking an injury) the U.S. women pulled this off:

If you don't have chills, you aren't alive.  Go see a doctor.  This was one of the greatest games I have seen in any sport, at any time, any place, period.  This game had everything: the ups (U.S. taking an early lead), the downs (U.S. falling behind 2-1), the villains (Marta, the Australian referee), and the heroes (Rapinoe, Wambach).  In a game, men's or women's, that is what is needed for a game to be great, and this one was just that.  However, I'm not completely sold on this being one of the most dramatic moments in sports history.  Let's save those for Super Bowls, World Series, and NBA Finals.  Let us take a step back and remember, this is still women's soccer, and in the U.S., it doesn't matter much.  The only reason we (we being those of us who don't particularly care for soccer in the first place, and, for the record, I am not one of these people) cared about this game in the first place is because these women are wearing USA across their chests.  Take away that, and you have another game that no one really cares about.  This game happened on the biggest stage in women's soccer (not sure how big that really is), it involved the U.S., and it happened in front of the world, and that is why we care.  The game of women's soccer will grow because of this, but that won't make people in the States care about it anymore than they do now.  That is, until the World Cup of 2015 comes around, the ladies put on their USA jerseys again, and we cheer for our country once again.  I'd cheer for a women's cricket team if they had USA on their shirts.  Oh yeah, Hope Solo is hot.

An Open Letter to Cincinnati Reds Fans

Issue: Why are Cincinnati Reds' fans such fair-weather fans?

Short Answer: It's always been that way...

Reasoning: I have been hearing a lot of talk lately about how bad the Cincinnati Reds are.  And, well, it is really pissing me off.  There has been talk of sending players down, calling players up, bad managing (which I actually agree with), lifeless play, and typical moaning and groaning from Reds fans.  It all adds up to a city with a bad attitude...and it's not even football season!  I have been wondering all summer how a city with only two professional teams, who have both historically stunk, can be as greedy as they are.  Our football team has never won a Super Bowl (although, at least we have been twice) and our baseball team has made the playoffs twice since 1995 (and that includes last year's division championship).  Where do our fans get off?  We are doing our best impression of Atlanta Braves fans, but, at least they have a history of being, you know, good at baseball.  We are Cincinnatians.  We stink at pro sports.  Deal with it.

I read a blog post from Lance McAlister (a Cincinnati radio personality, for those of you from outside the Queen City) that said in part (and this is the prevailing attitude of Cincinnatians, unfortunately):

This team has no life. There is no sense of urgency. They have been flat and uninspired much of the season...That philosophy [of not adding free agents in the offseason] turned out to be wrong. The problem is that 87 games into the season [GM] Walt [Jocketty] has yet to admit that and fix it...That's the theme of 2011 for this team...nobody is worried...This team plays like it is sleeping. They play without focus. Nothing is done...The mood and tone has got to change. The Reds are what they are. 87 games has made it clear. The defending NL Central champs are simply medicore...They are simply not good enough. This team, as currently put together, will not win the NL Central...Who would have thought the Reds play would have fans wondering when the Bengals will start camp? Your move Walt.

SAY WHAT?!?!  Allow me to take these one at a time, because I could go on for days:

1. There is no sense of urgency...nobody is worried.  And why should they be?????  This is baseball.  There are 162 games to be played in a single season.  Why should there be a sense of urgency before the All-Star break?  Remember, this is not football (where every loss means something), this is baseball (where a loss is a loss is a loss, period).  Also, unless you have actually played a 162 game season (I have not, but I have played a few 155 game seasons in the minors) then you have no idea.  Playing 162 games in about 175 days is a grind that you cannot imagine.  In the minor leagues, everyone prays that they will have a great season, but that they will finish a half game out of the playoffs.  That way they won't have to play MORE baseball.  I imagine it is different in the Majors, but only because of the financial gain players receive for making the post-season.  Trust me when I tell you that not a single person in the Reds' clubhouse is worried about a thing.  There is no sense of urgency either.  There needn't be any either.  The Reds are currently 44-44 and only 3 games out of 1st place.  They sit in 4th place, which probably has a lot of Cincinnatian's panties in a bunch.  But, all that means is over the next 74 games, the Reds have to win 3 more games than the Cardinals.  Whoa, better kick it in gear.
2. The Reds not adding free agents was the wrong decision.  First, I don't know how anyone can say such a thing 87 games into the season.  Second, after winning a division championship in 2010, signing big free agents wouldn't have been on the top of my list either.  Third, Walt Jocketty has proven he knows what he is doing.  Now, hindsight has always proven to be correct.  Through 87 games (88 as I write this) the Reds' shortstops and left fielders are absolutely awful.  It's easy to sit here and say we should have signed free agents at both positions.  Funny thing is, we did at short (Edgar Reneteria) and we did in left (Fred Lewis).  Where else should we have spent millions of dollars?  Replacing Edinson Volquez?  Easy to say now.  Fact is, the 2011 Reds were/are set up to repeat as champs of the NL Central.  We didn't need to add free agents.  We are fine.  Let's give it another 50 games or so.
3. The Reds are simply mediocre.  This is asinine at best.  Through 88 games the 2010 Reds were 49-39 - a full 5 games better than this year!!  Oh no!!  What are we going to do?!?!  The biggest difference is the 2010 Reds were in 1st place through 88 games, and the 2011 Reds are in 4th place.  I have heard Cincinnatians complain that we are behind the Pirates in the standings.  Oh no!!  What are we going to do?!?!  How about this - let's give the Pirates some props.  Through 87 games this year, the Pirates are 45-42.  Through 87 games last year, the Pirates were 30-57.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is a full 15 games better.  So, we are behind a team that is playing out of their mind.  Oh no!!  What are we...alright, you get it.
4. The Reds' play has people looking forward to football season.  A couple things here: 1) People are always looking forward to football season; doesn't matter if the Reds are good or bad; 2) No one ever really looks forward to the Bengals season, especially this year when our quarterback will either be Jordan Palmer (that's right, Carson's much worse, younger brother) or Andy Dalton (rookie); 3) The Reds' play has me looking forward to the second half of the season.  The Reds are the defending NL Central Champs, and will be until someone takes it away from them.  They are 3 games out of 1st place with 74 games left to go.  We waited 15 years between playoff appearances and now we should go every year?  To say we are in the hunt is to give credence to the doubters.  Not only are we in the hunt, but with the 2010 crown still in our back pocket, how can we not be favorites?  Wake up people.  The Reds are fine.  There is plenty of time.  Let's let everything take care of itself, rather than trying to force it.  Please.

I did mention earlier that I believe Dusty Baker is a terrible manager.  Let me clarify: I know he is a terrible manager.  His lineup changes make no sense.  His in game managing wouldn't win games at the 14-year old age level.  He makes bad decisions all the time.  His players consistantly bail him out, which is good, but it makes it so people don't realize he is a bad manager.  I'm not sure how Dusty got the Reds job, but, after winning the first division championship in years, something tells me he will be around for awhile.  Unfortunately.

I hope to update this post in September and give all Cincinnatians a big I-told-you-so while we are watching them in the playoffs.  Again.