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.

NFL Playoff Outlook

Issue: You failed miserably at that "writing more posts in December" thing, didn't you?

Short Answer: Yes I did.

Reasoning: The holidays are a busy time.  And, when I'm not busy over the holidays, I am very lazy.  Hence the fact that I haven't written a post in over 2 weeks.  I always get ideas, and I even write them down, but then time passes, and I miss my window to write about current events.  No one wants to read a post about an event that happened weeks ago, right?  Plus, blogging (for free, remember) is so easy to put off, and put off, and put off.  Plus, I only have 50+ readers, so there isn't a lot of clamoring going on: "Hey, why hasn't Jason posted on his blog in a while??  I'm really missing reading his posts."  But, I do miss writing sometimes, so, you will have to continue reading...every few weeks or so.

In this post, I will write about, and predict the future of the NFL Playoffs.  How am I qualified to do so?  Well, I'm not, but if an assbag like Chris Berman can do it, then I figure I can too.  But, I will say this: I watch the NFL every weekend, and not just the games on TV.  I follow every game because I am addicted to fantasy football, which also means I am reading about the NFL the other 6 days of the week.  I also won 2 of the 3 fantasy football leagues I was in this year (yes, that is just a shameless plug for me being the best fantasy player on the planet), so, I'm pretty good at this stuff.  Anyway, without further ado, my opinion on the NFL Playoffs:

THE NON-CONTENDERS

• DENVER BRONCOS - Not only do they have to play Pittsburgh in the first round, their quarterback sucks, terribly.  Tim Tebow finds a way to will his team to victory sometimes, but he has no idea how to lead his team to victory the way he should, by playing quarterback.  I wrote about him earlier, and I refuse to bash him like others do, but, alas, he blows.  The Broncos will get embarrassed in round 1.
• ATLANTA FALCONS - Wait, they made the playoffs?  Don't they suck?  Yes, they do.  Matt Ryan was the biggest quarterback fantasy bust of the year (except for when I played him in the first round of the playoffs, and he threw for 4 touchdowns), and Michael Turner wasn't his usual self.  Roddy White and Julio Jones are studs, but the Falcons are just an average team with no chance at a Super Bowl.
• DETROIT LIONS - It's nice to see the Lions back in the playoffs, and it was nice of Matt Stafford to single-handedly win me one of my fantasy leagues.  However, the Lions defense couldn't stop my high school's offense right now, and, by the way, they play the Saints in the first round.  At least the Lions will get to start playing golf next week.
• HOUSTON TEXANS - Not only do they start a rookie QB, but he started the year as a third-string rookie QB, BEHIND Matt Leinart.  Ouch.  They did sign Jake Delhomme off of his couch, and he played well Sunday, but, in the end, the Texans just don't have the punch to beat the top teams.
• CINCINNATI BENGALS - This pains me to write, but it's unfortunately true.  As good as Andy Dalton has been this year, a rookie QB just can't take a team like this to the Super Bowl.  I do think we beat the Texans in the first round, but we don't have the offensive power to score with the Patriots, nor the defensive power to stop them.  I can tell you this though - the Bengals are contenders for the next decade.  There are a lot of good young players on this team, and they will only get better.  Who Dey!

THE TWEENERS

• NEW YORK GIANTS - They have the whole package: a good running game, great receivers, a good quarterback, and a decent defense (they put a lot of pressure on the quarterback).  Remember, they did beat the 18-0 Patriots a few years ago when no one expected them to do anything.  As long as Eli doesn't panic in the pocket and turn the ball over (doubtful at this point), they have a chance to surprise some people.  Remember too that, besides the AFC North, the NFC East is the toughest division in the NFL.  Winning that division is no small feat.  The Giants should be ready to go.  And they get to play the Falcons in the first round.  Might as well have a bye.
• SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS - For two reasons: defense and Jim Harbaugh.  The Niners defense is tough.  Patrick Willis is probably the best linebacker in the NFL.  Jim Harbaugh has Alex Smith believing he is a good quarterback (what can I say, the man is a miracle worker).  I promise you this, no one wants to play this team.  I don't think they can win the Super Bowl, but, at the beginning of the year, no one thought they would even make the playoffs.  Watch out for these guys.
• PITTSBURGH STEELERS - Usually the Steelers would be in the "Contenders" category, but not this year.  Rashard Mendenhall is out.  Ben Roethlisberger is gimpy (and fat and ugly).  The defense is beat up, and James Harrison will probably kill someone soon.  They do get a warm-up game in the first round against the Broncos, which will lead to a game with the Ravens or Patriots, both of whom I think beat the Steelers.  I could be wrong, but I just can't get myself to write about the Steelers as a contender.  I don't want to throw up on my keyboard.

THE CONTENDERS

• NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS - Never has a team with a defense so bad, contended for a Super Bowl.  But, these Patriots can.  Heck, they are the #1 seed in the AFC, so, apparently they are doing something right.  Tom Brady and his offensive weapons (re: Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, and Wes Welker) can beat anyone at anytime.  That is, if their defense doesn't give up 100.  I am rooting for them to lose, and lose early (Bengals in round 2????), but it wouldn't surprise me to see them lifting the Vince Lombardi Trophy, once again.
• BALTIMORE RAVENS - Their defense is getting old, but is still the strong suit of their team, and, defense wins championships.  Ray Rice is a great weapon to have, especially when your quarterback pretty much stinks.  I hate the Ravens more than I hate the Steelers, so that is all I am writing.  If they win the Super Bowl I will be pissed.  Really pissed.
• GREEN BAY PACKERS - Duh.  This team is unreal.  Aaron Rogers is already one of the best quarterbacks ever.  I love watching him play.  Their running game isn't great, but, really?  They have Aaron Rogers.  Their receivers are great.  Their defense gives up yards but not points.  The Packers are the team to beat, but, the fact that I still have one team left, means I don't think they win the Super Bowl.  In fact, they may not even get there, because...

THE WINNER

• NEW ORLEANS SAINTS - This team is ridiculous.  Drew Brees is just as good as Aaron Rogers.  Defenses cannot stop the Saints.  Plus, they are a hot team right now.  They are riding high after breaking 6 million NFL records this year.  And, teams that have a first round bye don't do historically well.  The Saints playing in the first round will allow them to stay sharp - perhaps sharper than any of the other teams.  Drew Brees and the Saints will earn their second ring this year, and it will be fun to watch.

There you have it folks!  I have predicted it for you, so there is one thing I can guarantee - it will happen exactly the opposite of the way I said.  That is just the way it goes.  Enjoy the playoffs!!  Who Dey!!