|
This Could Be Your Ad! Sponsor . . .
July's Boneheaded Sports Analyst! Advertise your business, or pay tribute to your favorite team! |
|
This Could Be Your Ad! Sponsor . . .
July's Boneheaded Sports Analyst! Advertise your business, or pay tribute to your favorite team! |
An anonymous editorial from the Star-Gazette gets the nod as July's Boneheaded Sportswriter of the Month. I wouldn't want my name attached to it, either.
Team chemistry
MLB still must convince fans that drug-enhanced play is far from the norm.
Basically, this editorial depicts baseball's "sudden outpouring of offense" which is supposedly causing fans to believe that there is more doping going on this year than last.
First of all, while slugging percentages are up a few points around the big leagues, this hardly constitutes an explosion. It's nothing like 1987, when we saw slugging percentages increase by 24 points in the NL and 17 points in the AL from the previous season. Of course, slugging percentages in both leagues dipped back to sub-1986 levels the following year. Now we're talking about even less of an increase in half of the sample size and some anonymous sportswriter is getting into a tizzy.
"[C]ynical fans also may wonder if there is a connection between the home-run mania this season and what players are putting in or on their bodies."
First of all, our writer should have used "whether" instead of "if" in this sentence. Second of all, any cynical fan with even half a brain would not think this. A cynical fan, like myself, would think that players had used banned substances in both 2005 and in 2006. And why would anyone think that there was an increase in the use of banned substances immediately following an increase in the punishment for testing positive for said substances? If there actually is someone who thinks that, aside from our silly little writer here, then I certainly hope it isn't one of the millions who thought that baseball needed to make its banned substance policy harsher. Because its banned substance policy is among the harshest around now, and if you think that this is causing more doping than when the policy was weaker, then you shouldn't have been clamoring for a harsher policy...
While we're talking about boneheaded analysts, let's give an honorable mention to the panel of "experts" who decided on the Hometown Heroes for each franchise. "Nominees selected to appear on the ballot were chosen for their contributions to their franchise's history using the Hometown Heroes selection criteria of on-field performance, leadership quality and character value," according to MLB.com.
So why on Earth is Barry Bonds nominated over Christy Mathewson?
From Cooperstown: Baseball's Hall of Famers (1999):
"Christopher Mathewson probably did more than any performer of his day to enhance the image of a professional baseball player. Educated, intelligent, and a consummate gentleman, he seemed almost too good to be true."
In contrast, Barry Bonds has possibly done as much as any other modern player to sully the image of a professional ballplayer. Yes, he was a slightly better performer than Mathewson, but don't say that character value is a criteria when Bonds, Cobb, and Rose are on the ballot. And if those guys are on the ballot, then we should also see Rogers Hornsby listed under St. Louis and Joe Jackson under the White Sox.
On to leadership. Let's look at the Cubs' nominees. The five players listed have combined for one postseason appearance with the Cubs. In that appearance, the Cubs became the first team ever to lose a five-game series after winning the first two games. Does this sound like quality leadership to you?
Some better choices:
How about Frank Chance? He was the player-manager for the only two Cubs teams to win the World Series. His 1906-1910 Cubs remain one of the greatest dynasties of all time. His 1906 Cubs have had the best winning percentage of all time for 100 years now.
Or you can go with the ace pitcher from those years, Mordecai Brown. He went 127-44 with a 1.42 ERA over that five year stretch, arguably the most dominant five year stretch for any pitcher. He did not allow a run in the 1908 World Series.
You could also try Gabby Hartnett, one of the greatest catchers in the history of the game. The Cubs won four pennants during his tenure, including 1938, when he took over the team as player-manager at midseason. He led the team from nine games out in August to best the rival Pirates. You may remember the opposite scenario happening to the 1969 Cubs and four of the five Hometown Heroes nominees.
And it is blatantly obvious that on-field performance isn't of paramount importance. I've been saying for a couple of years now that Brian Schneider may be the most underrated catcher in baseball. But he's logged fewer than 2,000 at bats for the Washington/Montreal franchise and is currently having a terrible season. Brian Giles has spent even less time with the Padres, and looks to be in the down slope of his peak. Arky Vaughan, the second or third best shortstop ever depending upon where you currently rank A-Rod, isn't among the Pirates' five. And how on earth does Eddie Matthews, the second best third baseman ever and the only Brave to play in Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta, not on their list?
You know, I expect the fan voting to look silly, as it did in the MLB Mastercard All Century Top 100. But you can hardly blame the fans when the panel of experts don't nominate anything close to the best options for the accolade.
Tired of defensive stats that are misleading, arbitrary, and compicated?Then pick up your copy of The Fielding Bible today for $7 off the cover price! Read Keith's Review to find out more. |