something good...finally

After all the hoopla that has surrounded Barry and his passing Aaron as the Home Run King, we finally have a couple good things to talk about.

First off let's visit the New York Metropolitans. My hat goes off to Tom Glavine on his 300th win. Do I have some bias towards him because he pitched for the Braves for a large amount of his career? Of course, but he's also a class act. If more of our baseball players all the way through the ranks, then Major League Baseball might not be dealing with all the stuff they are going through right now. He went about winning his game in his typical fashion, both on and off the field, simple and quiet. Even with one out standing between him and history he did not let his emotions betray him.

The next big question is will there be another 300 game winner? Most likely not for a long, long time. The next guy that's anywhere close, Randy Johnson, went under the knife and probably ended his career. We'll probably see another 500 saves, Mariano Rivera, before we see another 300 game winner. They way pitchers are being used so sparingly any more, asked just to give 6 or 7 innings, and the way they are put on the DL with the smallest of tweaks, I just do not see 300 wins happening soon. For the time being I feel it is totally okay to tell Tom to close the door behind him. If 3 is company, 23 a big enough party.

Now let's make a stop at the Gateway to the Midwest, St. Louis, where speaking of parties, this one has not stopped for the last 3-plus days. The story here is Rick Ankiel, and this is the story, I feel, that should be getting more press than Juicing Barry is getting. Rick was a pitching phenom a few years back. In 2000 he was 11-1, 194 K's in 175.0 innings. He seemed to be everything the Cardinals organization expected him to be. However when it came to the post-season he had a melt down similar to that of Mark Wohlers in the late 90's. Ankiel became the first pitched to throw 5 wild pitches in one inning. The poor kid looked like his life was over, he stood on the mound with a lost, empty look on his face. But the Walt Jockety of the Card's organization saw something in him. So he sent Ankiel to the minors to work on becoming an outfielder. And what do ya know, after 3 - 4 years of working in the minors, Ankiels back in the majors.

5 - 12, .417 BA, 3 HR's, and 6 RBI's, not to mention and pretty slick catch to boot, Ankiel may have found himself back at home. This very well could just be a flash in the pan, like his pitching career, but I certainly hope not. This kid deserves a long line of success. Heck, he's only 28, he still has plenty of production left to give.

I'm not a big fan of Barry Bonds. Talk with anyone who has tried to talk to him or interview him, he is a jerk and very stand offish. Yes he has broken a record no one ever thought would happen, but I feel that we are giving his record too much play time. The next day, and the day after that, I could not turn on the t.v. and not see something about his home run. This may be a bit naive, but with all the praise that he is getting and all that controversy that goes with just uttering his name; are we maybe in a way telling those that follow Bonds and all those that have steroids associated with their name, that maybe it is okay to cheat? Like I said that may be a bit naive, but it certainly makes sense to me.

The State of The Union Pt. 1

At any other time you might expect the President to come out and tell you how well, he thinks, the Union is doing, but this is a totally different type of State of the Union address. I'm here to talk about the state that we find the world of college sports in, over a couple of posts. After this last weekend there are a couple areas of college sports, football in general, that I would like to approach and tell you what needs to happen. I know many of these posts seem to be "doom and gloom" but at the current state of things I haven't found anything that will paint a pretty picture of how things can or would be turning around for the better.

By now most, if not all, of us have seen video of the fight that took place between Miami(FL) and Florida International University. When the respective AD's for each school decided to get their teams together and play they billed this as a rivalry game, one where "most of the athletes grew up playing against each other." They certainly got the rivalry atmosphere they were looking for and a little more. Jay Mariotti on the ESPN show Around the Horn put it best, "Here are a bunch of guys who couldn't make it into Miami to play for the team so they go to FIU, of course there is going to be bad blood, somehow we shouldn't be surprised by the actions that transpired during the game." The fight certainly brought out the worst in college sports, something that we've been seeing alarmingly a lot of recently, especially from Miami University. Coker's comment about him "[having] control of this program. No doubt about that, no doubt about that," seems to leave more to be desired by many people, something along the lines of him proving that he has control of the team.

And how about these "punishments" handed down by the higher-ups in Miami that have apparently "set a new standard." One ESPN.com writer lables these so call "punishments" as not a "slap on the wrist" but as " a soothing caress and manicure." These 18 one game suspensions show how much The Miami University relies on it's football team and the money it brings in, because if it was really worried about changing the view of the University and making it look appealing for people to come to and make it a place that parents really want their children to go to, they would do what FIU has done. Just what did the do? They did the right thing.

To start off with they dismissed the two players that sparked the whole brawl. Gone, off the team, probably never to return. For the other 16 players on the squad that had one game suspensions? They get to vacation the rest of the year, they won't play another snap this season. They also have to go through 10 hours of anger management classes and do community service hours by talking to kids and telling them the proper way to play team sports. The President of FIU was also quoted as saying "One incident is one incident too many," and they certainly have gone a long way in proving that by taking the actions that they have.

Or they could always go the route of Clemson and U. of South Carolina a coulpe years back. In 2004 when they got into their fracas both teams were heading to bowl games and Lou Holtz was on his way out, his swansong. But instead they decided to get all their fun that day, and both schools responded by say 'no' to bowl game invitations.

But Miami just can't do that. Because as stated earlier the school relies on its football team heavily. And with them not playing in the high name bowls the last couple years bringing the annual windfall from the bowl game pay-outs the school, and the football teams, needs to try to win six games so they can atleast get their money and run.

Miami also doesn't seem to care about changing things. Yes this will be a bitter taste in their mouth for a long time, but at the moment they seem to be attempting to surpress any memory about it by just forgetting about it and moving on. Whereas that would be an appropriate action anyother time, you can't just try to forget about something like this because if you do, the harder you try the harder it will be to try to fix it the next time it happens.

So why is proper punishment so important? It goes back to when I was talking about Little League players and anyother kid that plays sports. They see the fight happen and what goes down? The player only gets a one game suspension? That's like telling a kid he can go into a candy store or Toys R Us and get whatever he wants, that's giving a kid free reign over what he wants to do.

Something needs to happen quickly or our college sports are just going to turn out to be like many of our professional sports, a joke. A guy that I was staying with in Morgantown this weekend said it best "the big schools are only worried about the money" How true that rings in line with how Miami is handling this debacle.

there needs to be proof....

I always seem to enjoy it when athlete's bite off more than they can chew. MJ playing baseball, Deon Sanders doing the same, and the ever fun any professional player trying to play golf in the off-season charity event. Where as I have no problem with the latter, sometimes athletes just need to remember to stick to their own sport. And the case is sometimes atheletes need to prove to not only themselves but others that they can play (a la Johnathan Scheurholtz). So when Michelle Wie this week said that she hoped one day to "play in the Ryder Cup" ( a golf tournament that brings together the best US players agianst the best European players), I found it a little too ambitious for her at the moment, and frankly anytime in her professional carrer.

When Tiger Woods was ushered into the PGA at the ripe twenty-something age with the adage "Hello World" and he proved very quickly that he belonged by destroying the field in the Masters by something like 12 strokes in 1997. After all the hoopla that surrounded his coming he proved that he was legit. Shall we list the amazing things he has done in his sport? Won his first Master's in record fashion, won 17 straight PGA tour events in two calander years, set the lowest score to par at the 2000 British Open, and on, and on, and on, and on.

The converse can be said for Michelle Wie. Ever since she came into the LPGA all she has done was make it like a high school drama show, she being the queen. She consistenly falters in the last round or puts her self in a hole so deep that she has to fight just to break even again (a la the European Masters in which she finished at 15 over par, not making the cut). She continues to speak a lot of game but not show that she can play. And until she does prove that she can play my advice to her is this: Keep your mouth shut and win some tournaments on the LPGA tour, there are plenty of very good golfers on that tour (Creamer, Gulbis, Sorenstam). You don't need to try to prove yourself by playing against men, espicially in Europe, that was just stupid.

Michelle has proved herself worthy to play professionally. She accumulated many accolades throughout her amature carrer, but she has to learn to step up her game when it comes to the big time, this isn't Junior golf anymore.

Now all of this may sound like I am bashing women who try to play in men's tournaments. And in reality I thinks it's great when they do. When Sorenstam played in The Colonial in 2003. She deserved it, she earned with all that she has done for the LPGA ( maybe Michelle should learn from her elders, they made it possible for her to be where she is). Granted she didn't make the cut but she got a lot of support not only from the gallery but also from the players, esp. her playing partner on Friday who wore a button that said "Go Annika" much to the chagrin of other players and many sports analysts.

So in closing Wie needs to shut-up or put up and start showing people that she belongs, and she also needs to stop riding the coattails of those who have gone before her.

a dissapointed fan

This article written on ESPN.com by Greg Garber is the basis of ideas and thoughts for the following post:
and in the words of Colin Cowherd (an ESPNRadio host) "I'm going to say a lot of things, some of them may be offensive to people, but they are truly what I beleive."

I saw a batter admire a homerun the other night. If it were any other setting I would have shrugged it off and saw it as common place, but this one struck home a little harder. The batter who admired his homerun was a Little Leauge player. Hold on a moment. A Little Leauger doing what? He has no right to do that. If I had admired a home run I hit when I was his age I would have been taken out of the game and got my butt chewed out by my father when we got home. But no, he watched it alright. Just like he sees all the "Big Leaugers" do it. And I'm sure his dad was either a coach or so happy in the stands as he lived his sons life, most likely.

See this is where I start to seperate from many people when it comes to sports and athletes. Yes it's good to be confident, but there is a fine line between being confident and a arrogant son-of-a-bitch, and a lot of athletes ( and subsequently the kids that do what they do ) pole-vault this line and leave it in the dust. I'm a fairly humble person and could be looking at this a bit exaggerated, but it's the way I see it.

And the whole parents thing...don't get me started. If you're life revolves around you making your kid the best so you don't have to work another day in your life, well your fucking twisted. If you see your kid as a pay-check you shouldn't be allowed to have that kid. All you're going to do is burn them out and make them hate you, the game, or a bit of both. Hell you could hurt them physically so they may not be able to do things normally again.

And in the kids emulating all the things the pro's do, the basics and fundamentals are lost. The pro's can afford to skimp on the fundamentals because one) they are talented beyond belief and two) they've done it so many times it's second nature to them. What the kids don't see is when Scott Rolen goes through three coaches hitting him fungo's before a game working on fielding the ball or all the fly balls the outfields take to work on their routes and footwork. So what this translates to it kids thinking the fundamentals are worthless, they saw Big Papi swing like this so it must be the right way. Well I'm sorry little Billy, until you get paid for this what you think is jack-shit. Fundamentals are there for a reason, so you can do what's right. Talk to any D-1 recruiter or coach, hell any pro scout and what will they tell you, "We look for guys that do the fundamentals correctly so we don't have to waste time" Well shit?! If they're looking for that then why don't the kids do it? Because the kids don't want to.


And we wonder why we have to wipe the asses of the Europeans and Asians when we compete against them in most sports. It's because they pay attention to detail and doing the fundamentals right.

Unless we change the way we look at things I might just have to give up on sports all together, because the way things are progressing it's not a very pretty road that we are traveling.

Who's the best? Part 2

After a long break, I'm finally back with the second installment of many. I wanted to continue with the divisional winning percentage from the last post because I think there is something to be found there. Possibly. So for this one I compiled the divisional winning percentage for the last 5 years for each division and then computed the '5 Year Winning Percentage.' Which is simply all the games won divided by the total games played over the last 5 years. The full sheet of computations can be found here. Because there is a lot of information I'll just pull out what I need to and make the needed informational reference.

First off I want to look at the divsional win percentages over the last few years. Let's start with the American Leauge. A quick scan of the Win %'s we see that over the last 5 years the divisional percentages from the AL West have slowly declined while the AL East has seen a steady increase over the last 5 years. This is the same for the National Leauge albeit not as sharply as is seen in the American Leauge. While in both leauges the Central division has seen 5 years of pretty steady win percentages:

National Leauge Central:
2001 - .484
2005 - .508
American Leauge Central:
2001 - .481
2005 - .496

In trying to figure out why the winning percentages would flux as such with the West declining and the East incling over the last 5 years only one reason came to mind as to why this would happen: trades. For an example lets look at the Oakland A's to define this:
The Oakland A's were in possesion of two of the higher echelon players at their posistion; Jason Giambi and Miguel Tejada. In 2002 Giambi found himself shipped East to the Yankees ( as Mike Lewis, author of Moneyball, put it "never to hurt the Yankees again ) and Tejada found himself in the same posistion a year later being shipped to Baltimore. Granted the Yankees were already pretty darn good before Giambi got there, but he was able to solidify a posistion in the line-up and make his mark known. Whereas Tejada had a little bit more of an impact in Baltimore. He was the start of Baltimore's "Offensive Build-Up" bringing a decent bat to the line-up and an above average glove to the middle of the infield. Now this is only one example and could be a freak happening, but the fact that it's happening in the other leauge as well brought this question to mind: Is the talent being formed out in the Western Divisions then being shipped East? Now i know there is the whole farm system aspect, but that only accounts for a small part, farm system talent can take a few years to develop well and if there is already the talented player you're looking for in the Bigs, it would seem logical that you would make the trade for that player.

Secondly, lets face the "AL East and the NL East are the best divisions" argument. As I said in the last post the AL East seems to always , always being to what i can remember, coming down to between Boston and New York and the NL East has seen the Braves win it 14 times in a row, that streak coming to an end this year, but always has been filled with tight races and great divisional play. Looking at the 5 year percentages the latter can be said to be true, where as the former, the AL East being the best division hasn't always been true. Maybe for the last two years but not always. And conincidently when did we see the biggest fall for the AL West and the biggest gain for the AL East? Between the 2002 and 2003 seasons? There could be nothing there, certainly one would have to go through all the trades between the West and the East and try to quantify that trade and see how the player is performing/impacting the new team, but I found that a little odd. Again, the information is there for you to look at and take what you want from it. All I'm trying to do it start a discussion and I'm giving my points of view.

Hopefully the next post won't be so long in coming, but with what I'm planning to talk about I feel it might be a while again.

We have a break in the action....

For anyone who is reading this Part 2 will be up shortly. But for the moment I just want to say that I love Bill James and the work that he has done. Granted I will never make an impact on the game that Bill James has, I sort of feel like him while I'm going through all of this and pouring over the information, certainly makes me happy.

Who's the best? Part 1

As I listened to my A's slowly fall apart and blow a seven run lead, allowing the Rangers to score eight runs in the last four innings ( five of which came in the sixth inning), I began to wonder " How does one determine the strength of a division?" Much of this question arose when Ken Korack, one of the color announcers for the A's, mentioned earlier in the game that if the A's won they would be tied for the AL West Divsion lead with the Rangers, even though they would be a game under .500. For my friends out there who read this and don't know what I'm talking about. Playing .500 - ball is when a team has a win-loss record that would look something similar to this 24 wins, 24 losses; they have won 24 out of their 48 games played -- 24/48 = .500. So, back to the thought. Granted I have a bias for the A's and I would like to see them leading the division, no matter what their record is, it appals me when a team with a sub - .500 record can be leading a division almost 1/3 of the way through a season, let alone make it to the post-season (ala The Oakland U. in the 2005 Men's NCAA Tourney). I know it's a long season (162 regular season games) and there is a lot of baseball to be played, but still the question almost begs to be asked. Out of the same vein of my original question the thought "How competitive is the AL West?" I mean if the division is going to be lead by two teams that are sub-.500, can it really be considered a good division?

At almost the 1/3rd mark of the season lets take a look at the overall winning percentage by division, (total games won by teams in the division / total games played by all teams in the division) NOTE: Percentages may be slightly skewed by the fact that some divisions have more teams. The AL WEST is the smallest division in MLB with only 4 teams.

Divisional Win Percentage:
AL East: (121/231) = .523
AL Central: (117/230) = .508
AL West: (87/190) = .457

NL East: (109/231) = .471
NL Central: (139/282) = .492
NL West: (127/234) = .542

For me, and any one else who knows a little recent history (a knowledge I would say of Divisions going back at least 5 years), these numbers are interesting and post a couple more questions. First off let me give you my spin on these numbers.

Again I know this is only 1/3rd of the way through the season but these numbers are telling already. First, compare the NL East to the AL West. The NL East, even thought it has been won by Atlanta the last 14 years, it has been billed as one of (if not the) best division in baseball for it's close races at the end of every year and the quality teams that play in the division. Heck, the World Series winner twice in the last what 5-6 years is inhabiting the cellar. However with a glace at these numbers here and the NL East being only a paltry .014 percentage points better than the AL West, astonishes me. Another questions that certainly comes to mind is Do high Divsional Win Percentages actually portend a strong division?

Now take the NL Central. Here you have the division with the most consistent team over, I would say, the last three year; St. Louis. You also have the Astro's which have proven to be the "Comback Kids" and make it to the post-season with dramatic fashion by winning the Wild Card the last two year, even making it to the World Series last year. And you have Chicago who just can't seem to put two halves of a season together, but are usualy a solid team.
Again for those who don't know. The Wild Card is won by the team who has the best record in their respective League who is not leading their Division at the end of the regular season.
But again I digress. So again we have a strong division over the few years who at the moment is only .042 percentage points better than the AL West. This again leans towards the question posed in the preceeding comparison.

But then there is the NL West. Highest winning percentage in MLB is the odd ball of the NL. Being led by the Diamondbacks who haven't shown much of themselves since winning the World Series against the Yankess in 2001. Closely followed by the Dodgers who usually play well but like the Cub's , just can't seem to put it together. Then you have Colorado who since making a post-season appearance by winning the Wild Card has been a perinial house of nothingness and the Padres who haven't seen much of the post-season since losing to the Yankees in the World Series are showing some life in their new ballpark. Finally you have the winners of the Divsion the last couple year, the Giants tied for last. Now all that said, the NL West is a not a division like the NL East or Central. Granted it has seen repeat winners the last couple years but seriously that division is always up for grabs because no one really wants to sold control over that division out there, I for one consider it a 'soft division'. But it has the highest Divisional Win Percentage of MLB. Does a high Divsional Win Percentage portend a weak division?

The AL Central would certainly go light years in answers that question with a resounding YES. The Detroit Tigers currently hold a 1/2 game lead over the World Champ Chi. White Sox. Yes people, the Detriot Tigers. A team which even as recently as the 2003 season posted TRIPLE DIGIT loses. And now that honor has been bestowed up the Royals who are only a few game away from posting those same triple digit loses 4 of the last 5 seasons. Now throw in the Twins who have been a decent team over the last couple of years, but are now starting to find it hard to put together a good season. This division currently holds the thrid highest Divisional Win Percentage at the moment, and certainly can easily be considered a 'soft division'.

However the AL East goes to disprove all the AL Central just proved. Here in this division you have the second highest Divsion Win Percentage but you have the divison that rivals the NL East for the best division in baseball. Granted I feel it's slightly over-rated seeing as year in and year out for the long haul, or at least as long as I can remember, the division has been a drunken bar fight between the Yankees and the Red Sox. The others; Balitmore, Tampa Bay, and Toronto, no matter how hard they try just can't seem to crack those two at the top. However, in this division you see some wonderful talent. In my opinion one of the best pitchers in baseball, Roy Halliday, resides in pitching rotation for Toronto. This is the same team that seemed to have a buying war with the Mets during the off-season to bulk up their staff (They paid how much for B.J. Ryan?!) You also have a fairly good shorstop in Miguel Tejada in Baltimore along with a fairly good catcher in his time Javy Lopez. You have the up-and-coming MLB in Tampa Bay with BJ Upton.

So for all of this I have come to this: If we are going to go by Divisional Win Percentage we need to look back to the recent past and see how the divisions fared. At the moment there are, I believe, some good questions that have been asked by simply looking at this small amount of data and coupling that with present-day information and with recent history.

This is certainly not all I am going to write about it. Granted I am in summer school at the moment and so I may not be able to quench your hunger for more of this on a regualr basis ( that is until after June 22, then Katie bar the door ), but I certainly hope this sparks either converstaion or thought as to how one truly determines a strong divison.