Fruit does not hang lower than this, part 2

When we last left Bill, he was lecturing us about how Jim Rice was the best power hitter of the 20th century, and possibly the best point guard and free safety as well.  Don Sutton was just some nobody who just happened to pitch at a very high level for 20+ seasons, and really, why the hell should that qualify him for the Hall of Fame?  Are you ready for the worst argument anyone ever makes when discussing a player's HOF worthiness?  Here it comes.

There's a reason I take this so personally: I was there.

I SAW THE GAMES SAW THEM WITH MY OWN EYES I DON'T NEED NO NUMBERS TO TELL ME PHIL RIZZUTO/CATFISH HUNTER/JIM RICE WAS A HALL OF FAMER.  I KNOW WHAT I SAW.

Carter, Rice, Morris and Gossage were the best players at their respective positions

No.

(or at least among the best) when I was growing up.

Maybe, but not everyone who fits into your flimsy "among the best" definition deserves to be the Hall. This should be brutally obvious, but I do like the implication in that parenthetical that he's willing to walk back his absurd claim that Rice was the best power hitter in the game for a 12 year stretch.

Shouldn't that be what the Hall of Fame represents?

You think that's rhetorical, but it's not. The Hall of Fame should represent the very best baseball players of all time, and by very best, I mean players who were really good and they stayed really good for a long time. I almost hesitate to include that clarification--it should be obvious that being the best of all time doesn't mean being really awesome for a short period of time. It means being really awesome for a long period of time.  Lots of players have been really awesome for a short or medium period of time.  They don't belong in the hall, because there are a pretty good number of other players who have been really awesome for a long period of time.  Holy shit, why do I even think I have to explain that to any of you people?  Embarrassing.  Suffice it to say, if you're not a fucking idiot, you know generally what the HOF "should represent."

Excellence over a reasonably long period of time?

Yes, but "while Billy was growing up" is clearly not a long enough window if you think that Rice belongs in. Having four 5+ WAR seasons (and another one at 4.9), and then having seven or eight other seasons in which you had around 25 HR and 2 WAR (because he didn't get on base enough and couldn't play decent defense or run the bases) is not excellence over a reasonably long period of time. Reverse the number of seasons Rice fell into each of those two categories--seven or eight awesome 5+ WAR seasons, and then four or five "eh he hit home runs but generally wasn't that good" and he's probably in the Hall, or at least a much better candidate.

The problems don't end there. Remember how your grandparents refused to use the TV remote control and insisted on getting up and changing the channels manually?

No. My grandparents loved the piss out of using the remote.

If there were a sports equivalent of that phenomenon, it would be the Baseball Hall of Fame, where the prevailing theme is, "That's the way they did it back then, so that's the way we'll do it now."

Oh brother. The HOF sure as shit needs to make some changes, but letting in more Jim Rices, or doing what he's about to propose, aren't any of them.

Not to turn into Chandler Bing here,

And in case you weren't already aware, there's your evidence that this column is from 2002.

but could the entire process be more dumb?

That Matthew Perry--he is just too much!  Anyways, the process definitely could be dumber. As bad as the BWAA is, they could hand the vote over to current members of the HOF, or to current players. That would be really, really dumb.

Could it be less fan-friendly?

How are you going to make it more fan friendly? By letting fans themselves vote for the players? Jesus H. Christ, what a disaster that would be. These last two rhetorical questions have really deepened my appreciation for the BWAA.

Could it be any less thought-provoking?

It's very thought provoking. See: the insane number of articles written and amount of debate that takes place every single year regarding who should get in and who should not. But I like that you wanted to add a third thing to your list of Chandler Bing rhetorical question complaints, even if you came up with something that is completely out of place.

Ask yourself this question: Did you argue about the Hall of Fame selections with anyone this week?

Yes, I either directly argue about them or read articles/comments in which people argue about them every single January.

Of course not ... you probably don't care.

You can see where he's going. This is not an article written for baseball fans, but an article written for people who say DURR HURR BASEBALL IS BORRRRING BUT I WOULD WATCH IF THE HALL OF FAME ADMISSION PROCESS WAS BASED ON 40 TIMES AND BENCH REPS.  Or something.  What baseball fan doesn't care about the HOF?

And why should you?

Because I like baseball?

It's like arguing about the Grammy Awards: You know they don't accurately reflect excellence in music.

Wow, that is mean. Comparing the HOF to the Grammys--I didn't realize he had anything that dark in him. But really, that's a wholly inaccurate comparison made by a person who has no fucking idea what he's talking about. (I mean with regard to the HOF. He obviously knows that the Grammys are a joke, because everyone knows that the Grammys are a joke.)

If they did, Toto wouldn't have won four Grammys in 1982.

LEAVE TOTO OUT OF THIS, ROSANNA IS A GREAT SONG

And that's why none of us really care about the Baseball Hall of Fame,

Every baseball fan cares about the HOF. Some non-baseball fans do too. I'm not sure if things were way different eleven years ago, or if Bill just has his head in his ass again. I am leaning towards the latter.

and the only people who do care -- ancient baseball writers -- will be dead soon, anyway.

If we're lucky. I'd still rather they be voting than fans, HOF inductees or current players though.

It's almost a lost cause. Almost. Of course, I still think the whole thing can be salvaged.

Wait! Tell us, Mr. Genius! Tell us how to save this thing that does not need to be saved! I'm sure your idea, like the rest of your ideas, is not horrid at all. THE HALL OF FAME NEEDS A VP OF CAWMON SENSE!

While driving to Shea Stadium five summers ago with my buddy Gus and his father, Wally, we came up with a brainstorm to save the Hall of Fame.

If only Billy Joel could have been driving on that same Queens highway at that same time.

We were inadvertently borrowing Bill James' plan to redefine Hall of Famers and "weigh them" for importance depending on their qualifications, a process James explained in his "Historical Abstract" (none of us were aware of this at the time).

I know I said last post that the next article any of us reads about reorganizing the HOF that didn't suck would be the first. My dismissal of such ideas does not apply to Bill James. I have not read "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?" and I don't know the specifics of his weighing plan, but he's Bill James, so I'm sure it's very unterrible. In contrast, Bill Simmons is about to offer us a reorganization plan that deserves all the careful consideration given to someone who asks you to pull their finger.

Regardless, I'm positive that Wally invented the "Pyramid Concept."

As you'll see in my next post about this article, this is not something anyone should willingly take credit for. This is like saying "Wally invented parking tickets."

Here's the premise: In an ideal world, the Hall of Fame should be a place where someone could stroll in, spend weeks walking around, absorb everything about the game ...

I've never been, but I'm pretty sure that's more or less what the HOF is already.

by the time they departed, they would know everything there is to know about professional baseball.

And now you've taken it too far. That should not be the purpose of the HOF. That is what books and the internet are for. The HOF is for preserving all of the very very best and most interesting things about baseball. Much as Jonah Keri and Jeff Pearlman would like it to have an entire wing dedicated to utility infielders from the 80s, that kind of thing does not belong in Cooperstown.

Well, the way the place is presently constructed, all the Hall of Famers are sort of lumped together.

Right, the plaques are, but there's lots of other shit too. I've seen pictures. It's a big building.

It's like having a Hall of Fame for models and putting Cindy Crawford's plaque next to the girl who modeled as the "Before" picture in the original "Weight Watchers" ad.

I've never claimed to be some masterful writer with a deft touch when it comes to analogies, but I'm sure as hell better than Bill.  What an asshole.

So why couldn't we transform it into a five-level pyramid

No.

-- seriously, an actual pyramid, like a replica of the Luxor casino in Las Vegas --

This is a terrible idea and whoever thought of it should be kicked squarely in the balls.

where elected players are assigned to different levels?

Because.

More over the weekend. Just wait until you see which players he wants to put on various levels of his awesome pyramid-shaped HOF. Hooooo doggy.

pleading for leniency will get you nowhere

espn's michael knisley, re: colorado's 13 inning win over san diego in the NL wild card playoff game:

A long, stressful, extra-inning night finally ended a long, stressful, extra-game regular season Monday in Denver, and the Colorado Rockies flew away to Philadelphia and the National League Division Series ...

... on Holliday.

Matt Holliday.

please don't make dumb puns like that. i promise you, less than 2% of your readers are impressed. yet, 2 paragraphs later-

In that sense, if you'll excuse the pun, the game was a baseball holiday...

what the shit did i just say? if you're a professional writer, and feel the need to preface a pun with "if you'll excuse the pun..." that should be your first hint that it was a terrible idea to write it in the first place. idiot.

Extra: "Killer Instinct Necessary to Win Divisions"

Wallace Matthews has a great theory as to why the Mets are faltering.

These Mets lack a killer instinct

There you have it. The New York Mets are finding themselves out of the NL East league because they have no killer instinct, as evidenced by them not killing anything lately.

Pity poor Willie Randolph. Try as he might, he can't turn these sleeping dogs into pit bulls.

I'm going to go ahead and skip to the last sentence of the column real quick.

But deep down, he's got to know that no matter how much he whips them, he can't turn this litter of pussycats into a pride of lions.

This is basically the same dumb metaphor. I've got one! "No matter how many dumb metaphors Wallace Matthews puts into his articles, he still can't turn his writing into something that makes any sense"

Right now, he's got three gamers - David Wright, Moises Alou and Paul Lo Duca - and a clubhouse full of Mister Softees who wouldn't have survived one day in the crucible of Brownsville, where Randolph's character was forged,

Let's have a one-player draft between you and me Wallace. You can go first and pick either of these two players.

Mister Carlos "Softee" Beltran: .276/.355/.527 EqA: .302. WARP: 8.1 Good at fielding? Yes

Mr. Paul "Gamer" Lo Duca: .276/.314/.284 EqA: .247. WARP: 2.8. Good at fielding? Not particularly

Now normally I'd say Beltran is a better guy to have, but....

Catch: The latter is FIERY and has KILLER INSTINCT

Now I see why you want Lo Duca.

Side note: Why is Moises Alou considered a "gamer"? He's about the last guy on the Mets roster someone would label a "gamer", except like Jose Valentin or something. The guy is 41 years old and is bad at fielding! (I heard somewhere good fielding is what makes a "gamer") So which is it? "gamer" = killer-instincty, hussle-y, gritty? Or "gamer" = good at baseball? Either way, you're wrong.

let alone the walk in the park that is the National League East.

Or, at least, should be.

The NL East isn't like, amazing, but it's hardly the NL Central, the only true, "walk-in-the-park"-y division.

Their non-performance against the Washington Nationals, a team with nothing to look forward to but winter vacation, was inexcusable considerng the gap in talent and payroll between the two teams.

Yes, and no bad teams ever beat any good teams in a best of 3 series. The Marlins actually aren't 6-0 against the Cubs this year, because there is no such thing as "variance" or "small sample size".

When you factor in that the Mets not only should want to beat such a team, but desperately need to, it borders on the shameful.

The Mets want to beat the Nationals, as opposed to other teams.....whom they are indifferent to beating.

All season, the Mets have taken a day or two off each week, hence their inability to put together a five-game winning streak until two weeks ago.

And yet, they and their fans have been lulled into a false sense of security by the weakness of their division, which has kept them in first place every day of the season since May 16.

Here's the problem. It's hard to call the 2nd best division of a 3-division league "weak", especially when the difference between the best teams and the worst teams is far less pronounced than it is in the AL.

But now, faced with their first real test, they are floundering like a prizefighter who has won 35 setups in "preparation" for a title fight. And every time you think you have seen their worst performance of the year, they surprise you by taking it one step lower. And who knows when it will bottom out?

I would imagine that if it hasn't already, it would have to be sometime in the next week, Wallace.

And what's the "title fight" here? Playing the Washington Nationals? This comparison does not hold water.

Read on if you want to. It's a bunch of garbage about how the Mets don't "look like a playoff team" and "don't care about winning". Piss off, Matthews.

i'm not 100% sure this counts as a mixed metaphor

but i am 100% sure it counts as stupid. bob griese, calling the penn st.-michigan game on abc, talking about how michigan needs to establish a ground attack because they don't want to put too much pressure on their freshman quarterback:

"Once they get that running game going, anything else is just the cherry on top of the iceberg."

you sure it's not gravy at the end of the tunnel?

how NOT to describe something that happens in a baseball game

troy renck of the denver post needs to either get his act together, or switch jobs. you can't describe events with this kind of language and expect to be taken seriously. re: last night's rockies-marlins game:

An unnerved Benitez squandered a one-run lead when Holliday crushed a double to right field. Holliday advanced to third on the throw home, standing as a reminder of the team's past and hope for the future.

no. no he did not. he stood there as a reminder of the fact that in baseball, if you strike the ball with the bat and the ball lands in fair territory without being caught, you are allowed to run counter-clockwise around the bases until you either reach home or deem it necessary to stop on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd base (so long as you are not put out in some other manner in the meantime).

The Miseducation of Jemele Hill...

Jemele Hill is a terrible writer. This story is on the lack of respek for the spurs. It's a few weeks old, but it's so goddamed terrible I had to write on it. Seriously, how does such a shitty writer like Hill get a job writing professionally about sports? I mean I can understand how she was on the staff for the Orlando Sentinel. It's a shitty newspaper in a fucking god awful city, and there's only one sports team in town (that nobody cares about). But ESPN? I mean, I know they have thir share of incompetant writers, but goddamn this fucking idiot takes the cake. This one is example #2,315 of why women shouldn't write about men's sports.

Put the Spurs in Doc's DeLorean. Turn the dial to the 1980s, or early-to-mid 1990s. Just put them in a time when basketball fans weren't huge hypocrites.

Oh boy, I can't wait to hear this one. You'll notice later on this is her first of approximately 200 pop culture refrences jammed into this 10 paragraph article, describing why basketball today is nothing like it was in the 80s and 90s

You know how they say some people are before their time? Well, the Spurs are behind their time. In today's Paris Hilton-obsessin', 360-degree-dunkin'-lovin,' sexy-soundbite-wantin', entertain-me-me-me culture, the Spurs are an Atari in a land full of Wiis.

You got that? Let's go over it again:

In today's Paris Hilton-obsessin'

Who was a small child in the 80s. I'm not even sure what this line means. What the hell does Paris Hilton have to with basketball? And what the hell is the difference between the sexual exploits of Paris Hilton and Madonna back in the 80s?

360-degree-dunkin'-lovin

When was the last time the All-Star dunk contest was relevant? Oh that's right, well over 10 years ago, during your golden age of basketball.

sexy-soundbite-wantin'

Do you have an editor, Jemele? What the hell does this mean? Is this cryptic code for something? Are you sending messages through Page 2 to Terrorists in Iran? To be honest, though the first thing I thought of when I read this was that video game, "NBA JAM." You guys remember that fucking game? I loved it. Players taking off for enormous tomahawk dunks from the 3 point like... "OOOHHHHHH BOOM SHAKALAKA!" Half court 3-point jumpers "from WAAAY DOWNTOWN. HE'S ON FIRE!!!!"

And don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of someone who writes for ESPN complaining about "sexy soundbites"

entertain-me-me-me culture

Did you know that the NBA was only recently watched for entertainment purposes? Back in the 80s, various court systems made convicted felons attend basketball games as an alternative form of punishment. I mean, I'm old school and all, so I don't go to Basketball games to be entertained, like these kids today, that's for sure.

the Spurs are an Atari in a land full of Wiis.

I just want to make sure we got this right. So what you're saying is that the Spurs are a popular video game system in a land full of popular video game systems? I just want to make sure you and I are on the same page here Jemele.

These millennium Spurs, now winners of four titles in nine years, were born at the wrong time. That's why they are, by far, the most underappreciated, disrespected champion in NBA history.

Man we ain't get no respek. The reason here is that, while the Spurs are a very, very good basketball team, (a) they play in a tiny market, and (b) they are boring to watch, regardless of era.

But imagine them in the '80s with Bird, Kareem, Magic and Zeke. Imagine their execution facing the Pistons' toughness. Imagine Duncan against McHale. Imagine Rodman and Bowen competing for most irritating. Bet we wouldn't call the Spurs unwatchable then.

I would still call them unwatchable. I'd rather see Magic vs Bird (west vs east) than Duncan vs Bird any day of the week. Sorry. And don't even try to compare Rodman to Bowen. Rodman was a riot on and off the court. He was a pest on the court, getting into other players' faces and committing hard fouls. Bowen's calling card, on the other hand, is attempting to ruin other players' careers by shattering their ankles.

Bird, Kareem, Magic, Zeke, Rodman, McHale, Jordan: Not boring
Duncan and the Spurs: Boring

Imagine the Spurs in the early-to-mid '90s playing Jordan. Imagine Duncan versus Malone. Imagine Duncan versus Barkley. Imagine Popovich versus Sloan. Imagine the Spurs' big three rolling to Chicago trying to take the crown from Mike. Bet the television ratings wouldn't be so bad then.

The ratings wouldn't be bad because Jordan, Malone, and Barkley would have been playing.

Imagine the Spurs against the '82-83 Sixers. Imagine Moses Malone's "fo', fo', fo'" prediction contrasting with Tony Parker's French accent. Bet we wouldn't call the Spurs boring then.

We would have just waved our "Beat It" jackets in the air and cheered for the Spurs.

No "we" wouldn't have done this. As much as you want to look back on the past with your rosy goggles, It's simply not true. Lots of people hated the Bird-era Celtics, the Jordan-era Bulls, and the Magic-era Lakers. Why? because people don't like watching the same team win over and over again, unless they are from that city, or a huge bandwagoning faggot who like rooting for the team that always wins.

Ask yourself: When was the last time one of the Spurs was arrested? When was the last time one of the Spurs whined about playing time? More money? Demanded a trade?

Think about that the next time you groan because the Spurs were in the Finals.

I'm not sure how this is relevant, but okay, I guess.

We treat the Spurs like they're a punishment. It's not the Spurs' fault they still do things the '80s way.

Flopping, like it or not, is a new aspect of the game. It also happens to be one of the things the Spurs do best. I don't want to get into the whole "omg u flopped" argument, but it's the truth. Once european players were introduced into the game, they started taking advantage of NBA refs who called fouls based on the reaction of the "fouled" player. I'm not saying the Spurs are an illegtimate champion, but a huge part of their success has been milking the refs for fouls. Is it legal? sure. Is it annoying? You decide.

It's not the Spurs' fault that most teams in the NBA aren't committed to defense.

Hey, what do you know? Halfway through the article, Jemele Hill finally makes a valid point.

It's not the Spurs' fault the Eastern Conference is the professional version of the NCAA's Patriot League.

Yes, which is why 2 out of the last 4 NBA champions have come from the East.

It's not the Spurs' fault they're the best-run organization in the NBA.

Once again, this is very true. The Spurs run a tight ship, are good at scouting and developing players, and maintaining a winning team with very few contract issues.

It's not the Spurs' fault that Tim Duncan, the most accomplished player in the post-Jordan era, doesn't fit the stereotype of black male athletes and therefore won't garner widespread, national attention until he holds up a 7-Eleven.

Oh, okay. But Jemele, how do you explain the incredible success of black athletes like Jordan and Tiger Woods? Don't worry, she has an answer in this abortion of an article she wrote about black athletes (who believe it or not, don't get any respek either)

Excellence is a big reason Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods became the most popular athletes on Earth, but part of their appeal is they have nonthreatening personalities and rarely take a stance on controversial issues.

Gotcha. Let's hear about the Spurs again.

We're always quick to lament how much today's athlete has changed, but the truth is our fan values have changed just as much. It was once a no-brainer to embrace a team like the Spurs. Wish we could transport them back to a time when we cared more about what they stand for.

They stand for winning basketball games, which is nice, but you haven't made any point in this article, except for masturbating about NBA matchups that can't exist. Hyperbole and pop culture references will only get you so far. She still didn't address two points:

1. The Spurs are a small market team
2. The Spurs are boring. She addressed this one in a roundabout fashion, "If the Spurs played an exciting team from the past, bet you wouldn't call the Spurs boring." I would and here's why. Their 3 best players are a mousy Frenchman, another forgien guy who falls down a lot, and a cyborg named Tim Duncan. Duncan, while a great basketball player, is boring as fuck to watch. He has gigantic arms, a 6 inch vertical jump, and scores on exactly the same play every single possesion. They win, but as ratings have shown, nobody cares because it's boring to watch and the Spurs, once again, are a small market team. Maybe fans don't appreciate old skool basketball, but maybe they'd would rather watch Dancing with the Stars because they're sick of seeing the same fucking play/game/series on a repeated loop season after season.

look, im enjoying the cubs' terrible season as much as the next guy

but i can't help get angry when i read bad sports writing. in this fine piece of garbage on espn.com, gene wojceichowski waxes dumb about why the cubbies are having such a bad season. let's check out the numbers, shall we? the cubs' run differential is +20, theyre in the middle of the pack in most hitting statistics (around 15th in runs scored and OPS), and in the upper-middle of the pack in most pitching statistics (10th in ERA, 7th in BAA, 4th in Ks, 14th in fewest walks). but theyre 7 games under .500, which suggests theyve lost tons of close games. sure enough, looking at the schedule, theyre 2-11 in one run games. and their bullpen's numbers are pretty bad: 5-13 record, 4.27 ERA. without the stellar efforts of carlos marmol and rocky cherry (who hasn't played in 3 weeks) those numbers drop to 3-12 with a 4.61 ERA. hmmmmmm. maybe they should have spent some of that offseason money on guys who can get people out late in games, no? well, if you dont want to blame that or the holes at C, SS, and CF in their lineup, what DO you want to blame, gene?

Egos, team disarray have knocked Cubs down to size

oh. i almost forgot. intangibles! egos... no team has ever won with a bunch of those on it. and the nebulous concept of "team disarray"... although i think team togetherness means a ton in basketball and football, im not so sure about baseball. not to say it behooves a team to be jackasses to each other. but with so few plays in the game involving more than one or two players on a team, its pretty easy to co-exist with a bunch of teammates you hate. relatively easier than in other sports anyways. and even then, its certainly not an insurmountable obstacle. im trying to be moderate here; its not that problems among teammates never ever affect on-field performance. but given that record in one run games and the cubs pen's numbers, and given the fact it's written by wojceichowski... i'm pretty sure this article is going to be shitty.

The Chicago Cubs are the worst team in baseball. This is an indisputable, irrefutable fact, as obvious as the ivy on the outfield walls or the steel trough urinals in the Wrigley Field men's bathrooms.

this is standard "i must make extremely controversial and questionable statements to get attention for my column!" stuff. skip bayless and woody paige would be proud. i must have a different conception of "indisputable" and "irrefutable" than gene does. i would rewrite the beginning of the second sentence to read "this is a highly arguable, extremely subjective idea..." what about the 21-37 kansas city royals? theyve scored 30 runs less than the cubs and have allowed 80 more.

I was leaning that way even before Carlos Zambrano turned Michael Barrett's mouth into marinara sauce Friday afternoon in the home clubhouse. But now I'm sure. This team is a 25-man pileup of mistakes.

surprisingly, the part about marinara sauce isnt the most awkward metaphor gene uses for barrett's bloody mouth. that will come later. also, alfonso soriano, aramis ramirez, and derrek lee are all OPS+ing over 125. although they probably won't continue at this pace, rich hill, jason marquis, and ted lilly all have ERA+s over 120. those are 6 pretty big non-mistakes right there. but go ahead wojceichowski, throw the baby out with the bathwater. no one's paying attention anyways. they just want to hear you rant and rave.

The Cubs might not have the worst record. Their star player might not yell "ha!" during games and later visit -- what did the New York Post call them? -- "jiggle joints." And they might not trail their division leader by double-digit games (yet), but it doesn't matter.

the part about not having the worst record: yes it does matter, to an extent. the part about yelling "ha": completely irrelevant. the part about strip clubs: even less relevant. the part about trailing in the division: barely relevant, because that depends on the strength of a division leader, which other teams in the same division dont have very much control over. so basically: gene disproves his own point in the first sentence, then brings up a bunch of other irrelevant stuff. great.

They're the worst because they're so much better than this.

very, very unclever.

They're the worst because the quality of their roster and the bulges in their $100-million payroll and $300-million offseason spending binge say so.

although the bullpen sucks and the rotation is questionable, there is plenty of talent on the roster. ask any scout. i will bet you 1,000 legal pads (i have access to lots of office supplies at my job) that there are zero professional baseball scouts out there that think the cubs have the lowest quality roster in the league.

And they're the worst because they lack a soul and simply can't handle the acidic, confrontational style of manager Lou Piniella. (Piniella was suspended on Sunday following a meltdown Saturday when he kicked dirt on third base umpire Mark Wegner during a loss to the Braves).

im going to steal the made up stat bit that the other fjm sometimes uses, not because i want to be just like them, but because its the best way to make fun of this portion of the article: i just looked up the cubs' "soul having index" on baseball reference. turns out they're 29th out of 30 teams in the league, at 2.145. (the devil rays, for obvious reasons, are last in the league at 1.822).

It isn't much of a baseball secret that Zambrano is a pitching diva and captain of the All-Knucklehead Team. When he was just breaking into the big leagues you could pass off his tantrums as the youthful ignorance of someone who wore his emotions on his jersey sleeve. "Fiery" is the word Cubs assistant general manager Randy Bush used Friday to describe Zambrano.

its also not much of a baseball secret that for the past couple of seasons, zambrano has been a fucking dominant pitcher much of the time. barry bonds is a massive diva and somewhat of a "knucklehead" too and i dont think anyone would argue hes been really good at baseball for a really long time. guys like this dont always make the best teammates, but if theyre good at baseball, they tend to get by just fine in the league. talented jerks win games. crappy nice guys dont. unless theyre david eckstein- but he has magical powers. little known fact about the guy.

But the truth is Zambrano has a long and well-documented history of throwing hissy fits when things don't go his way. It can be anything: an infielder botches an easy grounder ... an umpire squeezes the plate ... or, in this case, a catcher perhaps screws up a sign, lets a pitch squirt away, and then throws the ball into left field for an error and unearned run. The difference is this time Zambrano not only threw a fit, but he threw a punch. Lots of them, if you asked Barrett's lip.

fighing with your teammates is never a good thing. pretty much inexcusable (although gene hurts his own point later on in this article when he makes light of the fact that barrett is a jackass too). the rest of this stuff... who gives a rat shit? lots of pitchers get mad at people making errors behind them, or umpires that they feel are screwing them. wojo seems to be headed down a path towards claiming that the cubs stink because some of their players are hotheads. anyone reading this article that has followed baseball for more than about a month should realize that this is a load of nonsense.

The first shove-fest came in the Cubs' claustrophobic dugout and in full Wrigley and TV camera view during the bottom of the fifth inning. The actual fistfight came slightly later in the privacy of the clubhouse, which is too bad. Watching the Cubs' battery (now there's an appropriate word) go at it would have been more interesting than watching yet another Chicago loss, its fifth in a row and ninth defeat in the past 11 games.

Zambrano is listed at 6-5, 255 pounds. Barrett is listed at 6-3, 210. This was no small altercation between two free agents-to-be. It not only provided a telling glimpse into the non-relationship between Zambrano and Barrett, but it became an X-ray machine and exposed a serious fracture in the psyche of this team.

if the cubs were 31-24 instead of the other way around, i basically guarantee that this fight would not have occurred. frustration is more often a function of losing than than the other way around. if your team is winning youre definitely less likely to be mad at other members of it. i dont care how much of a "diva" you are. the fight didnt expose a problem with the team. its a function of the problem, which is losing baseball games.

Zambrano showed up his catcher in front of his teammates and those Comcast cameras, which is a cardinal sin in baseball. And what kind of idiot celebrates his 26th birthday by turning a teammate's lip into Minute Maid pulp?

THERE'S the worst lip metaphor in the article that i warned you about way back. wow. minute maid pulp... what kind of minute maid? pink lemonade? the more traditional orange juice?

But Barrett, whose catching skills aren't exactly held in high regard by Cubs' pitching staffs both past and present, is also a drama queen. He's had his share of tantrums, beginning with his part in the destruction of Sammy Sosa's boom box in 2004, with his home plate brawl with Chicago White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski in 2006, and now this. It doesn't help that he's hitting .241 (.217 in May) and has been brutal on the basepaths.

this is what i was talking about. do you think that maybe its possible barrett was as responsible for the fight as zambrano? i sure do. when two guys with "fiery" personalities collaborate in helping their team lose, sparks may fly. i dont think you can blame a crappy season on it.

Zambrano, the supposed ace of this staff, is 5-5 with a 5.62 ERA. Against the Atlanta Braveson Friday, he gave up six ernies and a career-high 13 hits in five innings.

no one calls ERs "ernies." no one. i dont even think joe buck would stoop that low.

Just in case Zambrano had a memory lapse, Barrett appeared to point to the scoreboard and remind him of the gruesome numbers.Then came Round 1 of the Rumble in Wrigley.

Zambrano says there's absolutely nothing physically wrong with his right arm, which has lots of mileage on the pitch odometer. If that's true, then the Cubs really are doomed. If there is something wrong, and he's hiding an injury during his contract year, then Zambrano has to come clean.

a fair point. ill give credit where its due. now back to the shit.

But the smackdown between Zambrano and Barrett is merely the flashpoint of a team in full implosion mode. You can accuse the New York Yankees of underachieving more than any team in the big leagues, but you would be wrong.

youd be a lot closer to being right than if you wanted to give the cubs that title. since last year's trading deadline the cubs lost juan pierre (hey, he's overrated, but he's still not bad), greg maddux, and todd walker. they replaced them with cesar izturis (worse at the plate than pierre), ted lilly (roughly equivalent to maddux), and mark derosa (a small upgrade over walker). they also added jason marquis, who has been great so far but is unlikely to continue being great, alfonso soriano, and got derrek lee back from injury. so basically they added 2 great hitters to a team that won 66 games. they are currently on pace to win about 71. disappointing? somewhat. but not oh-my-god-how-did-this-happen disappointing. meanwhile the yankees lost randy johnson and gary sheffield. they replaced them with andy pettite and bobby abreu, and got hideki matsui back from injury. that should all add up as more or less a wash (minus a little bit of expected decline because many of their key guys are old). last year they won 97 games. this year they, like the cubs, are on pace to win 71. THAT is the definition of disappointment. i dont give a hoot how much money the cubs spent in the offseason. they didnt improve their team (particularly in the bullpen, it would seem) enough to warrant being labeled most disappointing in the league so far. not even close.

No way should this Cubs starting lineup, this Cubs starting pitching and this Cubs bullpen have just 22 wins after 52 games. They're 7½ games out of first in the ordinary NL Central. They might as well be 75 games behind.

so now were saying that they are talented? huh? basically this part of the article reads: the cubs have better players than their record indicates. however, the season is hopelessly lost and there is no hope they will play any better than this for the rest of the season. even the crappiness of their division isnt cause for hope. because talent doesnt win baseball games: grit does. grit and hustle. gristle. hut. whatever. oh- and not being emotional and fiery because that means youre a bad ballplayer.

Former Cubs manager Dusty Baker was criticized for over-protecting his players. His replacement, Piniella, is being criticized for doing the exact opposite. So what's next? A pregame Bikram yoga session for the players so they can find tranquility while doing the Tadasana tree pose?

sometimes exaggeration is a good way to express comedy. sometimes it is not. ill let you guess which situation this joke falls under.

The baseball-impaired Cubs and their $100-million payroll have run out of excuses and are beginning to run out of time. They border on unwatchable these days. Too many mind-numbing mistakes.

theyre less than 10 games out with 100 to play. they have an ok, decent amount of talent and theyre in a shitty division. should they be expected to win the division? absolutely not. but should they expect to maybe work their way into the race somewhat at some point? maybe. the real problem for the cubs was thinking overspending on a mediocre class of free agents would instantly make them contenders. unreasonable expectations are as much to blame for their problems as anything. the bullpen, as ive stated, has been bad. but even if it were above average, theyd probably be only a few games over .500 and in a dogfight for a crappy division. not saying much here. also, some examples of these mind-numbing mistakes would be nice.

"I only have so many players that I can play. You know?" said Piniella, his voice rising in the postgame press conference seen around the country by now. "And it's about time some of them start playing like major leaguers! Or, get somebody else in here that can catch the damn ball or run the bases properly! All right? That's all I can say!"

the manager is frustrated with his below average team. how is this news? its not really a criticism of piniella himself, it doesnt really expand on whats wrong with the cubs other than talking about fielding and baserunning problems. i dont know why piniella is such a fucking lightning rod. there are plenty of managers in the big leagues that are just as angry as him. for some reason theyre just not famous for it like he is.

That's all he can say publicly. Just think what he's saying to himself.

hes probably really mad. i imagine him using a lot more profanity with himself than he does with the media. but i still dont know how this expands on the ideas advanced in the article as a whole. in conclusion, gene wojceichowski is a sneaky kind of bad columnist. you dont really hear much about him. he doesnt get complained about much on sites like this one. but go through his archives and try to find one single column that doesnt make you want to go outside and get some fresh air, like somehow gene just farted at you through the computer. i triple dog dare you.

what jeff pearlman is trying to say

is that it's joe torre's fault that george steinbrenner is a raving lunatic and brian cashman is a blubbering bowl of wuss that wont stand up to him. yes, thats right, pearlman has the solution to the yankees' early season struggles; fire torre. the article is constructed entirely on anecdotal bullshit (stole that term from chris w) and contains no real analysis whatsoever. par for the course for espn's page 2, in other words. without further ado, "it's time to let joe torre go."

Sixteen years ago I called for a coach to be fired.

He was Loren Kline, head coach of the men's soccer team at the University of Delaware. At the time, the Blue Hens were in the midst of a 4-14 season -- their third consecutive losing campaign. Kline had coached the team for 28 years, and I believed the moment was right to install some new blood.

It remains my greatest journalistic regret.

sappy and pathetic as this is, the best part is pearlman actually thinks he got this coach fired. as if the school's administration was sitting around deciding what should be done about the poor preformance of their men's soccer team, and then decided to fire the coach because pearlman thought that was what they should do.

When those of us in the media feel compelled to demand a person lose his or her job, we damn well better be right. Though Kline's record suggested that perhaps a change was in order, I was hardly the person to call for it. Truth be told, I was nothing more than a pimply-faced sophomore trying to make a name for himself at the student newspaper. I'd never attended a men's soccer game; never even worked up the guts to call Kline and get his take.

It was pathetic, and I still owe the man a thousand apologies.

this is really cute and all, but jeff, im pretty sure the school wasnt listening to you. you sound like a little kid blaming yourself for your parents' divorce. also, if you know this guy's full name and some of his employment history, i bet it wouldnt be that hard to get his contact information and actually make those thousand apologies. just saying.

I bring this up because today, for only the second time as a writer, I am recommending a person be fired.

This time, however, I am right.

jeff's misperception of his power as a C-list sports journalist is pretty funny if you ask me. this is not a presidential veto. its you, expressing your personal opinion about something over which you have exactly zero control. if you really want to you can call for the firing of every coach and manager of every sports team at every level across the country. i dont think too many people would notice or mind.

The New York Yankees need to rid themselves of Joe Torre. Now.

oh christ. weve got one of those people who thinks managers have enormous impacts on baseball games on our hands. this will certainly get worse before it gets better. there are a strange breed of baseball fans out there (and there are more of them than you think) who are convinced a team's manager is more important than all their players put together. i mean, im not saying managers have no impact whatsoever. but more than in any other big time sport, baseball is won and lost by the players on the field. there are no plays to draw up. there are no timeouts to manage. there are fewer substitutions and almost no matchups to exploit relative to basketball or football. yet the pearlmans of the world (as you will see) seem to have it in their minds that a guy who generally motivates his players, draws up a lineup card, and calls for 1 or 2 bunts/steals and 3 or 4 pitching/batting substitutions a game is the single most important factor to a team's success. it is truly bizarre.

When George Steinbrenner first hired Torre to replace Buck Showalter back in 1996, I was among the legions of people befuddled by the move. In his 14 years of guiding the Mets, Braves and Cardinals, Torre captured just one division title (with Atlanta in 1982) and never won 90 or more games. Surely there were more qualified candidates -- Gene Michael … Clyde King … Billy Martin's ghost … Alf … me.

Yet, in one of the great managerial achievements in Yankees history, Torre took a team of castaways (Mike Aldrete, Matt Howard, Charlie Hayes), youngsters (Derek Jeter, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera) and big-name vets on the downside of their careers (Dwight Gooden, Cecil Fielder, Tim Raines) and molded the franchise's first world champion in 18 seasons.

yes, the success of that team was entirely due to torre. not the players playing well, or the fact that the general manager brought them all together. the team had made the playoffs the year before, and was 27 games over .500 (70-43) when the strike ended the 1994 season 2 years earlier. its not like torre turned a bunch of quirky disney movie-ish misfit losers who didnt even own their own gloves into world champions. they just had a great run in the playoffs that year, which just happened to be torre's first, winning many close games. kind of reminds me of tons of other world series winning teams. regardless, if were going to accept pearlman's premise and assume that managers have a massive impact on their teams, it seems that hes admitting torre was good at one point. keep this in mind.

Torre's touch was subtle, yet undeniable -- he knew when a button needed to be pressed, and when a player was best left alone. He allowed pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre to handle the arms, and hitting coach Chris Chambliss to deal with the intricacies of bat control. And he rarely overmanaged, opting for trust in his players over trust in his own brilliance.

so in other words: torre treated his players like any manager would, let his coaching staff do what all coaching staffs do, and allowed his players to play the game rather than, i dont know... how do you "overmanage"? try to make a quadruple switch at least twice a game? walk onto the field to physically grab and move your players for different defensive alignments rather than just telling them where to go? im lost here. how was torre special again? at this point it doesnt matter if we accept pearlman's premise about managers being really really impactful on the game. hes making no sense either way.

Over the ensuing five years, Torre and the Yankees were an ideal match. The front office always managed to find the right piece -- be it Scott Brosius, Luis Sojo or Chili Davis -- to fit Torre's world. These were mostly mature, self-motivated men in their early-to-mid 30s who didn't need to be pumped up by their manager before a big game. Torre's greatest strength was not his handling of the bullpen or sticking with a steady lineup (in both areas he was only fair), but his innate ability to relate. Black players loved Torre, white players loved Torre, veterans loved Torre and rookies loved Torre. When the 32-year-old Jeter refers to his manager as "Mr. Torre," it is done not for effect, but out of respect.

great. fine. this is the part of the article that makes sense, at least to me. lame as it is that jeter addresses torre like he's a teacher, it does show that his players like and respect him (to a degree). and yeah, the fact that players of all races and ages liked him would definitely be important. im not sure how many managers out there are racist, but whatever. and pearlman also admits (im not a yankee fan so i can neither confirm nor deny this) that torre's technical management of the game could have been better. so what? his teams liked him and were winning titles every other year. that seems to be whats important to me. now lets see where jeff takes this concept, because im sure its going to end up at the intersection of dumb street and "what the hell are you talking about?" avenue.

Unfortunately for Torre, times have changed. With the departures of coaches like Stottlemyre, Willie Randolph and Don Zimmer, he is left with a cast of failed managers (Tony Pena, Larry Bowa) and future failed managers (Don Mattingly) as his assistants. Whereas once the Yankees built a team primarily through player development and small- and medium-scale trades, now it seems like the team (with rare exception) is built on other franchises' blocks. When you nurture and develop the Jeters and Riveras and Jorge Posadas of the world, those men will live and die for those pinstripes. On the other hand, when you shell out fat wads of cash for Alex Rodriguez and Carl Pavano and Jason Giambi, are you buying skill and passion, or just skill?

so this is torre's fault... how? i dont even know where to begin here. lets start at the end of the paragraph and work backwards.

1) i wont even get into a discussion about the "skill and passion, or just skill?" comment. its too ignorant address. look at alex rodriguez and jason giambi's numbers as yankees. except for the latter's post-steroid crapfest in 2004, both of them have been absolutely dominant hitters each and every season. absolutely no question about it. these two are tremendous baseball players. that is what matters. not jeff pearlman, or any other journalist's, opinions about whether or not they "play with passion!" pavano... ok i got nothing there. but blaming the yankees' current "struggles" (relative to what things were like for them in the late 90s) on him makes about as much sense as blaming jay mariotti and jay mariotti alone for the creation of this blog.

2) moving upward, i cannot imagine jeter, posada, or riveria truly dying for their pinstripes. if a crazed gunman had them hostage and told them to either stop playing baseball for the yankees or he would kill them, im pretty sure they would choose the first option. i know pearlman wasnt trying to be literal. but regardless, im pretty sure the dedication of those three is just about the same as the dedication of other non homegrown yankees.

3) finally, the most important part of this paragraph, which is the second sentence. so torre has been saddled with a crappier coaching staff than he's used to- are we going to call for his firing because of that? im sure he has some say in who gets to sit on the bench with him, but hes not signing their paychecks. hes not their "boss", per se. ultimately its king george bringing these guys in and expecting them to win games for him. when they dont, why is this torre's fault?

Watching the current Yankees -- 10½ games behind Boston and going nowhere fast -- answers that question. They are a flat tire, with nary a jack for miles. Here is a team in dire need of pizzazz, of intensity, of spirit, of soul.

pretty awful metaphor. not as awful as it could be, but still, whew.... anyways, in order to solve this made up problem of pearlman's, perhaps the yankees should trade for well known gritty lunchpail guys david eckstein and darin erstad. play erstad in right, where bobby abreu and his lifetime .400+ obp usually sit, and then replace robinson cano's shitty ass at 2nd base with eckstein. im sure that would turn things around instantly.

Torre is routinely ripped for overworking his bullpen, but his biggest problem is that, quite frankly, nobody except for Jeter and Johnny Damon appears willing to surrender a left kidney for a win. And now they're going to throw Roger Clemens in the mix -- a man whose idea of teamwork is a Wednesday afternoon picnic with his wife and the ol' transistor radio. The old Joe Torre never -- never -- would have let Clemens come in and pitch under his own rules. The new Joe Torre said, "Eh, why not? Pour me some tea."

maybe torre likes tea. i dont see why that's relevant. also, for the 10th time this article (so far), pearlman conveneintly ignores who really makes the decisions in new york. ill give you a hint: his initials are g.s., and he was a fringe character on "seinfeld". further hint, i have already named him in this post. he has a crony named brian who is responsible for carrying out his horrendous orders who also has ten times the control over personnel that torre does.
if "the old torre", or the new one for that matter, were in charge of the team, would he have made all of the atrocious moves the yankees have in the past several years? would he have assembled a rotation for 2007 that consisted of mussina, wang, the corpse of andy pettite (who i have to admit, has played well so far, but i wouldnt expect to keep this pace all season based on his age and last year in houston), carl "the human question mark" pavano, and a bunch of guys who werent major league ready? its not his fault steinbrenner is batshit crazy and constructs his teams based on who his favorite players from 5 years ago were. the team went into the season with a lot of shaky characters both in the rotation and the bullpen. surprise, surprise, not only did some of them fail (kei igawa) but when injuries struck others (mussina), there was no one decent to replace them! riddle me this, jeff pearlman: HOW IS THAT JOE TORRE'S FAULT?

furthermore, the clemens thing- lets say torre actually really hates the special treatment the rocket is getting. could he realistically go to steinbrenner or cashman and complain about it, and expect anything to get done? ill give you zero seconds to think of the answer because it is: NO.

and finally, again with the hyperbole about guys being willing to give a kidney for a win... it sounds dumb and diminishes from the impact of your point. im trying to too be too picky here, but come on... except for MAYBE the 7th game of the world series, i dont think any baseball player would give a kidney for a win. ok, maybe anthony young would have during a regular season game in the early 90s. but thats the only exception.

in any case, the point remains: the yankees are not below .500 because they lack passion, or are a deflated bike tire, or whatever pearlman says. they have lost a lot of games because their pitching sucks. plain and simple. they are in the top 5 in all of baseball in almost every meaningful offensive category including runs scored. they also have the 6th worst ERA, have walked the 10th most batters, and homegrown wondercloser mariano riviera has been atrocious. this is why the yankees are losing. do not listen to jeff pearlman. im begging you. now back to the crap.

Just a few miles away at Shea Stadium, the New York Metropolitans scrap and claw and bite for every run. They play with immense heart, celebrate like puppies in a bowl of Triscuits and shave their heads in a sign of team unity. The Yankees, meanwhile, are blah. No spunk. No fire. No urgency. Torre is the best calming-influence manager in the game, perhaps in major league history. But when it comes to getting something out of nothing, he's no different than Don Baylor or Bill Plummer or any other run-of-the-mill skipper.

ill start with the nit-picky stuff: puppies do not eat triscuits. triscuits are a human snack food, popularized by their appearance the 1995 comedy hit "billy madison". puppies DO eat dog biscuits, which rhymes with triscuits... maybe thats what jeff was going for? what a disaster of a similie.

furthermore, all that stuff about the mets scrapping and clawing and lunchpailing and gritting is complete and utter crap. please prove to me that this is the case somehow, jeff, and i will comment further on the matter. until then, im going to label this as anecdotal, unprovable bullshit and move on. ALSO- remember back when jeff was happily reminiscing about the bang-up job torre did in 1996? wasnt that getting something out of nothing? i mean, you saw the list of the kinds of players that team had: castaways, youngsters, and big names on the downside of their careers. isnt winning a championship with that getting something out of nothing? or could it be that jeff is stupid? ill let you decide.

In an odd twist, right about now the Bronx Bombers could use a sixth helping of Billy Martin -- throwing bases and kicking dirt and challenging his dogs (Martin vs. Bobby Abreu would rival Martin vs. Marshmallow Salesman) to step up and show some cojones.

clearly because torre is not doing these things, he has no testicles. also, extremely awkward marshmallow (sales?)man reference. does anyone understand this? i think he means the stay puft marshmallow man... who most people associate with being big and scary because of "ghostbusters". so if thats the case, chalk up another crash-and-burn pop culture joke for jeff.

With No. 1 long deceased, the logical choice is Bobby Valentine -- who's currently managing the Chiba Lotte Marines of Japan's Pacific League. Those who've had the fortune/misfortune (depending on your perspective) of covering Valentine speak of a man who is annoying/passionate/insensitive/intelligent/self-absorbed/inspiring. But one thing goes without debate -- he can manage, and he can push guys to play hard.

theres probably a reason valentine is currently in japan, and that is: no owner can tolerate him. hes had plenty of chances to stick with an mlb team and blown them all. hes a jerk. he once badmouthed the mets players and organization while still employed by them during a speech at upenn's business school. hes been an ok, kind of sort of good manager throughout his career. whether or not he can manage does not go without debate. although that time he snuck back into the dugout in disguise after getting ejected was pretty cool. i dont know if that a passionate enough act for jeff or not. he kind of half-assed the disguise; not sure if thats going to light fire under anyone or convince them to trade kidneys for wins.

Torre has had a great run. And, like Tom Landry before him, he deserves to be ushered out with a parade through the city's downtown avenues. But make no mistake about it. He deserves to be ushered out.

i am making a mistake about it, or an issue, or whatever you want to call it. the yankees have terrible pitching, especially starting pitching. anecdotal bullshit (i really like that term, thanks chris) about how the mets are puppies and no one on the yankees is trying hard is not enough to justify firing a guy whos been stuck with (presumably) a shitty coaching staff and (definitely) god-awful pitchers. its journalists like pearlman that will be responsible for my heart attack at age 40. how do you get a job in this industry, at or near its highest level, by writing like this? i just dont understand it. i guess this is the kind of stuff that sells magazines/builds website popularity. that thought alone is enough to make me cry myself to sleep tonight. go away and write another terrible barry bonds book pearlman. you make me ill.