Man, I Fucking Love the All Star Game

Setting aside all of the completely justified complaints about the MLB All Star Game- all the snubs, all the hype, and jesus god, no, this one should not "count"- I still love this event. Of course, I'm entirely in the tank for baseball, so consider that when I say this. But I'll defend my idea that this is a good use of our valuable sports-viewing time.

What I like best is that Major League Baseball has turned the All Star Game into a weeklong celebration of whatever city it's in this year. In this year's broadcast, we heard the history of the song "Kansas City", got a mini-tour of the Negro League Museum, learned that Kansas City is the "City of Fountains" and heard numerous peons to Kansas City barbecue (my twitter feed this week has also featured multiple arguments between baseball writers on the best barbecue in Kansas City). Joe Posnaski- former beat writer for the Royals, now one of the better baseball writers on the planet, summed all the KC love up in this post.

This is something sports really excel at. They can foster tremendous civic pride without using militant jingoism or sketchy racial politics. Teams just become part of a city's DNA, a reason to love your city and a way to feel a part of it without putting down any other place. They make us feel like we're part of something bigger, without that "something bigger" having to exclude a certain group of other people.

As I've said before, sometimes, these feelings descend into tribalism, and that's a blight on sports. But that doesn't change the very real ways sports can bring us together.

And anyway, that's not happening in Kansas City tonight.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Robot Instant Replay Overlords

Here's DeWayne Wise's non-catch for an out from last night's Yankees game. Blah blah blah ridicuolous, blah blah blah easy fix, blah blah blah baseball needs instant replay.

On the other hand, I'm sure Cleveland is happy to trade that out for the knowledge that they're playing the game as close as possible to the way Satchel Paige played it.

(Also, I know baseball is all about deception, but lookit how nobody in the fan section questions the out- even the two guys staring at the ball. Fucking Yankees fans.)

Curt Schilling's Financial Woes: I'll Try Not to Laugh

Did you hear the one about how Curt Schilling, Red Sox legend and outspoken conservative, parlayed his baseball fame into a video game company, where he took loans from the government, but then turned out to be a major bust, costing the taxpayers money and wiping out his personal fortune? HAW!

Okay, in one sense, this is a vindication of the free market; 38 Studios does not appear to have done anything really worth paying attention too (And I'd argue that video games are one medium where there's a strong correlation between popularity and quality); it seems like it was just coasting off of Schilling's name, and ultimately, that's not enough, and the market made the company pay. It's nice when it actually works like that.

On the other hand, this is a stunning indictment of the free market; after all, Schilling's the one who took all the risk, and his company is clearly the one that underperformed. His kids had nothing to do with that- and yet, they're going to suffer for their dad losing his fortune. Why am I supposed to be happy about this invisible hand thing again?

Finally, there's the hypocrisy of it all- Schilling was an outspoken conservative, he campaigned for Bush and Scott Brown, he bleats on and on about small government...and then turns around and begs the state of Rhode Island for a loan? For something as frivolous as a VIDEO GAME COMPANY? Don't get me wrong, I love video games, but I'm plenty happy leaving that sector of the economy to the free market wolves (and I say that as a big government liberal).

Hypocrisy, of course, is hardly the most intellectual rigorous criticism; we all contradict ourselves at the outer edges of our philosophies. And honestly, I do have some sympathy for Schilling; transitioning to a post-sports life is hard, and he tried to do it by taking a risk into an unproven- but awesome!- field. It sucks that it didn't work out for him.

But it will suck more if he goes through this without realizing that most people asking for the government's help are just like him- good people who work hard, and just hit some bad luck.

Six Wasted Minutes

Saturday's Cardinals-Royals game was a pretty good demonstration of the need for expanded instant replay in baseball. Cardinals pitcher Joe Kelly caught a ball, threw to first baseman Allen Craig to get the runner on there (who hadn't tagged up) who then through to the second baseman to get the runner there (ditto).

Triple play, signalled the home plate umpire! The fuck it is, signalled the crew chief. The crew chief said Kelly trapped the ball, and only got the out at first. One out, and the runners advance. Ultimately, the Royals scored one run.

Cardinals manager Mike Metheney came out to argue, because he pretty much had to (And that's part of this bullshit). The umpires let him argue because they pretty much had to; even if he was making good points, they really don't have a useful mechanism for reversing those calls (if they do it just once, arguing will EXPLODE in the league).

So, fans watching in the stands and at home were treated to SIX MINUTES of Metheney and the umps arguing- without even being able to hear what they said!

And then, the final score? 10-7, Cardinals. SO THAT ONE RUN DIDN'T EVEN MATTER ARGHBARGHLEBALRGHARGHLE.

This is so ridiculously shitty for fans, I made a list of the ways.

1) It slows down the game. I don't always care for this argument- baseball's deliberate pace is something that makes it awesome- but six minutes is quite a bit of time to waste, especially when it won't actually affect the outcome of the game.

2) It's all Kabuki. When Matheney walks out of the dugout, he knows he's not going to change the umpire's mind. For the reasons stated about, he can't. There's something to the fact that it psyches up the players, but c'mon, they're professionals, they can psyche themselves up without mind games. Meanwhile, the umpires also know that Mike Matheney can't change their mind; but they let him rage anyway, because they know he's just doing it to psyche up his players and they're not going to change their mind, so they might as well let him have his say. It's all just an act, a routine, a dance with the steps laid out decades in advance.

3) It's boring. It's just old men arguing. We can't even hear them curse at each other. Definitely not why we tune in to a baseball game.

4) It clouds what really happened. It becomes such an issue that the fans and broadcasters for both teams just go to their corners, and refuse to accept the real answer if it conflicts with their teams' goals. And since there's no immediate review, everyone gets to stew like that all game. In this case, Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina came out afterward and confirmed that Kelly did not catch the ball. But at that point...

5) IT DOESN'T MATTER.

6) NO, REALLY, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The Cardinals won 10-7, and even if they hadn't, there were a thousand other things that could have changed the course of the game. One play never decides a baseball game. When it looks like it does, it's just because none of the other plays actually amounted to anything. So why waste so much time on it?

7) Which piggy-backs off of 4 and 6, it makes the Manager look like he's doing something, when managers are all bullshit, at least once the game starts. Managers set the line up, and that's it. They make some calls on relief pitching, but the pitching coach and designated roles do most of the heavy lifting there. This is the one in-game thing that a Manager can be seen doing, and even here, he's not actually going to change any minds. And baseball really needs to get away from the "Cult of the Manager" anyway.

What's more, this is all oh-so-easy to fix. Instant replay. Clear-and-convincing standard to reverse the call on the field. If the manager keeps bitching after that, instant ejection, no letting him have his say. I'm not saying we'll always get the call right- the Fox Sports STL guys had tape, but the remained convinced that Kelly caught the ball, while Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina said he trapped it. But at least we'll get AN answer faster and move on in a more entertaining way. Sure, it could take up to six minutes to review the tape, but at least during that time we'll be watching the replays and arguing about it (like we do in football and hockey), which is half the fun anyway. Just watching a bunch of old men argue is just denying us fans that pleasure.

And that, once again, is my big issue. We fans are having a worse game shoved in our faces when a superior one is easy enough to put together- and all in the name of tradition. And I don't know if I can sit through another six minutes.

The Most Obvious Story In The World

The MLB Umpire's Union is the biggest source of opposition to wider use of instant replay in baseball and is specifically holding up elements of the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement that would have expanded it. Well, of course, right? It's good to have this story published (good reporting from Jayson Stark, great analysis from Rob Neyer), but it's hardly surprising that umpires are doing all they can to protect their power, prestige, and, oh yeah, jobs themselves.

Not that I have a whole lot of sympathy for the umpires. I don't have much interest in preserving anyone's power for it's own sake. And all the "human element" arguments are garbage- mistakes are not a selling point of the game. No one buys a ticket or changes the channel to a ballgame in hopes of seeing a blown call, or even with a bemused acceptance that one's going to happen. Indeed, the point of umpires is to minimize the number of factors- outside of skill and strategy- that can influence the outcome of the game. Preserving "human error"'s ability to do so is hilariously self-contradictory.

As for their jobs- I don't think there's reason to worry. There's still hundreds- thousands?- of things that have to be decided in a baseball game. No one wants instant replay on all of them, no one wants a computer deciding all of them. There will still be jobs for decades to come.

As for their job being harder- that's a simple matter for the rule book. Take foul balls- the rule book can mandate that an overturned foul call results in a runner at...well, whatever base makes the most sense.

And if that doesn't work, or if there's other plays that can't be so easily legislated, well, why does an umpire's job need to be easy, exactly? There's supposed to be a skill and a craft to it, a reason not just anyone can do it. Otherwise, what's the argument that umpires are necessary at all?

So, c'mon, umpires. Tighten your shit up. You're missing a great game over here!

Two more thoughts on this story:

1) This is kind of the hilarious darkside of my prior post on unions in sports. Major League Baseball can't move on something it knows it needs to do- it has, in fact, already agreed to do- because a union has a seat at the table. Which is a pretty good argument against giving a union an unchecked veto, but a pretty shitty argument against unions as a whole.

2) That it's the umpires holding up instant replay in the name of protecting their own jobs instead of the Traditionalists in the name of...err...tradition is actually a good sign, too. Not that we really should have thought Selig was in the Traditionalists' pocket (the very concept of Interleague Play pretty much disproves that), but still, that a union has more of a say over the game than the Glossy-Eyed sportswriters who long for the ill-defined "good ol' days" of the game? I'll take it.

When You'd Rather Give Up Than Play a Girl

A conservative Catholic high school in Arizona (of course it's in Arizona) has forfeited a championship baseball game rather than play against a co-ed team that included exactly one girl. Read about it here, laugh about it below, and we'll move on with our lives pretty quickly.

Okay, one more thing- while it is pretty easy to mock the school's decision- fun, too, and highly encouraged on this blog- it's interesting to note that the school is literally only hurting itself with this move. The school is forfeiting. It will be on record as losing this game. The school's baseball team's ultimate goal- the ultimate goal of every team in every sport- is to win the championship, and this team is not even going to be allowed to try. Moreover, all the side benefits of sports- the character building exercises that are supposed to be the real reason schools invest so heavily in athletics- are going to be wiped out by this bizarre temper tantrum. Meanwhile, the girl and her team? They're great! Maybe it would have been nicer if they actually played and won, but it's not like the trophy's going to be any less shiny.

Let this be a lesson: if you're just going to keep on being a reactionary asshole in the face of an ever-more-inclusive sports world, you're going to lose. A lot. Hope the players on the team are okay with that.

Come to think of it- no, I don't. I hope they're pissed- and I hope they do something about it.

Brandon McCarthy vs. The Kiss Cam: WHO YA GOT?

Bravo to Brandon McCarthy. it's not just that he's attacking homophobia, it's that he's doing it in such a nonchalant way- as if his opinion is so self-evidently right, it doesn't really need explanation. Of course, his opinion IS that right, but it's not like that matters to sports media culture. Indeed, I figure that in a Major League Baseball locker room, it still takes a little courage to voice that point of view.

On a similar note, I've always kinda figured that the culture wars will be over, with the good guys on top when the Kiss Cam can feature same sex couples without any real comment. I, for one, can't wait.

PS- As a former practitioner of the dark art of comedy, the thing that offends me most about this is the laziness of the GAY PANIC! joke. Yup, just like on Seinfeld- "I'm offended as a comedian!"

Jackie Robinson Day Isn't The End

Last Sunday was Jackie Robinson Day in Major League Baseball; every player on every team donned Robinson's iconic "42". It's a decent memorial, but I'm sure I'm not the only blogger to note that this year, it occurred just as African American participation in baseball has dropped to 8.5%, from a high of 28% in the 70s (for comparison, African Americans make up 12.5% of the population).

What gives? African American participation in the NBA increased to 82%. In the NFL, it stayed steady at 67%. Why's baseball falling behind?

Marlon Byrd, the only African American playing pro ball in Chicago (and even he's going to be traded to the Red Sox) said:

"If you want to take polls, then take polls asking how many black lawyers do we have now, or how many black judges or black doctors there are now,"Byrd said. "Just because we're black doesn't mean we have to play sports. You can go through other avenues. If the decrease (in baseball) is because they're going into academic fields, so be it. More power to them."

This is kind of hard to argue with; African Americans certainly have more choices now than they did in Jackie Robinson's era, and the assumption that they should gravitate towards sports is actually kind of insulting. But, if that were the only thing at play here, I think the NBA and NFL would be seeing drops, too. So what's making baseball different here?

Well, for one thing, in Major League Baseball's quest to lock up Latino talent, they've kinda ignored African American athletes. Y'know, you've got the Miami Marlins selling themselves as a Latino team, the Tampa Bay Rays moving huge chunks of their scouting apparatus south of the border, and just about every team in Baseball opening an "academy" in the Dominican Republic.

On the other hand, you've got the Chicago White Sox running inner city clinics, and the Philadelphia Phillies trumpeting Ryan Howard's roots...and that's about it. Baseball just isn't selling itself to African American athletes. And why would anyone buy a product that isn't being sold to them?

I want to be careful to point out that this isn't racism, it's just a cold, calculating business move. I also want to be careful to point out that that doesn't necessarily make it more morally defensible.

But, the fact is, it's easier to attract Latino athletes- especially those from Latin American countries- than it is African American players right now. Look again at those NBA and NFL numbers. African American athletes have options. But Latino athletes don't have as big of footholds in the NBA and NFL. So it's an easier labor market for Baseball. No wonder the teams devote more resources to it.

Now, I'm not saying this is right; benign neglect is still neglect. And while the African American community doesn't need Baseball, I think baseball needs as many different kinds of people as it can get. Every institution is stronger with greater diversity; every team is better with a variety of backgrounds. And most importantly, baseball can and should do more.

Like I said, some teams get this- and if the White Sox and Phillies are successful, other teams will quickly follow suit. If they aren't, it'll take more time, but eventually, teams will figure it out. The nature of market imbalances is that they don't last forever.

Jackie Robinson's career in Major League Baseball was a huge victory for the Civil Rights Movement. But watershed moments like that aren't the end of the story, and shouldn't be confused for such. Integration is never over. It's a constant struggle for everyone to live together, and every so often, we're going to have to reevaluate where we are and change our tactics accordingly.

Local Heroes

Besides Opening Day, the biggest stories in baseball last week were the monster contracts handed out to Cincinnati's Joey Votto and San Francisco's Matt Cain. Votto got 10 years and $225 million; Cain got 5 years and $112 million. Presumably, these deals lock up the players until the end of their careers (Cain may have some more left in him after 2017, I guess).

There was a lot of talk about Votto going into free agency and finding a big payday with another team (you can name the usual suspects). There wasn't as much talk of that with Cain, but it was a possibility. I'm absolutely stoked that neither guy is moving.

Of course, this is a risk to the teams; Cincinnati is a small market, the Giants have a lot of other major parts to lock up, and anytime you give a player a long term deal, you're probably buying a few shitty years. So I understand if fans have some mixed feelings. But I'm not a fan, so I think this is awesome.

Look, baseball is boring when the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. can just swoop in and buy out every major free agent. Baseball is more boring when fans in San Diego or Cleveland have to look to L.A. and New York for great players. Baseball is boring when those fans have to reconcile themselves to the fact that their best players are only going to be around until a "bigger" team makes them a better offer. Baseball is boring when the same 10 teams can print their playoffs tickets in July every year.

So, I'm pleased that the Reds have locked up their Big Damn Star. He gives the local fans something to root for, and with Votto, you're always just a few pieces away from a serious playoff run. I'm happy that the Giants have held on to part of the talent core that won them a World Series just two years ago. He gives the folks in the bay area something to root for while the A's are looking distinctly mediocre.

But mostly, I'm happy that serious, interesting baseball is going to be played outside of the eastern seaboard and L.A. for another few years.

WIND SPRINTS FOR 4/6/12

In honor of Baseball's Opening...Um, Week?...we're doing an All-Baseball Wind Sprints today. DEAL WITH IT.

1) Michael Kazin tells us that baseball is pretty much the most progressive major sport in America right now. I think he's got a point, but it's kind of a "tallest midget" contest.

2) Of course, the counterpoint is the minor leagues. Lily Rothman tells us about it.

3) Is the "retro" ballpark movement over? Mark Byrnes makes the case. I hope it's not "over", but I sure do hope every team no longer feels the need to build such a park. Architectural variety, FTW.

4) In my opinion, MLB has done the best job of adapting to new technology. Here's how they did it, by Chuck Salter. The more ways there are to watch the games, the better for fans.

5) Last year's series of commercials with Alec Baldwin and John Krasinski were big hits in the LFL Global Headquarters. If anything, spots with Ron Swanson and Chicago can only be better.

What's on deck for you guys?

The 2012 Left Field Line Opening Day Post

A funny thing happened when I was watching "Opening Night" between The Beloved St. Louis Cardinals and the All New, All Different Miami Marlins: I started to forget. I forgot about all of Miami's shiny new baubles. I forgot about the publicly funded stadium and Jeff Lori's shameful exploitation of Muhammad Ali. I even forgot about ESPN's blatant toadying during their interview with Bud Selig.

I just enjoyed the game. By the time Kyle Loshe (of all people!) took his no hitter into the 7th inning (where it would end) I couldn't even remember that I HAD recent issues with baseball.

That continued through today; I was more interested in Strasburg (and Dempster's surprisingly great performance) than in Chicago footing the bill to rehab Wrigley. I was more interested in Prince Fielder than in the Red Sox' scapegoating at the end of last season. I want to hear Vin Sculley call a game more than I want to hear about the Dodgers' new ownership.

Opening Day is just one of those events that cuts through the bullshit and gets you right back to the sport. I don't mean that it "lives up to the hype" or "makes the bullshit worth it"; I mean that once that first pitch leaves the pitcher's hand, the hype is irrelevant, the bullshit is set aside, at least for nine innings. Few other events in sports have that power, even though they all reach for it.

In principal, I don't think it's a bad thing. It really is okay to enjoy a sport in spite of whatever moral compromises the people running the sport may have made. If it's not, then you pretty much have to give up the sport, because there's ALWAYS going to be ways that the people making it happen fail us. And I just don't think that sports fans have to choose between having a social conscience and enjoying a game. Indeed, this blog is, in a lot of ways, about keeping both of those ideas in your head at once (it helps that a lot- I might even say most- of the reactionary bullshit around sports actually DETRACTS from the games themselves).

But, at the same time, the major leagues and organizations certainly count on events like Opening Day to make you forget about their lingering issues. Major League Baseball would certainly appreciate it if you focused solely on Clayton Kershaw's flu and didn't think about the growing problem with alcoholism. Fortunately, history shows that this doesn't work all that well; at best, the major sports actors buy themselves a week's distraction from bad behavior. But still, it complicates our role as fans.

That being said, there's nothing wrong with enjoying a good game, so long as we remember the bullshit when it's over. So enjoy Opening Day. We'll get back to work tomorrow.

Winners Are Written By History

We haven't had a chance to talk about advanced stats very much lately, what with so many people being racist and trying to kill each other. But right now I'm reading "Wicked Curve: The Life and Troubled Times of Grover Cleveland Alexander" by John C. Skipper, and it's making me think about advanced stats on every page- precisely because it avoids them so much.

Now, I love advanced statistics. I think objective data is always superior to subjective narratives, no matter how good the narratives make us feel. And if our current understanding of the numbers is limited, well, that's okay; the quest for more complete knowledge is kind of necessarily never-ending, and the quest for more information is kind of necessarily noble. And hey, there's something oddly liberating about being to look up a player yourself, check out the numbers, and get a good sense of what he does, rather than relying on what some grizzled old scout or blow-dried pundit tells you.

Of course, a lot of people in the broad swath of sports culture disagree with me, and this book illustrates why. The fact of the matter is, a lot of people did not have advanced stats when they learned the game, and most of the history of the game is written to reflect that. Thus, the legends of the game- the Ruths, WIlliamses, DiMaggios- are not understood in those terms, even if the terms are more accurate.

For example: "Wicked Curve" spends a lot of time counting up Alexander's Wins. And that's kind of important, as his claim to fame is that he held the record for Wins in the NL (and is third all time overall). But, as we now know, Wins are a useless stat, predicated as much on the offense's performance as the pitchers, and defined as much by the timing of runs as the total.

Alexander certainly had other claims to fame. A 1.121 career WHIP. Over 2,000 strikeouts. A famous performance in the 1926 World Series to lead The Beloved St. Louis Cardinals to their first World Series title. And while all of these are things are more accurate, objective measurements of Alexander's actual performance, they're kind of glossed over in the book (with the exception of the obviously dramatic World Series heroics).

Understand, I don't exactly blame Skipper; his focus was as much on Alexander's troubled personal life, so a discussion of advanced statistics- which would have had to include some explanations- would have been quite the digression. But still, if we're really interested in predicting performance, understanding how wins are generated, or assigning value to players, it doesn't help anyone that legendary players from previous eras are measured by stats that do none of that.

The solution, I think, is to start getting some baseball history books that put legendary players in the context of advanced statistics. There's going to be some limitations on this- there was no PitchFX in Alexander's day, so we're never really going to know if his control was as impressive as Skipper says- but a lot of the building blocks of modern stats were recorded, so if someone has just the right mental illness, they can figure it out. Some books may be doing that; I don't know of any, but I'm always willing to learn (hint hint, dear readers). Along the way, we may find out that some of our legends weren't as great as we thought (although, going by Baseball Reference's career leader boards, maybe not). But that would be a small price to pay for better understanding of the game.

Sports Spectacle!

In anticipation of my beloved St. Louis Cardinals' opening game, I've been reading up on the brand new Marlins Park (because clearly, the Cardinals will do better if I know the exact dimensions of the right field wall). Well I'd like to tell you I've definitively determined how the park will play, the fact is, I'm getting awfully distracted by stuff like this.

And this.

And hell, the new uniforms, too.

All of these things are coming in for their fair share of abuse right now. And I won't deny that they're gimmicks. I won't deny that they're silly, gaudy distractions.

Nor will I deny that I absolutely love them.

Okay, first caveat: I'm setting aside the uniforms. Those are just a mess, but it IS the exact kind of mess that seems perfect for Miami, so....partial credit? Anyway, Ozzie Guillen in neon orange is worth the price of admission.

As for the rest of it, well, what's wrong with silly, gaudy distractions? Clearly, the world of sports has decided "nothing", or else we wouldn't have mascots, cheerleaders, in stadium music, concessions, and on and on and on. Is the Marlins' outfield monstrosity really appreciably worse than Bernie Brewer sliding into a pool of beer? Is it any sillier than the Sausage races? Is it anymore ostentatious than this?

(Wait a minute, what the fuck is wrong in Milwaukee?)

There might be other reasons the Marlins' new gimmicks are bad. For one thing, it sure would've been nice if they would have thought about those aquariums ahead of time, rather than just testing them after the fact by having Gaby Sanchez wing a few balls at them. But if it all works okay, I don't see why it can't be colorful little diversion between plays.

In general, we need to spend a lot less time telling sports teams to be serious and to present themselves just like everyone else. More teams need things that are uniquely their own, and to find those things, the teams can't be afraid to look silly. 'Cause if you can't have fun running a baseball team, you need to find a new line of work.

MAGIC JOHNSON (and a bunch of rich white dudes) BUYS THE L.A. DODGERS!!!

The news came out late last night, late enough to make it seem like one of those smokey backroom deals. The ownership group fronted by Magic Johnson- but including longtime baseball man Stan Kasten, movie producer Peter Guber, and ominous-sounding mega-corp Guggenheim Partners has agreed to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers off of Professional Villain Frank McCourt. They paid over $2 billion for the team. Magic is great and all, but tell me this "Guggenheim Partners" thing isn't trying to weaponize Dodger Dogs. Just try to tell me that.

Anyway, fun fact here is that Magic Johnson will be the first African American owner in Major League Baseball. Just how much control he'll get to exert is an open question; presumably, Stan Kasten will make the baseball decisions and Guggenheim Partners will handle the money (as well as silence any potential whistle-blowers). But he's the first to even be the public face of a team's ownership, as near as I can tell.

One can't help but notice that the first African American owner in baseball had to be accompanied by an experienced baseball man and $2 billion dollars. And yeah, he had to be Magic Johnson- absolutely beloved in his city and an HIV survivor who dragged the country, kicking and screaming, into broader acceptance of the disease. And on top of that, he's also become a rather successful businessman. That's a hard guy to say "No" to, and I don't think every African American owner needs to be quite so exemplary. It's certainly true that every white owner isn't.

Still, this is MLB ownership, the most insular and out of touch club on the planet. These are the guys who let it be known- and by the way, these are the guys who never say anything, they just "let things be known"- that they'd keep Mark Cuban out of baseball simply because he'll criticize things he doesn't like. So, baby steps here, people.

(Accuracy demands that I point out that the sale isn't final yet, and the MLB hasn't approved, but that feels like a formality at this point. With Kasten there, MLB likes this group very much).

One more thing: Frank McCourt, the Dodgers' previous owner (or still current owner, I suppose), bought the team for $430 million in 2004. He was an absolute disaster, and marched the team resolutely toward bankruptcy. As we've discussed before, just an utter shitheel. And for his troubles, he's going to get $2 billion for the team.

If any of you Dodgers fans want to go all Occupy Chavez Ravine this summer, I'll understand.

Baseball, Social Media, and Douchebags

So, Mike Napoli of the Texas Rangers said he was looking forward to hitting some home runs off of former teammate (and new Los Angeles Angel of Whatever) C.J. Wilson. Wilson responded by posting Napoli's private number in a tweet and letting thousands of followers- to say nothing of the followers of anyone who retweeted it- know how to directly contact and harass Mike Napoli.

Seriously, douche move, C.J. Wilson.

At first blush, this seems like a story that just could not have happened ten years ago. Who the fuck knew what a "tweet" was in 2002? But really, when you get this down to the granular level, it's a little more familiar; jocks talk shit about each other, the talking turns into a full blown beef, and the beef extends until one of the jocks does something stupid, if ultimately not really that harmful. The big difference is that thanks to the internet and social networks, we're all privy to the entire story. Hell, we could have been PART of the story, had any of us chosen to call Napoli (and maybe you guys did, I dunno, I'm not your babysitter).

So, while jockey douchebags are always going to be jockey douchebags, the potential for mischief is certainly a lot higher, if only because the audience has much greater access to the douchebaggery. I rather suppose that it takes some of the magic away; I wonder if my dad would have ended up quite as big of a Yankees fan if he knew Mickey Mantle was basically doing keg stands between innings (though I guess that my dad would have been a BIGGER fan after he went to college).

But if new technology and social mores make the douchebaggery more prominent, it also adds a useful corrective- we all get to call Wilson a douchebag, often in a forum that he sees. As Big League Stew pointed out, fans pushed back at Wilson, and he responded to them. While Wilson did not concede that he went over the line, he at least responded to the complaints, and was clearly put on the defensive. That's good. Because young guys  with preternatural talent are always going to act like pricks once in a while. But now, we the fans can play an active roll in calling out that behavior.

One Does Not Speak Ill of the King

Last week, Chicago Bulls Superstar and CWS crush object Derrick Rose criticized the referees in the Bulls' game against the Knicks, saying:

“I gotta be the only superstar in the league that’s going through what I’m going through right now,” Rose said late Monday. “But I can’t say too much about it.”

As you can read in the above link, Rose was fined $25,000 for the remark. My heart doesn't exactly ache for him, as I know he's got the money to cover such a fine without blinking.

But I still think this is bullshit.

I understand that the NBA has an interest in protecting the image of integrity and fairness in the game. Indeed, the league is still living in the wake of Tim Donoghy. But when the league is going so far as to fine individual players for criticizing referees- especially in terms as gentle as Rose did- it's just coming off as paranoid, defensive, and honestly, counterproductive.

Let's start with this: I think everyone has a right to criticize the people who have power over them. That includes professional athletes, and at a certain point, no one has more power over them than the referees (or umpires, depending on what sport you're talking about). I think it's fine to put limits on this: people shouldn't be able to falsely accuse their bosses of a crime, and I'd have no problem fining players for alleging bribes, conspiracies, etc. But the basic right to question authority shouldn't be denied.

The other major leagues get this. The NFL provides teams a formal process to complain about a call and even get it reversed. The NHL has set up a "Situation Room" to make sure that the calls from the referees are correct during each game. And baseball has ritualized complaints against its umpires to such an extent that it's considered a legitimate tactic to psych up your team.

But in the NBA, players, coaches, and even owners are disciplined just for saying that the officiating was bad in a particular game. And that does nothing to enhance the NBA's image. Seriously, the cat is out of the bag on the refs. We all know that they're human and that they fuck up, and our mind isn't changed just because the players themselves don't complain. In fact, trying to silence the critics of the refs makes it seem MORE likely that the fix is in. Far from putting the specter of Donoghy out of our heads, the NBA is reminding us of him every time they punish a player for criticizing a ref.

It's always important to question how well the referees are doing their jobs. It's not even specific to the NBA in the wake of Donoghy. It should be constant goal in all sports at all times to get their officials as close to perfect as possible, and you're never gonna get all the way there, so we have to keep working. That means questions and criticism. And when the questions and criticisms are limited to the pundits who don't have as much skin in the game, we're not going to make any progress on that goal.

A Couple Thoughts On Ownership

I've been spending most of my nights reading the 2012 Baseball Prospectus, because I'm already married and don't need to talk to other girls ever again. The Los Angeles Dodgers' and New York Mets' chapters are, predictably enough, consumed with the teams' recent ownership struggles. If you need to get up to speed: Frank McCourt, owner of the Dodgers, has a bunch of shady business deals surrounding the team, and the ownership has become a central point of contention in his divorce from his wife (as always, Wikipedia has a good, simple primer). As for the Mets, well, their owner, Fred Wilpon, invested with Bernie Madoff. So that's just become it's own kind of country song. So yeah, the Dodgers and the Mets sure have some real winners in their front office.

I know that fans always hate the owners, and even if that didn't fit nicely into my 99-Percenter sensibilities (which it totally does), I'd be fine with that. In fact, I encourage it! Bitching about how the people running the team are fucking up and insisting that YOU know so much better is another one of those fun parts of sports (on the other hand, listening to someone else say that is one of those obnoxious parts of sports, but oh well). And, as we'll discuss below, it may be important, too.

McCourt and Wilpon seem kinda different from other owners...but maybe not enough. They didn't simply trade away a beloved shortstop or raise beer prices. They took affirmative financial actions that weren't really related to the teams, but implicated the teams nonetheless. They did it just to enrich themselves, and when it all went tits-up, they affirmatively hurt their teams. You can't say that about every owner. But unfortunately, you can't say this is just a "few bad apples" problem, either.

Because sports are a business, and very few owners become owners out of a weird sense of athletic altruism. They're all trying to make some money off of this. This isn't always a bad thing; honestly, the best way to make money in sports is to build a winning team.  But it does mean that there's always a risk the owner will screw the team and the fans in pursuit of a bigger payday.

As fans, our options in dealing with this kind of thing are limited. It'll be a warm day in Green Bay before I buy a fucking Packers jersey, even though they have the most progressive ownership structure in the NFL. And if everyone refuses to support a team when it fucks up, they run the risk of taking it to far and losing the league altogether. But maybe we can start by separating out "mere" bad management- unbalanced trades, backloaded contracts, etc.- from affirmative acts of greed, like trying to put the team up as collateral in some other business deal. 'Cause bitching about that first category is our privilege as fans. But bitching about the second may well be our duty.

You've Got to Understand the Rules

So, the justification for steroids in baseball- not that it was ever officially defended, but still, we have a good idea as to why the people who did it did it- was monster hits and home runs don't just help the team, they're also tremendously popular with fans. Individual fame and fortune awaited those who could mash 'dem balls the best, and if people were packing into the stands to watch home run chases (as in 1998), then the sport was better for it, as well. Similar justifications are used to excuse violent hits in football and even fighting in hockey (and yes, I understand that that's an icky comparison, but people are just going to have to accept that steroids have that in common with such repugnant practices).

Now, of course, the steroid witchhunt hit fever pitch in 2005-06, and Baseball instituted some new testing rules. From '08 on, we've seen a steady drop in offense across Major League Baseball. A lot of people looked at these two facts and said, "Eh, correlation, causation, close enough." But David Golebiewski at baseballanalytics.org actually crunched the numbers and found a more plausible culprit: umpires.

Of COURSE! It had to be the umpires, right?

Anyway, the umpires have actually started calling a more accurate strike zone in the last few years. Pitches that batters used to get away with taking- often down by the knees- were now called for strikes, as they should be. The reason this is happening isn't completely known, though it's likely that since umpires now have access to things like PitchFX, they can actually learn from their own mistakes. Anyway, the results ARE clear: batters are getting less free pitches, so their numbers are going down.

There's a lot I love about this story. First of all, it's awesome that PitchFX and similar programs are bringing some accountability and evolution to the umpires. It's still pretty hard to "impeach" an ump, and I'm deathly afraid of anyone "overturning" their decisions, but at least they now have to study their own work and hopefully improve on it.

Second, this just goes to show you how much technology enhances the sport. Not only is PitchFX making the umpires better, but at the fan level, guys like Dave Golebiweski now have the means to investigate any claim about the game and share their findings with other fans. In some ways, we've always had this; Baseball's always kept meticulous records, after all. But you had to have a certain extra layer of crazy to really hunt them all down, and if you wanted to publish your findings, you basically had to go the Bill James self-published route, with no guarantee of the success James eventually had. Now, all the information is online, and you can publish to the same place. You still have to be kinda crazy to want to do it, but after that, the entry fees are low.

Finally, this shows me that rules made for the sports to bow to socio-political pressure and concerns about player safety are probably NOT the major factor in whether or not the games are exciting. If umpires calling a better strike zone is the critical factor here instead of the steroid ban, then it shows me that referees in football or hockey could keep those games plenty exciting without the violence with just a few tweaks to how they call the game. Listen, I'm as big an advocate for robot umps and refs as anyone, but we're a long way from that. Until then, calling the game is still as much an art as it is a silence. For all of our desire for clearly defined, bright line rules for the game- and for all the progress we have made and will make in establishing those- human judgment is still going to play a big role.

Which is all just a long way of saying that we really can draft sports rules that are less barbaric, and trust the professionals on the field to keep the game exciting.

WIND SPRINTS 3/4/12

Today's collection of deep thinking and sports, gettin' all sexy together.

1) A heartwarming story of Matt Holliday and leadership. I think it's a mistake to say this kind of thing absolutely doesn't matter. I just think it matters in an entirely quantifiable, observable way. That is, if it's going to matter, it's going to be because Kelton Wong benefits from the workouts, and his numbers improve, leading to more wins for the Cardinals.

2) Michael McCann breaks down the legal consequences of the Saints' bounty pool. Some of these are stretches, but almost all of these will be filed.

3) Sticking with the Saints, check out Friend of the Blog Chip's response to yesterday's last Saints post. I don't agree with him that this isn't newsworthy, but it's a good perspective, and he's dead on right that this is just one facet of sports' problem with injuries.

4) Junior Hockey in North America is moving toward banning fighting. The argument against this appears to be that the players just won't be ready for fighting in the NHL if they don't fight at the junior levels. Okay, so, don't fight in the NHL.

5) I wish I had something interesting to say about baseball's new playoff system that 'Duk over at Big League Stew didn't already cover. I feel like we're going to have to see how it plays out in practice.

What do you guys have?

Faster Than My Bullet: Baseball, the Houston Colt .45s, and Promoting Violence

This is the Houston Astros' 50th Anniversary, and all indications are that they will celebrate by losing two games for each year they've been around. They're also going to wear a bunch of throwback jerseys, including one from the earliest days as the Houston Colt .45s.

But hold up, slow up, stop, control, says the MLB Commissioner's office. Houston can't display the Colt .45s logo- that is, a smoking gun- on their jerseys.

I'm torn on this. Generally speaking, I'm uncomfortable around guns and sensitive to policies that want to add a few more measures of control to them. On the other hand, "Colt .45s" is an awesome, evocative team name, perfect for Texas, and the logo is kind of cool.

In a broader sense, I'm not really sure what Baseball is accomplishing here. Any time Baseball wants to try to help decrease gun violence- or at least, not offer tacit support of gun culture- I'm right behind 'em. And the game certainly has every right to protect and maintain it's brand, and if that includes eschewing the imagery of violent weapons, very well. I certainly wouldn't argue that the New York Glocks or the San Francisco AK-47s would be team names chosen in good taste.

But at the same time, that logo is a stylized drawing of an Old West-style revolver. Isn't that a little antiquated?. In fact, it's probably a little closer to the Braves' tomahawk chop than it is anything that promotes violence in the modern world.

I dunno. On balance, I suppose I don't mind Baseball doing this. I just wonder if they couldn't have chosen their battles better.