Wow, look at the standings… as always, after just a handful of games, teams aren’t where we expect them to be. The struggles of the Tigers have been well documented – it makes me feel better that BOTH Joe and Terry Nacho agreed with the Nachoman that the Tigers should win their division. A quick glance at the division leaders Thursday night shows Baltimore, Kansas City, Florida, and St. Louis on top. All of these teams were at the BOTTOM of most folks’ preseason predictions! But, less than 1/16 of the season has been played. As performance regresses to the mean, talent (or lack thereof) will out, and Baltimore will nosedive into the depths of loserdom.
If you’re reading Nachoman’s Baseball for the first time, know that I watch a whole, whole lot of National League games. Not only do I follow the (suddenly competent) Reds, I also keep scoresheets for STATS, INC once or twice a week. The American League is rather a mystery to me. I invite anyone with in-depth knowledge of an AL game, team, or event to contribute to the column. In return, you will get an acknowledgement, thanks, and a distinct lack of monetary payment.
I don’t need as much help chronicling the NL, yet I welcome submissions anyway.
If you’re reading Nachoman’s Baseball for the first time, know that I watch a whole, whole lot of National League games. Not only do I follow the (suddenly competent) Reds, I also keep scoresheets for STATS, INC once or twice a week. The American League is rather a mystery to me. I invite anyone with in-depth knowledge of an AL game, team, or event to contribute to the column. In return, you will get an acknowledgement, thanks, and a distinct lack of monetary payment.
I don’t need as much help chronicling the NL, yet I welcome submissions anyway.
This week’s baseball analysis begins with a story that makes me feel nearly as warm and fuzzy as Kansas Jayhawk fans feel this week:
The spiritual impact of Johnny Cueto
I didn’t have time last week to fully express my appreciation for Johnny Cueto, the rookie Reds starter who blew the Diamondbacks away in his first major league start. It’s not just that Mr. Cueto won the game. It’s how he did it – no walks, not even a three-ball count on anyone. Viewers got the impression that he was toying with batters, that he could place the ball within about an inch of his target, and incidentally do so at 96 mph. Mr. Cueto’s mound demeanor channeled the spirit of Greg Maddux, 1996 vintage: go about your business, nothing to see here, everything’s under control.
Cincinnati is a baseball town, right up there with Boston and St. Louis for the passion, enthusiasm, and knowledge of their fans. Thing is, Boston and St. Louis have put good teams on the field over the past decade. Not just teams with good players, but teams that played good baseball. (Knowledgeable fans know the difference.) Cincinnati, on the other hand, has trotted out Jimmy Haynes, DeAngelo Jimenez, Wily Mo Pena, Danny Graves, and a whole host of similar players. The common theme: bad baseball. Pitchers afraid to throw strikes. Hitters who swing for the fences[1] no matter the situation.
Mr. Cueto’s start, along with the inaugural outing of Edinson Volquez, seems perhaps to herald a new era in a historic baseball city. In an offseason podcast, “Sports Guy” Bill Simmons noted that “appointment pitching” has come back to New York: with the acquisition of Johann Santana, Mets fans would likely figure out when he was starting so that they could come to the game, or at least watch on TV. Just as in the early days of Fernando Valenzuela in Los Angeles, people in New York will clear time in their schedules for the purpose of watching Mr. Santana pitch. When’s the last time fans considered a *Reds* pitcher worthy of an appointment? Danny Jackson in 1988? Perhaps Jose Rijo in 1990? Well, for now, Johnny Cueto delivers “appointment pitching” unto the assembled throngs in the Great American Ballpark. I wonder what the attendance will be like when he makes his next home start…
Little things that don’t show up in the box score
Tuesday night in Milwaukee, Johnny Cueto’s second start for the Reds… Mr. Cueto dominated as he did in his first start. But, JJ Hardy led off the third inning with a ground ball single. The pitcher bunted him to second, and then Jason Kendall looped a wee little liner over the shortstop’s head. Mr. Hardy had to hold near second base, so he had barely touched third when the ball reached Reds left fielder Adam Dunn. Knowing how weak Mr. Dunn is defensively, the third base coach waved Mr. Hardy around. He should have been dead to rights – even a poor throw would have nailed him. However, Mr. Dunn couldn’t even field the ball cleanly.
That sure could’ve changed the game… Mr. Cueto gave up a homer in the sixth to go behind 2-1 until Corey Patterson hit his third(!) homer of the year to tie the game in the ninth. You’ll hear about Ricky Weeks hitting a game-winning single off of David Weathers, but it’s unlikely you’ll hear much about the defensive play that could have won the game in the first inning.
Hidden stinkage
In a significant or dramatic victory, often a secondary player’s disastrous performance can be overlooked. As an example, in Mr. Cueto’s opening start victory, David Weathers walked the bases loaded in the eighth inning. Mike Lincoln bailed him out, but his outing could have – probably *should* have – ruined Johnny Cueto’s coming out party. Other examples of under-the-radar disasters:
· On opening day in Chicago, much-hyped new closer Kerry Wood gave up three runs in the ninth in what had been a scoreless game. His batters: HBP, intentional walk, sacrifice, single, double, strikeout, groundout. He still won, as new Brewers closer Eric Gagne was even worse.
· Monday night in Houston: The story of the night was Houston’s walk-off win: Miguel Tejada took rookie Kyle McClellan deep in the bottom of the ninth for the game winner. But why were these dramatics necessary? Because slow-working “closer” Jose Valverde, whom Houston picked up this offseason from the Diamondbacks, put forth his worst of three bad outings on the year. His inning: single, walk, two quick outs… single, double, and lucky out on a great defensive play by Miguel Tejada. Mr. Valverde has so far this season worked four innings, giving up five earned runs.
· Sunday in Atlanta: John Smoltz and the Braves beat Johann Santana, despite Mr. Santana’s Nachoman Quality Start. The Braves led 1-0 when Mr. Smoltz exited the game. They extended the lead to 3-0 in the eighth when Mark Teixeira homered off of Aaron Heilman (who himself had a disastrous eighth inning which truly cost the game). The hidden disaster occurred in the ninth. Rafael Soriano, the Braves new purported closer, came on to protect a 3-0 lead. His inning: leadoff walk (BOUX!), two quick outs, single, ANOTHER walk, and a hard ground ball that Mark Teixeira at first base saved from becoming a game-tying double. Braves win, no thanks to Mr. Soriano, who picked up a save for his efforts.
This disaster wasn’t so covert
An excellent pitchers’ duel between Dodger Hiroki Kuroda and Padre Justin Germano was punctured by the San Diego Bullpen. Joe Thatcher entered in the seventh inning and wished he hadn’t. He allowed four runs on three walks and a hit. After he was mercifully yoinked, major league retread Glendon Rusch tried to calm things down, but his stuff was eminently hittable – four hits and a walk later, he closed out the Dodgers six-run inning.
El Molé’s laws of college fandom
CHAPEL HILL, NC: Multiple internet sources report that, in a disaster of biblical proportions last weekend, 20,000 people died in an earthquake the University of North Carolina basketball team lost in the national semifinals.
On Sunday, El Molé gave up reading the “Inside Carolina” message board. He told me he just couldn’t stand the repeated calls for [Carolina coach] Roy Williams’ job, or the unfair comparisons to Kansas coach Bill Self.
The Tar Heels lost. They played like crap for 15 minutes, made a tremendous comeback, but came up short. SO WHAT, is El Mole’s position. The team had a good run, they made it to the final four. Mr. Williams recruited top talent, coached them through thick (double-digit wins in the early season and in the early rounds of the tournament, a strong showing in the ACC) and thin (the loss of point guard Ty Lawson, which resulted in one – just one – loss.) What’s wrong with that?
But Heels “fans,” many of whom were probably not even potty trained during the Dean Smith era, have jumped on their coach. “We’d rather have Bill Self,” they say. Then, after Mr. Williams showed up at the final openly rooting for Kansas (where he coached for fifteen years), the Carolina “fans” cried foul.
Come now… do you really think that Mr. Williams engineered a loss to Kansas for the purpose of setting them up to win? Is it that terrible to show some enthusiasm, or even respect, for a team that beat you fair and square?
The Nachoman just dismisses this kind of message board vitriol as the product of a society that no longer needs windbag sports radio hosts to bring out the stupidity of the average fanatic. No, nowadays one just posts one’s feelings for all to see, even if those feelings are as far removed from rationality as Voyager I is from the solar system.
But, Chapel Hill native El Molé takes everything about the University of North Carolina personally. In response to the idiots on “Inside Carolina,” he wants to be empowered to revoke fandom privileges where necessary. Barring that, he has come up with the first three of El Molé’s laws of college fandom:
1) Dress yourself for better or for worse. If you want the privilege of wearing your team's gear when you win, wear it after you lose, too. In fact, it's MORE important to wear it after you lose.
2) Stay until the clock reads 00:00. You owe your team that much. If you want to exult in their last-second victories and fantastic comebacks, you can't run out on them when things look dark.
3) Be secure in your fandom. If your coach says something positive about another team, it's not a threat to leave you at the altar.[2] If your program is worth caring about, your coach will care, too.
Good news on the starting pitching front
Here’s a line I’ve been reading for more than eighteen years, and I still sigh when I see it:
G. Maddux (W, 1-0): 7 IP, 3 H, 1 ER, 2 BB, 5 K.
His Padre bullpen blew up again in the ninth inning, but by then, his team was up by seven runs so it didn’t matter.
These are my kind of do-gooders
In Hermosa Beach, California, attendees at a Little League game were shocked to find game programs and hot dogs for sale from vendors. Come to think of it, there were an awful lot of fans for just a regular kids’ game.
Things got weirder when grown men – no one whom the players or their parents recognized – showed up with their chests painted to spell out the name of one of the teams. Around mid-game, a jumbotron rose from the broadcast truck in center field, revealing the NBC Sports logo and professional broadcasters. Journalists were in abundance, even setting up for a postgame press conference. All these hundreds of strange fans kept telling people how NBC Sports had come to town to broadcast the “big game.” What was *up*?
Though the teams and parents involved didn’t find out until much later, the “scene” was created and carried out by the Improve Everywhere troop out of New York. This group has attained a level of notoriety for their very public, usually humerous group stunts. They’ve spontaneously performed a musical at a mall food court; impersonated Best Buy employees; done a “groundhog day” routine in which the same customers have the same conversations repeatedly in line at a Starbucks; appointed themselves bathroom attendants at a McDonalds; and much, much more. After they create a scene, they summarize and publicize their accomplishments at their website. Check out the recap of the “Best Game Ever.”
What the Nachoman loved best about the writeup was this (slightly edited) comment from an anonymous poster:
“Amazing! Not only using their great ideas to go pantsless on the subway[3], but actually making peoples’ lives a little bit happier!”
A big "Thank You" goes to the Nachoman's college intramural volleyball teammate Alex Werner for sending this link along. I would be very, very impressed if anyone who is not a mid-1990s Haverford alumnus could come anywhere close to guessing the name of our team.
Mr. Sutton seems to give too much credit to a wild pitcher
Sunday, Gnats at Cards… Rookie John Lannan wasmissing his catcher’s glove every which way. He walked the leadoff man on five pitches, all out of the zone.
Nationals color man Don Sutton, who was once an excellent pitcher, made excuses for Mr. Lannan. “That 2-0 pitch way up and in must be setting something up for later in the count.” “First base is open, with none out and a run in. Lannan may be better off not throwing strikes here.”
Call it like it is, Don – this guy was mentally weak to open the game. Either he was too scared of major league hitters to throw the ball over the plate, or he had totally lost control of his stuff. He only got out of the first inning because two hard-hit balls went right at someone.
Then, after a homer and two straight walks, Randy St. Clair the pitching coach came to talk. Mr. Sutton suggested that, “since [Lannan] is controlling his other stuff as well as he is the fastball,” perhaps Mr. St. Clair was suggesting the use of different pitches. You're right, Don -- Mr. Lannan couldn't control his fastball at all, and he was controlling his other stuff just as well.
The worst possible pitch sequence for any pitcher, any time:
Strike 1, Strike 2, Ball 1, Ball 2, Ball 3
That was Austin Kearns against Kyle Lohse on Sunday in the second inning. Lohse isn’t going to blow anyone away with his stuff. He was ahead 0-2. Why not throw some strikes and make Mr. Kearns hit a pitch he doesn’t like? Instead, he nibbled unsuccessfully, and eventually had to come down the middle with a kindafast ball… which was laced to left for a single.
Nachoman, quit yer whinin’.
I complain about Mssrs. Lohse and Lannan, but their final lines looked nice. Lohse: 7 IP, 0 R, Nachoman Quality Start. Lannan: 6.2 IP, 2 R. Time of game: 2:19. Thing is, if either team’s hitting had been better, or even just luckier about where some balls dropped, we might have been looking at a 7-5 game.
Nachoman, ombudsman for the umpires
Now that I’ve officially attended umpire school, every baseball fan I know asks me about any sort of unusual ruling or situation. The Ribbie Reporter, among others, asked me about a highly unusual case in which an umpire reversed a call. Says Mr. Reporter:
“Top of the fifth Saturday in Atlanta, bases loaded for Met José Reyes. He hit a sinking liner into center, which a diving Mark Kotsay clearly caught off the bounce. Unfortunately, second base umpire Brian Gorman is behind the pitching mound because the bases are loaded. That leaves the call to third base ump Bruce Dreckman.”
Actually, the third base umpire had just as good a view. It’s not always the umpire who’s closest to the play who has the best angle… looking from the side, even a long way away, is actually better, because then there's space in the umpire's vision between the glove and ball. The umpire tries to set himself up so that the play is happening right-to-left across his field of vision rather than straight toward or away from him. Usually on this sort of play, the third base umpire has a better angle than the guy at second; and, as you point out, the second base umpire is unlikely to go out from the infield.
“[Mr. Dreckman] called an out, even though it was a pretty clear bounce.”
Yeah, he blew that call all right. Nothing for it. It happens, just like fielders drop popups.
“The man on third retreated back to the bag, while the man on second, who didn’t see the call, raced around third, past his teammate and on towards home. The Braves threw to second and the man was doubled off. Got it? Willie Randolph protested, umps huddled, call was reversed. The umps gave Reyes a single and moved everyone up one base, even though the man on second would have easily scored. Bobby Cox protested[4], noting that the man on second passed his teammate at third.”
Now, I'm not 100% clear on this ruling, because (according to the notoriously unreliable FOX announcers) it (probably) relies on a mlb umpire casebook interpretation. I have not read, nor do I have the opportunity to read, this casebook. Of course I understand the rulebook thoroughly; but the casebook gives additional interpretations and specific examples of situations that I am not privy to. Yesterday I sent an email to Hunter Wendelstedt inquiring as to whether it’s possible to get a copy of the casebook.
That said, here's what I think happened:
Initially, Mr. Dreckman's call stood. Runners are responsible for knowing what has been called. When the runner from second passed the runner from third, the trailing runner was immediately out -- hence, the double play. I couldn’t tell from the replay (and I tuned in just a bit too late to see the play itself), but I will bet that they ruled the guy on second out NOT because he was "doubled off" at second, but because he passed the guy from third.
But, later it was realized that Mr. Dreckman's call was wrong. At that point, the umpires could reverse the call, but HOW? Who's to say how many runs would score? Who's to say that someone wouldn't have gotten into a pickle around third? So, as I understand the ruling,[5] the ball was declared dead as soon as it hit the ground. At that point, the batter had completed his time at bat and was not put out, so he must be awarded first. The other runners would return to their bases. But, since awarding the batter first base forced the other runners, they moved up.
Since the ball was considered dead, the guy from second could have done a naked jig and it wouldn't have mattered. You can't penalize (or reward) players for actions while the ball is dead.
And if that seems unfair to the Braves, consider the other "what if": What if the ball had been thrown away, resulting in two or three runs scoring? Tough Beans. Batter to first, all others return unless forced.
The umps did eventually get the fly ball call correct, but they definitely cost the Mets a run. Could the umpires have done something better to ensure this didn’t happen? The only thing they could have done was get the original call right. Once they missed the original call, the only options were to (a) leave the wrong call to stand, or (b) reverse this wrong call in the way they did. They cannot grab some rum in the dugout and ask Jobu exactly what He thought would have happened on the play.
Yay, they got this one exactly right
Later that afternoon in San Diego, Padres catcher Josh Bard dived into the dugout, making a tremendous catch on a popup. The catch was allowed, because his feet were in live-ball territory. But, the rules state that if a player falls out of play after a catch, all runners are awarded one base. The umpires correctly told the runner on third to stroll home.
A rare interesting in-game interview
Fox Sports Cincinnati managed to get retired umpire Bruce Froemming to talk for an inning in the booth. Mr. Froemming was a guest of honor one morning when I was at Umpire School; in the booth he showed the same good speaking presence that he did for us. How good? So good that he shut up when the ball was hit so that the announcers could call the game. (He even chimed in with a bit of play-by-play.)
The Reds announcers should be credited, too, for asking good questions: Do established hitters get more calls than rookies? [No.] Has the strike zone changedin your 50 years of umpiring? [No.] What do you think of questech? [It’s grown on him.]
Mr. Froemming, as you would expect, showed tremendous knowledge of baseball. He could recall all kinds of obscure players from 20 or 30 years ago. He commented intelligently on the Brewers and Reds hitters, comparing them to others he has seen. How intelligently? Right after he loftily praised Ryan Braun, Mr. Braun fouled off five pitches and then pumped a homer to center field.
This week’s incidence of ESPN throwing its weight around
As reported in The Big Lead, ESPN’s Andy Katz was in charge of selection for a national award sponsored by the United States Basketball Writers Association. This award usually goes to a university’s sports information director, someone who “services or helps basketball writers throughout the course of a year.” Except, this year, Mr. Katz successfully nominated two ESPN media relations folks, including Mr. Katz’s own publicist. According to John Feinstein, many of the association’s general membership were perturbed at the appearance of nepotism.
And the Nobel Peace Prize goes to…
…The NPP committee, for their monumental efforts to bring peace to the world.
This week’s thing that ESPN actually does right
Just like so many websites, espn.com includes a daily poll of its readers. Ho, hum. The question is usually banal (“Do you believe Roger Clemens”), and overly cute (Who had a worse weekend, the guy who lost the championship or the guy who was dumped by his celebrity girlfriend?). But because of their quirky way of presenting the results, even silly polls can become interesting.
If you vote, the site pops up a window with a map of the United States. Each state is colored based on the most common answer to the poll question. Mousing over a state brings up a more detailed summary of that state’s total number of responses and each answer’s popularity.
On Monday morning, the ESPN poll question was, obviously, “Who will win the NCAA championship game?” Checking the map was like watching presidential election returns, except a lot more fun.[6] As you would expect, in Kansas, 82% think Kansas will win, to 18% for Memphis. In Tennessee, it’s exactly 82%-18% the other way. This data includes a significant sample size – just under 4000 votes in each state. Worldwide[7], Memphis led 59%-41%. Only four of Kansas’s border states and the Dakotas believed in the Jayhawks. Oh, and, for some reason, Alaska.
Reader comments
The NachoGrandpa reports that, despite my claims in my opening day column, Carl Lindner was not a member of the NachoGrandpa’s synagogue. In fact, Mr. Lindner is not even Jewish – he’s Baptist. Yet, Mr. Lindner *did* in fact donate to the synagogue, and (according to the NachoGrandpa) to many other generally Jewish causes.
Next week
Improv Everywhere secretly arranges to send enormous numbers of fans to a Florida Marlins game, making the players feel like true major leaguers. Let's just hope this event doesn't turn pantsless.
[1] And miss
[2] Nachoman’s note: Rule 3 does not apply to Nick Saban.
[3] Which the group does annually: Here’s a link to no pants 2k8.
[4] Of course
[5] i.e. I'm not positive here, but making a very educated guess
[6] There were even “blue states” and “red states” – blue for Memphis, red for Kansas.
[7] Yes, truly worldwide – of 168,000 votes, 34,000 were outside the USA. The overseas vote matched the domestic vote precisely.
Nachoman, quit yer whinin’.
I complain about Mssrs. Lohse and Lannan, but their final lines looked nice. Lohse: 7 IP, 0 R, Nachoman Quality Start. Lannan: 6.2 IP, 2 R. Time of game: 2:19. Thing is, if either team’s hitting had been better, or even just luckier about where some balls dropped, we might have been looking at a 7-5 game.
Nachoman, ombudsman for the umpires
Now that I’ve officially attended umpire school, every baseball fan I know asks me about any sort of unusual ruling or situation. The Ribbie Reporter, among others, asked me about a highly unusual case in which an umpire reversed a call. Says Mr. Reporter:
“Top of the fifth Saturday in Atlanta, bases loaded for Met José Reyes. He hit a sinking liner into center, which a diving Mark Kotsay clearly caught off the bounce. Unfortunately, second base umpire Brian Gorman is behind the pitching mound because the bases are loaded. That leaves the call to third base ump Bruce Dreckman.”
Actually, the third base umpire had just as good a view. It’s not always the umpire who’s closest to the play who has the best angle… looking from the side, even a long way away, is actually better, because then there's space in the umpire's vision between the glove and ball. The umpire tries to set himself up so that the play is happening right-to-left across his field of vision rather than straight toward or away from him. Usually on this sort of play, the third base umpire has a better angle than the guy at second; and, as you point out, the second base umpire is unlikely to go out from the infield.
“[Mr. Dreckman] called an out, even though it was a pretty clear bounce.”
Yeah, he blew that call all right. Nothing for it. It happens, just like fielders drop popups.
“The man on third retreated back to the bag, while the man on second, who didn’t see the call, raced around third, past his teammate and on towards home. The Braves threw to second and the man was doubled off. Got it? Willie Randolph protested, umps huddled, call was reversed. The umps gave Reyes a single and moved everyone up one base, even though the man on second would have easily scored. Bobby Cox protested[4], noting that the man on second passed his teammate at third.”
Now, I'm not 100% clear on this ruling, because (according to the notoriously unreliable FOX announcers) it (probably) relies on a mlb umpire casebook interpretation. I have not read, nor do I have the opportunity to read, this casebook. Of course I understand the rulebook thoroughly; but the casebook gives additional interpretations and specific examples of situations that I am not privy to. Yesterday I sent an email to Hunter Wendelstedt inquiring as to whether it’s possible to get a copy of the casebook.
That said, here's what I think happened:
Initially, Mr. Dreckman's call stood. Runners are responsible for knowing what has been called. When the runner from second passed the runner from third, the trailing runner was immediately out -- hence, the double play. I couldn’t tell from the replay (and I tuned in just a bit too late to see the play itself), but I will bet that they ruled the guy on second out NOT because he was "doubled off" at second, but because he passed the guy from third.
But, later it was realized that Mr. Dreckman's call was wrong. At that point, the umpires could reverse the call, but HOW? Who's to say how many runs would score? Who's to say that someone wouldn't have gotten into a pickle around third? So, as I understand the ruling,[5] the ball was declared dead as soon as it hit the ground. At that point, the batter had completed his time at bat and was not put out, so he must be awarded first. The other runners would return to their bases. But, since awarding the batter first base forced the other runners, they moved up.
Since the ball was considered dead, the guy from second could have done a naked jig and it wouldn't have mattered. You can't penalize (or reward) players for actions while the ball is dead.
And if that seems unfair to the Braves, consider the other "what if": What if the ball had been thrown away, resulting in two or three runs scoring? Tough Beans. Batter to first, all others return unless forced.
The umps did eventually get the fly ball call correct, but they definitely cost the Mets a run. Could the umpires have done something better to ensure this didn’t happen? The only thing they could have done was get the original call right. Once they missed the original call, the only options were to (a) leave the wrong call to stand, or (b) reverse this wrong call in the way they did. They cannot grab some rum in the dugout and ask Jobu exactly what He thought would have happened on the play.
Yay, they got this one exactly right
Later that afternoon in San Diego, Padres catcher Josh Bard dived into the dugout, making a tremendous catch on a popup. The catch was allowed, because his feet were in live-ball territory. But, the rules state that if a player falls out of play after a catch, all runners are awarded one base. The umpires correctly told the runner on third to stroll home.
A rare interesting in-game interview
Fox Sports Cincinnati managed to get retired umpire Bruce Froemming to talk for an inning in the booth. Mr. Froemming was a guest of honor one morning when I was at Umpire School; in the booth he showed the same good speaking presence that he did for us. How good? So good that he shut up when the ball was hit so that the announcers could call the game. (He even chimed in with a bit of play-by-play.)
The Reds announcers should be credited, too, for asking good questions: Do established hitters get more calls than rookies? [No.] Has the strike zone changedin your 50 years of umpiring? [No.] What do you think of questech? [It’s grown on him.]
Mr. Froemming, as you would expect, showed tremendous knowledge of baseball. He could recall all kinds of obscure players from 20 or 30 years ago. He commented intelligently on the Brewers and Reds hitters, comparing them to others he has seen. How intelligently? Right after he loftily praised Ryan Braun, Mr. Braun fouled off five pitches and then pumped a homer to center field.
This week’s incidence of ESPN throwing its weight around
As reported in The Big Lead, ESPN’s Andy Katz was in charge of selection for a national award sponsored by the United States Basketball Writers Association. This award usually goes to a university’s sports information director, someone who “services or helps basketball writers throughout the course of a year.” Except, this year, Mr. Katz successfully nominated two ESPN media relations folks, including Mr. Katz’s own publicist. According to John Feinstein, many of the association’s general membership were perturbed at the appearance of nepotism.
And the Nobel Peace Prize goes to…
…The NPP committee, for their monumental efforts to bring peace to the world.
This week’s thing that ESPN actually does right
Just like so many websites, espn.com includes a daily poll of its readers. Ho, hum. The question is usually banal (“Do you believe Roger Clemens”), and overly cute (Who had a worse weekend, the guy who lost the championship or the guy who was dumped by his celebrity girlfriend?). But because of their quirky way of presenting the results, even silly polls can become interesting.
If you vote, the site pops up a window with a map of the United States. Each state is colored based on the most common answer to the poll question. Mousing over a state brings up a more detailed summary of that state’s total number of responses and each answer’s popularity.
On Monday morning, the ESPN poll question was, obviously, “Who will win the NCAA championship game?” Checking the map was like watching presidential election returns, except a lot more fun.[6] As you would expect, in Kansas, 82% think Kansas will win, to 18% for Memphis. In Tennessee, it’s exactly 82%-18% the other way. This data includes a significant sample size – just under 4000 votes in each state. Worldwide[7], Memphis led 59%-41%. Only four of Kansas’s border states and the Dakotas believed in the Jayhawks. Oh, and, for some reason, Alaska.
Reader comments
The NachoGrandpa reports that, despite my claims in my opening day column, Carl Lindner was not a member of the NachoGrandpa’s synagogue. In fact, Mr. Lindner is not even Jewish – he’s Baptist. Yet, Mr. Lindner *did* in fact donate to the synagogue, and (according to the NachoGrandpa) to many other generally Jewish causes.
Next week
Improv Everywhere secretly arranges to send enormous numbers of fans to a Florida Marlins game, making the players feel like true major leaguers. Let's just hope this event doesn't turn pantsless.
[1] And miss
[2] Nachoman’s note: Rule 3 does not apply to Nick Saban.
[3] Which the group does annually: Here’s a link to no pants 2k8.
[4] Of course
[5] i.e. I'm not positive here, but making a very educated guess
[6] There were even “blue states” and “red states” – blue for Memphis, red for Kansas.
[7] Yes, truly worldwide – of 168,000 votes, 34,000 were outside the USA. The overseas vote matched the domestic vote precisely.
No comments:
Post a Comment