Kansas City is weird, the Braves are pretty good, and other stories

The big news of the week was cancer survivor and Red Sock John Lester’s no-hitter. Talk about a story specially whipped up for the mainstream national media… human-interest story AND big name east coast team! If Joe Popcorneater of the Brewers had thrown the no-no, no one would have been talking about it by now.

That is not to diminish Mr. Lester’s accomplishment. The Nachoman is always thrilled for anyone who throws a no-hitter, no matter where or against whom. I did watch the last couple of outs, and I noticed how cool and composed Mr. Lester seemed. Outstanding theater.

In other news, this week I read God Save the Fan by Deadspin’s Will Leitch. I swear, I had not read the book previously… but it recapped more than half of the arguments I made a few weeks ago when I defended blogs against the legacy media. I highly recommend Mr. Leitch’s book, which comes chock full of stories embarrassing to ESPN.

But the Nachoman doesn’t cover Big News, nor even little News. The Nachoman discusses whatever comes to his mind, usually because he’s keeping score to a game for STATS. That’s why you get to read some interesting tidbits from Royals-Marlins, Mets-Braves, and Gilbert & Sullivan. Enjoy…


Notes from (gulp) Royals-Marlins
I had the privilege, or at least the assignment, of working the Marlins-Royals game for STATS, LLC on Saturday night. At season’s beginning, this looked like a toilet bowl. Now, with the Marlins temporarily in first place, and (at the time – they’ve lost four in a row since then) the Royals hovering near the .500 mark, the game was merely a bidet.

I watched the visiting Royals broadcast, with Ryan LaFebvre and Paul Splitterof. You might ask, who watches Royals games? One way to assess the relevant demographic might be to analyze the commercials they show. Keystone Light and Ford Escort commercials indicate a frat-boy audience; Smith-Barney and Lexus commercials suggest a quite different type of person watching. A guy generally knows he’s watching the wrong show if he sees ads for tampons or digestive regulatory yogurt. (Really -- Burrito Girl reports that she sees these ads regularly during her midday scifi network viewing.)

During Saturday's game I saw an ad for the “Listen Up!” personal sound amplifier, designed for old people with hearing problems. You put in the earpiece, point the device at the TV or at an otherwise private conversation, and voila, you can hear! The ad shows an old woman[1] shouting to her husband, “Does that have to be so loud?!?”

The Royals also advertised a John Mayberry bobblehead. Woo-hoo![2]

So a Royals fan is likely to be old, hearing impaired and knowledgeable of John Mayberry. Who knew?

Um, Nachoman, what about the game?
Scott Olsen, who walks more batters than he should, was on the mound for the Marlins. He retired the first batter, then walked the second guy on 5 pitches. The next two batters swung at the first pitch(!). Now, I’m not the only commentator to wonder why a batter would swing at the first pitch from a pitcher with suspect control after he’s walked someone. What kind of stupid hitters are in the middle of the Royals order?

Well. On that first pitch, Alex Gordon lined a single into right field.

Though Jose Guillen swung at a bad first pitch, he took another strike, and… hit the ball hard to center field.

Don’t whine, Nachoman… somehow, someway, professional ballplayers know more about hitting than a physics teacher who once struck out eight straight times in coach-pitch little league. Amazing.


Since the Nachoman has proven himself an idiot as an hitting coach, why not try being a scout?
Lefty Scott Olsen holds the ball high in his glove in the stretch. The centerfield camera can show his grip on the ball easily – if I had high definition, I could probably call the kind of pitch ahead of time. I wonder whether a runner on second might be able to see that grip…


Scott Olsen is slow
His five-pitch 4th inning against the Royals took nearly 5 minutes.

Worst sportswriter pun of the month
From foxsports.com about Saturday’s Reds-Indians game, which was decided on an Adam Dunn walkoff: “Dunn's three-run homer in the ninth inning off Masa Kobayashi powered the Cincinnati Reds to their season-high fifth straight victory Saturday, a 4-2 win that had a familiar feel for Cleveland's relievers. They've had this Dunn to them before.”

It was certainly fun to watch the discombobulation of Cleveland's relief staff, who blew three straight games against the Redlegs. Problem is, I read this horrible pun on Sunday afternoon, right after the Reds completed their first ever 6-0 homestand at the Great American Ballpark. Me, I think the pun cursed the team, as the Reds haven't won since.

Second-worst sportswriter pun of the month
Well, I don’t know exactly when this was written, but I read it this month… in the Bill James Gold Mine, a book of nuggets (ha!) of detailed statistical trends, Mr. James titles a section about White Sox DH Jim Thome, “Thome Poisoning.”


Another reason not to watch the Royals
Royals announcer Ryan LaFebvre pontificated that the “correct” determination of whether a check swing is a strike depends on whether the bat breaks the plane of home plate. He’s wrong – the rulebook says no such thing. The umpire is to determine whether the batter “offers” at the pitch, with no definition or guidance given for the term “offer”. The high school rulebook does give guidance, saying that the umpire may consider whether the bat crossed the batter’s body; but, “the final decision is based on whether the batter actually struck at the ball.”

The Nachoman is angry at Mr. LaFebvre not just for getting the rule wrong, but for spreading disinformation to an already ignorant public. On Tuesday in Madison county, I was the plate umpire for a playoff game. On a 2-2 count, a Madison county batter tried to check his swing, but in my judgment he struck at the ball. I therefore wrung him up. He was most displeased, and showed his displeasure with a naughty exclamation and a thrown bat. I stared at him as the Madison coach came out to discuss my call.

I wanted to talk about the batter’s naughtiness. “Okay, we’ll talk about that, but let’s talk about the call first,” said the coach – an unusual request, considering that this coach knew that his batter was in danger of being ejected. But I agreed. The coach intensely yet politely argued that the batter had not swung. “He didn’t break his wrists.” “His bat didn’t cross the plate.” I quoted the rulebook definition of a half-swing; the coach wasn’t happy, but he stopped arguing. Then, I tattled on the batter, and we agreed that this player had better keep his mouth shut the rest of the game or he would be ejected. No trouble. The coach was as good as his word.


Maybe Scott Olsen should learn from the Braves
In a doubleheader Tuesday, the Braves only walked two in 18 innings. No coincidence here – the Braves swept two from the Mets.

In the entire four-game series, the Braves only walked four batters in 36 innings. Careful, NL east… Atlanta is on a five game winning streak.

This does NOT mean that the Mets are "scuffling."

About a year ago, I heard a baseball announcer use the word "scuffling" to mean "struggling." I thought that usage crazy... to me, the proper use of "scuffling" is in the context "Nolan Ryan and Robin Ventura were scuffling on the pitcher's mound." The sentence "Richie Sexson is scuffling, he's 0 for his last 25 at bats" makes no sense.

Very soon after that first observation, I began to hear "scuffling" all over the place in this incorrect usage. Now a week does not go by in which I don't hear that someone is scuffling. What is up? Is there an etymologist in the house? Because I will bet good money that some ESPN anchorbeing, perhaps Stuart Scott, used the word once or twice in highlight narration, causing every self-disrespecting broadcaster in the country to imitate this new usage.

(Alternatively, it is likely that many of these folks didn't know that "scuffle" is being used incorrectly. After all, these are people who say "Alfonso Soriano needs to get untracked.")

From the NachoGrandpa
I reprint this letter from the NachoGrandpa verbatim and without comment… Except, I do wonder why one would watch ESPN on a weekday between 3:00 and 4:00 PM. NachoGrandpa must be enjoying his retirement.

To ESPN:

I was watching ESPN Tuesday, May 20, between 3:00 PM and 4:00 PM, and heard something like the following: “Players and Politics: Some players have strong political views. Stay tuned to learn why these players are afraid to speak out.” This seemed a wrongheaded topic, and I turned off ESPN.

I’ve worked for 45 years, and virtually no one at work knows my political opinions, and I don’t know theirs. This is in spite of the fact that I have strong opinions on most political topics. I am not “afraid to speak out.” The reason for my silence is straightforward. I value a good working relationship with my co-workers and customers more than the satisfaction of sounding off. I would guess that my coworkers’ and customers’ silence is the result of their feeling the same way. Probably most major sports figures also feel that way in regard to the good will of their teammates, their sport, and their fans.

Once over the years, someone was passing out literature pushing one of the two candidates for President (as to be expected, it belittled the other candidate). The higher-ups put a stop to this. I was pleased, even though I also backed the same candidate. A pleasant environment at work is more important than who’s in office, and the company’s policies should enforce that attitude.

On almost any political topic, you’ll get half the population agreeing with you and the other half feeling hostile and offended. I think it’s a healthy thing that the sports figures feel the good will of others is more important than discussing who should be in office or what policies should be taken. It’s not likely, but maybe there’s modesty involved. They may think that just because they’re talented in one area in life, it doesn’t mean that their opinion in political areas has special value. However, regardless of the reason, the players’ (or management’s) choice not to create a hostile environment is to be commended

My guess is the ESPN writer of the story had an excess of zeal on some topic, and knew of some players who felt the same way. The writer wrote the story in an attempt to force the players to feel morally obliged to make these opinions public, and perhaps to pressure their teams’ management to accept the players’ sounding off. I hope someone in charge at ESPN will advise the writer to channel his or her zeal in some other direction.

Other than once hearing that Carlos Delgado opposed the Iraq War, and that Kurt Schilling preferred Bush to Kerry in ’04, I’ve been delightfully spared the political opinions of athletes. Let’s keep it that way.

Bart Jacobs


Lack of hustle
Saturday night, the Diamondbacks got the leadoff man on down by one in the 8th inning. Orlando Hudson tried to lay down a bunt, but he popped up the attempt about 20 feet from the plate. Mr. Hudson hung his head as Tigers catcher Pudge Rodriguez camped under the popup. What would you do in Mr. Rodriguez’ place?

Let the ball drop, of course. Pudgie threw to second base for the force; the throw back to first was easily in time, because Mr. Hudson didn’t run. Oops.

Side note – the infield fly rule didn’t apply here because only one person was on base. However, this ploy would have worked even with two or three on! The infield fly rule can never be called on a bunt. With the bases loaded, whether the batter runs or not, the best play is to let the ball drop. Get the out at home, double up the runner from third. Or, with runners on first and second, get the double play from third to second.


But can he WALK and chew gum at the same time?
FSN Cincinnati showed a slow motion replay of Ryan Freel BLOWING A BUBBLE as he legged out an infield single. Even at bat, Mr. Freel's bubble gum hangs out of his mouth as he masticates.

In the comic Calvin & Hobbes, six-year-old Calvin subscribed to “Chewing” magazine, a parody of typical vacuous hobby journals. Shouldn’t Ryan Freel be a featured celebrity in “Chewing?”


Me, I’d adhere to the Greg Maddux philosophy over, say, the almost-anyone-else philosophy
This is pretty much an EXACT quotation from Fox Sports South: “The Greg Maddux philosophy of stopping the stolen base: Don’t let anyone on to begin with. He’d give you a couple of courtesy throws, just to show he knows you’re there, and he’s angry about it.”

Please ignore the tense and mood issues. The content stands as a pearl of baseball wisdom, one ignored by far too many pitchers.


More good journalism from Sports South
I’ve heard the story before that FSS repeated about Jose Reyes’ decline… popular perception is that he pouted after manager Willie Randolph benched him for running out a ground ball. After that, he was never the same Jose Reyes.

FSS mentioned reports from the New York media that Mr. Randolph has had trouble disciplining his players. Word is, players whine to general manager Omar Minaya, who lends a “sympathetic ear.” Word also is that there’s significant social friction within the Mets clubhouse. Mr. Minaya has been noted for hiring large number of Latin players. It’s not hard to jump to the conclusion that Mr. Minaya might be loyal to “his” Latin players at the expense of his other, American born players and his American born manager.[3]

One clubhouse beef that sounds reasonable and fact-based is the manner in which Latin and American-born players deal with the overwhelming New York press corps. American-born players, including closer Billy Wagner, have made biting and sarcastic remarks to reporters about how they tend to do far more interviews than the Latin players. It seems that some Mets are pulling a Fernando Valenzuela,[4] conveniently losing their ability to speak English when reporters are looking for quotations. With the abundance of Mets players for whom “Señor, no comprendo” is a believable excuse, suddenly the team with the most writers in the clubhouse is left with the fewest players available for interview. This can reasonably cause resentment among the American born.

So, is the problem with the Mets – who are back under .500 and are 3-7 in their last 10 games – that their clubhouse is fractured? That they don’t get along with one another? That’s yet another easy conclusion to jump to, especially after watching Brian Schneider and Johan Santana do a Chad Johnson-style arm-flap-with-associated-scowl at Luis Castillo for a poor defensive decision on Thursday. Yet, as statistical wonks point out, clubhouse chemistry might be less important in baseball than in any other major sport. Do the Carloses – Beltran and Delgado – need a group hug in order to hit .259 and .217? Do Mike Pelfrey and Nelson Figueroa need emotional support so that they’ll stop walking as many as they strike out? No… these are professionals, making millions for their baseball services. One has a right to expect performance, whether or not their best buddies are in the dugout with them.

I also note that, despite having pretty much the same players, clubhouse chemistry was not cited as a problem[5] two years ago when the Mets came close to the World Series, nor last year as they almost won the division.


He’s heard of home announcers getting down on their team, but this is ridiculous
“Here’s the Ford defensive alignment,” said George Grande on FSN Cincinnati. El Molé heard it as “Here’s the poor defensive alignment.” After watching the Dodgers series in which the Reds threw away at least one if not two games based on bad fielding, I’m wondering whether El Molé might not have heard a Freudian slip.



This may turn into a season-defining series
Mets-Braves series this week: 6-1 Braves, 6-2 Braves, 11-4 Braves, 4-2 Braves. Perhaps the most telling statistic is the starters’ ERA. Mets: Maine-Vargas-Pelfrey-Santana, 7.65. Braves: Glavine-Campillo-Jurrjens-Hudson, 1.33. Wow.


Oh, no, TMQ, what are you thinking?
Gregg Easterbrook, AKA Tuesday Morning Quarterback, has gone off the deep end in his criticism of Bill Belichick. At first his characterization of the Patriots as the Embodiment of Evil was cute and mildly amusing. But TMQ has entered the realm of the absurd blowhard as he begs for a lifetime suspension for Bill B. Problems with his argument include the following:

1. Purpose… I’m all in favor of single-sanction discipline.[6] After all, that’s what we have at Woodberry Forest for honor offenses, alcohol, or drugs. And I have no problem with the single-sanction for what others may consider minor offenses. But consider… why do we discipline? So the offense never gets committed in the first place. Prevention requires foreknowledge of the serious consequence, not a retroactive whacking under external pressure. That is, if a lifetime suspension of Mr. Belichick were to do any good, everyone else in the league must truly believe that they too would be expelled for similar crimes. But, who thinks Grand Poobah Goodell would come down as hard on anyone else for another minor offense?

2. Inconsistency… Where is the line drawn? Single-sanction discipline especially must involve black-and-white issues. What else would, in Mr. Morning-Quarterback’s esteemed opinion, deserve banishment? Contacting free agents early? What about others who have taped signals in the past? What about steroids? Illegal taping and lying about it is worth a lifetime ban, but steroids, disingenuous excuses and apologies – which most likely include lies – are worth merely a four game ban? What would be next, TMQ, ejections for pass interference (which is cheating)?

3. This paragraph: “But a Mitchell Report for the NFL would cause this unpleasantness to drag on for years. And the situations are different. Steroid use in baseball was a problem of national scope, because home run hitters with instant biceps were causing teens and young adults to want to inject themselves with steroids, ignoring long-term health risks. Inaction on steroids in baseball could have caused long-term damage to public health. Plus, prior to George Mitchell's assignment, it seemed likely steroid use was pervasive in major league baseball, justifying an investigative commission with a sweeping mandate. With Spygate, the worst-case outcome is a decline of the NFL as America's favorite sport. If the NFL goes into a cycle of decline, this will be awful for those who love the sport, but have no impact on the nation as a whole. And unlike baseball, where signs of steroid use were many, there are no similar indications of pervasive cheating in the NFL. This suggests an independent commission to investigate pro football is not necessary."

Oh really, TMQ… read that last bit again (where the emphasis is mine). Here’s a list of indications of pervasive cheating in the NFL off the top of my head: Luis Castillo, Rodney Harrison, most of the Carolina Panthers 2003 team, Shawn Merriman, the Pittsburgh Steelers assistant who was linked to steroid distribution, 350-pound linemen, and so on. You really think that high school football players aren’t using steroids in imitation of NFL players? Then you are far, far more naive than I thought you were. Wow, TMQ, that was the all time stupidest paragraph you have ever written, I think.

Not that I disagree with TMQ's conclusion

An independent commission shouldn’t investigate pro football because congress has better things to do than to provide yet another set of televised hearings in which politicians grandstand about how much they care about the children. One of my three or four pet pieces of legislation would be to forbid televised footage of congressional discourse until everyone's term in office has expired.


Once again, another website says something better than the Nachoman ever could
Here’s the Boston Sports Media Watch blog discussing everything that’s been wrong with the coverage of spygate. Their scariest speculation: why the Patriots, and why Belichick? Because of access, or lack thereof. Never underestimate how full of themselves sportswriters are. Belichick is famously unfriendly and secretive around the media… thus, he gets far more criticism than those who are buddy-buddy with reporters.


Speaking of the Grand Poobah
El Molé informed me of the source of the term “Grand Poobah.” I always thought this was a Flintstones word, because the head of the Water Buffalo Lodge was the Grand Poobah. Yet, El Molé says that the term originated in Gilbert and Sullivan’s light opera, The Mikado.


Next week
The Nachoman asks if anyone other than Gilbert &Sullivan has ever authored a “light opera.” (Hint: Bronson Arroyo.)

[1] Which might well have been my late grandmother, who was constantly screaming at my grandfather to turn up his hearing aid. I myself have long been convinced that Papa was content with the volume low.
[2] Who is John Mayberry?
[3] And, since it’s an easy if speculative conclusion, New York papers have in fact jumped to it.
[4] “Valenzuela” is in Microsoft Word’s spellcheck dictionary, although “spellcheck” is not.
[5] At least, not in a way that came to the ear of the Nachoman
[6] That’s edu-speak for “Don’t do this, or you get kicked out of school / the league the very first time with no warning. Nyeh.”