OT baseball: oh how I hate hypocracy

[Gazoo]

Team 1 v. Team 2, game 1: pitcher walks 7 people, home team with the regular season's best record loses 7-2

Game 2: all 4 infielders make an error and their ace loses at home 10-3 as the regular season's best team goes down 0-2 in the series

If Team 1 is the Chicago Cubs, here's how it's spoken by ESPN and Peter Gammons: "They picked the wrong time of the year to make crucial mistakes, it's unfortunate because they're such a great team, this isn't over, they're still a great ballclub."

If Team 1 was the Tampa Bay Rays, here's how it would be spoken by ESPN and Peter Gammons: "They're a young team who felt the pressure of the playoffs and it showed when they made mistake after mistake after getting down 1-0 in the series, they had a good season but they're just not seasoned enough yet to win the big game, if they can keep their nucleus together maybe they'll be ready by next year."

I can't tell you how much I hate hypocracy.

[Flyer Hub]

Not sure I quite understand your point here Gazoo. Are you just not a Peter Gammons fan?

I feel real bad for the Cubs. They are in serious need right now of some shock treatment. I don't see them coming back to win 3 straight. Sweet Lou probably wants to rip his gut out watching his team fall apart at the worst possible time. Can't blame Steve Bartman this time around.

[Medford]

Umm... Didn't the Rays win their first game? How do you know what Peter & Co would have said?

I dislike the Cubbies (well actually the yuppified "lifelong" cub fans that have all of sudden showed up the last 5 years) as much as the next guy, but its kind of hard to compare what Gammons said about the Cubs (Did he actually say that) and what he might have said if the Rays showed the same performance.

[AC91]

actually you shouldn't blame bartman for the last time either. seems to me that i recall if the cubs were up 3-0 with one out and a man on second in the eighth when that poor guy instinctively reached for a foul ball. after that play, it was still 3-0 with one out and a man on second....Florida wins 8-3?!? How about making a pitch, fielding the ball and getting a guy out? Oh, and by the way, Apparently Chicago was up 5-3 in Game 7 of that series and couldn't hold on.

Yeah, blame the guy in the stands.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bartman

Also, I agree with Gazoo in principle about hypocrisy in reporting, but I can't support putting Peter Gammons in that bunch. He's about the only guy I look forward to hearing from to hear what's going on in baseball....

[Gazoo]

OK, I'm singling out Gammons because he's such an East Coast homer.

But, I'm really talking about talking heads in general. Baseball, basketball, heck life in general not just sports. Young economists who get things wrong are "overreacting due to their youth" while old ones "just made a mistake".

Just watch, if the Rays don't win against the Red Sox you'll hear all about how their youth was destined to work against them, they couldn't handle the pressure, etc. But if the Red Sox lose they just lost, no excuses.

I guess I'm saying there doesn't need to be attribution to every last detail. It's a game. Someone wins, someone loses. Stop trying ot attribute the loss to secondary and tertiery factors.

Played 1,000 times, the better team would win. They're playing 5. Let the losses go.

[Binnie Bombs 33]

Peter Gammons is one of the best writers/analyst in the game. He is in the hall of fame for a reason, he is one of the greatest ever.

Yes, he worked for the Globe forever so there is a bias towards the Sox a little bit. But have you seen him recall facts, stories, numbers from like 1965 in one second? Then put them into an article so quickly and easily.

The man is a genuis and a baseball god to those who want to be a sportswriter or analyst. There are few better to follow than Gammons.

When I broadcasted for the Cape Cod Baseball League I had the privalege of meeting Mr. Gammons ... the guy is insane. His knowledge is vast and the quick 10 minute conversation I had with him I picked up so much. The guy knows every players' name who ever played on the Cape League from like 1930 on ... it is ridiculous. Now-a-days I probably am writing about 5 articles a day for the college I work for and his quick tips have made my writing come so quickly and easily.

It is truely a gift to be able to write game stories and make them come alive for the reader, he did and continues to do so.

Do not bash one of the greatest, just because you don't live in the same area as him ... he writes stories for all teams and reports on all leagues. Of course there will be a tad bias when you are employed by a team for 30 years. But in his articles about other clubs you see no bias.

[Binnie Bombs 33]

As for your Cubs ...

My lord they are playing like they have a stick up their you know what. They are playing scared, it is like they believe in the curse ... you don't forget how to field a groundball, they are uptight.

The fans set a precedent in July that nothing short of sweeping everyone and winning the world series is acceptable ... it got into the players heads, they are not acting professionally on the field.

Here is the sad thing about the Cubs fans I know, they chirp in my ear all year how great they are and how no one will beat them. They boast the fact that they won 97 games and were great in the NL Central. They boast the fact they have Z, Harden and Dempster.

When I try to counter with ... well Harden never goes more than 5 or 6 innings because he tries to be a hardass and stike everyone out and not pitch to contact ... or dempster never has started a playoff game in his life ... or who cares about 97 wins in the regular season! They laugh.

The regular season wins mean nothing, all it does is give you a shot to play in October ... do people honestly think teams are scared of win totals? Everyone is 0-0 in the playoffs.

I laugh at the cocky Cubs fans ... how can they think they would dominate October? Did the last 100 years tell them anything? The fact is the Cubs are not an October built baseball team ... it is sad.


On the other hand look at a team like the Red Sox. They have been there before and play like it. Who cares if the Angels have 100 wins, are rested and totally healthy ... they imped in, Lowell and Drew can't walk and Beckett was scratched from game 1. What do they do? Walk into Anahiem and beat the snot out of them.

The game is played between the lines in October, not in July and not on paper.

[rollo]

Personally, I like Gammons so long as he sticks to baseball. I really don't care about his musical, political or hollywood opinions which he feels compelled to spew regularly.

I absolutely love Marty Brennaman, the Reds announcer, who has made it abundantly clear that he can't stand Gammons. I'd like to know why our Reds HOF'er has so much distain for ESPN's HOF'er.

[Flyer Hub]

Come on BB33 - show a little love for Lou and the Cubs. I mean, it's only been 100 years since their last World Series crown. The Red Sox and White Sox both recently broke their long jinks. Can't it now be the Cubbies turn? Forget about their yuppified fans. let them win one for Santo, Banks, Dawson, Jenkins, Sandberg and co.

[Binnie Bombs 33]

Hey, if you guys win ... I am happy for you, I understand it has been 100 years ... but here is the problem ... so do the players.


Rollo ... Espn hall of famer? He has been a Boston Globe Contributor since 1968 ... not to mention his magazine publications and Red Sox work ... don't lump him with Espn as a hall of famer ... he is the best on that network for baseball and he does it as a side project.

Also, don't know why someone wouldnt like him. I was a 21 yr old intern broadcasting and reporting ... and he took the time out to shake my hand and actually have a conversation of substance ... while tons of people were following and asking him for stuff.

This was right after his stroke as well and he was still at the Harwich game, this guy breahtes baseball.

[rollo]

I only called him an ESPN HOF'er because it's the only place people see him. Yeah, I know about his writing for the Globe but for most of us he'll be remembered for Baseball Tonite and SportsCenter, not the Boston Globe.

For the record, I'm rooting for the Red Sox for no other reason than I'd love to see Sean Casey finally win a World Series ring.

If not Sean and the Red Sox, I'm cheering for Griffey, Jr and the White Sox.

After that, as long as it isn't the Yankees, I don't care who wins.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by Binnie Bombs 33 On the other hand look at a team like the Red Sox. They have been there before and play like it. Who cares if the Angels have 100 wins, are rested and totally healthy ... they imped in, Lowell and Drew can't walk and Beckett was scratched from game 1. What do they do? Walk into Anahiem and beat the snot out of them.

Proving my point exactly. Talking heads say this stuff so much people believe it. The Red Sox won 2 straight games because they're professionals, been there before, experience means so much, blah blah blah. Nothing to do with randomness.

But if the Rays do the same or let's say win the world series, then you'll hear nothing about how important experience is. It's apparently important only ex-post when it proves a point the talking heads would like to make.

There's a ton of randomness in the game of baseball. The best team doesn't always win. The best team in baseball this year won only 60% of their games. That means that against the best AND WORST teams they only went 6-4 in every 10 games on average. Now they're playing only the best teams. That's proof that the Yankees can't dominate the game of baseball no matter how big their payroll is.

[rollo]

Originally Posted by Gazoo But if the Rays do the same or let's say win the world series, then you'll hear nothing about how important experience is.

If the Rays win, it'll be because they're too inexperienced to realize what type of pressure they were under, kinda like the 9-year old Chinese Olympic gymnastics team.

[CraSch]

Gazoo,
Let me twist your comments to basketball, and you tell me if this fits your comments with these 2 examples.

Duke gets to the Elite 8 then loses when they go 2-21 from 3 and miss a key free throw. You're claiming the talking heads would say "Duke sure picked a bad time to have an off shooting night, but what a great program".

Dayton gets to the Elite 8 then loses when they go 2-21 from 3 and miss a key free throw. You're claiming the talking heads would say "Dayton has gone the furthest it has ever been since the 1960's, and the increased pressure of being in the unusual position of reaching these later rounds definitely got to them today".

Basically, substitute "Cubs" or "Red Sox" for Duke and substitute "Rays" for "Dayton". Simply put, your claiming the talking heads always support the "big names" in crisis but state the "little guys" simply couldn't handle the big time.

Is the path you were taking? If so, I completely, absolutely understand your point and totally agree.

[Binnie Bombs 33]

90 percent of the time the little guys can't handle the big time in sports.

Meaning they are right more than they are wrong.

[Gazoo]

Originally Posted by CraSch Gazoo, Let me twist your comments to basketball, and you tell me if this fits your comments with these 2 examples. Duke gets to the Elite 8 then loses when they go 2-21 from 3 and miss a key free throw. You're claiming the talking heads would say "Duke sure picked a bad time to have an off shooting night, but what a great program". Dayton gets to the Elite 8 then loses when they go 2-21 from 3 and miss a key free throw. You're claiming the talking heads would say "Dayton has gone the furthest it has ever been since the 1960's, and the increased pressure of being in the unusual position of reaching these later rounds definitely got to them today". Basically, substitute "Cubs" or "Red Sox" for Duke and substitute "Rays" for "Dayton". Simply put, your claiming the talking heads always support the "big names" in crisis but state the "little guys" simply couldn't handle the big time. Is the path you were taking? If so, I completely, absolutely understand your point and totally agree.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

And BB, I would say there are 2 reasons why the little guys more often than not lose.

1. Simple math. There are more big guys in the elite 8 every year, so if you're going to take the field (7/8) over a single team (1/8) you're going to be right the vast majority of the time. Even if you took Duke in the Elite 8 every year they made it, you would be wrong more often than you're right.

2. Because the little guy usually is simply not quite as good / deep. It has nothing to do with whether or not they could handle the pressure or were less experienced.

[KiefaberAlum08]

Originally Posted by Binnie Bombs 33 Yes, he worked for the Globe forever so there is a bias towards the Sox a little bit. .

A little biased? The man is as objective about the Red Sox as Keith Olberman is about politics. Although I respect him for being a great scholar of the game, he's New England roots show through quiet frequently.

As for the divisional series, I have to agree with Bob Costas on his national radio show this morning. Shorten the regular season back to 154 games, and length the division series to a best of 7.

And the Cubs? Sorry guys I used to feel bad for you, but you're just as annoying as Boston fans were in 2004. Sorry there is no curse; only one of my teams has won a championship in my lifetime, and you don't hear me complaining.