Terry Francona (Boston manager) was upset this last week, when right in the middle of an inning during a game against the Yankees, someone from MLB offices summoned him from the dugout to see if he was wearing the proper uniform under his windbreaker. Bad timing by the MLB fashion police.
But this just adds fuel to a bigger fire. Why are managers required to wear uniforms? There are no other sports where coaches are required to wear the same uniforms as the players. It would be comical to see Phil Jackson sport a Lakers uniform while he coached or Bill Parcels wear the footbal pants just over the knees.
You see, the baseball uniform is designed for an athlete who poses a body in supreme athletic condition. Thats why guys like David Wells wear giant baggy uniforms. So when you have out-of-shape coaches who are aged and have large bellies, it is not good for them to wear a uniform! Allow these to wear slacks and a polo at least.
They even have this silly rule at the high school level. When I coached, I always felt a little silly in the tight white pants. Yet the rule book stated I could not coach third base without the uniform. In fact during one game I had an umpire tell me to take off a red and white Reebok jacket because "I didn't coach the Reeboks."
There are two places that have it right: Softball coaches are not forced to wear the uniform and little league coaches are not forced. Can you imagine the Little League World Series with coaches wearing the full uniform?
On behalf of coaches of the next generation...someone stand up against this rule!
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
No throws needed for IBB
Technically it isn't necessary for a pitcher to make any pitches for an intentional walk. According to the rules, anytime a pitcher touches his hand to his mouth while on the mound the umpire shall declare a ball to the batter. Instead of throwing 4 pitches to the catcher standing up, why not just touch your hand to your mouth 4 times. It is not a balk and you save 4 pitches from your pitch count.
Only 2 potential problems:
1. In cold weather games there is no penalty for touching your hand to your mouth.
2. Repeat offenders can be fined by the league president.
Only 2 potential problems:
1. In cold weather games there is no penalty for touching your hand to your mouth.
2. Repeat offenders can be fined by the league president.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
CBS Golf - Make some cutbacks
I watched Tiger Woods take his 13th major this weekend at the PGA Championship played in Tulsa. I enjoy CBS coverage and I think they have a great team covering the analysis. I especially like the hiring of Nick Faldo into the coveted #2 position next to Jim Nantz in the 18th tower. I wasn't too fond of Lanny Wadkins in that spot over the last few years.
CBS also does well with its star roving reporter, David Feherty, covering the final group.
They also have Peter Kostis doing swing analysis - OK, not a bad thing.
They also have funny man Gary McCord traditionally stationed at the 16th tower. OK - fine.
They also have Peter Oosterhouse and his British accent stationed at the 17th tower. Very well then.
They also lured Ian Baker-Finch away from ABC. Maybe he hides in the 15th tower.
So far that makes 7 guys covering the broadcast. That is too many. How can anyone get a word in? But CBS went further for this major.
CBS covers The Master's every April and Augusta National Golf Club has banned CBS from using Gary McCord for its broadcast because of some comments he made on air some time back. So for the Masters, CBS brings in Verne Lundquist to take the 16th tower for McCord. For the PGA Championship, CBS had McCord AND Lundquist - that makes 8.
But CBS also lets their interview man, Bill Macatee, get a piece of the broadcast action also. That makes 9.
I could do without Macatee. Not a smooth voice. CBS makes their money having McCord and Feherty joke with each other with Kostis and Oosterhouse playing the straight men. Now they bring over Faldo and they have a sort of all-star team. Baker-Finch does a great job, but there is no room for him.
My suggestion: Put Baker-Finch, Lundquist, and Macatee on the bench and leave more air time for your high paid all-stars.
CBS also does well with its star roving reporter, David Feherty, covering the final group.
They also have Peter Kostis doing swing analysis - OK, not a bad thing.
They also have funny man Gary McCord traditionally stationed at the 16th tower. OK - fine.
They also have Peter Oosterhouse and his British accent stationed at the 17th tower. Very well then.
They also lured Ian Baker-Finch away from ABC. Maybe he hides in the 15th tower.
So far that makes 7 guys covering the broadcast. That is too many. How can anyone get a word in? But CBS went further for this major.
CBS covers The Master's every April and Augusta National Golf Club has banned CBS from using Gary McCord for its broadcast because of some comments he made on air some time back. So for the Masters, CBS brings in Verne Lundquist to take the 16th tower for McCord. For the PGA Championship, CBS had McCord AND Lundquist - that makes 8.
But CBS also lets their interview man, Bill Macatee, get a piece of the broadcast action also. That makes 9.
I could do without Macatee. Not a smooth voice. CBS makes their money having McCord and Feherty joke with each other with Kostis and Oosterhouse playing the straight men. Now they bring over Faldo and they have a sort of all-star team. Baker-Finch does a great job, but there is no room for him.
My suggestion: Put Baker-Finch, Lundquist, and Macatee on the bench and leave more air time for your high paid all-stars.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
HBP and Umpire Warnings
Something very interesting is going on in baseball concerning batters getting hit and umpires giving teams the warning and MLB will need to address this soon.
Here's what happens: If the umpire feels like a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, he warns both benches, and if it happens again, the pitcher and his manager get ejected from the game.
But watch what happens. Because of the culture of modern baseball, a batter feels like everytime he gets hit, it must have been intentional. So the response of the batter is influencing the umpire on whether or not the HBP was intentional.
So look at the power a batter can have now: It's the top of the first and your star #3 hitter gets plunked on an inside fastball. There was nothing intentional by the pitcher - it was inside and got away. But...if you tell your star #3 hitter to make a scene out of it, he will have power over the whole situation. If the batter charges the mound and fights, he will get ejected, so you don't want him to do that. You just have him say a few words to the pitcher, give the catcher time to get out and stop him, the benches might clear - one of the quasi-fights we see so often. Nobody will get ejected in this situation but the umpire will be forced to give the warning to both benches so that nothing gets out of hand!
Even though the warning goes to both pitchers, it especially holds true for the pitcher who just hit the batter. That pitcher can no longer pitch inside or run the batter off the plate or even hit a batter without getting ejected. He is forced to throw outside and the opposing lineup knows it. They are diving over the plate crushing every pitch and if the pitcher wants to keep them honest by throwing inside - he'll get ejected.... all because the star#3 hitter made a fake scene after he got hit earlier.
If the star #3 hitter would have just ran to first after he got hit, like a mature, real player should, none of this would happen. No warnings, no nothing. But because the player acted like a selfish, overpayed baby, he controls the potential outcome of the game.
Here's what happens: If the umpire feels like a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, he warns both benches, and if it happens again, the pitcher and his manager get ejected from the game.
But watch what happens. Because of the culture of modern baseball, a batter feels like everytime he gets hit, it must have been intentional. So the response of the batter is influencing the umpire on whether or not the HBP was intentional.
So look at the power a batter can have now: It's the top of the first and your star #3 hitter gets plunked on an inside fastball. There was nothing intentional by the pitcher - it was inside and got away. But...if you tell your star #3 hitter to make a scene out of it, he will have power over the whole situation. If the batter charges the mound and fights, he will get ejected, so you don't want him to do that. You just have him say a few words to the pitcher, give the catcher time to get out and stop him, the benches might clear - one of the quasi-fights we see so often. Nobody will get ejected in this situation but the umpire will be forced to give the warning to both benches so that nothing gets out of hand!
Even though the warning goes to both pitchers, it especially holds true for the pitcher who just hit the batter. That pitcher can no longer pitch inside or run the batter off the plate or even hit a batter without getting ejected. He is forced to throw outside and the opposing lineup knows it. They are diving over the plate crushing every pitch and if the pitcher wants to keep them honest by throwing inside - he'll get ejected.... all because the star#3 hitter made a fake scene after he got hit earlier.
If the star #3 hitter would have just ran to first after he got hit, like a mature, real player should, none of this would happen. No warnings, no nothing. But because the player acted like a selfish, overpayed baby, he controls the potential outcome of the game.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
You've got to want it
It is funny when coaches yell at their players during a close game, "You got to want it more than them!" I'm not sure exactly what this means. Maybe nobody does.
The statement questions the player's desire. It is true that some players, regardless of their talent, don't care if the team wins or not. But if a player doesn't care, a speech is not going to make him care. But it doesn't matter, because careless players can sometime be more successful in a pressure situation precisely because they do not care.
But lets say a good speech by the coach does make everyone care. The same speech can be given by the opposing coach at the same time. Every player on the team "wants" the win as much as the other guy but someone still has to lose. In this case the player had desire and still lost.
So it is just as likely for the team that doesn't want it as much to win.
But...the losing coach will still yell at his team that they didn't "want" it as much as the winning team. Maybe if the team yelled a cheer as loud as they could - then they would have the "want" that it takes to win the game.
The statement questions the player's desire. It is true that some players, regardless of their talent, don't care if the team wins or not. But if a player doesn't care, a speech is not going to make him care. But it doesn't matter, because careless players can sometime be more successful in a pressure situation precisely because they do not care.
But lets say a good speech by the coach does make everyone care. The same speech can be given by the opposing coach at the same time. Every player on the team "wants" the win as much as the other guy but someone still has to lose. In this case the player had desire and still lost.
So it is just as likely for the team that doesn't want it as much to win.
But...the losing coach will still yell at his team that they didn't "want" it as much as the winning team. Maybe if the team yelled a cheer as loud as they could - then they would have the "want" that it takes to win the game.
Pickoff help
One thing that has always bothered me about high school and college baseball is when coaches require their bench players to yell "Back" when the opposing pitcher makes a pick-off attempt at first base. Is this actually helping? The runner is watching the pitcher. The bench is watching the pitcher. When the pitcher makes his move, the player should be making his move back to first. By the time the bench recognizes the pick-off, the baserunner is already in motion. If the baserunner waits to listen for the bench to help, it'll be too late.
If the bench's yell was actually of profit, then it would be fine for the player to take his lead-off with his eyes closed and just wait for the bench to tell him to get back.
If the bench's yell was actually of profit, then it would be fine for the player to take his lead-off with his eyes closed and just wait for the bench to tell him to get back.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Steroids and Kids
There is a commercial that airs during games to prevent kids from getting into steroids. They show a clay statue that crumbles into pieces - a picture of what will happen to you if you ever use steroids. (Very similar to the famous anti-drug commercial with the fried egg: "This your brain, this is your brain on drugs.") The message is: don't use steroids or your body will fall apart and you may die.
There are two problems with this commercial. First, where are all the athletes that are dying from steroid use? We have the Lyle Alzado case, but not many others. The problem here is, at the moment, the ratio of steroid users to people dying from steroids is very high. In fact, that is why so many people use steroids in the first place. The risk for death is extremely low. All these people who make these commercials scaring kids out of steroids would probably get more kids scared if what they claimed were actually true. But the evidence is not there. It is funny though; if the evidence were there - if steroid users were dying - fewer athletes would use steroids because of the risk, and they wouldn't need these commercials. I guess that make the commercial useless.
The second problem is the reasoning. It is a problem very typical of American culture. If you want kids to stray from steroids, make the motivation not about health, make the motivation about morality. Tell kids to not do steroids because it is WRONG. Tell kids to not do steroids because it is CHEATING. Not because their body will fail. This is the problem. People are not motivated by morality. Ask a kid why he will not do drugs. He will tell you they are bad for his body, or because he wants to be a doctor. They will not say, "Because they are against the law," or "because I want to be a good citizen."
But on the positive, the people who make the commercials can feel good about themselves that they tried.
There are two problems with this commercial. First, where are all the athletes that are dying from steroid use? We have the Lyle Alzado case, but not many others. The problem here is, at the moment, the ratio of steroid users to people dying from steroids is very high. In fact, that is why so many people use steroids in the first place. The risk for death is extremely low. All these people who make these commercials scaring kids out of steroids would probably get more kids scared if what they claimed were actually true. But the evidence is not there. It is funny though; if the evidence were there - if steroid users were dying - fewer athletes would use steroids because of the risk, and they wouldn't need these commercials. I guess that make the commercial useless.
The second problem is the reasoning. It is a problem very typical of American culture. If you want kids to stray from steroids, make the motivation not about health, make the motivation about morality. Tell kids to not do steroids because it is WRONG. Tell kids to not do steroids because it is CHEATING. Not because their body will fail. This is the problem. People are not motivated by morality. Ask a kid why he will not do drugs. He will tell you they are bad for his body, or because he wants to be a doctor. They will not say, "Because they are against the law," or "because I want to be a good citizen."
But on the positive, the people who make the commercials can feel good about themselves that they tried.
Friday, August 3, 2007
NBA Timeouts
The value of timeouts in the NBA and even a bit in the NCAA has been diminished due to the increase in TV timeouts. You know they have been diminished when you see players scambling for loose balls and screaming for a timeout at the same time. If the timeout is granted, the player is praised for making a good play. You know teams have too many timeouts when they can waste one on a loose ball.
A timeout should have more value than a possession. In other words, when a player is about to fall out of bounds and he calls a timeout, the timeouts should be few enough where it would be better to lose the possession and save the timeout for a late game situation.
Compare NBA timeouts to NFL timeouts. Outside of 2-minute offenses, have you ever seen an NFL coach happy about calling a timeout? No. That's because with only 3 timeouts per half, they have more value in the NFL. Those NFL timeouts are precious for the end of the game. I would like to see the same in the NBA. Players can rest during TV timeouts and be forced to save the timeouts for the final minutes.
A timeout should have more value than a possession. In other words, when a player is about to fall out of bounds and he calls a timeout, the timeouts should be few enough where it would be better to lose the possession and save the timeout for a late game situation.
Compare NBA timeouts to NFL timeouts. Outside of 2-minute offenses, have you ever seen an NFL coach happy about calling a timeout? No. That's because with only 3 timeouts per half, they have more value in the NFL. Those NFL timeouts are precious for the end of the game. I would like to see the same in the NBA. Players can rest during TV timeouts and be forced to save the timeouts for the final minutes.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Appealing a called strike
On a check swing when the plate umpire calls a ball, the catcher can appeal for the umpire down the line for help. (Its funny that the catcher can only get that appeal if the home plate ump grants it.) The plate umpire thinks he has it right - they only appeal if the catcher asks. The assumption is the plate umpire is humble and generous and admits he might have missed it - lets ask the gentleman down the line if he got a better view.
My question is, why does the catcher have to appeal? Why can't the umpire down the line just make the call if the plate umpire missed it? Don't they want the right call anyways? You could actually have a situation where the line ump sees a strike after the plate ump called a ball and if the catcher never asks for an appeal, the game goes on with a missed call. This is ridiculous. Eliminate appeals. Just let the line ump correct a call without the catcher asking.
In this line of thinking, the opposite should also be true. Sometimes the batter has a close check swing. The plate ump points at the batter and calls a strike. Shouldn't the batter be able to ask the line ump for an appeal like the catcher can? The situation is no different. In both cases the plate ump thinks he's right. Why is it that he can only get help to correct a ball?
My question is, why does the catcher have to appeal? Why can't the umpire down the line just make the call if the plate umpire missed it? Don't they want the right call anyways? You could actually have a situation where the line ump sees a strike after the plate ump called a ball and if the catcher never asks for an appeal, the game goes on with a missed call. This is ridiculous. Eliminate appeals. Just let the line ump correct a call without the catcher asking.
In this line of thinking, the opposite should also be true. Sometimes the batter has a close check swing. The plate ump points at the batter and calls a strike. Shouldn't the batter be able to ask the line ump for an appeal like the catcher can? The situation is no different. In both cases the plate ump thinks he's right. Why is it that he can only get help to correct a ball?
Another quirky baseball rule
It is funny how first base is in fair territory and the runners lane to first is in foul territory. Often times on bunts to the right side you see the runner ruled out for not running in his lane...even though first base isn't even in the lane. This is especially difficult for a right handed batter who is already on the wrong side of the lane to start. He must get in his lane and then swipe first base as he goes by? Then the runner and firstbaseman must both have a foot on the base as the runner goes by. Tight squeeze.
Maybe beer league softball is on to something by having 2 first bases next to each other. It kills to birds with one stone.
Maybe beer league softball is on to something by having 2 first bases next to each other. It kills to birds with one stone.
Sliding at First Base
I hear so many announcers criticize players for the head first slide at 1st base while running out a grounder. They very confidently state sliding slows the player down. What bothers me is you usually hear something like this to support their argument: "You never see a sprinter dive across the finish line." Sliding at 1st may or may not be slower but the sprinter comparison is illogical. Sprinters are racing across an imaginary finish line that stretches up to top of the runners. Baseball players do not have this imaginary line. Their target is a fixed base on the ground. A sprinter finishes when any part of his body crosses the line. If they changed the rules of sprinting so that to finish the racer must touch a base, maybe we would see more sprinters diving. Now that would spice up the sport.
Complaints about Baseball Announcers
There are biased announcers and there are objective announcers. And it is difficult to listen to a biased announcer, esepecially for a team you don't like.
Probably some of the most biased come from the Atlanta Braves: Skip Carey, Chip Carey, Joe Simpson and all the rest. I can honestly say that one of the main reasons I abhor the Braves more than any other team is because of their biased announcing. This should be the one team that has objective announcing. The Ted Turner owned braves telecast many of their games on TBS - a national cable channel. Probably no other team has more out of market fans watching than the Braves. Many, like me, watch Braves games on TBS because we like watching baseball, not because we like the Braves.
I know the announcer are employees of their team's organization, but must they always include themselves with the team. "WE need to score a few runs..." "WE need a strikeout here..." Must they call the players by their first names? I can understand if the player is a superstar - we all know who Tiger, Michael, LeBron, Barry, and Ichiro are; but please..."Nice play by Andrew"?
The Angels announcers are similar. Steve Physioc and Rex Hudler - please save your home team cheering for home. Bring some objectivity to the booth.
I don't like the Giants, but Jon Miller's radio broadcast could be the most objective around.
Other announcers come across as "big time." There is an arogance that comes through the mic. An attitude that they are the final say in any subjective topic. Joe Buck comes across this way to me. (Interestingly enough, so does Troy Aikmen in football and they share the same booth.)
Give me somebody smart, humble, and honest. Some guys don't tell the truth either because they dumb down the broadcast for kids or they protect the relationship they share with players. Others are very generic in the things they say.
Orel Hershiser does a great job of being smart, humble, and honest. Eric Karros is very generic.
And will somebody please out bid FOX for the postseason?! If I have to listen to Jeannie Zelasco try to give a pregame analysis one more time...
Probably some of the most biased come from the Atlanta Braves: Skip Carey, Chip Carey, Joe Simpson and all the rest. I can honestly say that one of the main reasons I abhor the Braves more than any other team is because of their biased announcing. This should be the one team that has objective announcing. The Ted Turner owned braves telecast many of their games on TBS - a national cable channel. Probably no other team has more out of market fans watching than the Braves. Many, like me, watch Braves games on TBS because we like watching baseball, not because we like the Braves.
I know the announcer are employees of their team's organization, but must they always include themselves with the team. "WE need to score a few runs..." "WE need a strikeout here..." Must they call the players by their first names? I can understand if the player is a superstar - we all know who Tiger, Michael, LeBron, Barry, and Ichiro are; but please..."Nice play by Andrew"?
The Angels announcers are similar. Steve Physioc and Rex Hudler - please save your home team cheering for home. Bring some objectivity to the booth.
I don't like the Giants, but Jon Miller's radio broadcast could be the most objective around.
Other announcers come across as "big time." There is an arogance that comes through the mic. An attitude that they are the final say in any subjective topic. Joe Buck comes across this way to me. (Interestingly enough, so does Troy Aikmen in football and they share the same booth.)
Give me somebody smart, humble, and honest. Some guys don't tell the truth either because they dumb down the broadcast for kids or they protect the relationship they share with players. Others are very generic in the things they say.
Orel Hershiser does a great job of being smart, humble, and honest. Eric Karros is very generic.
And will somebody please out bid FOX for the postseason?! If I have to listen to Jeannie Zelasco try to give a pregame analysis one more time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
