The Biggest Officiating Screw Up Debate… The Play That Won The White Sox The World Series

June 9, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

 

As a child, the song “Take Me Out To the Ballgame” lied to me. It taught me that, “…it’s one, two, three strikes you’re out at the old ball game”, but sometimes that is not the case.

In the case of a dropped third strike, the batter can run to first base and must be thrown or tagged out. Normally this is no big deal, as even speedsters are usually retired with ease on this routine play. But during the 2005 American League Championship Series (ALCS) this play was anything but ordinary.

Going into the bottom of the ninth inning during Game Two of the series, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim were all knotted up with the Whites Sox at 1-1. The Angels were hoping to pull ahead in extra innings and take a 2-0 lead in the ALCS back West to Anaheim, where they figured to make short work of finishing off the upstart Sox and heading to the World Series. Ozzie Guillen’s wily White Sox ballclub had other plans.

Reliever Kelvim Escobar had successfully retired the first two batters and was looking to send the game into extra innings when the Chicago White Sox batter A.J. Pierzynski stepped into the box.

Pierzynski worked the at-bat to a full count, and on the payoff pitch he swung and missed. Normally this would signify the end of the inning and mean free baseball for the fans (because after all, you pay for nine innings, and anything else is a sweet bonus), but that is not how things transpired. The Angels’ catcher, Josh Paul, gloved the ball just before it hit the dirt, tossed the ball out toward the mound, and headed toward the dugout for what he thought would be the top of the tenth inning.

That’s when things got crazy. Pierzynski broke for first base, and with the Angels trotting toward the visitors’ dugout he made it easily.

Pierzynski, a catcher, knew that on a dropped third strike he would have to be thrown or tagged out, so he tested it. Lo and behold he got the call. Home plate umpire Don Eddings had clearly closed his fist signifying strike three, and with no cry of “No Catch!” allowed Pierzynski to take the base virtually without a play.

Throughout a lengthy huddle between Eddings and his fellow umpires, interrupted by a protest from opposing manager and former catcher, Mike Scioscia, Pierzynski remained on first. When all the talk was finished, the call stood.

Replays clearly showed that, although the tip of Paul’s glove dipped into the dirt, he caught the ball cleanly. The call was blown and the Angels were about to pay for it in a big way.

The Sox brought in a pinch-runner, Pablo Ozuna, who immediately stole second base uncontested. Then the South-Siders’ third baseman, Joe Crede drove in Ozuna to win the game.

The chain of events starting with the controversial Pierzynski at-bat led to a run of dominance that did not end until the White Sox won the World Series, as the previous night’s loss to the Angels ended up being the last Chicago loss of the postseason. This one blown call completely changed the game, and the momentum shift potentially changed the outcome of the series. Pierzynski defended his actions and Eddings stood by his call, but regardless, the damage was done.

Don’t get me wrong, I fully support Pierzynski’s try anything, win at all costs hustle, but the officiating crew could have and should have gotten this one right. Although they did not have the aid of replay, they didn’t need it. Eddings made the call and rung Pierzynski up. There was no call or signal to the Angels that the ball might still have been live, and the whole team was headed off the field.

It seems like the ump got caught sleeping on a player who was attempting to become an opportunist.

This should not have happened. There have been countless cries for the expansion of replay since the whole Galarraga drama unraveled recently, but that game did not have championship consequences that this one did. If Bud Selig were ever going to expand the use of replay, then would have been the perfect time, after a blown call that actually mattered.

This costly and controversial call was performed on one of baseball’s biggest stages, and might very well have altered the course of the postseason.

Somehow the lyric “For its one, two, three strikes and sometimes you may be awarded first base” does not exactly have the same ring to it, but that is how things went down on the night of the biggest blown call of all time.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Biggest Officiating Screw Up Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Coaching Authority Debate Verdict

June 9, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

Coaches have a great deal of responsibility heaped onto their shoulders.

While they do not actively participate in the on-field action, they are nonetheless responsible for the outcome of the game. That responsibility comes partly in the way of developing strategy and evaluating in-game situations to determine the best approach for execution of the strategy.

More importantly, though, it requires the coach to prepare their athletes, both mentally and physically, for the rigors of the event they are about to undertake. Coaches are required to train and develop their team, constantly challenging them to be better today than they were yesterday, and as the level of competition increases, so does the level of expectation that must be met by the athletes.

Fabio Capello, manager for England’s National Soccer Team, has banned sexual activity for his athletes, and plans to enforce that ban through surveillance technology. His intention is to keep his team physically focused, and minimize the exposure of extra-curricular physical activity. Based on the arguments presented through debating whether or not Capello’s actions are acceptable, I am awarding this verdict to Babe Ruthless.

As pointed out by Babe Ruthless, policies prohibiting fraternization are not new to athletics. In fact, this anti-fraternization policy may not be as rare as you think. Is this really any different from training camp, where many (if not all) teams require that their athletes bunk together in dormitories, leaving their families behind for extended periods of time?

While the prohibition of sex with their significant others at training camp may not be explicitly stated, often times it is nonetheless implied and enforced as a byproduct of each athlete’s forced seclusion from their families.

Socializing of any kind is often perceived as a distraction, and the coach has the responsibility to limit distraction as much as possible.

To Loyal Homer’s point, Capello’s decision to enforce the ban through the use of surveillance comes off a bit creepy. Creepy, however, does not equal inappropriate.

As athletes climb the ranks of competition and reach higher levels of play, they must consequently make greater sacrifices, both in their commitment of time, and in the transparency of what they do.

When an athlete has committed to compete at a level that requires the absolute highest degrees of human athleticism, they are obligated to take every possible measure to ensure that they maintain their peak physical condition.

While Bob, the second-baseman for your work softball team may get by with no practice, a bad diet, and exercise that falls somewhere in the range of sparse and non-existent, that regimen simply would not cut it for the world class athlete.

Where Bob’s training may involve a Philly Cheesesteak, two beers, a Marlboro, and five jumping-jacks (accompanied by pained wheezing, panting, and profuse sweating), the world class athlete must spend HOURS in the gym every day. Once the gym time is complete, drills and practices are executed, and that is followed by film study. Adding to the physical demands is a specially customized diet that is designed to maximize the athlete’s health, strength, and stamina.

To ensure compliance with all those regulations, the athlete is supervised and tested while they exercise and study. They are measured and weighed, poked and prodded, all in an effort to validate the success or failure of that athlete’s commitment to training and development.

Likewise, drug use and steroids are prohibited, and enforcement of those policies can be far more invasive than simply using a camera to check in on what the team is doing.

Capello’s use of camera technology is just a hi-tech version of knocking on his players’ doors and peering in. He is not using the cameras in any covert manner, his players are aware that they are being monitored, and they have not been asked to comply with any illicit or illegal requests. Capello just wants to make sure that his team is in the best possible condition, as they will be representing their entire country in front of the whole world in sports single greatest competition.

The ban and its enforcement may seem extreme, but so is the level of expectation that these athletes must meet. If Capello, as coach and leader for the team, feels that enforcement of this ban will help make his team better, then he is well within his rights to implement it.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Coaching Authority Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Coaching Authority Debate

June 8, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

Distractions can be a bad thing to a team, especially as they prepare for a major game or tournament. Part of the head coach’s job throughout that preparation, therefore, is to help their team remain focused through prevention and elimination of as many distractions as possible.

During the 2010 ACC and March Madness Basketball Tournaments, for example, Georgia Tech coach Paul Hewitt banned the use of cell phones with his team to eliminate just such a distraction.

Whether the cell phone ban had any direct impact on their performance or not may never be proven (although they were relatively successful throughout the postseason), but it surely couldn’t have hurt anything.

So as Soccer Teams from around the world continue their preparation for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, it should be expected that coaches around the world are also doing their parts to minimize distractions from the game.

But can that effort be taken too far?

For the English team, head coach Fabio Capello has actually banned sex for his athletes.

To support that ban, he has restricted the amount of fraternization time that his players are permitted with their wives, girlfriends, and significant others to no more than one day, upon the conclusion of each match they play. He has also promised, should his team progress deeper into the tournament, that the restrictions will increase, and fraternization time will be further limited.

Taking that ban a step further, it is reported that he will actually use the televisions in his athlete’s hotel rooms for surveillance, spying on them to ensure enforcement of his no-sex ban.

All of this brings us to our question of the day – Is this level of coaching authority providing too much control for a coach?

To what limits should a coach be allowed to control the off-field actions of their teams?

Babe Ruthless will argue that this level of control is completely acceptable, and that ball-handling should be reserved strictly for the field (hey-oh!), while Loyal Homer will argue that Capello has gone too far, and that some boundaries have to be set even for coaches.

I guess cold showers just aren’t good enough anymore!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Coaching Authority Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Coaching Authority Debate… Too Much Authority Hurts The Team

June 8, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Some of you may have missed the topic we are debating today as it came across the wire last week. I certainly had missed it until our judge today pointed it out to us, as only he could, and it is one you are sure to enjoy (Editor’s Note – No one on the English Soccer Team will, though!). England Soccer coach Fabio Capello, in preparation for the upcoming World Cup in South Africa, has told his players that any sexual activity will be banned during the duration of the World Cup.

The ban also includes limited contact with wives and girlfriends, and Coach Capello will be able to monitor any possible shenanigans in the hotel rooms through the OBVIOUSLY high-definition televisions in the room.

No, this is not a World Cup version of Big Brother. This is really happening, and it is obviously a terrible idea!

Once you get over the laughter, you surely realize this is a ridiculous idea, and hopefully, the judge for the debate will realize the absurdity of it. Does any coach deserve this type of authority? It is quite normal for a coach to issue a curfew for players the night before a big game, and more times than not, that curfew is not broken by the players. If the curfew is broken, you will usually see the offending player suspended for at least part of the next game. The official statement would be something to the effect of “The player was suspended for a violation of team rules.”

Activity with one’s spouse inside the comforts of a private hotel room is not a violation. Banning that activity, though, is a violation. A violation of privacy!

These athletes participating in the World Cup are adults. Coach Capello is not their daddy (Editor’s Note again – Who IS their daddy? I couldn’t help myself), he is essentially their boss. Step back for a moment and visualize a business trip that you and your boss take. Maybe your wife tags along for the ride.

You and your wife obviously have a different room than your boss. Yet, somehow he has gotten the IT manager at the hotel to orchestrate a private feed where he is able to see what goes on between you and your wife.

Maybe your boss is a pervert.

Maybe Capello is a pervert.

Nonetheless, it is an invasion of privacy, even if the only the thing that goes on in your room is of you surfing the web on your laptop while she reads the most recent edition of Cosmo.

Perhaps your boss feels the same way that Capello feels in that all energy should be conserved, and maybe your boss feels that you can’t close the deal at the meeting the following morning if you spend too much time with your spouse, just as Capello feels his players might not have as much energy on the field the following day.

It is ridiculous isn’t it?

Capello is doing something unique in this situation, and that is not meant as a compliment. Teams are supposed to be coming together in situations like this. Is this really going to be something that helps Team England? Time will tell, but I highly doubt it.

The coach has to control his team, obviously, and it is his job to win the game, match, or tournament. But there is a line he must not cross, and by dictating the activity – or lack of activity – in a private hotel room, he is crossing the line and threatening to hurt team cohesiveness.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Coaching Authority Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Coaching Authority Debate… Feels Great When You Wait

June 8, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

With the World Cup just days away, England’s manager, Fabio Capello, has his team on a lovemaking lockdown. That’s right, in efforts to reduce distraction and exhaustion, Capello is limiting player visits with girlfriends and wives (and let’s be honest about it… mistresses too) to the night following matches with no overnight stays permitted. The coach has prohibited sex for the duration of the tournament.

To enforce the ban, Capello plans on observing the players sex lives, or lack thereof, via high-tech two way television sets in his players’ hotel rooms. Aside from ensuring that Big Ben Roethlisberger will never play soccer for the English, the policy will also provide the coach 24-hour access to his squad, and will assure him the best On Demand movie channels in the hotel.

I, for one, tip my cap to Mr. Capello. He is one of the few coaches that actually gets it -specifically by ensuring that the more his player don’t “get it”, the better they will play. Sure the room cameras may seem a little peeping tom-esque, but it is all in the name of winning for his country.

British sprinter Linford Christie stated that knocking boots (or in his case track shoes) took its toll on him. He described the side effects as making his legs feel like lead. The guy obviously must have been onto something because he was dominant on the track, where he won gold medals at the Olympics, World Championships, European Games, and Commonwealth Games. Muhammad Ali was known to abstain from sex six weeks before a fight, and I think it worked out pretty well for him. Seriously, would you want to climb into the ring with a mean Muhammad Ali who’s been sexually frustrated for more than a month?

In the movie Rocky, Rock’s trainer Mick gave him words to live by that ring especially true for this debate–“women weaken legs!” It’s true. I don’t care what the “research” says, fooling around before the big game is not a good idea. It is just something that a lot of guys have a gut feeling about, which has to count for something. Seriously, when else do you hear men voluntarily avoid sex? I do not think so many guys would support the notion if it did not have some validity. Ultimately, if it was good enough for Rocky Balboa, then its good enough for me.

Although I am sure my competitor for this debate, Loyal Homer, will try to argue that research is on his side, it really is not. The research supporting sex before a big game is ambiguous at best.

For the most part there was a general consensus that making the beast with two backs mere minutes or hours before a sporting event was a bad idea, but the issue became admittedly more debatable when the time frame was bumped back to the night before an event. But for every article I found which stated that pre-game sex held no negative side effects for athletes, there was usually a concession that abstinence also held benefits.

For example, a study which suggested that sex prior to sports could provide benefits by relaxing the participants also conceded the fact that abstinence could also help improve athletes’ focus. Similarly, the same study suggested that sex helped to fight muscle pain (specifically in women), but I also found counter arguments that strenuous positions during sex may actually strain muscles. I even found reports which contradicted the widely held notion that sex increased the amount of testosterone athletes produced, stating that there was no difference. So in the end, because the research tended to lean both ways, you have to go with your gut and I firmly believe that abstinence is the key.

One interesting thing that I learned while researching this debate is that there seems to be a lot of sex taking place at the Olympic Games. In fact Durex, the official condom provider of the Olympics (I promise I’m not making this up) actually keeps up with how many birth control devises they distribute. During the Sydney games the Cuban delegation burned through their allotment faster than any other country. They also finished 8th in the total medal count with only 29 total medals, less than a 1/3 of the medals won by the USA. So perhaps they could have benefited from a little bit of self restraint and abstinence.

Capello’s rule is not unheard of. In fact similar pleasure proliferations can be traced back to the ancient Olympic Games. Capello is just trying to ensure his team gets enough rest with as few distractions as possible. Athletes at this level should understand that they are going to lose some of their right of privacy due to the notoriety which comes from playing for the national team and all the drug screening they undergo. And as for having to keep their hands off of their women, it shouldn’t even be that big a deal for the English team. They should be used to keeping their hands to themselves, because it is not like they can use them in soccer anyways.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Coaching Authority Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Best MLB Position Player of the 1990s Debate… The Biggest Hurt

June 7, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

It is hard to comprehend that the best baseball player of the entire 1990s is underrated. History has largely overshadowed Frank Thomas, in a very unfair way. While Thomas’ accomplishments were amazing, the steroids era diminished Thomas’ pure achievements. Nevertheless, Thomas was an amazing baseball player. Rightfully underrated or not, he was the best player of the 1990s.

It is easy to forget just how good Frank Thomas was. He never hit below .308 in his first eight seasons in the major leagues. While many memories rightfully call a barrage of home runs to mind, it is easy to forget he also hit for average. He even hit .349 and .347 in consecutive seasons in 1996 and 1997. Those seasons, by the way, were not the two consecutive seasons he won MVP trophies. He won that hardware in 1993 and 1994, hitting .317 and .353 respectively. He also finished second in the MVP voting once, third twice, and fourth once, when playing for the Oakland A’s in the twilight of his career – at the age of 38.

But, this debate is to determine not which of the three players represented was the best throughout their career, but which was the best in the 1990s. That crown, too, belongs to Frank Thomas.

Besides the two MVP trophies Thomas won in the 1990s, he also had outstanding stats, which are great for perspective. Thomas averaged 30 home runs a season in the ‘90s, hitting a total of 301. He also knocked in more than a thousand runs, finally landing on 1,040. His 317 doubles are excellent, and his 1,564 hits are truly remarkable. He hit .320, as well, for the entire decade. That average, by the way, is 18 points higher than Griffey’s. Thomas also won the batting title in 1997, a favorite accomplishment of his because he “didn’t get those cheap infield hits.”

Thomas, also known as the Big Hurt, was the most feared hitter in baseball. More than Griffey, more than anyone. Griffey won an MVP in 1997, but that doesn’t compare to Thomas outright dominance of the league in two straight seasons. Thomas was intimidating, in a game changing kind of way. And, he was not cocky in the same way Griffey was. Griffey was rightfully confident, but Thomas never hit a home run and threw his arms up in the air, or threw the bat down, or showboated. Thomas put his head down and ran.

Some additional context on Thomas’ two straight MVPs – he is one of only six players in the history of baseball to accomplish that feat. He belongs among the ranks of players like Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Hal Newhouser, and Jimmie Foxx.

One of the reasons I really like Frank Thomas as a player – beyond the great stats, the impact on the game, and his many other great accomplishments – is because I also liked him as a person. I didn’t like Frank Thomas in a “I would love to grab a beer with that guy” kind of way, either. Rather, I really liked him because he was brazen and relentlessly honest. In that context, his unwillingness to admit steroids or HGH use is authentic, credible, and admirable. He’s just a big dude. He’s a big dude that hit a bunch of homers. And, the steroids era negatively impacted no player more than Frank Thomas. Most of Thomas’ accomplishments are credible, but greatly overshadowed by the fraudulently augmented numbers produced by players like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire – guys that used performance enhancing drugs.

Thomas, in many ways, was the only player of the steroids era to aggressively campaign against them and deride players for their use. Thomas was attempting to protect his own legacy by preventing cheaters from surpassing his numbers. While he was not able to do that ultimately, Thomas left nothing on the table. He was the only active MLB player to speak on the record for the Mitchell Report.

Here are some comments from Thomas about speaking to George Mitchell:

“There were a lot of guys who wanted to speak out,” Thomas said. “I’m glad I did speak out, because if I didn’t I would’ve been on that list of ‘Wouldn’t talk to George Mitchell.’ That would’ve put a stain on my career and I’m not going to let anyone stain my career.”

“It’s obvious now that there were a lot of guys involved with steroids and HGH. I’m shocked, because I played in that era and had to compete against it. But I’m shocked there were so many guys involved.”

On and off the field Thomas had a major impact on the game of baseball. While the 1990s has many good players, the decade’s best PURE player was Frank Thomas.

Thomas is not the sexiest name of the 1990s. He is underrated, and over-forgotten. And while some experts like Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci, have only gone so far as to name Thomas the best White Sox player in history, the time for further reflection will come on August 29 of this year when the White Sox retire his number. Then, and later when he is a first ballot Hall of Famer, folks will begin to understand just what an amazing player Frank Thomas was.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best MLB Position Player of the 1990's Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Best MLB Position Player of the 1990s Debate… The Crime Dog Takes A Bite Out of the 90’s

June 7, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Babe Ruthless.

In light of the retirement of Ken Griffey, Jr., the writers at The Sports Debates had an in-depth conversation last week about the best baseball players of the 1990’s. We knew we would at least have to give Griffey a mention, as all of us grew up watching The Kid through the prime of his career.

The four of us are currently at the stage where our childhood heroes are now retiring, and we have very vivid memories of all three of today’s spotlighted players in our debate as they played the game.

In choosing our arguments, we decided that anyone tied to steroids or performance-enhancing drugs did not belong in the conversation, and we decided not to include pitchers, which eliminated guys like Greg Maddux from the equation. With that being said, I am choosing Fred McGriff as the best overall position player in the 90’s.

The Crime Dog, as he was labeled by ESPN anchor Chris Berman, was perhaps the quietest superstar of the 1990’s. He certainly did not have the charisma of the two other nominees in today’s debate, Griffey and Frank Thomas, but that is not an indication of the kind of player he was.

Taking a look at his career stat sheet, you will see that McGriff had exactly 300 home runs and 975 RBIs in the 90’s, with at least 100 RBIs five different times. While never achieving more than 37 home runs and 107 RBIs in a single season, he also never hit less than 19 home runs and 81 RBIs, and his batting average was .291 over the ten year period. He made the All-Star team four times (1992, 1994, 1995, 1996) and of course, won a World Series title in 1995 with the Atlanta Braves.

My favorite memory of the Crime Dog was from July 20, 1993, his first game as a member of the Atlanta Braves. Before he had even taken the field for batting practice, the press box at Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium caught fire. I can remember seeing the footage on TV on the 6:00 news – It was the craziest thing I had ever seen. What is ironic though, is that the Braves also caught fire that game.

For his part, McGriff hit a home run during the game to lead the Braves to victory. That win would help kick off a miraculous 51-18 run for the Braves, who ultimately won the division title when, at the time of the McGriff trade, the Braves were nine games behind the San Francisco Giants. Former Giants manager Dusty Baker still can’t shake that choke out of his throat.

McGriff’s quiet persona may have kept him from receiving a lot of national attention (and before you ask, I am not including an endorsement for Tom Emanski as national attention), but his numbers speak for themselves, suggesting that he was the player of the 1990’s.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best MLB Position Player of the 1990's Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Best MLB Position Player of the 1990s Debate… A Legacy of West Coast Pop

June 7, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

During the 1990s, Seattle set the tone for American culture. The Emerald City brought us grunge, flannel, and teenage angst but no contribution was more significant to the sporting world than the ascendancy of Ken Griffey Jr. to baseball greatness.

Junior defined baseball during the 1990s. He was everything that the sport needed and everything baseball should be. A terrific hitter with what seemed to be limitless power, Griffey Jr. hit 382 of his career 630 homeruns during the decade, peaking with back to back 56 homerun campaigns in 1997 and 1998. He is currently ranked 5th on the all time home run list, but unlike so many power hitters of today, he was not one-dimensional.

He was one of the greatest defensive players of his day, earning Gold Glove Awards every year for the entire decade of the 1990s. His versatility made him arguably the most well rounded athlete to ever play the game, and by far secures his legacy as the greatest position player of the 1990s.

Ken Griffey Jr.’s incredible career continually improved throughout the decade. He earned 11 consecutive selections to the All-Star team from 1990-2000, and 13 career selections in all. He finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 7 times throughout the 1990s, winning the award in 1997.

Griffey Jr.’s talent can not truly be measured by the stats sheet. He meant so much more to his team, the Seattle Mariners, and baseball in general than the back of a baseball card can hold. He was the face of his team. He put Seattle baseball on the map and his on-field excellence basically built Safeco Field. Mariners President Chuck Armstrong described Griffey’s importance by stating, “They say in New York that Yankee Stadium is the house that Ruth built. In Seattle, Washington, we say that Safeco Field is the house that Ken Griffey Jr. built.” But Junior wasn’t just important to Seattle, he was beloved by most all in the baseball world.

He was one of the rare few players that transcend regional loyalties to endear themselves to all who follow the game. Like a few nearly universally respected players, such as Derek Jeter or Evan Longoria, Griffey became a household name. Recently ESPN’s SportsNation created a poll asking sports fans to rank the greatest players of the 1990s, and it is no shocker that as of June 6th Ken Griffey Jr. leads the pack. He bests the next closest competitor by more than 2000 votes, and as for Sports Geek’s and Loyal Homer’s choices for best player of the nineties, Frank Thomas and Fred McGriff finished 4th and 15th respectively. I think it more than demonstrates Junior’s national appeal.

But probably the most important legacy of Ken Griffey Jr.’s is the fact that his records and accomplishments are untarnished by performance enhancing drug accusations. Playing in what will unfortunately be remembered as The Steroid Era, Junior absolutely swatted the ball but was perceived by most to be clean. His feats are remembered as the result of hustle and talent rather than an unfair edge attained from a bottle. This in itself is an important legacy for a player who will be remembered as one of the best of all time.

When Ken Griffey, Jr. recently retired, he went out the way players should although far too few players actually do. He quit on his own terms, when he realized his skills were degrading. His teammate Milton Bradley appropriately described the end of baseball’s Griffey Jr. era saying, “On a day like this, it should rain in Seattle.” That is a fitting sendoff for the greatest player of his time.

Leave a Comment » | The Best MLB Position Player of the 1990's Debate, TSD | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Best Under 25 MLB Player Debate… Longoria Perfect Mix for Franchise Success

June 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

I originally believed it would be hard to write this argument from an honest place knowing I was not quick enough on the draw to call Jason Heyward as the subject of my article. Heyward is having an amazing season thus far, and I believed it would be difficult to argue that another player would be more ideal to build a franchise around than the talented and charismatic Heyward.

But, if Heyward does have a demonstrated weakness at this stage of his career, however, it is that fans simply have a very limited sample size. Heyward is super young, only 20 years of age, and skipped an entire level of baseball (Triple A). Skeptics are right in questioning his ability to maintain the high standard he has set as a young professional because he has never had to be great for a long time.

While 25 years of age is still quite young for a baseball player, there are players who have had success at the major league level, and been more consistent. That is, they have sustained success over a period of time great than Heyward’s two months. One such player is Evan Longoria (24) – the player under 25 who I believe is the best candidate to begin building a franchise around.

Before you teenagers reading this get all excited, no, he is not related to, married to, and probably does not even know, Eva Longoria.

Now that we have that bit of business out of the way, let’s dig into the facts.

Longoria was drafted just four short years ago. He handled a delayed call up to the major leagues – due to an opportunity for the Rays to protect him for an additional year under contract – very professionally. He did his duty down in the minor leagues, earned the requisite seasoning, then stormed onto the scene with a monster rookie season.

Longoria began as a rookie with 27 home runs and 85 RBI. Not bad for a 22-year old kid fresh out of college. He even notched seven stolen bases to go along with his .272 batting average. All of that was enough to earn him a spot on the All-Star team as a rookie, an eleventh place finish in the MVP voting, and a runaway victory in the Rookie of the Year voting in 2008.

Of course, the mark of truly great baseball is not just an ability to perform at a high level one season, but to showcase the ability to perform well in multiple seasons. Longoria did not struggle with a sophomore slump, and actually improved his overall game a great deal despite his outstanding rookie season.

In 2009 Longoria slipped to 19th in the MVP vote (how embarrassing), but did manage to raise many other aspects of his game. For example, he slammed 33 home runs and knocked in 113 runs with a .281 batting average. He snagged nine bases, and hit 44 doubles, too. While he was an All-Star again, he also rounded out his game even more by winning a Silver Slugger award (over that A-Rod fella up in the Bronx) and his first ever Gold Glove. He was 23 at the time.

Already in 2010 he is off to a better than expected start given his already impressive stats from his first two seasons in the league. In two months he has ten home runs and 39 RBI. He is batting a robust .315 and has already stolen eight bases (though he was also caught stealing… for the first two times ever in his career). His OPS, OBP, and Slugging Percentage are also trending higher than previous seasons after the first 60+ days of the season. Not bad for a guy who still has not even earned $2M in salary yet over the course of his entire career.

Okay, stats are impressive, but do they tell the entire story of a player? No. That’s why, in fact, I chose Longoria. As a rookie, he was an integral part of the Rays’ surprising run to the post-season where the team defeated the Red Sox in the ALCS, and then fell to the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series. His outstanding season helped earn the Rays their first ever post-season opportunity, then his calm demeanor and ability to perform in the post-season propelled the team through to the World Series… where his sudden lack of production ultimately doomed the team (he batted 0.050 in the World Series – yikes).

Great stats? Check. Hardware? Check. Leader? Check. Important to team’s success – even as a rookie? Check.

Longoria is also a rare matching of consistently outstanding performances and camera-friendly charisma. You may view the latter in New Era’ 2010 season advertising campaign. Oh, and he is available for speaking engagements.

Longoria is as complete of a baseball player as there ever has been at the tender age of 24. And he seems like a great person to boot. Sounds like the right mixture to build a baseball team around, doesn’t it?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best Under 25 MLB Player Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Best Under 25 MLB Player Debate… The Arm of Zeus

June 4, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

Today the TSD staff plays a little bit of real world fantasy baseball. Loyal Homer, Sports Geek, and I (Babe Ruthless) will attempt to identify the must-have player to build a franchise around. Our only criterion is that the player must be 25-years old or younger.

This debate seems almost unfair because I can win it with two words – Stephen Strasburg.

That’s it… Stephen Strasburg. Mission accomplished. I win. Chalk up the victory, and move on to the next debate.

Those in-the-know in the baseball world already agree with me. The 21-year old rookie hurler entered last year’s MLB draft as potentially the greatest prospect who ever lived. That is not overblown hyperbole but rather a statement of fact reiterated by baseball experts, former players, and scouts throughout the country.

Strasburg’s talent is in on a level all its own. I am reminded of the scene in The Princess Bride where the evil mastermind Vizzini describes his intelligence by asking, “Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates?” He then calls them all “morons” in comparison to his intellect. Stephen Strasburg’s star shines in a similar manner.

There are some terrific talents out there under the age of 25, including Prince Fielder (24), Matt Kemp (23), Hanley Ramirez (24), Ryan Braun (24), Tim Lincecum (24), and Joakim Soria (24) just to name a few. Still, there are some hot, even younger standouts like Evan Longoria (24) and Jason Heyward (20), but none of them hold a candle to Strasburg. The kid’s ridiculous minor league numbers do his talking for him.

Across 11 starts he averaged 10.6 strikeouts and 2.1 walks for every nine innings of work. Dave Sheinin of the Washington Post explains that this puts him in with some pretty elite company because, “… in the past 110 years only three big league pitchers have completed an entire season with both rates as good or better than those: Pedro Martinez (1999, 2000, 2002), Curt Schilling (1997, 2002) and Randy Johnson (2004).” If Strasburg turns out to be some sort of bloody sock wearing, bench coach tossing, Big Unit hybrid, then heaven help the hitters that are forced to step into the box against a guy who brings it like these icons.

But who could really blame people for making these comparisons? It is as if his arm was blessed by the baseball gods. The guy brings insane heat to the mound, regularly reaching triple digits on the radar gun. But more shocking and jaw-dropping is the fact that this rookie actually has control over his stuff. He throws with disciplined accuracy, controlling both sides of the plate. This mix of power and precision, usually only reserved for medical instruments, allows him to pull of some incredible feats, such as his 23 strikeout game in college. Not to mention the fact that his fastball actually has movement, and he has formidable breaking pitches to keep batters on their toes. This otherworldly cannon of Strasburg’s has led many to declare that he has more talent than some of the most highly touted pitchers of all time, specifically Mark Prior (Editor’s note: How do they compare injury-wise?).

I know my fellow TSD competitors chose elite young batters like Evan Longoria and Jason Heyward, but I distinctly strayed away from the pack for a reason, instead going with a pitcher. Unlike fantasy baseball drafts, where the accepted logic dictates that one avoids building a team around a pitcher (i.e. taking one with their first round pick), real world teams should be built around a stable of aces. Why? Because pitching wins championships. Sure, we have all heard that old adage before, but it has often been proven valid. It is undeniable that games cannot be won without scoring runs, but it seems that time and again the teams that excel in the postseason boast a core of dominant pitchers. Strasburg figures to be the ace that will serve as the foundation for the Washington Nationals for the foreseeable future.

If I were a GM or manager I would have done anything and everything within my power to bring in Strasburg to build my team around. There will be other Longorias (see Alex Rodriguez and David Wright) and there will be other Jason Heywards (Ryan Braun, Matt Holiday, and Matt Kemp). But nobody out there right now comes close to the upside of Strasburg.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best Under 25 MLB Player Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.