Don't blame the players for being sissies

by Doc Rhyne, RNSports

[This post was inspired by a conversion on the Facebook wall of RNSports friend Ed Achorn, author of Fifty-nine in '84: Old Hoss Radbourne, Barehanded Baseball & the Greatest Season a Pitcher Ever Had, currently available wherever books are sold. In that discussion, Ed wondered aloud which players today certainly could not have cut it in the 19th Century's rough-and-tumble version of the game. The usual suspects were named: Manny, A-Rod, J.D. Drew, etc. Then so-called "tough" players were named, also the usual suspects: Jeter, Pedroia, Youkilis, etc.

[My response:]

I think we have to make a distinction between pitchers and position players. Teams talk about liking pitchers who "want to be handed the ball" regardless of the situation, and yet impose pitch counts on games and even seasons, limit appearances, etc. No hurler today would be allowed to repeat Radbourn's effort. On the other hand, position players are expected to go out and play every day, regardless of the situation, and yet are rested, platooned, and shuffled through rosters, teams and the DL like so many cards in a deck.

The common thread here is that ownership has so much capital invested in its assets (i.e., players), that it won't risk their depreciation. As fans, it's easy to pick on prima donna superstars; but for the vast majority of players (especially if you consider those in the minor leagues), ownership won't give players the opportunity to do what they did in 1884. Gone are the days when a manager would put his "nine best players on the field" every day.

Having said that, and I know he's retired, how 'bout Schilling?

The Case of Robert Swift and the Need for the NBA to do a Better Job of Reaching out and Helping its Youngest Talent

by Robert Rosen


I have no problem with high school basketball players skipping college to play for pay. In fact, I think the idea of players being able to bypass college in order to go directly to the NBA is better than the current NBA rule requiring high school players to spend at least one year in college.

Don’t try to tell me those All-American caliber players who are good enough to play in the NBA right out of high school plan on spending more than one year in college to get their degree. While some of them spend more than one year in college, it’s due to the fact that they didn’t have a good freshman season, not because they want to go to class. The human body only has so long to perform at its highest level, but you can always go back to school to get a degree at any time, so that point is moot as well.

The problem is when these young players get to the professional level, be it the NBA or overseas, there aren’t enough people around them to help them learn how to be adults (i.e. paying bills). There have been countless players over the years who have squandered their millions and ended up broke. Rumeal Robinson, the former University of Michigan (by way of Cambridge Rindge and Latin) player who hit the game-winning free throws in overtime of the 1989 National Championship Game against Seton Hall, spent six years in the NBA. Robinson is now homeless and facing multiple financial related charges. He is even being blamed for his adoptive mother losing the house she’d been living in for 20 or so years. He is just one of many players that have had similar experiences. Even star players like Charles Barkley have admitted throwing away millions of dollars on unnecessary things such as gambling, although a player who’s made as much as Barkley isn’t hurting overall for cash.

Many people, including me, made fun of the Pittsburgh Penguins’ young star Sidney Crosby when they found out he lived with Hall-of-Famer Mario Lemeuix, the teams’ owner. It seemed funny that a professional athlete lived with his boss as if he needed a babysitter. And while I’m not saying that NBA teams need to go to such extremes, the league and individual teams need to do a better job of looking out for its young players, as they are the future of the league. In fairness to the NBA, the league does have a mandatory training session for rookies prior to the season to teach them about a number of things, but does a 2-3 day program really do enough to make a difference?

The Seattle Supersonics took Robert Swift with the 12th pick in the 2004 NBA Draft out of Bakersfield High School in Bakersfield, California, ahead of players such as Al Jefferson, J.R. Smith, Jameer Nelson and Anderson Verejao. The 7-1 center played sparingly as a rookie, then had his best season as a professional his sophomore year when he averaged 6.4 point and 5.6 rebounds per game. It looked like Swift might continue to improve and possibly become a viable NBA center at some point in the near future; however, the vast amount of turmoil in the Sonics’ organization (no wonder the team’s in Oklahoma City now) left Swift without much support. It didn’t help that the team didn’t even have a strength coach, much less any other coaches, for a few months at one point. The lack of a coaching staff left Swift to work out himself after he had suffered a knee injury, so he couldn’t properly rehab it. He gained 40 pounds of upper body muscle, which in turn caused more stress on his surgically repaired knee, causing him to miss more court time and leading to another surgical procedure.

No NBA teams signed Swift this year, so he signed with the Bakersfield Jam in the D-League. He recently went AWOL from the team, and it’s uncertain about his future. It looks like it’s possible Swift is giving up basketball for good after a short career in which he earned approximately $11 million. But, at just 24, it looks like Robert Swift may be putting an end to his once promising basketball career, which could potentially be thriving if he had been given the assistance young men barely out of their teens should be given when they first enter adulthood by becoming a member of the NBA.

Despite Hard Work, "Screaming Eagles" Not Invited to Bowl Game

By Robert Rosen

The Boston College “Screaming Eagles” Marching Band was told on December 9, that they would not be going to the Emerald Bowl in San Francisco that will be played on December 26, against the University of Southern California.

The BC Athletic Department said that, while financial considerations were a part of this decision, the main reason was the proximity of the Emerald Bowl to Christmas.

Jack Dunn, a spokesman for Boston College, told the Boston Globe, “Given the timing of the bowl, over the Christmas weekend, the decision was made so as not to impose on band members to miss Christmas with their families,” Dunn said.

The explanation that the game is too close to Christmas doesn’t make sense based on BC’s past participation in Bowl Games, especially when you take in to account the fact that teams generally fly out to their Bowl Game’s destination five days or more prior to the game to participate in various functions and activities. BC played in the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando on December 28, 2007, meaning the team arrived in Orlando on the 23rd at the latest, which means the team spent Christmas together. In 2006, BC played in Meineke Car Care Bowl in Charlotte on December 30th, meaning the football team probably left the Boston area on Christmas. And while there are many other examples from this decade, my personal favorite is the Jeep Aloha Bowl played in 2000…on Christmas! So to use the fact that the “Screaming Eagles” can’t travel to the Emerald Bowl because of its proximity to Christmas is a bunch of you know what.

The excuse about the financial considerations is completely bogus as well because, according to the Boston College Athletic Website, the Athletic Department received a record $21 million in donations in 2008. This amount is significantly higher than the $3.6 million the Athletic Department received just ten years earlier in 1998. BC will also receive $750,000 for their football team’s participation in the Emerald Bowl. BC gave 272 students athletic scholarships this year totally slightly less than $14 million and, while there are several non-revenue producing sports, the ACC school will receive earnings from the Men’s NCAA Basketball Tournament (provided they are selected to participate) as well as some hockey events, such as the Beanpot.

The BC Marching Band was founded in 1919 and currently has over 180 members. In most years not every member has traveled to Bowl Games, although the entire band did travel to Orlando in 2007. Supposedly at least 30-40 band members are sent to Bowl Games each year, including each of the last 10 Bowl appearances the Eagles have made. Typically the Dance Team also travels to Bowl Games with the Marching Band to perform with them, something Boston College’s own website doesn’t say otherwise. “All members typically attend one predetermined away football game and any of the post season games (e.g. ACC championship or a bowl game) with the full Marching Band,” it reads on the Dance Team’s page on the athletic website. I believe I just read something about the Marching Band and Dance Team going to ANY postseason game or Bowl Game.

College is supposed to be more than just studying and taking tests; it’s supposed to be about growing as a person and learning about life out in the world to better yourself in order to fully reach your potential by experiencing as much as you can in what is a small period of your lifetime. But I’d say that there are people in the Boston College administration who don’t care about giving the “Screaming Eagles” and the Dance Team the full college experience that they have certainly worked hard to earn. There’s a Pep Rally the morning of the Emerald Bowl and, although the Trojans don’t have to travel as far as the Eagles to get to San Francisco, their band will be out there in full force. Who’s going to represent Boston College?

11-year-olds and the fundamental creepiness of the Little League World Series

By Dan Baer

As is seemingly the case every year in this state, one of the local Little League teams has won the regional championship and is headed for the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA this week.

This, of course, means that the local and national media circus is pitching the tent and painting up the clowns, ready to crown Peabody West Little League as the greatest group of 11-year-old's to slap together a baseball team in Massachusetts history.

Worldwide it seems the LLWS has become a symbol of purity and camaraderie among the youngest of baseball players, but I am at the point in my life where I can't take it any more. The LLWS has to be one of the most over-hyped, over done, creepiest sports tournaments around and I don't think it is OK.

Is it great for the kids? Of course. Is it a good experience for both families and youth baseball? Yes. Should it be done away with? Of course not.

On the other hand, you have to ask yourself a few more questions. Is the LLWS actually good baseball? Not even close. Should it be glorified in a prime-time national broadcast on ESPN? Absolutely not. Could a bunch of kids a few weeks away from returning to school make better use of their time- and their parents, who have to take weeks off of work, better use of their money? Yes. Is there something extremely creepy about grown adults with no affiliation to the team getting excited about a group of 11-year-olds playing a poor quality of baseball? That would be a resounding yes.

There is something fundamentally weird to me when I ponder the thought of normal, every day people enjoying watching these little kids play baseball. Unless it is your kid, or a friend of the family, or your under 14, there is absolutely no reason to take any interest in Little League.

First of all, I don't care what anyone says, it is not good baseball. It is not “pure” unless if by pure you mean underdeveloped and sloppy. Every year there is some team from somewhere that has some kid who looks like he is 17 (remember Danny Almonte?) that dominates every game, and most of the games are either decided by a late-game mistake or a 150 foot home run. Sure, its fun for those kids, a great experience. Congratulations. I have no interest in watching your error-filled mess of a baseball game.

Every day, all across the country, kids are learning to play sports in all sorts of youth leagues. Soccer, basketball, baseball, football, go cart racing, hockey. Why does Little League get all of the glory? It isn't played any better than those other kids playing those other sports. Furthermore, I am willing to bet that those New York City rec league youth basketball teams (who probably play at a much higher level than any Little League team) will never have the opportunity- or financial backing- to play in a “worldwide” tournament.

Now, lets get one thing straight. I am not by any means suggesting that the LLWS not be played. What I am asking is that it not be played on national TV, and even more specifically, I am asking that people with little to no affiliation to the team find something better to do with their time.

For an example of the outlandish media coverage, we can examine the very publication that signs my paychecks, who has decided to send four, yes FOUR people to the LLWS this week to cover the Peabody West team that emerged from this region (keep in mind this is the same newspaper that is laying people off because it has no money).

I understand that this is a big story, but does it really warrant blanket coverage? Should there be anything more than a reporter and photographer there? To be honest, in almost any other case, we would have written down the coaches phone number and called him after the game from our desks. But apparently the whole world has gone mad for Little League. Who knew?

To make matters worse, some of the reporters here (they know better than to ask me) have been sent out to Route 1 to interview businesses about why they support the team. Really? That is a head scratcher. Better get a few more investigative reporters on that case.

At the national level, my disgust with ESPN is at an all time high. How can a network that essentially devotes 30-seconds a day to some major sports like hockey, soccer and NASCAR (who it has a contract with, by the way), justify leading off highlight shows and bumping programming for a bunch of kids playing a glorified sand lot baseball game?

That said, perhaps the largest problem I have with the LLWS overall has nothing to do with the media hype or the coverage, or the creepiness of 30-year-old single men getting excited about watching these games. It comes down to something as simple as crying.

Watch the LLWS this week and I promise you that every losing team will have one thing in common- A tear-filled mess of a breakdown as soon as they lose. Kids crying like their families were kidnapped, or their dog was run over by a bus right in front of them.

I'll get over the coverage. I'll get over the creepy dudes. I'll even get over the anger I feel toward my own employer. But kids, there is no crying in baseball.

Tony LaRussa, baseball super genius

By Brett M. Rhyne

"The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next."

—Henry Ward Beecher

On this day in 1979, the Chicago White Sox named Tony LaRussa manager, and changed baseball forever. LaRussa managed in Chicago eight years, then moved on to Oakland, where he managed for 10 years and won three consecutive AL pennants and a World Series title. He is currently in his 14th year managing the St. Louis Cardinals, where he has won two NL pennants and a World Series title. With 2,519 career wins, LaRussa ranks third all-time, behind only Connie Mack and John McGraw.

What I find most noteworthy about LaRussa is his strategic innovation; specifically, he invented the modern-day bullpen structure. For much of baseball history, teams only had a "bullpen ace:" a go-to bullpen guy who was used in almost all close games, whether a team was ahead or behind. It wasn't until the 1960's that what we today call a "closer" — a reliever who is only brought in when his team has a lead late in the game — began to emerge. These proto-closers would frequently pitch two or even three innings a game. Even then, most other relief pitchers, generally speaking, were guys who weren't good enough to be in the starting rotation.

What LaRussa started to do in the Eighties was designate specific roles to his relief pitchers:

• The closer only pitched the ninth, or infrequently, part of the eighth inning.


• The set-up man pitched the eighth — and sometimes the seventh as well — to provide a bridge from the starter to the closer.


• The left-handed specialist was usually a southpaw who comes in to face one or two particularly dangerous left-handed batters in the opposing lineup.


• There might be a fireballer, usually a righty, to come in and face one or two batters when there were men on base and a strikeout was required.


• And the long reliever was often a veteran at the tail end of his career who could step in and pitch three or four innings should the game's starter get knocked out early.

Since LaRussa began developing this bullpen structure, the quality and value of the pitchers who fill these roles has continued to increase. On very good teams, with a lot of resources, relievers are no longer necessarily the lesser-talented pitchers on a staff; in fact, many players have made careers of filling these bullpen niches. It's a testament to LaRussa's genius that we take for granted this relief corps structure, and that it is now found in just about every bullpen in the majors. Kudos to you, Tony LaRussa!

Blaise Collins

Love this!

Grace Adair

I don't know if his philosophy has necessarily been a good thing, but he's certainly been a successful manager.

I personally hated scoring games when he was managing against Valentine. They both would go psycho with the pitching changes and double switches... by the 8th inning I'd either run out of room on the scorecard, or just throw my hands in the air & give up.

Nathaniel Heidenheimer

For a genius he certainly has caused me to a lot of implants to pull out. \He seems to have a knach for pinchhitting with citizens who have not had a hit since april of 1915 and in the eight with runners on and first and third with one out. He lost last nights game. Thinks too much. Way overrated.

Brett M. Rhyne

Another thought on LaRussa: his gaudy win total is due in no small part to longevity — although one must be a pretty good manager to remain employed for so long — and his career .534 winning percentage only ranks 63rd all-time. What is impressive, though, is that his teams won their division 12 out of 30 times (and the Cardinals are currently in first as well. In recent memory, only Bobby Cox (15 of 29) and Joe Torre (13 of 27) are better, and we all know the resource-rich franchises they managed.

Dan Baer

Good manager, he was very innovative. I think Denis Eckersly can thank him for his Hall of Fame plaque. That said, I hated the "Bash Brothers" and Ricky Henderson, so I am contractually obligated to also hate Tony LaRussa.

Brett M. Rhyne

I agree about Eck, as well as the Cash Brothers (juicers). Hendu was a god, and entertaining to boot; I was disappointed in his uncharacteristically modest HOF speech —he thanked his MOTHER, for god's sake. And Tony's loyalty to McGwire, as well as his enabling of the whole steroid culture in Oakland, is inexcusable —except, as a realist, LaRussa only cared about winning.

Dan Baer

... the same could be said about Bill Belichick. Football's version of Tony LaRussa?

Brett M. Rhyne

In a lot of ways, yes. Certainly the strategic innovation and the desire to do anything to win, sure. Did you read Holley's "Patriot Reign"? Didn't do justice to Belichick's — or the organization's — genius. Certainly not the way Mike Lewis did for Billy Beane in "Moneyball," still the gold standard for works of this genre.

And "Ball Four", of course. Shitfuck!

Susie Sampierre Lmt

Ball Four - omg - Jim Bouton - love the story that pepatone says about putting talcum powder in the blow dryers.....hee hee.

Brett M. Rhyne

I almost said "Aw, shitfuck!" was my favorite curse. I was using it a lot, until the wife told me it was unflattering. So now I can't use it, at least around the house. Aw, shitfuck.

Dan Baer

I never read Holley's book, which is surprising because I am a big Michael Holley fan. Did not like Moneyball tho. Billy Beane came off to me as too pretentious for his own good, and well... the A's haven't won a thing since the LaRussa days.

Brett M. Rhyne

This is true. I think Beane is more high-strung and controlling than he is pretentious, as evidenced by the way he treated manager Art Howe —telling him how to stand in the dugout, "trading" him to the Mets after the season, etc. There's a detached, almost alienated way he treats players and coaches, like they're Strat-o-Matic cards come to life. Around the year Lewis chronicled (2002), the A's had a rotation of Hudson, Zito and Mulder, Isringhausen in the pen, and averaged 98 wins, but still couldn't make it out of the first round of the postseason. So while I do think Beane's general management philosophy is brilliant, even revolutionary, he clearly doesn't get the human element. This is where a good field manager comes in, but Beane doesn't allow his field managers the freedom to do their job.

Brett M. Rhyne

I do think Beane is to general management what LaRussa is to field management —maybe even more game-changing. Witness the Red Sox.

Dan Baer

Well, that was going to be my next point. Theo has done Moneyball better than Beane. Although, he has MANY more resources to work with, and a good field manager in Tito, too. I always liked Art Howe, but he never did anything after his Oakland days, either.

Those A's teams were horrifically disappointing. Aside from the rotation, don't forget they had a juiced up Giambi brothers and Miguel Tejada the year he won the MVP. Not to mention Eric Chavez at third and if I remember correctly, Jermaine Dye was in the outfield there for a few years, too.

Brett M. Rhyne

Not sure about Dye, but the A's did have stellar everyday players, thanks in large part to Beane's brilliant strategy of drafting undervalued players. As usual, the Sox are problematic because of their limitless resources —moneyball on steroids. Although, interestingly, the most Beanesque elements of their approach (drafting, farm system, trades) have been much more fruitful than their Steinbrennerish ones (i.e., free agent signings). Still, it takes a lot of money to sign good draftees, and to run a good farm system.

Dan Baer

Dye was with the A's from 01-04, so he would have been right there with those guys.

Your 100 percent right about the Sox. It is amazing to me that such a well-run franchise can whif on so many guys (Drew, Dice K, anyone who has played shortstop in the last 6 years not named Orlando Cabrerra) but their farm system rivals the early 90's Braves.

I will say that Clay Buchholz has done nothing to impress me, though.

Brett M. Rhyne

Cabrera was good, but he came in the Nomar trade, I believe. Alex Gonzalez was a good free agent shortstop, so of course they had to let him go.

Buchholz has been hyped far beyond his actual talent, something the Sox also have a knack for. They should have traded him last week; the more he pitches, the lower his value. (Maybe this is why they kept him in the minors all year.)

Dan Baer

Agreed. If I had to chose Buchholz or Masterson, I'll take the latter. He will be a solid #3 or #4 guy for the Indians. Glad to see Dan Bard sticking around. I'm not a Papelbon fan (young roger clemens) and the thought of Bard blowing that 100 mph fastball past hitters in a year or two gets me tingly

Brett M. Rhyne

Papelbon's act got tired a couple years ago. His arm seems to be catching up, as well. I also think Cleveland got a terrific young pitcher in Masterson, but the Sox did very well in that trade, too. You have to give quality to get quality. I wonder if Theo offered Buchholz for Martinez straight up and the Indians refused.

Dan Baer

wouldn't surprise me. he kind of has that Bronson Arroyo build, and we all saw what happened to him in Cincy... not much. I was disappointed to hear that Oakland offered Orlando Cabrerra for Buchholz straight up and the Sox turned it down. I guess whatever bad blood was there after 04 is still lingering.

Brett M. Rhyne

I never did get why the Sox didn't try to resign him. Were they just gaga over Renteria? Any insights?

Dan Baer

I have heard through some semi-reliable sources that there were a few off the field incidents, potentially involving some love interests of other players, but that kind of dirty laundry stuff is rarely confirmed. It would make sense tho. If you remember, John Henry kind of went on a crusade to lose guys like that (D-Lowe).

I don't know the real reason, but it can't be related to anything on the field, especially if they still won't take him back. He is exactly what they need at that position and he was available cheap at the deadline.

3 & out: Sox-Yanks, June 9-11

Brett M. Rhyne

"A series doesn't mean anything unless you sweep." —Earl Weaver

So sayeth the legendary curmudgeon of the Orioles dugout; in this case, the meaning is a three-game swing at the top of the AL East: the Yanks came into town one game up, and left two games out. Ahhhh.

The good:

• Sox starting pitching. Josh Beckett continued his streak of dominance, Brad Penny pitched his best game of the year (outduelling C.C. Sabathia yet), and Tim Wakefield was predictably workmanlike. The knuckleballer continues to be the most engaging Sox story of the last 15 years.
• Sox relievers, for the most part. Shut-down performances by Daniel Bard, Hideki Okajima and Takashi Saito highlighted this MLB-best bullpen. Jonathan Papelbon saved two games in dramatic fashion, thanks in no small part to some terrific defense behind him.
• Timely offense. While it was the Sox's pitching that won this series, they hit when they had to. Stalwarts Kevin Youkilis, Jason Bay, Mike Lowell delivered; J.D. Drew continued his assault on the OBP title from the two-hole; and David Ortiz flirted with the Medoza Line, showing power to center and the opposite field.
• Timely defense. 1B Youk, 2B Dustin Pedroia, SS Nick Green and part-time CF Rocco Baldelli all made big plays when they had to, saving runs, killing rallies and winning games and the gratitude of their pitchers.
• Mark Teixiera. Truly a great player with the bat and the glove. All he does is anchor the Yankee lineup and defense; the calm eye of the chaotic Yankee hurricane. To a lesser degree, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada; special kudos to the latter for hitting without gloves, old-school style. (The same shout goes out to Wake's former C, Doug Mirabelli.)
• Sabathia. He was dominant for seven innings, even with long half-innings on the bench; it's not his fault Yankees manager Joe Girardi pulled a Grady Little.
  

The bad:

• Sox relivers Ramon Ramirez and Manny Delcarmen, both of whom imploded and needed to be bailed out. They've been stellar to this point, so we'll give them a mulligan. Hell, everyone's entitled to a bad day. Tellingly, despite their foibles, both their ERAs remain under 2.
• Yankees managing. Who else gets the sense that Girardi and pitching coach Dave Eiland are in over their heads? They make the wrong moves, both on the field and off. How much better would this team be with Phil Hughes in the rotation and Joba Chamberlain in the bullpen? Do it already.
  

The ugly:

• Yankees pitching. With the exception of Sabathia and Hughes' early relief of Chien-Ming Wang, the Bombers' arms were horrendous. Good thing John Smoltz is almost back. Oh wait, that's the Red Sox…
  

Who the hell plays for the Mets, anyway? and other random thoughts

Brett M. Rhyne

Random thoughts while watching the Mets @ the Red Sox, Friday, May 22:

• Who the hell plays for the Mets, anyway? We recognize Gary Sheffield, and Johan Santana, of course. Maybe that's because they're refugees from the AL. But where's Jose Reyes, and Carlos Beltrán, and Carlos Delgado? And how is it these no-names are whipping the Old Towne Team?

• RhyNewSports fan David Borsykowsky — the most self-deprecaing Mets fan we know — is fond of pointing out that when the Mets signed Shef, manager Jerry Manuel lauded his "historic bat." As opposed to what he can do with it now, we suppose.

• Watching Daisuke Matsuzaka pitch makes us think he belongs in the NL, with its better defenses and weaker offenses. Maybe with the pitchers hitting, he'd last a little longer in the games. And if they had to yank him after five, the team might actually benefit, since they'd get to use a pinch-hitter or do a double-switch or pull some other such goofy Senior Loop shenanigans. Plus, Dice-K's not too bad a hitter himself.

• No disrespect to Jerry Remy, and we hope he recovers some his surgery and returns soon, but we're enjoying Eck doing color for the games. He's more, well, colorful, and besides, isn't it fun to say (or write) "Eck"? The Rem Dawg thing is getting a little old. Maybe NESN (or the radio team) could go to a three-man booth.

• Some dopey Met just tried to go first-to-third on a bunt. Did he not realize the Sox have Gold Glovers at first (Youk) and third (Lowell)? What a maroon.

• OK, Papi's now 0-3, with 2 K's and a GIDP. Way to go, slugger.