One of those WTF moments...

For fun, among other things, I replay historic baseball seasons on Action PC, by Dave Koch Sports.

Any and all politics aside, I HIGHLY recommend and endorse their baseball sim game, and have heard great things about their other sport sims as well. If you're into sports history and historical sims CHECK THESE GUYS OUT.  Dave himself handles most (all?) of the customer support personally and is a great guy, who's willing to cut some pretty good deals.

I'm currently replaying the 1952 Season, running the Boston Red Sox (who are now out of it) in the American League and the Brooklyn Dodgers (who I won the Series with in '51) in the National League.

And I'm playing a late season game against New York, and for the first time all season, I just noticed the names of my #2 and #3 starting pitchers:

Click to enlarge:

I guess William will be rooting for the Giants.

Hall of Fame Results out tomorrow!

No politics tonight. BASEBALL time!



In additon to John Smoltz, I'd like to wish the best of luck to the rest of my ten picks: Randy Johnson, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, Fred McGriff, Jeff Bagwell, Lee Smith and Alan Trammell.

And yes, I'm observing the BWAA's current practice of snubbing those most associated with PED usage, but Roger Clemens, Mark McGawire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds would have my vote otherwise, and will probably have my vote eventually, once we've put that all behind us.

Good luck to everyone, especially Trammell, with only one ballot remaining, and Don Mattingly who will appear on the ballot for the final time.

I'm certainly no Keith Olbermann, but I get by. ;)

BTW, for those who don't know, ERA+ = leagueERA / ERA x 100. (For example an ERA+ of 120 is 20% better than the league average.)

...and to anyone STILL scratching their heads, ERA = Earned Runs / Inning Pitched x 9.

Go team, go!

I think I figured out a way to explain what I see as one of the biggest problems with our political discourse: People pick their political party the way they pick their favorite sports team. It’s all about emotion, rather than practical or principled considerations.


I’m a Red Sox fan.

And you can argue (or point out) that the Yankees have the richer history; that the Yankees have won more Championships; that the Yankees have more Hall of Famers; that the Yankees have a deeper farm system; that the Yankees have better ownership; that the Yankees have the most talented 5-man infield ever assembled; that the Yankees do better business; That the Yankees bring in more revenue; that a Yankee Championship would be better for baseball… In short, you could lay out every practical, tangible way in which the Yankees are not only the better team, and not only why they therefore deserve to win, but how more people would be better off if they did. And even were I to concede on every single point?

I’d still want the Red Sox to win.

Why?

I don’t know. They’re just my team. And they always will be my team. And even a guy who I hated when he wore pinstripes, suddenly becomes perfectly likeable in the White and Red.

And do you know what?

That’s perfectly OK.

Because you don’t NEED a reason to root for a sorts team. Maybe you grew up in the city. Or maybe you met one of the players and he made an impression on you. Maybe you just like the team’s logo. I don’t care. Any of those - or NO REASON AT ALL - is a perfectly good reason to root for “your team” to win the ball game.

But we shouldn’t VOTE that way. And we shouldn’t decide how we feel about POLICY that way. Only two questions are in anyway relevant when looking at policy: “How does it affect me?” And, “How will it affect the Country?” That’s IT. And while the answers will sometimes differ between the two questions, they should not change based on which party is proposing them or whether they can been labeled ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’

If a policy will benefit YOU, why should you oppose it simply because it’s liberal or conservative or was proposed (originally or now) by a Democrat or Republican?

If a policy – when looked at objectively - will benefit THE COUNTRY, why should you oppose it simply because it’s liberal or conservative or was proposed (originally or now) by a Democrat or Republican?

Why are so many people – primarily Conservatives – more concerned that “their team wins” than with whether or not GOOD POLICIES get enacted? And why do so many people – primarily Conservatives – judge policies based on whether of not they have their team’s logo on them?   And I say “primarily Conservatives” because those are the people who use “Liberal” as a criticism, and act like the inherent badness therein is self-apparent. Liberals generally don’t argue against Conservatives this way. But Conservtaives act like it’s just a ball game, and the only thing that matters is that the team that they identify with emotionally wins. People: If the policies being enacted by the “winning team” don’t benefit you and benefit the Country, then they shouldn't BE your team!

I originally intended this as a standalone piece, but I’d like to offer it as an open question to the relatively moderate, shall we say "classic," Conservatives out there, who are every bit as frustrated with how far to the Right the Republicans have gone as Liberals are with how far to the Right the Democrats have gone. If that party no longer represents your values, and have moved into a territory that you find borderline (or downright) offensive to you sense of Patriotism and what you believe America stands for, why are they still your party?  (OR: Why do you still use the label to describe yourself?)

I'd like to use as example, how one on the regular commenters here described his political outlook. Now… excepting the ONE LINE at the end about “smaller government” I don’t see anything there that most Liberals and/or Democrats couldn’t embrace, but I see plenty that Conservatives and Republicans – as they are currently defined – outright reject. Yet this poster STILL describes himself as a “Conservative Republican.”

Given what those words have come to mean, I beg to differ.

Going back to the baseball example, I see that kind of reasoning like this: I might wish the Red Sox had the Yankee’s pitching staff and they may make some dumb trades or pass on a draft pick that I really like that ends up signing with the Yankees… but I’ll still root for the Sox anyway. In sports me it doesn’t matter if your favorite player ends up going somewhere else, or your team ends up totally sucking. You’ll still stick with your team And in that context, that’s perfectly OK. But why in Politics? Why stick with a party that you feel does so much wrong?

I don’t want to speak for y’all but I fail to see, as I read Okie’s post on MMFA, why he would stick with the Republicans. OK, there’s that last line. One point for versus a dozen or so against. And you may think you can change the Party… but you can’t. Sorry. The party has rejected what you see as Conservatism and replaced with something you can’t abide. And they’re trending away from you. So why stick around? Why NOT change?

And I ask this as someone who DID change. Because I was once a Republican, and I even once called myself Conservative. The biggest reason for this was that I was comfortable with those labels. And I could argue from a Libertarian point of view that justified my taking those labels. But the movement went to the Right, and to the Limbaugh’s and Beck’s and James Dobson’s and Pat Robertson’s and Jerry Falwell’s of the world, and I could no longer abide all the mental baggage that the labels “Conservative” and “Republican” required me to carry. And at some point I rejected them. And while I don’t agree with EVERYTHING the “Liberal Orthodoxy” (a notion that is largely a creation of the Right, BTW) stands for, the fact is that the Left is far more tolerant of dissent. There’s room for a Gun Ownership Rights supported in the Liberal camp. Or for someone who supports the Death Penalty. Or someone who supported, and continues to support the War in Afghanistan. Not everyone on the Liberal side will agree with my positions on those things of course, but no one will demonize me for them either. And that, to me, is the biggest difference between the two.

At one point in history, I’d say up until about 1968, both parties had their Liberal and Conservatives wings. Stating in ’68, the Conservatives started going to the Republicans and Liberals started going to the Democrats. By 1980 this process was in full swing and by today, partisan lines are drawn almost entirely along ideological ones. But as this process has played out, something else has happened: One side – the Republicans – has grown increasingly intolerant of any dissent at all. One side became the party of Purity Test. Of “in name only.” Of purging itself of any elements that don’t buy into every single part of the agenda, and of any elements that would be willing to cross the aisle and work with the opposition – even when the opposition is proposing something that Republicans once supported!

In other words: One side went completely bat-shit insane.

And I’m not alone in saying this! I don’t say this as a life-long Liberal who’s just opposition bashing. I say this as a moderate, one-time Republican who is completely fed up with the extremism and the downright un-American authoritarianism and the Party-before-Country mentality that the Right has embraced. Now… I’d have been part of the Liberal wing of the Republican party, to be sure. A ‘maverick,’ if you will. But right now? There ISN’T a ‘Liberal Wing’ in the Republican Party! And the 'moderate' wing consists of what used to be the hardliners! (Lindsy Graham? John McCain?)  And there is no indication that they want one!  (I'll bet you a Coke, right now, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins will eventuallt retire as either Democrats or Independants, assuming they're not pushed out by Tea-Baggers who go on to LOSE to Democrats.)

In sports it’s expected to stick with your team, even when all your favorite players get traded away. That par for the curse. But WHY do this with politics. My ultimate question, to the moderate, Center-Right, more Libertarian “Republicans” out there, like Okiepoli and others, ESCPECIALLY if it's not "all about the party": Why do you not reject the party that has so clearly rejected you? 

Backtrack... Backtrack... Backtrack...

Upon further review of the play, it has been determined that "Niceguy" Eddie may have overreacted.

Yeah.

Unlike my right-wing contemporaries, I do admit when I'm wrong, or when I go too far, and yesterday night, I went too far, RE Umpire Jim Joyce.

Don't get me  wrong - it was still the worst, and most significanlty bad, call in MLB history.

But Joyve showed a lot of class after the game, and at today's game.  And Galarraga himself showed a lot of class both on and off the field.  No dramatics, no whining.  Hey: HE knew he threw a perfect game, so what does the rest of it really matter, huh?  But I would be remiss to continue to rant and rave about Joyce after he had admitted his mistake, apologized to - and was forgiven by - Galarraga.  My anger was REALLY aimed at the umpires of old that I remember, who would stedfastly refuse to acknowledge even the most nboneheaded calls as mistakes.  So I have been shamed by the class and sportsmanship displayed by these two men.  And as pationately as I feel about this, it just goes to show that you shouldn't go writing anything - that anyone else will see- when you're REALLY angry.  This is the third time in my life that I've broken that rule and each time I've written something that I've regretted.

And while I would have reversed the call, I'm not surprised that that spineless jellyfish Commissioner Selig did not.  But you know what? I'm not even sure that would be the right thing to do anyway. The moment is past.  And Galarraga doesn't need his name in the record books to know what he accomplished.  (I still would have done it though!)  And like Craig said, in resonse to my last post - this will likely be far more memorable anyway! 

Plus, I'm sure Joyce will love the fact that for the rest of his life, he'll be known as "the guy who screwed up the perfect game." LOL. 

So every now and then, there is SOME justice. :)

Jim Joyce singlehandedly Justifies the use of Capital Punnishment

This might be THE worst call of all-time.

Jim Joyce should be fined $10 Million Dollars, permanently banned from Baseball, and beaten to death in the public square.

A once in a lifetime opportunity for a pitcher and and this waste of donor organs blows it on a call lke THAT?!

To channel Al Capone: I want him DEAD! I want his family DEAD! I want his HOUSE burned to the GROUND!

I don't care how many times this asshole gotit right, this ONE CALL renders his entire career a colossal joke. He is now the Bill Buckner of Umpires.  Actually, my apologies to Mister Buckner, his error was nowhere NEAR this level.  So on second thought, calling Joyce that is an high insult to BUCKNER.

Baseball should have instant replay, period.  What the hell, if the call stands then eject the challenging manager.  But this is a level of incompetence rivalled only by BP's Crisis Response Team.

Next time Galaraga throws to First, with Joyce making the call, he just just drill him right in the back of the head.

What a fucking asshole.  Armando Galarraga threw a PERFECT GAME tonight.  I don't care what the history books say.  They SHOULD say "Jim Joyce is a useless piece of shit umpire who has no business putting on the uniforn unless he's going to a halloween party."

Congratulation on your perfect game, Armando.  May Jim Joyce burn naked in the 9th circle of hell, the incompetent, half-blind, fucknut.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

Congratulations, Andre Dawson!

OK... if you're looking for politics tonight, you'll be disappointed. Tonight I want to take a look at the one election that I put above all others: The Baseball Writer's Association of America's Hall of Fame Election, who's results were announced today.

So tonight, it's BASEBALL. Hopefully some of you are still reading!

Congratulations to Andre Dawson. The guy had speed, power a phenomenal glove and was a class act and clubhouse leader throughout his career. I've been a fan and a Hall Booster of his from the start, some I'm glad to see this day come.

I thought I'd go ahead and round-out what MY ballot would have looked liked, if I was allowed to vote. (Players listed in order of Vote Percentage, shown in parenthesis)

#1 - Andre Dawson, OF (77.9%, Inducted)
Played: 1976-1996 for the Expos, Cubs, Red Sox & Marlins: .279 AVG, 438 HR, 1591 RBI, 119 OPS+, 8-time All-Star, 8-time Gold Glove, 1977 Rookie of the Year, 1987 Most Valuable Player. What did this guy NOT do? I'm glad he's in, and I'm surprised it took this long. I guess the writers are starting to appreciate some of these guys (like Jim Rice, last year) more now that they realize the effect that steroids has had on the numbers.

#2 - Bert Blyleven, RHP (74.3%)
Played: 1970-1992 for the Twins, Rangers, Pirates, Indians and Angels: 287-250 W-L, 3.31 ERA, 3701 K's, 118 ERA+, 2-time All-Star. I've been boosting Bert for years too. I'm glad to see that he's probably a lock for next year. The guy gets a bum-rap because he failed to win 300 games. He was 13 short, in a 22 year career, playing mostly for lousy teams. (1970's Twins, 1980's Indians, 1990's Angels.) Plus he twice came back from injuries that caused him to miss full seasons. This guy BELONGS. Period.

#3 - Roberto Alomar, 2B (73.7%)
Played: 1988-2004 for the Padres, Blue Jays, Orioles, Indians, Mets, White Sox and Diamondbacks: .300 AVG, 210 HR, 1134 RBI, 116 OPS+, 12-time All-Star, 10-time Gold Glove. OK - he SPIT at an UMPIRE. That's REALLY, REALLY BAD. But there is no denying that he is arguably the best defensive second baseman of all-time and arguably the greatest all-around second baseman since Joe Morgan in the mid-1970's. He might not be first-ballot material, but he belongs. Average, Speed, flashes of Power and the Best Glove ever? Yeah, he'll be in next year as well.

#4 - Jack Morris, RHP (52.3%)
Played: 1977-1994 for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays: 254-186 W-L, 3.90 ERA, 2478 K's, 105 ERA+. Blyleven & Morris combined prove that the BWAA will use any excuse not to elect someone. The punish Blyleven for not ahving enough Wins, even though he excelled in every other stat, and the punish Morris for not dominating the other stats and ignore the fact that he was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's. He was also MONEY in the Post Season YEARS before his historic 11-inning duel with John Smoltz in the 1991 World Series. He was a battler and a winner and he belongs. That being said, I don't think he'll make it. Ever. But he'll ALWAYS get my vote.

#5 - Barry Larkin, SS (51.6%)
Played: 1986-2004 for the Reds: .295 AVG, 198 HR, 960 RBI, 116 OPS+, 12-time All-Star, 3-time Gold Glove, 1995 Most Valuable Player. OK, HOW can Robby Alomar get 73.7% on his first ballot and Larkin get only 51.6? They had the same bloody skill set (Fielding, Speed, Average and occasional Power) and their resumes are practically identical. The big difference is the Gold Gloves, but Larkin was cheated out of several early in his career by Ozzie Smith, who won a few late in HIS career based more on reputation than actual performance. Plus Larkin never spat at an umpire, and spent his whole career with one team while Alomar wore out his welcome everywhere he went. Same career, but the guy with CLASS gets 20% fewer votes. Makes less sense to me that the 2000 SC decision in Bush v. Gore!

#6 - Lee Smith, RP (47.3%)
Played: 1980-1997 for the Cubs, Red Sox, Cardinals, Yankees, Orioles, Angels, Reds and Expos: 71-92 W-L, 478 Saves, 3.03 ERA, 131 ERA+, 7-time All-Star. Now that Relief Pitchers are finally getting their due, can someone please explain to me why a guy who held the all-time Saves record for 13 years isn't even on the radar?

#7 - Mark McGwire, 1B (23.7%)
Played: 1986-2001 for the Athletics and Cardinals: .263 AVG, 583 HR, 1414 RBI, 162 OPS+, 12-time All-Star, 1-time Gold Glove, 1987 Rookie of the Year. Statistically, he's one of the greatest hitters of all-time no matter how you slice it, bar looking at batting average exclusively. (And who does that anymore?!) Steroid allegations are a bitch I guess, and doing your best impersonation of a politician in your congressional testimony won't help any. I know he juiced. I'm over it. He'll be in eventually, once we have a chance to look back at this era from a longer historical perspective.

#8 - Alan Trammell, SS (22.4%)
Played: 1977-1996 for the Tigers: .285 AVG, 185 HR, 1003 RBI, 110 OPS+, 6-time All-Star, 4-time Gold Glove. Should have been the MVP in 1987. No question he got absolutely ROBBED. Earlier today, a co-worker told me that the reason he hates Derek Jeter is that there's no reason to hate the guy. He BEATS you, but he shows so much class that you can't hate him for it. And he HATED that! And I realized that this was exactly why I "hated" Trammell growing up. Back when his Tigers and my Red Sox were in the same division, he ALWAYS beat us, and yet was such a class act that you just HAD to tip your cap to him. GOD, I HATED THAT! He belongs. He'll never get in, I'm sad to say. But he should. When they played head to head, 27 of the 28 teams in the league would have taken Trammell over Ozzie Smith. Yet Smith's in and Trammell's not even CLOSE? WTF?! (Yes, I understand WHY, but it's still bullshit!)

#9 - Fred McGriff, 1B (21.5%)
Played: 1987-2004 for the Blue Jays, Padres, Braves, Devil Rays, Cubs and Dodgers: .284 AVG, 493 HR, 1550 RBI, 134 OPS+, 5-time All-Star. I think that McGriff will get in, especially as the ballot gets more and more loaded down with steroid cases. I don't they'll pull a Bert Blyleven on him and say, "Well, he fell short of 500 HR." I mean... he was SEVEN short, and the 1994-95 strike might have had SOMETHING to do with that, no? But the guy had ten 30+ Home-Run seasons, mostly in years when that still meant something. He had the misfortune of starting to decline just as offensive numbers picked up. He'll get in in a few more years though.

#10 - LEFT BLANK.
To answer your question, YES. I am intentionally withholding my vote from Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Don Mattingly, Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, Harold Baines and the rest of them. I may eventually be swayed on Raines, but you won't convince me on any of the others.

So congratulations again to Mister Dawson, as well as Whitey Herzog (Manager) and Doug Harvey (Umpire) on their selection by the Veterans Committee.

Fort Swine and Hood Flu

First things last...

I want to say something about Fort Hood first. Every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated," largely on the basis that every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated." Now... as if that wasn't bad enough...

I'm on the way home, listening to NPR. They're reading letters from their viewers and there was one from a LIBERAL who was "appalled" that NPR suggested that Religion and/or Politics MAY HAVE influenced or motivated the shooter. (Or may they were "disgusted" as the suggestion, I can't exactly remember.)

Now... earlier today I was arguing that the Liberal position was NOT that religion/politics played NO role, but rather that it is TOO EARLY to conclude anything and that EVERYONE should wait for the Military to conduct their investigation. Now... I HOPE that I was not overestimating the common sense possessed by the average Liberal, and that NPR merely picked THAT ONE letter because it was contrary to the others. Because it really IS too early to conclude ANYTHING! It's as absurd to say that Religion played NO ROLE, more so really, than it is to conclude with any certainty that this was an act of TERRORISM. The fact is that there are MANY questions that NEED to be explored. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this point from either side. So let's ALL take a deep breath and let the Army do it's job, K?

Something else is bothering me too. I was posting the other day on the Detroit Tiger's Fan Club Forum to promote my new All-Time Teams Baseball Blog, having just finished the All-time Tigers (if you're a baseball fan, check it out, let me know what you think) and I came across a message about how "Obama's #$%@ Health Plan passed!" Now, putting aside...

1) That this is a BASEBALL board, and not a place to discuss partisan politics. (It looks like they've since taken the post down, which shows some good sense on the part of the moderators.) (Same goes for my other blog as well: keep the politics HERE.)

and

2) It's not a LAW yet, it's just passed the first of several votes that will be needed. (So the poster fails Civics 101, on top of it.)

There was one part that REALLY pissed me off. He said, "The government couldn't even distribute enough H1N1 Vaccine, now they're going to run the entire Health Care system!"

AGAIN... putting aside that no version of ANY of the health care bills ever amounted to an anything CLOSE to a "government takeover" of the health care system...

It was not the GOVERNMENT that's caused the shortages of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is only involved at all because PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to develop it in time and PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to make enough to meet the demand. So the Gov't is involved only to make sure that those with the greatest MEDICAL NEED get it first, rather than those with the greatest financial means. They are REACTING to the shortage, not CAUSING it! If H1N1 was a failure, iot was a filure of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

And WHICH party has all the politicians that were obstructing all the funding that would have allowed for better production and distribution? Yeah: That would be the, da-da-dahhh: REPUBLICANS.

You got to love how the Right makes themselves into an obstacle at every turn, and then has the nerve to claim that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS can't get anything done. What makes me SICK is how many ignorant dupes (American voters) keep falling for it time and time and time again! And who's the most complicit in enabling all this nonsense? Our great liberally biased media.

Yeah... RIGHT.