Archive for the ‘Prescient observations’ Category
Milwaukee Brewers 2013: A Dreadful First Week
The Milwaukee Brewers 2013 season is well underway, and there’s only one thing any observant writer can say: The Brewers look dreadful in just about every respect.
While there are some good things happening — Norichika Aoki’s four hits today (during his promotional bobblehead day), a clutch Sunday double by rookie OF-3B Josh Prince, the strong six innings pitched by Kyle Lohse on Friday, and the two good relief appearances by Jim Henderson among them — there are many more extremely frustrating things going on, which befits a team with a woeful 1-5 record.
First, and worst: The Brewers have faced many injuries already this season. Consider that half the Brewers starting infield is currently on the disabled list (DL) — first baseman Corey Hart, of course, had knee surgery back in February, and third baseman Aramis Ramirez tweaked his knee while sliding into second base on Friday evening. In addition, both prospective utility infielders, Taylor Green and Jeff Bianchi, are on the DL along with backup first baseman-outfielder Mat Gamel (out for the year), while Brewers rookie starting shortstop Jean Segura sustained a bruised left thigh on Sunday and is now considered “day-to-day.”
But the most frustrating injury is to Brewers’ MVP Ryan Braun, who is out with neck spasms. While not on the DL, he’s unable to play — the closest he’s come to actually getting in a game since Friday was standing in the on-deck circle earlier today — and that means that the Brewers three best hitters are currently unavailable.
That doesn’t mean the Brewers aren’t trying in the hitting department. They certainly are. Players like Aoki, Prince, the recently signed Yuniesky Betancourt, Jonathan Lucroy and Carlos Gomez are all doing their best to score runs.
Second, many players are playing out of position due to injury. Betancourt and Gonzalez between them, shortstops by trade, have played every position except second base, while Prince, an outfielder, played third base for the first time since AA ball on Sunday due to a lack of bench players.
Third, while the Brewers are carrying eight relief pitchers, half of them aren’t doing well. The worst of the lot has been closer John Axford, who has an ERA of 20.25 and a record of 0-1 (being the pitcher of record this afternoon in an eleven-inning loss) with one blown save, four home runs, and six earned runs given up in 2 and 2/3 innings pitched.
Now, it is still early, so Axford’s extremely depressing ERA is misleading. But giving up six earned runs — with four of ’em being HRs — in less than three innings worth of work is extremely concerning. Worse yet, Axford has not looked sharp; his “three up, three down” tenth inning today is also, and quite unfortunately, misleading in that Axford gave up two fly ball outs that went to the wall (one in the deepest part of left center, the other to left) before striking out the third batter only after throwing a pitch wildly over the umpire’s head on a 1-2 count.
So, Axford has not looked good. Mike Gonzalez (13.50 ERA), who came in today in relief of Axford, has had a good appearance and at least two bad ones. And aside from Henderson, Brandon Kintzler, Alfredo Figaro and Chris Narveson, every other reliever has had at least one bad outing amidst a good outing or two.
Fourth, the starters, as a group, have also looked awful. A bad relief pitching corps could be circumvented if the starters were up to snuff. Unfortunately, the only starter who’s actually looked good to date is Lohse (with a sparkling 1.50 ERA). Gallardo (5.73 ERA) has looked, at best, serviceable. Estrada (7.20 ERA) looked awful against Arizona. Mike Fiers (10.80 ERA) had a forgettable start. Peralta (6.70 ERA) has looked overmatched since spring training.
As to who is available among starting pitchers? Well, former Brewers lefty Chris Capuano (12-12, 3.72 ERA in 2012) is a forgotten man in the Los Angeles Dodgers bullpen, and is a better pitcher than Estrada, Fiers or Peralta. Narveson, who is in the bullpen probably because the Brewers are afraid of re-injuring his surgically repaired left shoulder, is also a better pitcher than Estrada, Fiers or Peralta. Those two pitchers would give the Brewers two lefties on the starting staff, and would at least make it harder for opposing teams to tee off on Brewers pitchers.
Also, Aaron Harang (10-10, 3.61 ERA) has already been designated for assignment by his new team, the Colorado Rockies. Harang, too, is a much better pitcher than Fiers or Peralta, and is probably better than Estrada. So if I were the Brewers, I’d certainly be willing to give Harang a look-see.
There are also two quality relievers currently without teams. One, Francisco Rodriguez, is well-known to the Brewers and is unlikely to be signed due to his 2012 struggles with the team. But the other, Brian Wilson, would be an intriguing choice — while Wilson would undoubtedly need time in Arizona in extended spring training before getting some rehab appearances in the minors, at least the Brewers would know that help would eventually be on the way.
My advice is as follows:
- Send Axford to a sports psychiatrist (if Axford isn’t already seeing one), as that may help.
- Sign Wilson, which would give Axford some competition, as Axford seems to do better when someone is seriously competing with him for the job.
- Trade for Capuano (and maybe even Harang).
- Send Peralta down, as it appears he needs more time in AAA ball, and think seriously about sending Fiers back down as well.
- And, last but not least, put Segura on the DL and call up Blake Lalli. The Brewers need a third catcher badly, and Lalli worked with the Brewers staff extensively in spring training due to both Lucroy and Martin Maldonado playing for Teams USA and Puerto Rico in the World Baseball Classic. Lalli also hit well in the spring, and certainly cannot hurt the Brewers any at this point.
The last move is necessary because the Brewers are unwilling to put Braun on the DL and obviously cannot handle having only three healthy bench players. In Sunday’s eleven-inning game, the Brewers actually had to use Lohse, the best hitter of the available starting pitchers, as a pinch hitter because that was the only move left for manager Ron Roenicke. But Lohse struck out to end the game (of course).
As it stands, though, I feel sorry for Axford. I’m sure he’s trying his best, as is everyone else on the team — you don’t get into professional sports if you aren’t interested in doing well for yourself and your team, after all. But it’s obvious that something is still not right with Axford, and my guess is that whatever is it has more to do with his head than his mechanics or his will.
I just hope he can sort it out, and get back to pitching the way Brewers fans know he can. Or it’s likely to be another long, frustrating season for the Brewers in 2013.
MLB: In Pursuit of Ryan Braun, Again?
Folks, some stories seem like broken records.
Take the story broken by Yahoo Sports through its blog “Big League Stew.” The headline reads, “MLB’s PED Vendetta Against Ryan Braun: Seeks Informants, Offers Immunity for Players Testimony.”
This article points out that Major League Baseball, in its infinite whatever, is using the Biogenesis Clinic information that has been leaked to the press as a way to go after Milwaukee Brewers left fielder Ryan Braun. Braun is the only major leaguer known to have successfully appealed a positive drug test, and MLB apparently just cannot handle it at all.
Instead, they wish to punish Braun after the fact despite losing their case in arbitration against Braun in 2012 — legally binding arbitration, at that.
MLB is even willing, according to an article at USA Today by Bob Nightengale (which the Yahoo Sports blog references), to grant some players immunity even if they test positive for PEDs themselves. Which seems extremely counterproductive if MLB’s interest here is in the cleanest sport possible . . . but more on that in a bit.
The reason MLB is upset is because their officials insist that Braun used performance-enhancing drugs due to a highly elevated level of testosterone in Braun’s urine sample back in 2011. Braun won his appeal in 2012 (here’s my earlier blog post on the subject); at the time, MLB “vehemently disagreed” with the decision. Later, MLB fired arbitrator Shyam Das, which looked terrible from a public relations standpoint — as apparently, the only arbitrators they want are the ones who rule in MLB’s favor.
As Ray Ratto pointed out in this column from February 23, 2012 (note that the lack of punctuation is also in the original column; the look of this has not been altered in any way save to cut out one link):
Rather than announce that Braun had won his appeal and had been found not guilty according to the procedures and protocols set up and approved BY Major League Baseball, it chose instead to swine-slap Das ruling, deciding that when they say guilty, they mean guilty.Now we dont know whether Braun hornswoggled the arbitrator, the system or nobody at all. We wont call him innocent or guilty. We will say, though, that he played by baseballs rules, he followed baseballs procedures, he went through baseballs process, and he was found not guilty.Thus, it is inconceivably bad form for baseball to scream about the result just because they wanted it to be something else.
Obviously, I agree with this assessment.
Ratto’s words, however, have proven prophetic in how MLB has behaved with regards to Braun. Take a look at this (also from Ratto’s above-referenced column):
The process is supposed to be about finding the truth, not getting the desired result. The desired result IS the truth, and baseballs system says Braun didnt do what he was accused of doing.MLBs reaction, though, shows that for it, testing isnt about determining a players guilt or innocence, its about nailing guys.”As a part of our drug testing program, the commissioner’s office and the players’ association agreed to a neutral third party review for instances that are under dispute, a statement from Rob Manfred, managements representative on the three-man appeals panel, read. While we have always respected that process, Major League Baseball vehemently disagrees with the decision rendered today by arbitrator Shyam Das.”Vehemently disagrees? Its your system, Robbo, the one your negotiators demanded. Is it only a good system when you win? (emphasis added by BC)
And if that’s the case, MLB is going to keep going after Braun in the same way Inspector Javert went after Jean Valjean in Les Miserables — even though it will do no good, much harm, and cause much strife for all concerned.
Look. I’ve thought and thought about this, and I’ve come to the same conclusions as in my original blog post on the Braun/PED issue:
Braun has been an outstanding player from the time the Brewers brought him up. He won the Rookie of the Year Award in 2007. His lifetime numbers are comparable to his MVP numbers; over his last five seasons, he’s averaged 36 HRs and 118 RBIs a season, and has hit over .300 every year except 2008 (when he “only” hit .285); his lifetime batting average, over five complete seasons, is .312.
So I don’t really see where Braun could’ve been taking anything that was of an enhancing nature, especially if he’s never tested positive before (and indeed, he hasn’t).
Jumping a few paragraphs, I said back in 2011:
. . . my view is that Braun’s statistical performance was well within his own normals. So it’s very hard for me to believe that Braun actually did take anything illegal of the PED variety; because of that, and because of my admittedly laissez-faire attitude toward baseball players and legal drugs, I believe Braun should be considered innocent until and unless he is proven guilty.
And as we now all know, Braun was found not guilty.
Which makes me think that Braun had a point. He wasn’t juicing then, isn’t juicing now, and that as much as anyone’s performance can be in these days of high-tech nutrition and personal trainers, he’s as clean as they come.
Since Braun has been proven to not have taken PEDs under binding arbitration, MLB should really let it go. Because the longer they pursue this mindless vendetta, the more they look like Inspector Javert — and with far less reason than that fictional French bureaucrat of old.
My final take? I suppose it’s MLB’s prerogative to look silly, spiteful and stupid when it comes to this apparent vendetta against Ryan Braun.
But speaking as a long-time baseball fan, I wish they’d knock it off.
Hillary Clinton, Rob Portman Latest Pols In Support of Same-Sex Marriage
In the last week, two prominent politicians have come out in favor of same-sex marriage — one, of course, being far more prominent than the other.
The latter person is former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady, Hillary R. Clinton, who today endorsed same-sex marriage with a video put out by the Human Rights Campaign, while the former is Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. Portman said his main reason for changing his stance from firm opposition to firm support is his son — who has told him he’s gay, and wants full rights to marry any partner he may take in the future.
This article from PennLive points out how difficult it’s been for Portman, the only Republican Senator in open support of gay marriage, since he’s made his stance public last week. And despite such well-known Republicans as former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Sec. of State Colin Powell also being in support of same-sex marriage, it’s far more easy for a Democrat like Mrs. Clinton or sitting President Obama to admit that he or she supports same-sex marriage than it is for any active Republican officeholder.
Why is this?
PennLive points out that Portman said:
Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his Methodist faith. However, he wrote, “Ultimately, for me, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.”
Yet most Republican leaders apparently met this with either stony silence or, as PennLive’s article put it, “a shrug,” while Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner actually told ABC’s This Week that he’d oppose gay marriage even if his own son was gay.
It’s hard to see this particular comment as anything except a slam against Senator Portman.
Fortunately, it’s not as difficult for a well-known Democrat to let it be known she is in favor of marriage equality.
Mrs. Clinton said that her work at the State Department, including the signing of measures meant to protect long-term same-sex couples, made her reconsider her beliefs (best paraphrase from her video for the HRC, which is available via PennLive). That’s why she, too, has now come out in full support of same-sex marriage.
And, thus far, the Democratic (or democratic-leaning) talking heads on both MSNBC and CNN seem in full support of Mrs. Clinton’s stance, which is not a surprise. The titular head of the party is the President, who is also in support of same-sex marriage (though perhaps less wholeheartedly than Mrs. Clinton).
So, on the one hand we have the Republican Party, which doesn’t seem to want to budge except for a few brave individuals like Senator Portman and several retired Republicans like Cheney and Powell. And on the other, we have the Democratic Party, which has an openly lesbian sitting Senator (Wisconsin’s own Tammy Baldwin), and has embraced advocacy of same-sex marriage as a human rights issue.
Which, to my mind, it is.
Look. This is an issue that everyone should get behind, but it may be impossible for some older Americans to fully understand. Nevertheless, if two people want to marry, and both are consenting adults, the state should allow them to marry. Not stand in their way.
And as far as the religious objections go, we have separation of church and state in our Constitution for a reason — which is why individual churches may still say no to same-sex marriage without penalty.
But it’s also why our country, as a whole, should say yes.
On a personal note, I’m very pleased that Senator Portman has been willing to publicly admit that his stance has changed. This makes me believe there’s at least some hope for the Republican Party to stop making marriage equality a partisan issue — despite well-known obstructionists such as Speaker Boehner.
Notre Dame Football and Rape Victims — Why You Should Care
There’s a scandal that’s been long a-brewing in Notre Dame . . . and no, it’s not related to star football player Manti Te’o or his fake girlfriend.
No, it’s much worse than that.
It’s about at least one rape, by at least one Notre Dame football player, that’s apparently been covered up by higher-ups at Notre Dame. It’s about that coverup, and about how the Athletic Director of Notre Dame, Jack Swarbrick, would rather discuss the Te’o situation, bizarre though that is, than the reputed sexual assault (or assaults). And it’s about the abuse of trust by Catholic priests, who are in positions of power in the Notre Dame hierarchy and are apparently much more concerned about the big money coming in via Notre Dame’s football program than any justice for rape victims.
Now, you might be asking, “Why do you keep saying ‘victims’ in this case, when only one (unnamed) football player has been implicated in the latest scandal?” Well, it’s simple. As Melinda Henneberger, herself a Notre Dame graduate, reported in the National Catholic Reporter back on March 26, 2012:
On her way back to St. Mary’s College from the University of Notre Dame, just across the street in Notre Dame, Ind., freshman Lizzy Seeberg texted her therapist that she needed to talk ASAP. “Something bad happened,” read her message, sent at 11:39 p.m. on Aug. 31, 2010. A sophomore in their dorm bolted from her study group after getting a similar message. When they talked a few minutes later, Lizzy was crying so hard she was having trouble breathing: “She looked really flushed and was breathing heavily and talking really fast; I couldn’t understand her. I just heard her say ‘boy,’ ‘Notre Dame,’ ‘football player.’ She was crying and having the closest thing to a panic attack I’ve seen in my life. I told her to breathe and sit down and tell me everything.”
Lizzy Seeberg”s story is the main one under discussion, as she reported the crime to the police. She wanted justice to be done. But then, as Henneberger’s account clearly shows, Lizzy Seeberg was pressured by various people at Notre Dame (mostly students) to drop the case.
Instead of dropping it, she committed suicide.
But Henneberger uncovered other current troubles. As she wrote later:
Lizzy wanted it to be better for the next woman. But one subsequent case, never reported until now, involved another young woman who decided that you really don’t mess with Notre Dame football. A year ago February, a female Notre Dame student who said another football player had raped her at an off-campus party told the friend who drove her to the hospital afterward that it was with Lizzy in mind that she decided against filing a complaint, that friend said.
So, did you catch that? Here another woman was raped, but did not go forward with her story because she, too, was afraid of being pressured.
Here’s another tidbit from Henneberger’s article:
One Notre Dame parent and longtime donor I interviewed, who asked that his name not be used because his daughter had reported being raped by a fellow Notre Dame student, said a top university official told him Lizzy was without question the aggressor in the situation: “She was all over the boy.”
So it’s obvious that the Notre Dame higher-ups appear to be seriously into blaming the victim. But they didn’t want to have to admit that’s what they were doing, which is why it was all innuendo, rumor and guess.
In a sense, Lizzy’s ordeal didn’t end with her death. The damage to her memory since then is arguably more of a violation than anything she reported to police — and all the more shocking because it was not done thoughtlessly, by a kid in a moment he can’t take back, but on purpose, by the very adults who heavily market the moral leadership of a Catholic institution. Notre Dame’s mission statement could not be clearer: “The university is dedicated to the pursuit and sharing of truth for its own sake.” But in this case, the university did just the opposite.
Henneberger also wrote a column for the Washington Post (her regular gig) explaining why she would not be rooting for Notre Dame in the BCS National Championship. As she put it:
It’s not only what I believe went on at that off-campus party, or in the room of the player Lizzy accused, that makes it impossible for me to support the team, though that would be enough. The problem goes deeper than that, and higher, because the man Lizzy accused had a history of behavior that should have kept him from being recruited in the first place. And as bad in my book as the actions of those young men was the determination of the considerably older men who run N.D. to keep those players on the team in an effort to win some football games.
Among those being congratulated for our return to gridiron glory is ND’s president, Rev. John Jenkins, who refused to meet with the Seeberg family on advice of counsel, and other school officials who’ve whispered misleadingly in many ears, mine included, in an attempt to protect the school’s brand by smearing a dead 19-year-old.
And that smearing was brutal. This was a young woman who volunteered her time at her local church. She was a political conservative (not that it matters). She was someone who firmly believed she should save her virginity for marriage, all according to Henneberger’s NCR report.
Yet she was called “mentally unstable.” A sexual innocent, she supposedly was “all over the boy.”
And this caricature of a young woman is something most rape victims will recognize, especially if they’ve tried to report a sexual assault at Notre Dame. According to Henneberger’s report:
In 1974, a South Bend woman who was hospitalized and then spent a month in a psychiatric facility after reporting being gang-raped by six Notre Dame football players was described by a top university administrator as “a queen of the slums with a mattress tied to her back.” No charges were filed, but the accused were suspended for a year for violating school rules. At the time, even so revered a figure as Holy Cross Fr. Theodore Hesburgh said: “We didn’t have to talk to the girl; we talked to the boys.” Hesburgh, who is 94, made that remark to Notre Dame alumnus Robert Sam Anson, who in his student days had founded the campus newspaper. Anson quoted Hesburgh in a story very much like this one, written 35 years ago.
Those who argue that, if anything, Notre Dame is too hard on its athletes regularly cite the 2002 expulsion of three players and a former player accused of gang-raping a woman, though none of them served a day in jail. But their accuser insists they were only expelled after officials failed to dissuade her from going public: “First they said, ‘No one’s going to believe you.’ ” When she went to South Bend police anyway, Notre Dame officials “treated me horribly at every opportunity. I had PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] and I was afraid they [the players] were going to come after me again, but [school officials] wouldn’t let me park my car on campus because they said that wouldn’t be fair to the other students. When I tried to make an appointment with the counseling center, they called me back and said they couldn’t see me because of pending legal matters, though the legal matter they were talking about was the state versus these four rapists.”
So the anecdotal evidence is overpowering. But you might be asking yourself, why isn’t there more of a paper trail regarding all of these various accusers? (Much less a public outcry on the level of, say, the Penn State debacle of a year ago, something the Nation’s Dave Zirin wonders about as well.)
It’s simple. The town of South Bend, Indiana, doesn’t have much in the way of industry any longer. It’s economy is dependent upon Notre Dame, and to a substantial extent, on how many fans come to see Notre Dame’s football team every year.
Because of this, there’s a motive for covering things up. There’s a motive to say, “No, that couldn’t have possibly happened here,” even when it’s obvious that something bad has happened. And it sounds like from Henneberger’s exhaustive report at the National Catholic Reporter that Notre Dame, systematically, has done its level best to silence as many rape victims as it possibly can.
And I’m not the only person to feel that way. Henneberger, in her Washington Post column, talked with Kaliegh Fields, a St. Mary’s junior who attempted to help Lizzy Seeberg back in 2010. Pay close attention to what Fields has to say, as her final question is the one that’s been perplexing me ever since I started reading about Lizzy’s plight:
“I’ve watched almost every game this season and there’s not a single time that I don’t feel extreme anger when I see [the accused] on the field,” said Kaliegh Fields, a Saint Mary’s junior who went with Lizzy to the police station. “Once I start thinking about the people who put the school’s success in a sport over the life of a young woman, I can’t help but feel disgust. Everyone’s always saying how God’s on Notre Dame’s side,” she added. “And I think, ‘How could he be?’”
So after all this, you might be wondering why you should care about what’s going on at Notre Dame besides its football program. Or besides the current scandal with regards to Manti Te’o and “did he, or did he not, know that his girlfriend wasn’t real.” Or besides the fact that this one place, South Bend, Indiana, is dependent upon Notre Dame and its football program to stay alive in these uncertain economic times.
But if you have read everything I’ve posted, and honestly cannot understand why I’m hopping mad that Lizzy Seeberg did not get justice done . . . well, as Mr. T used to say, “I pity the fool.”
And the longer I think about it, the more I agree with Dave Zirin: the Notre Dame football program should be given the NCAA’s death penalty, because there’s something wrong when life becomes far less important than football.
Even at Notre Dame.
Obvious Takes, Pt. 1: Most Blogs are Opinions
Folks, I never thought I’d have to write these words, but here they are: most blogs, believe it or not, are opinions.
This is such an obvious thing to talk about, but apparently there are people out there who don’t realize this simple fact. For example, if you blog specifically about sports, most of what you’re talking about are your opinions about what’s going on in the world of sports. Ditto for politics (except double that, and then some), current events, and just about everything else.
Yet some people are concerned that the quality of writing on the Internet is so low that it’s leading people to forget this. Take economist Graeme Maxton, for example. In his recent book THE END OF PROGRESS: How Modern Economics Has Failed Us, Maxton said on p. 76:
It is not just that much of the information on the Internet is of dubious provenance, it is that much of what is posted as “fact” is actually opinion.
Maxton also goes on to say on p. 77 that:
The Internet is a particular problem. As well as offering a cozy home for factual mistakes or a platform for those with ill-thought-out opinions, there is the diversion it provides. Studies’ show that people who read text that is scattered with hyperlinks understand less than those who read the old-fashioned printed word.
Note that Maxton does not directly reference these studies, as there is no endnote available. He also does not discuss anything specific regarding any actual studies that have been done in this paragraph, though in the next paragraph down he references a book by Nicholas Carr called THE SHALLOWS: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains that discusses the problem of hyperlinks and Web pages.
And, if you read the above-referenced paragraph very carefully, you’ll note that Maxton doesn’t point out the excellent, fact-based and fact-checked blogs that do exist on the Internet; he instead seems to paint all blogs and everything on the ‘net with a broad brush. While it’s possible Maxton was making the case that fact-based research should not begin and end on the Web due to these limitations (a completely inoffensive statement), he cheapened his argument when he didn’t admit that at least some good, hard-hitting, factually-based articles have been posted on the Web — and that some of these hard-hitting, factually-based articles have certainly been posted on blogs.
So these words by Maxton, while to a certain extent truthful, are also a way for Maxton to frame the narrative. In this case, Maxton’s narrative is simple: “The Internet is creating a bunch of morons who can’t think for themselves. Because of that, people who read blogs on the Internet may not realize they’re actually reading opinions, rather than facts. We must fix this!”
Yet that narrative, while it does contain truth, is also an opinion, is it not? (And in a hard-bound book, no less. For shame!)
That said, Maxton’s words remain prescient because there unfortunately are people out there who will read just about anything, then parrot it back without much further thought. And at least some of those will send material “viral” that may not deserve to be read by many people — or at least may not deserve to be thought of as factual rather than the opinions most blogs truly are (this blog included).
Mind you, most people who read blogs do seem to understand the difference between fact-based commentary (which can and usually does offer an opinion) and opinions.
But just in case you’re one of the people who haven’t figured that out as of yet, consider this lesson #1 in the importance of being overly obvious. Because when it comes right down to it, most blogs are opinions, folks. And it shouldn’t take an economist like Graeme Maxton to tell you so, either.
2012 Brewers Pluses, Minuses, and Oddities thus far
Folks, so far 2012 is shaping up to be a very strange year for the Milwaukee Brewers.
For example, if I had to grade the starters right now, I’d say they’re a net minus for the team. (This when they were expected to be a major strength.)
Consider, please, that the ace of the staff right now is #4 starter Shaun Marcum. Marcum’s current ERA is 3.46, his record is 1-1, he’s pitched 13 innings thus far and he has 12 strikeouts. The aces we’re supposed to be able to depend on, Yovani Gallardo and Zack Greinke, have each had one good game and one bad game thus far — they, too, are 1-1, and Greinke has 12 Ks right along with Marcum to lead the team thus far. But it gets murky after that — Gallardo’s ERA is 5.91 while Greinke’s is even worse at 6.75. Both have pitched exactly 10 2/3 innings, while Gallardo has somehow walked 7 men thus far (Greinke has only walked 1, but that’s not much of a comfort when almost every other statistic he has is abysmal).
And as for #3 starter Randy Wolf, he’s has had two bad outings thus far, which is why his ERA is a whopping 10.61 in only 9 1/3 innings. Wolf said he “stunk” a few days ago, and that he will do better; he’s a proud man, and I’m well aware that no professional baseball player ever goes out on to the field and wants to do so poorly — especially to start the season. But this just isn’t good.
And #5 starter Chris Narveson, who pitched so well in his first start, pitched poorly today; he now stands with an ERA of 7.00 with 9 innings pitched, 5 Ks and 4 walks. While he’s not expected to be a shining light (as he is the #5 starter), he is expected to be competent; Narveson most likely will improve right along with Wolf and the others, but this is a most inauspicious start to the 2012 for the entire starting rotation.
As for the relief pitching, here we’re looking at oddities instead; while there are some minuses (John Axford’s had two bad outings, though he does have two saves, while Francisco Rodriguez has had one bad outing), there are two big pluses thus far — the pitching of Manny Parra, coming back after being out all last season with back and arm issues, and the pitching of Kameron Loe. Both of them have sub-3 ERAs; Loe has consistently gotten the ground-ball outs he needs to get to be a successful pitcher, while Parra has 8 Ks thus far (better than some of the starters).
And the rest of the relievers have been pretty good, too; Jose Veras has pitched well thus far, as has Marco Estrada; even Tim Dillard has done surprisingly well (don’t let his ERA of 7.11 fool you, as that’s due to one, bad outing). So the guys expected to do well — Axford and K-Rod — mostly haven’t, but the rest of ’em have. I’d rank that an oddity.
Now, we get to the fielding, which is just plain awful and is a huge net minus for the team. Ryan Braun, who’s hitting pretty well, has already made an unusual throwing error (he was off-balance the other day against Atlanta, threw to third base, was off the mark, and a run scored), while Carlos Gomez, probably the best fielding outfielder on the team, has already made two errors.
But the infielders have been by far worse; Alex Gonzales, who’s supposed to be such a good defender, has three errors already (though one wasn’t his fault as Mat Gamel wasn’t where he was supposed to be; really, Gonzales shouldn’t have had to be charged with that as that’s where the “team error” stat should come into play — which is why MLB needs to adopt that rule, stat). Rickie Weeks at second base has one, while Mat Gamel has two . . . and Aramis Ramirez has one.
So the team defense so far has lacked quite a bit.
As for the hitting, only one regular player is doing very well and being productive, and that’s Corey Hart. He’s hitting .321 thus far with 4 homers, 8 RBI, and 3 doubles. Ryan Braun has done the best otherwise, as he’s hitting .343 with 1 HR, 4 RBI, 2 stolen bases and 4 doubles.
The biggest net plus when it comes to this team thus far is the catching tandem of Jonathan Lucroy and George Kottaras. Lucroy is hitting .364 with 2 HR and 6 RBI, while Kottaras is also hitting .364 (a statistical anomaly, that) with 3 HR and 6 RBI.
But there’s still some real problems with the hitting; the team as a whole is only batting .228, while Weeks and Ramirez are batting below .200. (Ramirez in particular has been terrible, as he’s batting only .114.)
This is why I call the hitting an oddity thus far; there are some people hitting, a few you’d expect to do well (Hart and Braun), a few you wouldn’t who are doing well (the catchers), and a few you expect to do well who aren’t (Weeks and Ramirez.
All of this adds up to a 4-6 record and a highly unpredictable and frustrating season thus far.
Baseball Updates: Hart to Play Opening Day; Rottino sent to AAA by Mets
Folks, I have the proverbial good news and bad news.
Tonight’s good news? Milwaukee Brewers RF Corey Hart will not start the season on the disabled list, as had been previously thought. Instead, he will be in right field for the Brewers on Opening Day on April 6.
But the bad news is that ex-Brewers farmhand, all-around good guy, and one of the most versatile players in any league, Vinny Rottino, who hit .276 in Spring Training with 5 RBI in 58 ABs — an IF/OF/C who plays just about every position except second base and pitcher — was cut a few, short hours ago by the New York Mets and was sent to AAA Buffalo (their minor-league affiliate) in what appears to be the Mets’ very last transaction before the start of the 2012 season.
Now, there is a hint of good news even to this, as Michael Baron of MetsBlog.com fame says that he doubts the Mets have “seen the last of him.” Baron’s comment, in its entirety, is available here, but here are his kind words about Rottino:
I liked what I saw from Rottino this Spring. With all of the early injuries to the outfielders, he was given every opportunity to show what he could do, and he did everything the staff asked him to do when he played. He showed he can make solid contact and is versatile – he can play both corner positions and the outfield as well. I bet we haven’t seen the last of him.
In addition, Peter Jackel of the Racine Journal-Times is reporting that Rottino impressed Mets’ manager Terry Collins. From Jackel’s article:
Rottino, a 1998 (Racine)** St. Catherine’s High School graduate, certainly has reason to be encouraged. He was informed by Collins last Thursday that he would break camp with the Mets if veteran outfielders Scott Hairston and Andres Torres, who had been battling injuries, were not healthy. But Hairston and Torres made the 25-man roster, leaving Rottino the odd man out.
“They sent everybody else down except me,” Rottino said. “I was the last position player in camp. (Collins) said, ‘You made an impression on everybody. You opened some eyes, Everything I’ve heard about you is exactly the kind of ballplayer you are.’ ”
So it sounds like Rottino impressed at least a few people with his versatility, his strong defensive skills, and his hitting. Good for him!
Now, my hope is that Rottino will go on a tear at Buffalo and hit so well that the Mets are forced to bring him up (in the same way as the Brewers had to bring up Russell Branyan in 2008 from AAA Nashville whether they liked it or not).
———–
** These stars indicate an insertion, by me, for those of you who are not from Racine, WI, who read my blog, with all apologies to Journal-Times sportswriter Peter Jackel. Jackel knows, as I do, that Rottino is from Racine; I’ve said it here at my blog more than once. But it’s possible that some of you don’t, especially if you’ve started reading my blog recently.
An Update to the Update, AKA further thoughts from yours truly:
I view Vinny Rottino’s story as a strong lesson in the value of persistence. I do my best to emulate it, as my own career as a writer/editor hasn’t exactly set the world on fire thus far. (Please don’t ask me to tell you how long I’ve been trying to do this; let’s just say that it’s longer than Rottino’s been trying to get to the majors and stay.)
Ultimately, the only thing any of us can do — myself, Rottino, anyone at all — is prepare ourselves to take the next step in our development. For Rottino, that’s playing major league ball; for me, it’s selling my novel ELFY, or perhaps another novel to start with, then selling ELFY (as I remain fully committed to the value of my worth as a funny fantasy writer).
I know Rottino has prepared himself, and will continue to be prepared; as soon as he gets that call from the Mets, he’ll be there like a jet-fueled rocket.
And I know that I’ve prepared myself, too, to see ELFY in print and to know, ultimately, that my husband’s faith in me — much less my very good friend Jeff Wilson’s faith in me, as he, too, was a huge believer in the Elfyverse — will be vindicated.
As I’ve said before, so sayeth I again: good luck, Vinny. And may the wind be at your back, always.
Whitney Houston dies at 48
Whitney Houston has died at age 48.
I heard the news tonight on various channels, including MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, so there is no mistake. Houston is dead, and her beautiful voice and ability to emote while singing has died with her.
From a musical standpoint, there was a great deal to admire about Houston. She had an operatic range, which is rare for singers of popular music (only Mariah Carey among current pop singers has anything close to the range of Houston). She also chose great songs from great songwriters; for example, one of Houston’s best-known songs, “I Will Always Love You,” was originally written and performed by Dolly Parton — herself no slouch as a singer. Yet Houston was able to add something to Parton’s excellent song to the point that if you asked ten people who’d heard each version which one they liked better, seven out of ten would probably say they liked Houston’s version better.
Houston’s death is a great loss for the music community. And even knowing that the Grammy Awards are tomorrow (where music as a whole celebrates music and musicians), and that there will have to be a Houston retrospective, it doesn’t help overmuch because it just doesn’t seem right that someone so vital die at age 48.
As anyone who’s read my blog knows, I resonate strongly to this because my late husband Michael died at age 46, suddenly and without warning. Then my best friend Jeff died last year, suddenly and without warning, after he’d fought off the worst of a terrible bacterial infection and seemed to be on the upswing, at age 47. This is why it really and truly does not seem right to me that someone who still had so much left to give is dead at age 48.
I tend to think a person’s life has to be measured by what he or she did with it; in the case of Houston, I believe she was as successful as she could be, considering the terrible toll drug addiction had exacted from her. She was a gifted performer, a fine singer, and by many accounts was a very kind person whose only real weakness was drugs.
At any rate, Houston’s life is over; she’s done all she could, and now all we have left are the recordings she left behind.
I refuse to say “rest in peace” because the phrase has been so overused that it’s trite. I’d rather say that my heart goes out to Houston’s daughter, Bobbi Kristina, Houston’s ex-husband, Bobby Brown (someone that Houston stayed close to even after she divorced him), her mother Cissy Houston (a gifted singer in her own right), and cousin Dionne Warwick (one of the best singers of the ’60s, ’70s, and early ’80s), along with anyone else who knew Houston or loved her music. May they be comforted by their memories and/or her music; may her spirit find happiness in Eternity. (Amen.)
————
** Note: Whatever else that can be said about my late husband, or my best friend Jeff, know that up until the day of each man’s passing, they learned, changed, grew, and became better people the longer they lived. This is not to say they were saints (saints are boring); they were good men, which is a whole lot tougher thing to be than it seems.
Whitney Houston, according to Rev. Al Sharpton, had beaten most of her demons (this is my best paraphrase from hearing Sharpton on CNN and earlier on MSNBC); CNN has reported that Houston was about to star in her first movie in 15 years. So as far as anyone knows right now, Houston was clean and sober. She was able to act. And she was able to perform again, albeit with a voice that was badly ravaged by drugs — though even had she “stayed clean” throughout her life, the voice tends to break down for many operatic-trained sopranos in their late 40s.
To my mind, Houston’s life was a success. Not because she was such a great singer, but because she kept trying and didn’t give up. In this way — and perhaps only in this way — she was like my husband, or my friend, and that’s the main reason I mourn her passing.
Beware Absolutes
Tonight’s blog post is simple: beware absolutes, especially when it comes to writing.
Look. When we write, if we write about a character who has only one motivation, that’s going to be a one-dimensional character that’s tough to work with. And yet the world is full of “shades of gray,” which you’d never know if you turned on the evening news or if you listened to political talk shows all day (as I often do; I do rotate from the leftward spinning ones of MSNBC to the rightward spinning ones of Fox News to at least get some variety in the coverage).
How people see things is often related to how they’ve heard those same things be described in the past. This is just the way our contemporary, 21st Century world is; perhaps it’s because we don’t seem to have enough time to be able to think for ourselves after carefully studying the issues. Or perhaps it’s just more comfortable for us to be around others who share our world view and belief system, which might be why so many of us look at the world in the most basic, absolute, black-and-white thinking imaginable.
For a writer, this sort of ultra-concrete thinking is deadly. It creates dull, one-dimensional characters which populate dull, one-dimensional stories, and those are stories no one wants to read.
Now, there have been legitimate times in the world history where there was a really good system versus a terrible one — such as during the 1930s until 1945. What Adolf Hitler did to Germany was unconscionable, but the reason we still read about him is because he wasn’t one-dimensional (no matter how much we might’ve wanted him to be). This is a man who painted (though not well). He loved music, and was a devotee of Wagner. He enjoyed comparative religion and religious philosophy. And no matter how much you might loathe him (I know I certainly do), he definitely was a multi-faceted person with a huge amount of interests that fascinates readers even now due to both his psychological complexity and the fact that he was able to subjugate an entire country to his whims.
We writers must learn from history and remember that even the worst people thought they were doing the right thing by their lights. (They might be the only one thinking they were doing the right thing, mind you.) That even the worst people probably had occasional pangs of conscience. And that even the worst people were not one-dimensional cardboard cutouts.
Mind you, you also need to be cognizant of the flip side, as there are very few angelic types in this world (Mother Teresa, Father Damien the Leper Priest, and a very few others). These “earth angels” among us (or bodhisattvas, if you’d prefer that term) knew they were fallible, mortal, and just as guilty of having a bad thought or a bad day as anyone else.
Remember always to “beware absolutes,” and beware absolutism. Because that is the enemy not only of good writing, but of good thinking as well.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 