THE STRIKE ZONE
Sometimes Sports, Sometimes Sportsmanship
This season, former MLB outfielder Gary Sheffield contributed to a piece for The Player's Tribune under the guise of being Commissioner of MLB for a day. Some of his ideas were legit (the Wild Card playoff should be a series), while others were contentious (the DH should be in the National League). However, a few were down right stupid.
Sheffield's first point of ridiculousness surrounds the idea of throwing at batters. He believes that hitters should be allowed to charge the mound and retaliate against pitchers who purposely throw at hitters. I'm going to stop and let that sink in for a second... I really don't have to continue writing to prove how lost Sheffield is, but for the sake of the piece, let's keep going. Second point: the sliding rules (bona fide slide and catchers blocking the plate) have made us soft. Sheffield actually endorses the idea of hurting a guy to break up a double play. He equates it to contesting a jump shot in basketball. I'm no basketball genius, but I'm pretty sure trying to block a jump shot doesn't involve a high speed collision where someone could end up with a broken leg. What else does he say that will make you bleed from your ears? Instant replay is ridiculous. The infield shifts should be banned (he actually called the sport "computer-geek ball"). And the best part? MLB is not strict enough in suspensions for testing positive for performance enhancing drugs. Wait a minute, Gary. Aren't you a cheater? Didn't you get caught using steroids? I'm done...
0 Comments
This year, I had the pleasure of umpiring a consolation game in high school baseball tournament. The game featured two varsity teams from nearby who were facing off after being eliminated from championship contention. I felt very honored that I would be given this opportunity after 11 years of service to high school umpiring.
During the game, there was a close play that occurred at the plate where my partner made the right call, albeit a dicey one. The coach of the team that was not pleased by the call came out to argue with my partner, who did check with me to make sure that we agreed on the call (and we did). After trying to explain to the coach why we were sticking with the original call made (which was the proper call), the coach decided to end the argument with a parting shot at my partner. "That's why you're working a consolation game!" In the world of officiating, making personal comments towards an official is grounds for immediate ejection. People can disagree with the call without calling your ability as an official into question. Further, why is it necessary to even go there? Do people actually feel insulted when a call goes against their team? If so, there are deeper issues in play! Regardless, a word to the wise: don't make it personal with officials. Most officials will be happy to explain their calls and certain adjudications to you. In fact, some officials enjoy the company and the conversation! After all, officials don't have any friends on the field, so chatting with someone over a call can be like having tea with a friend! The epilogue to my story? My partner didn't eject the coach. After the game, I asked him why, thinking I would have tossed him immediately. His answer? "If I have to stay and watch a game that bad, he's going to sit there with me!" The state of Kansas had an interesting problem this year. Due to significant inclement weather, many high school sports were forced to reschedule their games into a more condensed fashion. The problem was actually widespread; it was not just applicable to one sport or season.
But within that issue was another issue: there were not enough officials to cover all of these rescheduled assignments on a given day. Now, in fairness, this problem was somewhat unique. When you take a schedule that is properly spread out over a decent amount of time and are forced to condense it into a smaller window, there's definitely going to be some people scrambling. It actually happened to me this year! Due to rain, I was scheduled to work a last-minute doubleheader on Mother's Day! However, the article that discussed this issue in Kansas looked into the other causes or related factors. The results were not surprising. The number of people who leave officiating (or who never enter it when they should) continues to grow due to three common factors: the pay, the hours, and the lack of respect. The hours are an unfortunate conflict, and there really isn't a solution for this. High school sports are usually played immediately after school, and the average working adult doesn't leave work until 5pm. So the chances of getting out early to make a 4pm start are not always high. Not everyone has the ability to change their schedule to get to games. The perfect people for jobs as officials are teachers, the self-employed, and the retired...or professional musicians. The pay is an interesting discussion. In New Jersey high school baseball, varsity officials make $81 per game. Sub-varsity officials (JV through middle school) make $60 per game (unless you're working by yourself, in which case you make a varsity fee). And in Mercer County, we are fortunate enough to negotiate for some travel fees for schools that fall outside our county-contracted schools. It's not a terrible rate (especially for varsity); whether you do the math based on the time you spend actually on the field, or if you factor in travel and prep time, it actually seems somewhat fair for what amounts to a part-time job. The issue with pay actually lends itself into the argument regarding the lack of respect. For the amount of abuse that officials take, the pay simply doesn't seem like it's enough. In fact, an interesting argument within baseball officials is whether or not fewer arguments would occur if the standard for officiating was to use three officials instead of two. Of course, though, adding a third official would require more money from the schools. And if pay is already where it is, it's doubtful schools will have the budget for that. Outside of the pay, though, the lack of respect can take on a life of its own. Many officials deal with so much abuse that they determine officiating is not for them and quit. One wonders how those abusers would feel if they knew that their antics actually caused a human being to quit his or her profession of officiating. Regardless of how it is dissected, though, the fact that the number of officials continues to decline while the average age of the officials increases is one that points to an obvious truth: we need officials, especially if we are going to keep youth sports going. In my opinion, it's pretty annoying when players, fans, and anyone else have to say or do something to "psyche" themselves up for what might be considered a big game. What's worse is when it backfires.
At the beginning of May, the Texas Rangers and Houston Astros met for the first time in the baseball season. The Rangers and Astros are both inter-state and inter-division rivals, playing in the American League West. So there is already a bit of juice to the series. So why did Astros third baseman Alex Bregman decide to fire off a Tweet to fire people up and tick off the Rangers? Your guess is as good as mine. Bregman has been in the big leagues for all of five minutes. He played for Team USA in the World Baseball Classic, only to ride the bench in favor of other established stars. He is certainly not the established leader of the team. When he Tweeted an obscene (but coded) battle cry to intimidate and beat Texas, the Rangers decided to print copies of it and put them up all over their clubhouse as motivation. So what did Texas do? Pitcher Andrew Cashner hit two batters, including Jose Altuve to start off the bottom of the first inning. So Houston's pitcher, Lance McCullers, then threw behind the back of the Rangers' Mike Napoli. That's when the benches cleared and everyone congregated in a pushing and shoving match. These attempts to "fire up your squad" are nothing more than pep rallies, which are pointless from the get-go; if you need to motivate people with some "pep," rather than assume they will find the motivation themselves, then there is a bigger concern at hand. Is it done to try to scare or intimidate the opponent? Do you honestly think that this type of behavior will psychologically affect other competitors? But consider the outcomes of these attempts to intimidate opponents as if they were categorized like Descartes' Wager: -If your opponent cowers in fear from the intimidation attempts and you beat them, did you really beat them fair and square? Did you really need to give your all to win over a compromised opponent? It doesn't seem very satisfying. -If your opponent cowers in fear but still beats you, then you look like an idiot. -If your opponent gets angry and fights harder but you win, why did you make it harder on yourself? I'm sure it's nice to be able to achieve victory by raising your game to immense levels, but was it worth the risk? -If your opponent gets angry and fights harder and beats you, then you look like an idiot. There's really no victory worthy of trying to intimidate your opponent. The cost/benefit ratio is absurd. Your best bet is to keep your mouth shut and just go do your job. But the worst part of all this is not that it happened between the Astros and Rangers. Rather, the problem is that this type of behavior is practiced with our youth as described in pep rallies and other types of scenarios. Rivalries between high schools and colleges do nothing more than endanger our impressionable youth by exposing them to practices and traditions that do nothing more than cause detriment rather than teach good sportsmanship and morals and focus on the good experience of the game instead of the need to win. Remind your young ones that it's about the good experience of playing the game, not about demeaning or defeating someone else. Back in April, respected baseball journalist Jon Heyman released a list he created of 50 current baseball players to admire or follow. It's a good thing he added the clause "or follow" because a good chunk of this list includes players who should not be admired.
In fairness, as I perused the list, I saw a lot of names of people I did admire: Kris Bryant, Corey Seager, and Matt Szczur jumped out immediately. (Originally, I was going to include both Mike Trout and Anthony Rizzo on this list, but both have made some dumb decisions to already make me think twice about them.) But the majority of the rest of the names were questionable to me, and a lot of it comes down to one thing: attitude/sportsmanship. Right off the bat, here are the names of people you can follow, but should not admire: Manny Machado, Noah Syndergaard, Madison Bumgarner, Miguel Cabrera, Yoenis Cespedes, Bryce Harper, Robinson Cano, Chris Sale, Josh Donaldson, Yadier Molina, Joey Votta, Jose Bautista, Javier Baez, and Aroldis Chapman. Great players? Sure. But each one has something in their character that should be a huge red flag. If your child idolizes one of these players, that kid is going to be let down one day. Further, how does Andrew Miller only make the "on the bubble" list? The guy is one of the most dominant relievers in the game today, and his comments about being team-first have made Yankee fans cry when he was traded. The bottom line is that these lists are always flawed and subjective and usually fall into the category of "having to write something just to fill up the space" (which we covered recently). But combining a list of people to admire with a list of people to follow irks me, especially when the people to admire is a small faction compared to the people to follow. (Post Script: I had to go back and edit this post numerous times and remove names from the list of players that jumped out at me to admire. It's amazing how people you think are worthy of admiration can so easily disappoint you.) Last week, we discussed an article about the unwritten rules of baseball. I was reluctant to discuss the article specifically and decided to focus on its content, namely plunking batters in retribution. However, I've gone back on that decision with new evidence.
As Yankees radio voice John Sterling has pointed out numerous times, writers and media hosts have to come up with opinions in order to talk about something. Their job is to fill the space (whether it is print/Internet media or broadcast air) with content, specifically content that will attract readers/viewers. The problem is when the opinions of those people become so ludicrous that it actually turns people away from the person producing the content. Take Tom Gatto, for example. Gatto wrote the article about the unwritten rules of baseball. I've never met Gatto, nor do I care to. However, shortly after he wrote the article on the plunking, he produced a few other articles that were equally as ridiculous. First, he goes on a spree about MLB umpire CB Bucknor. During a game between the Braves and the Nationals in April, Bucknor had a questionable strike zone that led Nationals outfielder Jayson Werth to immaturely charge the umpire after his team had won the game. Werth was taking a page out of the book of immaturity written by Bryce Harper, who dropped an f-bomb directed towards umpire Brian Knight the previous year after Knight ejected Harper (rightly so), only to have the Nats walk off shortly thereafter. (Harper rushed back onto the field after he had been ejected, which is not allowed, pointed at Knight, dropped the naughty word, and the cameras caught it all. Harper was suspended one game for this, which ended up being one half of a doubleheader.) Prior to Werth's actions, however, Bucknor kicked a call that would have ended the game. On a swinging strike three that would have been the final out of the game, Bucknor actually called it foul, even though the bat missed the ball by almost a foot. The Nats were already on the field celebrating (as was the grounds crew doing its post-game work), when the umpires huddled and declared the game not over. Thankfully, the Nats won just after that, but the scene was a circus. You know what umpires call that? A bad day. Or a bad game. Bucknor had a bad game. It happens to all of us. What we don't need is Tom Gatto (and every other sports pundit) demeaning him for his error. It's true that CB Bucknor was notoriously known as being a poor official. He has been in the big leagues for approximately two decades, and his reputation precedes him from time to time. However, Bucknor, like fellow official Angel Hernandez, has actually worked on his craft to try and improve. The league has noticed this because Bucknor (like Hernandez) has received some postseason assignments. The problem is that the average fan or writer (read: Gatto) only sees it when an official makes a mistake. Nobody notices when an official is perfect or right. Therefore, Bucknor (like Hernandez) gets ripped when he has a bad game, not recognizing the fact that he may have had a streak of good games prior. An umpire colleague relayed this story to me. When he was walking off the field after a game, a fan yelled at him, saying he had missed ten pitches that game. My colleague politely replied, "Thank you! That means I got the other 290 calls right!" Umpires cannot win. They are expected to be perfect, and then improve from there. And to clueless people who don't have the ability to empathize or see the big picture (like Gatto, who needs to fill space with his opinions), this is perfect banter that will attract readers. A few days later, Gatto wrote an article about a game between the Rays and the Tigers. In the bottom of the ninth, the Rays were trailing by one run and had the bases loaded with nobody out. On a full count pitch, Steven Souza Jr. attempted to check his swing, then dropped his bat and started heading to first, assuming he had just received a base on balls. The problem? Home plate umpire Larry Vanover called it a swinging strike and pumped Souza out. Rays manager Kevin Cash came out to argue and was immediately ejected by Vanover. After a prolonged argument, the next pitch was hit for a routine double play that was supposed to end the game. However, when Jose Inglesias tried to make the turn at second base, he slipped on second and fell down, causing his throw to go wildly past first base and allowing two runs to score, giving the Rays the win. There was no fault on the Rays for interference; Inglesias lost his footing by himself. However, the runner who was bearing down on him legally slid into second and right into Inglesias' face, causing him to lay on the ground in clear pain while the Rays celebrated a come-from-behind victory. So what does Gatto do in his article? He rips Vanover, says the Rays win on the good "juju" from Cash's ejection, and barely mentions the fact that Inglesias was hurt. Can we clear something up here? Whether Paul O'Neill agrees with it or not, it is the home plate umpire's call first and foremost on whether a batter swung at a pitch. If he thinks he swung, he can call it. He doesn't need to get help from a base umpire. Secondly, the home plate umpire can only go for help when he calls the pitch a ball and doesn't call the batter on a swing; only then can he honor the appeal and go to the base umpire to see if the batter actually swung. These are the damn rules of the game! Vanover got everything right! (And for what it's worth, replays show Souza swung.) Analysis of all these plays aside, why do people like Gatto need to write this stuff? And more importantly, why does the general public eat this stuff up? Are people that stupid that they can't see into the opinions of media members and make a personal and individual decision not to believe everything they read? I'll stop there because I could cross the line into politics, which is not my goal. The intent here is to call Gatto out for his poor choice in topics and opinions and to get people to take a step back and understand a little more about how the game of baseball works in conjunction with humanity. Protecting your teammates might seem noble, but it can be equally dumb.
Very early in the 2017 MLB season, the Arizona Diamondbacks were visiting the San Francisco Giants. Buster Posey, the Giants' All-Star catcher and arguably best player, took a 96 mph fastball to the helmet while at bat and ended up on the 7-day concussion disabled list. It was obviously unintentional. The next day, during the next game, Giants pitcher Jeff Samardzija decided to abide by the unwritten rules in baseball. While facing Paul Goldschmidt, the Diamondbacks' first baseman and best player, Samardzija threw a fastball that hit Goldschmidt in the rear end. Both players just went about their business under the assumption that this was understood due to the the recent history. This unwritten rule is probably one of the dumbest rules in baseball. Why does retribution hold such a high priority to ballplayers? It makes no sense whatsoever. An eye for an eye has been denounced many times in history, regardless of context of religion or politics. And yet, barbaric instincts take over and govern those who are getting paid to entertain us. Do these athletes, who have their financial futures set for generations, really need to care about the protection of their colleagues? It sets a horrible example for the youth who watch, especially because they emulate their athletic role models. It's time for athletes to start looking at the big picture, rather than just considering their short-sighted and selfish agenda. I know the World Baseball Classic is a distant memory from earlier this year, so I swear this will hopefully be the final post about it until it comes back around in four years.
Although Team USA won the tournament, it really felt like there were no winners based on the amount of poor sportsmanship that flowed through the entire event. We've already discussed how the Netherlands complained a lot as well as Adrian Gonzalez and Team Mexico being poor sports about the tie breaking rules. We may have also considered the fact that the number of ejections in the tournament was incredibly way too high, featuring three members of Team Columbia, Tony Pena (manager of the Dominican Republic), and even Andrew McCutchen from Team USA. Ultimately, for every moment of good sportsmanship (such as the pregame sportsmanship exchange), there was an equal moment of poor sportsmanship (such as anything just listed). Poor sportsmanship found its way into the championship round as well. As tensions between the Netherlands and Puerto Rico heated during their semi-final match, one specific shot of Javier Baez giving demeaning hand gestures to the Netherlands proved just how mature some players are. Even Team USA called out Puerto Rico for their hasty plans to celebrate a championship before it was won, although Puerto Rico has gone on record stating that the message was misinterpreted. Who knows if bad blood will always run between Yadier Molina and Adam Jones? Even Ian Kinsler was getting in on the great divide without even intending to do so! Kinsler first made comments about how the Latin players show passion in an unsportsmanlike way, only to backtrack and clarify saying those methods weren't necessarily bad. I don't know what's worse: the racial divide between the cultures or the fact that Kinsler might have a point! You may recall a post a few months ago discussing the various customs at sporting events throughout the world. Well, one thing we didn't really discuss in that piece was the attitudes taken by the athletes throughout the world. Without shifting gears completely, let's just note that Latin baseball players hold up the stereotype of the traditional "Latin temper." It all just comes down to this: no matter your race, your heritage, your allegiance, or your customs, you should treat others the way that you would want to be treated. Maybe Yadier Molina should put himself in the shoes of Team USA before he demands an apology from Adam Jones; is it possible that Molina could empathize with Jones and understand why things may have gotten out of hand? Could Latin players possibly start to think about what is going on in the minds of others when tempers start to flare? The debate of culture/custom vs. respect will rage on for a long time. It might seem easy to just cast a broad brush and wish that all Latin players would calm down and stop acting like egomaniacs and poor sports, but like many things in life, it is never that simple. Major League Baseball always does a great job of fighting for the cure to cancer. But there was one particular moment I wanted to mention.
Towards the end of Spring Training, the Los Angeles Dodgers and Oakland Athletics met for a game and featured a segment in between innings entitled "Home Run For Life." Arnie Bishop, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, was celebrating the fact that his cancer was in remission. The A's all lined up on the first base line while the Dodgers were on the third base line. Even the umpires got into the act and waited for the brief ceremony to commence. Bishop stood in the batter's box and took a pantomime swing, sending an imaginary fly ball over the fence. He started his home run trot and met every single person for a high five, beginning with home plate umpire John Tumpane and ending with Dodgers manager Dave Roberts. Every player, coach, and personnel member offered words of encouragement. Roberts took the time to congratulate Bishop and celebrate his new lease on life, taking pictures and offering hugs and kisses to Bishop and his wife. It was another great reminder of sportsmanship and acknowledgement of what really matters in life. Oh yeah, Tumpane also gave Bishop and his wife each a game ball. The 2017 World Baseball Classic was filled with excitement this year. In only it's fourth incarnation, the tournament is picking up steam and finally beginning to capture the attention of some of the stars who are yet to play in it (like Mike Trout).
That is, unless, you are Adrian Gonzalez. Gonzalez, the All-Star 1st Baseman for the Los Angeles Dodgers and the biggest name on Team Mexico, went on a tirade after Mexico thought they had advanced to a tie-breaker game against Italy, only to find out that they misinterpreted the rule and actually lost out to Venezuela, who would instead face Italy for the right to move on in the tournament. Here's the scene: in Pool D, which was the first round of the tournament being played in Mexico and featured teams from Mexico, Venezuela, Italy, and Puerto Rico, the top two teams would move on to the second round after Round Robin play completed. Each of the teams in the pool would play a total of three games: one against each of the other opponents. Puerto Rico went 3-0; the others all went 1-2. So three teams were tied for the second seed and the chance to move on. The tiebreaker rules state that they would use a formula to determine which of the two tied teams would play in a tiebreaker game for the right to move on; the third team would simply be eliminated. That formula calculated defensive runs allowed over defensive regulation innings in games against the tied opponents (just trust me on this...it's so complicated that even I wanted to yell at television). Originally, the media announced that Italy and Mexico were the two teams that would play. However, upon re-examining the rule, noting an error, and re-calculating, Mexico was to be eliminated and Venezuela was to play Italy; they edged them by a fraction of a run. Oh yeah, and Venezuela beat Italy and moved on. Gonzalez and all of Team Mexico went public with their displeasure after filing an official protest and following all of the protocol to try to get their team back in that game. But it went all for naught. "They're trying to be the World Cup," Gonzalez said, "but they're not even the Little League World Series." Gonzalez made it quite clear he will not participate for Mexico or any team again in the future. Gonzalez also made sure that Major League Baseball and all WBC officials knew he thought they "had no integrity," calling everything they do "a bunch of BS." He also laughed and said it was good to be out of the tournament. By the way, Gonzalez hit .143 in the tournament, going only 1 for 12. If that doesn't smell of a sore loser, I don't know what does. A note to Mr. Gonzalez: we all get it. It's a shame that you were told you were moving on, then had to deal with the reality of the situation due to a technicality. But what you just exhibited is the behavior of a 9-year-old who just takes his ball and goes home when it doesn't go his way. By the way, a quick reminder to him and all of Team Mexico: your manager, Adrian's older brother Edgar Gonzalez, was ejected in the final game for arguing balls and strikes. So the real joke here is your team. Many other teams are having fun. Not only are you not due to your own choice of behavior, but you can also bet that Mexico will probably also not be a host city in the future either. |
Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|