The Boston Red Sox are surging. They have won six straight games and stand a good chance to make the playoffs, either by winning the American League East or one of the two Wild Card spots. The Detroit Tigers, meanwhile, are faltering, dropping eight of their last ten and slipping further back from that second Wild Card spot. But, to add insult to injury, today's game is now a scheme by the city of Detroit to "mess with" the Boston Red Sox. Wha-...?
I'll get to the facts first, just so we're all on the same page. The Red Sox played a game last night that went late due to rain delays. Due for an early flight to Detroit, they allegedly requested a move from an afternoon start to an evening start. Sound like a simple request? Unfortunately the Lions, who play across the street from the Tigers, have a preseason game scheduled for the same time, which would cause a traffic and logistics backlog in the city. So today's game on the 2016 Major League Baseball schedule, established over a year ago, will have to suffice.
Except the fans won't stand for it. After fans took notice to the tragedy, articles started cropping up about how the Tigers are purposely doing this to hamstring the Red Sox. Just like that, the Tigers are unwittingly forced into a heel turn.
Here's my trajectory: I woke up and read about the conflict, and dismissed it with a "What? Huh." But the more I thought of it, the more it just didn't make sense. To use such aggressive language--the Tigers are "manipulating" the schedule--is simply unfair. I drove to work in silence, becoming more upset by the mile. I mean, to even consider that this is an intentional way to gain an advantage is absolutely absurd. I checked some more articles only to find distraught Sox fans seeking a little payback and revenge for the way they've been mistreated1. By now, I'm just about irate and have been seething ever since.
For me, I've just had enough with feeling sorry for Boston sports teams. Nothing is ever their fault when things go wrong, and yet their teams have won nearly a dozen championships in the last two decades. I'm sorry; you don't get to be the underdog and the champion too. We can only hope this will balloon into a Deflategate-esque saga so we can witness how persecuted the city of Boston is by another major sports league. Please, Red Sox Nation, you are not maligned, and no one outside of Massachusetts thinks you are.
Most Boston sports fans--self-named "Massholes"--will say that sports are just different in the northeast. They just love their teams so passionately that (of course) the rest of the country would take offense to it. Also, all Boston teams are successful with recent championships so (of course) it's popular for the rest of the country to dislike them. I’m sure everyone’s heard the “Don’t hate us ‘cause we’ve got the rings!” defense. It's always Boston versus the world. Right? Well, I disagree. I have no problems with championship teams, but I do have a problem with excuses that turn very public (and largely unfounded). Celtics fans pulled similar excuses last season when they nearly handed the Warriors their first loss. No, you cannot force me to feel sorry.
I know what all of this sounds like. Believe me: I’ve read it all from stuck-up Sox fans this morning on Twitter. The Tigers are on a losing streak, punctuated by a horrendous loss last night after destroying a one-hit shutout effort from the starting pitcher, Anibal Sanchez. So, I must be bitter? Well, sure, I don’t like the losses, but last night was last night, and I’m looking to move on. Or maybe I’m still upset about the loss in the 2013 American League Championship Series? Yeah, that was the most crushing experience of my time watching baseball, but it has no bearing on today. This has nothing to do with the past; it has to do with journalists and fans attacking my favorite team without reason. It bothers me, so I’d like to defend them.
The way I see it, there are two ways this can play out2, and neither of them are pretty. A) the Tigers win today, and Red Sox Nation complains that the game was not on a fair plane. Or B) the Sox win today, and the Tigers suffer yet another humiliating defeat (I mean, they did get to sleep in this morning). In either case, the Tigers are in a no-win position. What would make it better? Detroit could offer to play without a shortstop, or maybe even start every at bat with an 0-1 count. Would that help? Maybe Red Sox Nation could get the NFL to move the Lions game to tomorrow? To be sure, the NFL owes the people of Boston something as well. For what it's worth, I hope the Tigers win by 40. They're already the villains, apparently; they might as well win big. Go Tigers.
1 To be fair, Tigers fans are also claiming the "Suck it up: you're a professional ballplayer, so you should be able to play in these conditions" stance. I'm not too proud to see my fellow fans sinking to this level, but hey, this whole thing's a mess.↩
2 The third way was that the game actually got moved to the evening, which would have proved whining always wins.↩
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Sports Related Aneurysms
As a fan, sports often take us to the edge of our seats. When your favorite team is down by two points or a goal, and this is a must-win game to advance in the playoffs, then yes, it might be better just to close your eyes.
Now that we are in the thick of both the NBA and NHL playoffs, there is no shortage of stressful moments. Players are unfortunately being injured; teams are constantly facing elimination. And it all adds up to stomach ulcers and tears if we lose. There’s a reason sports fans refer to their team as “we.” The feeling of identification we have with our guys is important. Their highs are our highs, just as their lows can be our painful lows.
Often in the high stress situations, one player becomes the focus of attention--to the point where success or failure can depend on this one person. Over the course of many stressful moments in sports, I have tried to determine some of the more common pressure points. What are the most tense positions in sports? Or perhaps more accurately, who has the most potentially aggravating?
Now, I can only speculate on the stress of athletes themselves. I logged 5 career points in high school basketball (including some AAU play), and I batted somewhere around .212 in baseball. Needless to say, I was not called upon often in stressful situations. But I am more than qualified to talk about the impact on the fans, with over 20 years of experience, predominantly with teams from Detroit, which I think earns me some bonus points.
ANYWAY, here is a list of some of what I consider the most terrifying positions in sports, in no particular order. If any of these positions cause near as much strain as we feel, then I can’t help but feel for them. Unless they play for the other team.
The Placekicker - I’ll start with an easy one. Although the field goal is only worth three points, it’s hard to imagine a more isolated task in football than kicking one. For a sport in which there are so many players on the field at one time, and the action occurs within about three seconds for each play, kicking is about the only time where no one else is watching anything. So much so, that the strategy known as “icing the kicker” involves taking timeouts only to increase the pressure of the moment. Regardless of the point value, I bet you can think of a few games your team has won or lost from a FG off the top of your head. After the fact, of course, the replay can decide that the snap was bad or the holder mishandled it, but in the moment, a missed kick is one person’s fault. And that can be all that matters.
The Putter - Here I am referring not to the golf club, but to the role of the golfer, the final and sometimes most difficult task of each hole. Experience has taught me that almost nothing is more elating on a golf course than watching a putt fall from fifteen or twenty feet out. Imagine how much that feeling would be multiplied if sinking that putt meant winning a major. Imagine also how crushing a missed putt would be. Just ask Doug Sanders or Scott Hoch. I also know from experience that there is no one more critical of your golf game than yourself when you are having a bad day. Just consider the amount of self-induced pressure when lining up a makeable putt. Which direction will it break? How hard should I hit it? Is there anything in the path? These and a thousand other questions are racing through a Tour golfer’s mind and the minds of the two hundred people crowded around the green staring at them. That kind of pressure would be unbelievable, and very well may be the most intense on this list.
The Free Throw Shooter - Possibly the most obvious example of stress in sports. All eyes are on one player as they take a shot. Pretty straightforward. Everyone likes to complain about free throws and how easy they are, usually with the witty comment, “They’re called free throws!” But free throws are not that automatic. Percentages made can range from the amazing (Steph Curry, 90.7%) to the atrocious (my Pistons’ Andre Drummond, 35.5%), but most are somewhere in the middle. Still, on average, players are going to miss one out of every four or five shots. Compound all the screaming and yelling at a player when they are at the line, and it’s a wonder they don’t miss more shots. Foul shots at the end of the game are especially stressful, of course, because they can decide the result. As fouls start to fly in the last 40 seconds of a game, half the people in the arena are hoping a player will miss the shot to keep it a one-point game, the other half are wishing the opposite to expand the lead. Simply making free throws--worth a measly one point--can be more than enough to win a game.
The Shootout Goalie - A shootout is to hockey as one-on-one is to basketball. Both the goalie and the shooter have exactly one goal in mind, and that goal is in direct opposition of the other. The skater has a lot of time to think about the strategy for scoring a goal. The goalie can only react to the play. I would like to know what goes through a goalie’s mind in the seconds leading up to a shot. Should they expect the fake? Or the backhand? Or is that too predictable? There’s a lot of time to second-guess yourself as a goalie. I can’t even stand to watch shootouts; it’s just too much for me. I also don’t like the shootout because it reduces everything that’s happened over the last 65 minutes down to just six shots that take about two minutes to complete. It feels anticlimactic and a bit like the rest of the game was wasted, but that’s neither here nor there.
The Closer - I saved this for last because a closer can be one of two people. A good closer can save a winning baseball game or he can be the single most aggravating part of a pitching staff. Closers, if you don’t know, are specific pitchers who enter at the start of the ninth inning with their team leading, ostensibly collect three outs, and save the game for their team. It sounds easy enough. But it isn’t always.
This is different from some of the other entries on this last because the stress of a closer’s final inning is not limited to just a moment, but rather a drawn-out series of minutes where every pitch could change the outcome of the game. And unlike the other athletes listed here, the entire stadium’s focus is not solely on the pitcher, but also on the batter--an equally stressful position--who could groove a hit in the gap or a home run into the stands.
Every baseball fan, without fail, has watched their closing pitcher give up a walk and a hit and, before they know it, their team has lost. And in that moment, it can feel like losing a World Series. There’s not many harder moments to endure than watching your team lead for a majority of the game only to throw it away in the final inning. It’s easy to blame the pitcher, but it’s not always fair.1
* * *
After looking at this list, some commonalities emerge. For one, they are of relatively lesser value than other aspects of their sports. By this, I mean literally one free throw is worth far less than a three-point shooter with a hot hand, or a putt is 15 feet compared to a 250 yard drive. Comparatively, it is easy to discount the little parts of games, but they truly do add up. The saying, “Free throws win games,” is not wrong. Secondly, most involve a stoppage of play, which adds to the anxiety levels. When play stops, all eyes are on the person responsible for the next action, such as the field goal kicker, and the ensuing result.
Finally, the people on this list are rarely the type of player you would categorize as the “star” of the team. Starting pitchers are in occasional stressful situations like a third inning jam or a no-hitter in the ninth inning. Quarterbacks might be under pressure to complete a pass to continue the last drive. But the typical face of the organization is not under such situational stress. This gives those on this list more of a heroic quality. Or it could set someone up for infamous failure. Either way, moments of stress in sports can become the stuff of legends.
1 Permit me a brief discourse on Detroit Tigers’ closers. No one likes going through those stressful ninth innings, but the Tigers always seem to have a guy who does it. We went through a decade of Todd Jones (actually nicknamed the “Rollercoaster” because his outings were so up and down), Fernando Rodney, Jose Valverde, and Joe Nathan, where winning never felt like an absolute guarantee. To be sure, these guys mostly got results, each with at least one 30+ season. But I just don't understand why we have to worry so much going into the final inning. For me, it's almost like a Red Wings shootout. So my question is, how many other teams experience this with closers? 20%? Half? It can't be only happening to us. I know Cleveland has had their ups and downs in the 9th inning, for example. It just seems like, anecdotally, other closers are more or less a sure thing. There are reasons to expect this, I guess. We're inheriting closers who are more experienced (read: older), so they may be coming out of their prime. Also closing is really tough. I just remember when Joe Nathan would come out with Minnesota years ago: If we got to him, it felt like an anomaly, not the other way around.↩
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Challenging the Game
The game of baseball has changed. This cannot be more obvious or overstated. Now it seems that, for every other player, the third baseman is playing behind second base1. Batters are fundamentally changing their swings; pitchers altering their windups. Some of these changes are purely situational as players adapt to the countless hours of film they have watched in preparation for the game. These changes are teams improving themselves, employing miniscule touches to gain advantages. Science creeps ever further into the sport. The most drastic change, however, is not about using strategy to better play the game. Instead, it is an attempt to manipulate plays that have just occurred. By far, the most blatant change is actually a brand new rule: the addition of the instant replay.
1 Relatively new in baseball, or at least more common, is shifting the infield on a batter. It involves making one side of the infield vulnerable by putting most of the fielders on the other side. Formerly done by certain teams only to the most prominent hitters who pulled the ball nearly every time to the right or left side, now just about every team seems to use this strategy. It all comes down to watching video and looking at statistics. I find this to be a fascinating and positive change for baseball.↩
2 Cox holds the record for most ejections from a game. With the new rules, this will probably be his record forever.↩
If you don’t follow baseball closely or just don’t fully understand the new rule (like me), here is a brief overview. It is a bit hard to follow. Like in football, each manager can use one challenge per game and earn another if the first is successful. These challenges can be used on a variety of plays. The types of plays are primarily (nearly 75%) close plays on the basepaths--whether or not a runner beat a throw or slid under a tag. After the seventh inning, managers lose their ability to challenge, and umpires decide if a play is able to be reviewed. Reviewable plays are watched by an official team of umpires in New York, in a situation probably not unlike NASA headquarters in Apollo 13. A call is then confirmed or, following “indisputable evidence,” overturned.
At the All-Star break, there had been 723 challenges, 599 of which were called by teams, the other 124 brought about by umpires. Of these seven hundred challenges, an astounding 48% were overturned. But I think the more important question--and the one that is harder to answer--how many of these challenges directly affected the outcome of the game?
Certainly, there are some plays that need to be reviewed. Major League Baseball has considered this; home runs are automatically inspected. But I have seen plays in the first inning, where a runner is thrown out trying to potentially steal second base. A year ago, would a manager consider taking the field to yell about such a call and prolong the inning? Probably not. I completely understand the logic that ‘every out counts in a baseball game’ and that runs can be scored with two outs, just as easily as they can be scored with none. But at what point does it seem overzealous to challenge a call so early in the game?
In an age when baseball seems to be slipping in popularity compared to other major sports, a constant complaint is that the game takes too long. Of the major sports, it is the only one that does not have a clock. Games probably average around three hours. But sometimes they finish 45 minutes early or hang on an hour late. People posit all kinds of fixes ranging from ridiculous to weird (two outs instead of three, seven innings instead of nine, etc.) All of these changes would definitely shorten playtime but at the cost of sacrificing integral parts of the game. But instead of making an effort to quicken the game, instant replay adds valuable time where, to an observer’s point of view, nothing is really happening.
Originally intended to be 60-90 seconds long, some replays last as long as four minutes. Meanwhile, announcers have to invent new remarks to make about the same play they have already watched several times without commenting on the obviously long wait time. Unless the play decides a run scored, fans quickly lose interest after seeing the play themselves a few times. Not to mention the toll it takes on the players, notably the pitcher. After being constantly involved in the game, players are suddenly taken out of the moment. After particularly inane breaks, pitchers are allowed to continue throwing to keep themselves warm. Causing such a delay almost seems like an elaborate form of ‘icing the kicker.’
Furthermore, at the risk of sounding like a baseball purist, the instant replay takes away from the authority of the umpires. Before video evidence, umpires were the ultimate deciders of the outcome, for better or for worse. Managers could leave the comforts of their dugouts to get in the face of an umpire after a controversial call (an event which hardly ever takes place anymore), but by doing so, they’d be stepping out of their realm and into that of the umpire. I would love to see how former Braves manager and recent Hall-of-Fame inductee, Bobby Cox would behave under these new rules2. Now, the higher powers in New York watching every tape have the superiority. Every time a call is overturned, it highlights the imperfections of close judgement calls, imperfections which were always a classic part of the game. Sure, calls were missed from time to time. But these calls went in both directions. In a sport with, arguably, the most number of statistics determined by close plays, it was comforting that the umpires were right there, getting most calls correct. Now we have to rely on precise, but faceless analysts in New York.
I’m sure baseball could use some modernization. And I’m sure instant replay is a step in the right direction. I just don’t think this move is totally right. Perhaps the situation could be remedied to specifying when a manager could use their right (for instance, if a play directly results in a run). The instant replay is just too noticeable of a break that jars the pace of the game to a halt. It’s disrupting for the announcers, the players, and the fans. I hope someone who knows how to fix it agrees.
1 Relatively new in baseball, or at least more common, is shifting the infield on a batter. It involves making one side of the infield vulnerable by putting most of the fielders on the other side. Formerly done by certain teams only to the most prominent hitters who pulled the ball nearly every time to the right or left side, now just about every team seems to use this strategy. It all comes down to watching video and looking at statistics. I find this to be a fascinating and positive change for baseball.↩
2 Cox holds the record for most ejections from a game. With the new rules, this will probably be his record forever.↩
Monday, January 13, 2014
On Jack Morris
Another year of voting for induction to the National Baseball Hall of Fame has come to a close. Stellar pitchers Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux fittingly entered together, as did Frank Thomas, the “Big Hurt,” probably the best designated hitter in history of the game. And what a solid class of 2014 this is. These were the players I remembered most from my formative years of watching baseball. But this was not a year without controversy. This year also marked the final year Jack Morris was eligible for consideration. 75% of the vote is required for the induction; he received just north of 60%.
First and foremost, let me make some disclaimers. One: I was born in 1991. Jack Morris threw his last game in 1994. I never saw Morris pitch, and if I did, I would not remember it today. Anything I know about Morris is what I have read or seen in video. The sharp drops of his splitter would mean a whole lot more to me had I been around to see him pitch, to be sure. Now, I have to resort to looking objectively at stats as opposed to watching him live (which is much more boring).
Second disclaimer: I am a staunch Tigers fan, through and through. I feel I need to get that out of the way before I make the argument for Morris’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame. I’m sure there are people who could make just as valid arguments about players from 29 other teams, and I feel for them, as well. All I can say is that Jack Morris stands among the top in players missing out on the Hall. It is a travesty that he was not elected. Perhaps it is not as grossly unfair as Pete Rose’s situation, but quite tragic all the same.
Morris’s career was an illustrious one, to say the least. For 18 years, from 1977 to 1994, Jack Morris was winning games for four different ball clubs. The bulk of his time was spent in Detroit, but his final four years were spent in Minnesota, Toronto, and Cleveland. During this time, he was not simply the ace of a staff; he was arguably the best pitcher of the 1980s.
Impressive accolades begin to look like a laundry list. Morris was elected to five All-Star games and started three of them. He led three teams to four World Series championships, winning an impressive seven postseason games and boasting a sub-3.00 ERA in the World Series. In 1983, probably his most successful season, he led the league in strikeouts with 232 on his way to winning 20 games. The 1984 season picked up right where he left off with a no-hitter—in the fourth game of the season. This proved to be his first World Series year where we was a perfect 3-0 in the postseason. He led the league in wins in 1981 and 1992, an incredible eleven years apart. Perhaps most unbelievable was that 162 wins came in the 1980s, making him the winningest pitcher of the decade. 1 That bears repeating: no pitcher had more wins in the 1980s than Jack Morris.
So, why is he not Hall of Fame material? Several issues seem to hold him back. True, he never captured the elusive Cy Young trophy, given to the year’s best pitcher in each league. In his 1983 season, he finished 3rd in the voting, with a 27% share of the vote. This was the nearest he came to being a Cy Young winner. But surely the absence of this award does not outright merit exclusion from the Hall? A second complaint against his stats was a disappointingly high ERA. His ERA was never below 3.00 during the regular season. He simply faced a lot of batters and gave up a lot of runs. And with the elevated ERA naturally came more losses. In fact, his last six years, during which his ERA was at its highest, he had three losing seasons. His control suffered, too, throughout his years pitching. He led the league in wild pitches an amazing four times in the 1980s.
All in all, of course some of his stats could have been improved. But throughout his career, he consistently did two things: he threw a lot of innings and he won a lot of games. From 1979 to 1989, his lowest win total for a season was 14 games. And his durability was exceptional as well. He led the league in Innings Pitched in his spectacular 1983 season. Of his starts, nearly a third of them ended up complete games. Both of his wins in the 1984 World Series (Games 1 and 4) were complete games. This type of inning economy is rarely seen in baseball today.
The closest Morris came was in his 14th time on the ballot in 2013, when he received 67.7% of the vote, about 40 votes short. For a team as filled with history as the Detroit Tigers, it is a shame that not one player is recognized from their most recent championship. Alan Trammell, shortstop of that 1984 team, is still on the ballot for two more years, but his vote hovers around 20% or 30%. Then-manager, Sparky Anderson, was inducted in 2000, but as a Cincinnati Red. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that one of the most complete Tigers teams in history—leading the division from the first game of the season to the final game of the World Series—does not have a representative from the team in Hall of Fame. Jack Morris should have been that person.
1 By comparison, Nolan Ryan had 40 less wins during these years.↩
First and foremost, let me make some disclaimers. One: I was born in 1991. Jack Morris threw his last game in 1994. I never saw Morris pitch, and if I did, I would not remember it today. Anything I know about Morris is what I have read or seen in video. The sharp drops of his splitter would mean a whole lot more to me had I been around to see him pitch, to be sure. Now, I have to resort to looking objectively at stats as opposed to watching him live (which is much more boring).
Second disclaimer: I am a staunch Tigers fan, through and through. I feel I need to get that out of the way before I make the argument for Morris’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame. I’m sure there are people who could make just as valid arguments about players from 29 other teams, and I feel for them, as well. All I can say is that Jack Morris stands among the top in players missing out on the Hall. It is a travesty that he was not elected. Perhaps it is not as grossly unfair as Pete Rose’s situation, but quite tragic all the same.
Morris’s career was an illustrious one, to say the least. For 18 years, from 1977 to 1994, Jack Morris was winning games for four different ball clubs. The bulk of his time was spent in Detroit, but his final four years were spent in Minnesota, Toronto, and Cleveland. During this time, he was not simply the ace of a staff; he was arguably the best pitcher of the 1980s.
Impressive accolades begin to look like a laundry list. Morris was elected to five All-Star games and started three of them. He led three teams to four World Series championships, winning an impressive seven postseason games and boasting a sub-3.00 ERA in the World Series. In 1983, probably his most successful season, he led the league in strikeouts with 232 on his way to winning 20 games. The 1984 season picked up right where he left off with a no-hitter—in the fourth game of the season. This proved to be his first World Series year where we was a perfect 3-0 in the postseason. He led the league in wins in 1981 and 1992, an incredible eleven years apart. Perhaps most unbelievable was that 162 wins came in the 1980s, making him the winningest pitcher of the decade. 1 That bears repeating: no pitcher had more wins in the 1980s than Jack Morris.
So, why is he not Hall of Fame material? Several issues seem to hold him back. True, he never captured the elusive Cy Young trophy, given to the year’s best pitcher in each league. In his 1983 season, he finished 3rd in the voting, with a 27% share of the vote. This was the nearest he came to being a Cy Young winner. But surely the absence of this award does not outright merit exclusion from the Hall? A second complaint against his stats was a disappointingly high ERA. His ERA was never below 3.00 during the regular season. He simply faced a lot of batters and gave up a lot of runs. And with the elevated ERA naturally came more losses. In fact, his last six years, during which his ERA was at its highest, he had three losing seasons. His control suffered, too, throughout his years pitching. He led the league in wild pitches an amazing four times in the 1980s.
All in all, of course some of his stats could have been improved. But throughout his career, he consistently did two things: he threw a lot of innings and he won a lot of games. From 1979 to 1989, his lowest win total for a season was 14 games. And his durability was exceptional as well. He led the league in Innings Pitched in his spectacular 1983 season. Of his starts, nearly a third of them ended up complete games. Both of his wins in the 1984 World Series (Games 1 and 4) were complete games. This type of inning economy is rarely seen in baseball today.
The closest Morris came was in his 14th time on the ballot in 2013, when he received 67.7% of the vote, about 40 votes short. For a team as filled with history as the Detroit Tigers, it is a shame that not one player is recognized from their most recent championship. Alan Trammell, shortstop of that 1984 team, is still on the ballot for two more years, but his vote hovers around 20% or 30%. Then-manager, Sparky Anderson, was inducted in 2000, but as a Cincinnati Red. But that is neither here nor there. The fact remains that one of the most complete Tigers teams in history—leading the division from the first game of the season to the final game of the World Series—does not have a representative from the team in Hall of Fame. Jack Morris should have been that person.
1 By comparison, Nolan Ryan had 40 less wins during these years.↩
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)