Tuesday, January 15, 2008

The Kids Move Back Home

When I read yesterday that the Braves are moving their AAA team to Gwinnett County -- about 40 miles north of Atlanta -- I was perplexed. I mean, they already have the Atlanta market pretty much covered, so why not try to expand the brand a bit by staying up in Richmond or, short of that, moving someplace else? Moreover, won't having a cheaper baseball option available to people just north of Atlanta divert some of them from Turner Field?

No worries, says Braves fan, author, and economist J.C. Bradbury:

I consider major and minor league sports to be complements not substitutes. While I am sure there will be some families that will choose to attend more Gwinnett games at the expense of Braves games, I think this loss will be minimal. The opportunity cost of going to a Gwinnett Braves game is most likely doing something at home, not going to a Braves game. The proposed stadium site is nearly 40 miles from Turner Field. My guess is that most fans will switch from doing something else in Gwinnett rather than canceling trips to Turner Field; thus, this will be a net gain to the big club.

Click through to read the basis for J.C.'s conclusions. He has convinced me.

Baseball's Day on the Hill -- and a suggestion to ESPN

Streaming video over at ESPN.com. Jayson Stark is liveblogging it here.

A few minutes in and a couple of things are obvious: (1) Don Fehr is going to get the crap beat out of him today; and (2) there will be a lot of "think of the children" rhetoric.

Update: I'd like to take a moment to say that I think Stark is doing a hell of a job with the liveblog, exhibiting some real fangs while maintaining an intellectual level of discourse suitable to the subject he's covering (anyone can riff; he's riffing and thinking).

I mention this because, as many know, ESPN is not necessarily at the forefront of blogging. Typically its content -- even those things categorized as "blogs" -- is filtered through an editorial layer that often dulls the edge and seems to sap the spontaneity from the final product. For once we're seeing what happens when that editorial layer is taken away, and the results are simply lovely.

It is my sincere hope that ESPN brass are watching and (a) leave Stark's liveblog untouched in later site updates; and (b) realize how effective an umoderated voice can be.

Re-imagining the Sixties

Here's Part Three in Steve Treder's excellent series investigating what the stats of this sixties would have looked like had the strike zone not been expanded to ridiculous proportions.

And don't forget to check out Part One and Part Two.

Time Machine

Last night, Fox Sports Ohio replayed the September 11, 1985 Reds-Padres game in which Pete Rose broke the all-time hits record. Kudos to FSN for showing the whole game rather than condensing it into an hour or whatever as so often happens with these classic broadcasts. This is especially commendable given that the highlight of the game -- Rose's hit off of Eric Show -- comes in the first inning. They could have easily played that and two hours of baloney commentary, but they let the whole game play.

Not that that the record-setting hit was the only highlight. Other things that kept me from flipping around:

  • The game moved really fast. Tom Browning or Eric Show would pitch, the catcher would throw the ball back, the batter would maybe step one foot out of the box for a second, and then Browning and Show would set and deal again. Even the two biggest prima donnas on the field -- Dave Parker and Steve Garvey -- were back in the box and ready for the pitch with a quickness. Given that only two runs were scored in the whole game it would have been quick anyway, but this tilt came in at a crisp 2:17, which is far shorter than almost any game in the glove-adjusting, signal-repeating days in which we now live.

  • Joe Morgan, in his first season in the booth following his retirement, was the color man. Despite the fact that he was doing a Reds game with former teammates Rose and Concepcion on the field in front of him, his Big Red Machine love was far more subdued than it is during any random A's-Mariners tilt he's assigned to today. He also sounded like he was enjoying himself a bit, which was quite shocking coming from him.

  • The players' waistlines. In 1985, I distinctly remember watching Dave Parker, Buddy Bell, and Pete Rose and thinking that they were fat for ballplayers. Watching last night, they all looked surprisingly thin (Tony Gwynn in right field looked practically anorexic).
    I have no doubt that this reassessment on my part is due to seeing so many beer league softball-sized players today.

In any event, it was a great thrill to see a game from the Golden Age (with the definition of Golden Age being whenever the viewer happened to be about 12 or 13 years-old). MLB TV is supposed to launch soon. Programmers: please run as many old games -- in their entirety -- as possible.

Tigers Tickets Selling Like Hotcakes

Season tickets are selling so well that the Tigers are considering halting sales in order to ensure that some decent single-game tickets remain:

Ticket sales for the upcoming Tigers’ season would already be through the roof—if Comerica Park had one. As it is, they’re going sky high.

They’re going so well, in fact, that for the first time ever, the Tigers are considering shutting off season-ticket sales. But even if they don’t, so many season-ticket packages will be sold that tickets for individual games, when they go on sale in March, could be gone in record time.

“It’s almost hard for me to talk about how much we’re selling,” Tigers president and general manager Dave Dombrowski said. “The excitement is phenomenal.”

There are a couple of lessons to take from this: First, the notion that attendance is a function of winning and investment in the product on the field has once again been proven to be true. Second, given how rough Michigan's economy is at the moment, the Tigers' good fortune is further evidence that, compared to most other things, baseball is extremely recession-resistant (other smart people have already noted this).

The only bad news here: I have finally gotten over my huff about Tiger Stadium going away and had in recent months prepared myself to end my Comerica boycott, drive three hours to Detroit, and take in a game there this summer. If I had done this in 2003 I could have walked up and gotten in practically for free. Because of my stubbornness, it's now going to cost me.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Great Moments in Competitive Integrity

The new American Gladiators show is testing for PEDs:

The steroids-in-sports scandal has filtered down to reality TV.

NBC has been testing the 12 cast members of "American Gladiators" for performance-enhancing drugs, according to a report today in the authoritative trade magazine Broadcasting & Cable.

The performers - all body builders competing in a new version of the rough-and-tumble show of the early 1990s - were all tested when they underwent their initial physicals, the magazine says.

I for one am glad they are doing this. I mean, it will make me sad when Nitro's 1992 "Atlasphere" record is broken by this new batch of gladiators, but at least now we will know that it was done fairly and that we won't need to apply any asterisks to the achievement.

(Hat tip to Jason at It IS about the Money, Stupid)

Pete Toms to Baseball Digest Daily

Anyone who has hung around ShysterBall for a spell knows frequent-commenter Pete Toms and, if they have a lick of sense, have bookmarked his blog, A Baseball Geek, which has been on my blogroll since almost day one. Pete's expertise lies in the business of baseball, but he's well-versed in just about everything. Unlike most web-writers (present company included), Pete brings a healthy sense of perspective to the table and realizes that not every player quote and pundit belch is worthy of hand-wringing and obsession. Of course he's Canadian, so he has a leg up on most of us when it comes to basic horse sense.

Good news for Pete: he's now a member of the Baseball Digest Daily team, and will be contributing a weekly column. This first one is here.

Congratulations, Pete!

Ridin' on the Me-tro-o-o

Dear God, do not try to drive to the Nats' new ballpark:

Washington Nationals fans without season tickets will find parking in the vicinity of the team's new ballpark virtually impossible because of a shortage of available lots, a team official said yesterday . . .

. . . The team has 4,000 parking spaces identified and secured, and anticipates having 1,000 more available in time for an exhibition game against the Orioles on March 29. It had hoped to secure between 5,000 and 7,000 spaces for this season. "We have a parking deficit around the ballpark," McCarthy said during a hearing of the council's economic development committee.


I don't know if this should be characterized as a situation of "shortages" and "deficits" as opposed to an expected by-product of building a close-in, neighborhood ballpark. There can't be less parking there than in, say, the area around Wrigley Field, right?

In any event, there's a wonderful subway system in Washington. Please use it.

Riding Giants

Maverick's is pretty effing cool. This year's Contest ended yesterday, with thousands of surf fans trudging down to Half Moon Bay, scrambling down to the beach, and watching the big wave riders a half-mile away, all the while buffeted by cold Pacific winds. Of course, there were other options for the less adventurous:

Other surf fans gathered in the third deck at AT&T Park to watch the contest on the stadium's giant monitor. Tickets were selling for $25, with beer flowing at ballpark rates.
Yes, it may be easy to laugh at people who go to a downtown ballpark to watch a surfing competition, but cut them some slack: they bore witness to what is likely to be the last competitive contest in AT&T Park for the next couple of years.

Johnny Podres Dies

Well that's no way to start a Monday morning. Crap.

Canadian Dilemma

Some concern in Canada regarding the timing of the Olympic qualifier:

Baseball Canada is struggling to piece together a team for the final Olympic qualifier in March because the tournament's timing coincides with big-league spring training. Anyone not on a major-league roster is eligible to play, meaning players trying to impress their teams can't afford to leave camp to wear the Maple Leaf.

Tough stuff to be sure, but if you're even close to being a Major Leaguer, you're going to skip the shot at the Olympics in favor of spring training, right? A veteran speaks:

"Whoever set up the timing of this tournament definitely threw a wrench into things," said national team veteran Pete Orr of Richmond Hill, who will skip the qualifier to try to win a job with the Washington Nationals. "But the guys who do go are going to be good players. It's not like they're not going to have a good team."

Well, considering that quote indicates Pete Orr won't be there, yes, they may very well have a good team.

Bud and Don Go to Washington

Messers. Selig and Fehr will probably fly to Washington sometime today for their grilling, er, testimony tomorrow. Lots of ink has been spilled over this, and much will be made of whatever it is they have to say tomorrow, but no one is likely ever to take quotes like these, from Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns, to task:

"Congress needs to evaluate the substance and recommendations of the report as well as other necessary steps to get drugs out of Major League Baseball."

Why does Congress "need" to do this? I spent all last night reading Article I of the Constitution, and I've found nothing that requires Congress to police private businesses like this.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Major League Baseball Office of the Vice Principal

Major League Baseball has announced the creation of a "Department of Investigations":

Major League Baseball launched a department of investigations Friday, a permanent branch of the commissioner's office responsible for looking into drug use in the sport . . .

. . . Dan Mullin, a former New York City Police Officer who had been in baseball's senior director of security operations, was appointed vice president and head of the unit. George Hanna, a former FBI employee currently in baseball's security department, was appointed senior director of investigations.

I love this. While the article claims that the unit "will have broad authority to conduct investigations," it cannot, by definition, have any more power than George Mitchell had (i.e. very damn little) which renders this yet another exercise in empty p.r.

There is a reason why Selig is announcing this now: he has to testify in front of Congress next week, and he'll be damned if anyone is going to chastise him for not looking like he cares. I've said it before, but let me repeat: no substantive change in baseball's drug policies or procedures can happen without the willing and meaningful participation of the players' union. Nada. Zilch.

If Selig really cares about drugs in baseball he will reach out to the union. If he doesn't, he'll continue to grandstand like this.

(hat tip to Jason at It IS About the Money, Stupid)

Knoblauch Wants You Off His Lawn

The New York Times has tracked down Chuck Knoblauch to get his comments about all things Mitchell. His comments about steroids and the Mitchell Report are pretty straight forward, but the other things he has to say reveal that he's none too pleased about being dragged back into the public eye:

“I’ve got nothing to do with any of that, I mean, any baseball . . . And I don’t want anything to do with baseball . . . I love baseball, but I’m not trying to get a job in baseball. I don’t have any friends from baseball. Baseball doesn’t control my life anymore . . . Don’t tell anybody where I live."

He then sprayed the garden hose at the reporter, but the stream of water badly missed the mark.

The Congressional Baseball Committee

CBS' Larry Dobrow thinks that, since Congress is determined to stick its nose into baseball's business, it may as well investigate some things that fans would like it to investigate, such as the needless complexity of the infield fly rule, the DH, and the continued existence of the Florida Marlins:

Potential testimony: In true ogre-owner fashion, the Loria family will skip the proceedings due to a "previous commitment." But each of the 10,121 (wink, wink!) fans who attended the September 12 game in Florida between the Marlins and Nationals will be called upon to describe, in great detail, the profound loneliness and/or boredom that prompted them to show up. Local officials will then set about finding them girlfriends.

Progressive Field

The Indians have reached an agreement with Progressive Insurance for the naming rights to the Jake, and it will now be known as Progressive Field. I would like whoever makes decisions about this sort of thing to know that I'd prefer a cashier's check for my finder's fee for suggesting this idea nearly four months ago.

So, what's the short version here? The Prog? Will there be lots of keyboards and laser light shows too?

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Mitchell Report Gets Better and Better

Pete Rose investigator John Dowd is unimpressed with George Mitchell's refusal to make the documents, notes, and interviews that went into the Mitchell Report public:

"That's ridiculous," chief Rose investigator John Dowd said Thursday. "That surprises me. I'm sorry to hear that."


This, however, seems way worse:


Mitchell, according to lawyers involved in his probe, did not create transcripts of interviews. However, aides took notes.


No transcripts? Great job, George! Now, instead of simply turning over a transcript of McNamee's allegedly defamatory statements to Clemens' lawyers and walking away, you managed to make your aides and yourself witnesses in the lawsuit. I mean, absent a transcript someone has to testify as to what, exactly, McNamee said, and who else would it be? What's more, if your aides' interview notes suck and your testimony comes off sketchy (e.g. it is revealed during a deposition that your investigatory approach was so reckless that it all but ensured that phony information would result) you may make yourself and baseball co-defendants!


I've said before that I don't think Clemens has a cause of action against Major League Baseball or George Mitchell. I still don't think he does, but the more I hear about Mitchell's methodology, the less convinced I become. Today it's no transcripts. Given Mitchell's reliance on handwritten notes -- and given his seeming refusal to turn over records to the media -- it's not hard to construct a scenario in which a claim of spoliation of evidence comes into play. Is it likely that someone like George Mitchell would be so careless with this kind of stuff so as to make that a real possibility? Nah, but then again I never would have expected him to not transcribe interviews and testimony of drug dealers making claims against star athletes either, so who the hell knows? It's amazing the stuff you can find out over the course of a deposition.


What I do know is that given what appears to be some surprisingly poor procedural steps taken in putting it together, the door may soon open for Clemens -- or others who believe they were falsely named -- to mount a full frontal assault on the Mitchell Report if they have the inclination to do so.


And that, my friends, is not how Bud drew this all up back in 2006.

Shanoff to The Sporting News

Dan Shanoff -- once an ESPN Page 2 fixture, but blogging for the last year or two -- has been snatched up by The Sporting News. Good for Dan! Dan's take as to the forces at work:


Near the end of 2007, there was a lot of attention paid in old sports media to old sports media journalists jumping online.The really exciting trend was, not unsurprisingly, left underreported by the mainstream media too fixated on bemoaning the state of their own industry: Mainstream sports media hiring bloggers, as they recognize the value that these new voices bring.

From Henry Abbott joining ESPN.com at the start of the year to Jamie Mottram jumping from AOL Fanhouse to Yahoo Sports to Will Leitch being a staple of the New York Times' Op-Ed pages, sports-blogger value is skyrocketing (as it should be), and the opportunities are emerging as mainstream media recognizes that value.


Let's hear it for rising tides.

Update: 100% Injury Rate is moving on to bigger things as well.

Please Adopt Me

A lot of people ask me how I find the time to both blog and practice law. It's not easy, of course, but one thing I try to do is to avoid obsessing on my site stats, which is a pursuit most bloggers will admit can take up a lot of time. Sure, I look at the stats when I can (usually at the end of the day), but for the most part it's write-work-write-work.

This afternoon, however, I'm a little bored, so I was scanning some of the day's visiting IP addresses. One stuck out:

ISP: The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company
Location: Aspen, Colorado

Whoever that was, I would like to announce that they have just won the heretofore secret "Win a Weekend with Shyster!" contest. To make things easier on you, I'll come to where you are. Say, tomorrow? You just get the lift tickets and make the dinner reservations. I'll totally pick up the bill at some later date. Honest.

Oh wait, I just realized that they won't see this because they're probably out skiing right now. Bastard.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

While I'm generally opposed to Congress sticking its nose into any of the steroids stuff, it's not like anyone can stop it from calling hearings as a part of its extremely broad powers to air the issues of the day for the public. Let it be, I say. But I get a little more irate when I read something like this:

The congressional hearing featuring Roger Clemens and other Major League Baseball players named as steroid users in the Mitchell Report has been postponed until Feb. 13, according to a release by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The delay gives the committee time to coordinate its investigative efforts with the Justice Department, according to committee chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif), and time for federal authorities to meet with trainer Brian McNamee . . .

. . . One of McNamee's attorneys, Richard Emery, said there is no "stated agenda" for the meeting but they are expected to discuss Clemens' claims that McNamee lied about his steroid use to Mitchell and federal investigators.

If Congress is simply interested in airing the issues relating to steroids in baseball, they have no need to get involved with the who-lied-to-whom aspects of all of this before conducting hearings. That's what the defamation suit is all about. To the extent they are focusing all of this on whether McNamee or Clemens lied -- and only talking to McNamee's people about it beforehand -- Congress looks very much like its stepping into McNamee's shoes and conducting a deposition of Roger Clemens in their civil case.

Personally, I don't very much appreciate my tax dollars being used to subsidize the legal representation needs of private litigants. How about you?

Um, Goose, ixnay on the talk about the eroidsstay

Goose Gossage says he "probably" would have used steroids to prolong his career:

"I've been in that situation, trying to prolong my career with the money that was out there to be made at this time in baseball. I can't sit here and say that I would not have done it,"

Let's do the math here. Goose played until he was 42, which was rare among his contemporaries. In his final few years -- the years in which he was really working to prolong his career -- were spent in the clubhouses of the Rangers and the A's, where he called Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Ivan Rodriguez, and Rafael Palmiero his teammates. Finally, he put up considerably above average stats in his age 39, 40, and 42 seasons.

Um, Goose? Given the current witch hunt climate, your hypothetical looks way less hypothetical to many people than you think it does (ask yourself: is there any more evidence against Sammy Sosa than there is against you?), so you may just want to change the subject, OK? Great.

Things have changed

How much have things changed in the Bronx? Well, if you would have told me four or five years ago that on some random offseason day you'd see headlines in which the Yankees (a) were taking a pass on a big name, big money player; and (b) bringing in a shockingly below-average corner player who was just non-tendered in order to address their first base concerns, I would have said you were nuts.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Shaughnessy Redux

Earlier today I took Dan Shaughnessy to task for his comment about Jim Rice inspiring intentional walks with the bases loaded when, in fact, no such thing ever happened. After I wrote that, I thought that it would be interesting to see why Shaughnessy would write such a thing, so I emailed him a condensed version of my post and basically said "hey, what gives?"

It wasn't long before Shaughnessy responded to my email. In it he acknowledged that while Rice was never walked with the bases loaded, he personally witnessed teams clearly pitch-around Rice in such situations, citing one specific occasion "against the Brewers in 1978." Because I'm me, I went to check. Though Rice never walked with the bases loaded against the Brewers in 1978, it did happen against them on July 28th of 1977, and again on opening day in 1988. He recalled seeing it happen at least on other time, but did not say the date.

Knowing how the human brain works, it's very likely that Shaughnessy is either remembering the first time it happened but just got the year wrong by one or was remembering the second time it happened and merely typed "1978" instead of "1988." No matter the case, Shaughnessy says in his email that he considers being pitched-around with the bases loaded to be essentially the same thing as being intentionally walked. For the record, Rice walked 11 times with the bases loaded in his career. Absent video analysis, there's no way of knowing how many of those were pitch-arounds and how many times the pitcher truly went after Rice, only to miss the mark.

While I don't agree that a pitch-around is the same thing as an IBB -- and while no matter what you believe on that point, I don't think it adds up to Rice being "feared" in the way Shaughnessy has claimed he was (if that indeed matters) -- that is Shaughnessy's reasoning. Does it rebut all of my criticisms from the earlier post? Not in my mind, because it is still hyperbole and potentially misleading hyperbole at that, but it is an opinion based on an experienced reporter's baseball observations rather than mythology, or emotion or what have you, and that's (a) more than I thought we could say about it a few hours ago; and (b) more than we can say about some other writers' Hall of Fame choices.

In the end, though, these are merely baseball opinions, and baseball opinions -- my own included -- come cheap. At a greater premium these days is common decency, good humor, and politeness, and I'd like to thank Dan Shaughnessy for exhibiting all of those things in our exchange. While he's no doubt a busy guy with better things to do than correspond with bloggers, Dan's response was prompt and cordial, as was his permission to write about it when asked (I have a policy against reprinting email exchanges without the express consent of all participants). Regardless of what I think regarding the merits of the Rice-was-feared argument, Dan deserves credit for interacting with readers in a polite and meaningful way while doing so, which is more than can be said for many other sportswriters with whom I have corresponded.

Hey, ya'll: More ShysterBall!

Rick Telander Boasts About Not Doing His Job

Must be media day here at ShysterBall. First Shaughnessy, now Telander:

I look at my 2008 Hall of Fame ballot with sadness. That's a photocopy of it on the right, and as you can see, other than my name, signature and Baseball Writers' Association of America card number, it's unmarked. I voted for no one. I didn't mail my ballot. The stamp is still good. The Steroid Era has taken the wind out of my sail . . .

. . . I read the biographies of the 25 candidates in detail, studying numbers as intensely as an accountant. Rich Gossage -- nine All-Star teams, 310 saves, 2.36 World Series ERA. I'm delighted Goose was voted in Tuesday. He deserved it. I voted for him in 2007. But I couldn't be a part of it this year . . . Tommy John -- 288 wins -- was a pioneer. He should be in the Hall. Same with Andre Dawson, Lee Smith, Jim Rice and maybe Bert Blyleven. But swollen Mark McGwire soils the ballot . . . Maybe next year I'll feel differently.


I hear you, Rick. I once told the managing partner of my previous firm that I couldn't do my job because the unethical behavior of some lawyers out there "took the wind out of my sails." I didn't advocate for my clients or perform many of the other the responsibilities that went with my job. It went over really well. The boss thought so highly of me that he gave me a bonus. My clients -- at least the ones I didn't leave in the lerch -- had my back. My point was made so strongly and forcefully that all of the bad-seed lawyers out there stopped practicing law and a new era 0f integrity before the bar was born.

Oh wait, that was just how I imagined things would go. In reality I was fired for dereliction of my duties, had my license suspended for six months, was placed in an outpatient mental health facility to deal with my emotional issues, and had to take remedial courses in professional responsibility.

I still like to think I made my point, though.

Hey, ya'll: More ShysterBall!

Standards

Look, I'm not one of those humorless watchdogs who lose sleep over what gets printed in the newspaper, let alone the sports section of the newspaper, but this, written by the pouting Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe evidences an incompetence so basic that it defies description:

Rice hit for power in a day when power numbers were legit. He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walk when the bases were loaded.

Except not once in over 9000 plate appearances was Jim Rice ever intentionally walked with the bases loaded. Never.

Shaughnessy is either blatantly lying about Rice's intentional walks in order to sharpen a point or else he was grossly negligent in not checking such an easily checkable fact. No matter the case, this is the sort of misstatement that would get writers in any other section of a newspaper fired or reassigned, and would foment a correction by the editors.

This is not a matter of stat geeks vs. sportswriters. This is not a matter of Rice backers vs. Rice haters. This is simply about expecting a reporter for a major daily newspaper not to make up facts out of thin air.

UPDATE: I just realized that the headline of Shaugnessy's story is "Nothing False About His Case." How I missed the irony on the first read-through is a mystery me.

UPDATE #2: I just got an email from someone defending Shaugnessy based on his use of the word "capable," and arguing that the use of that word gets him off the hook. I disagree. While it may be one thing to talk about capabilities regarding unknown future events ("Papelbon is capable of saving 55 games next year"), it's not all that different from a lie to assert that a player was "capable" of doing some specific thing he never did when making a case for his past accomplishments. To say that he was in this context (i.e. assessing Rice's career accomplishments) is to intentionally mislead the reader into thinking such a thing actually happened when it did not.

To illustrate the difference, I would ask if anyone would be willing to give a member of the New York press a pass if they said, in an article arguing for Jeter's greatness, that he was "capable" of winning the triple crown in 1999, "capable" of turning five unassisted triple plays in the 2004 ALCS, and "capable" of hitting for the cycle last June 25th? Of course you wouldn't, because it's one thing to say something like "Jeter was capable of hitting for more power if he had tried," or "Jeter was capable of playing Ozzie Smith-level defense," it is quite another to cite specific fictitious accomplishments in an effort to pad Jeter's resume.

And this is what Shaugnessy is doing. Perversely enough, however, by doing so, he's hurting the cause of his beloved Jim Rice. This is because by trotting out such arguments, he is allowing those opposed to Rice's candidacy to accurately say that his supporters have no choice but to lie about his credentials in order to make their case.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Goose!

Rich Gossage makes the Hall. This makes me happy. I think he's a no-brainer, if for no other reason than because when my brother and I were kids and we used to play catch and pretend to be lights-out relievers, we pretended to be Gossage. Well, sometimes I was John Hiller, but that was just me trying to be difficult.

Tim Raines only got 24.3% of the vote. Trammell 18.2%. Blyleven 61.9%. They're all Hall of Famers in my book, but my view of the institution is that I'd rather have someone arguably deserving not make it than to have someone clearly undeserving get in (note: this is what keeps my law firm from making me partner too, but that's another story). Maybe there's no connection between the tough obstacles those fellows face and whatever it is that kept Jim Rice (72.2%) out, but I'm willing to accept their exclusion in exchange for Rice's too.

Of course Rice will probably make it next year. I won't lose sleep over that either, though, because this is the Hall of Fame, not ethics, metaphysics, or geopolitics. We can live with some wrong turns, even if we'd prefer not to.

Arroyo Needs To Get Out of Cincinnati

Reds' starter Bronson Arroyo performed a set at a Boston fundraising concert on Sunday night, letting his fans in Boston know just how much he hates Cincinnati:

But near the end of Bronson's set, he threw a zinger into the music: a cover of Augustana's 2007 summer ballad "Boston" . . . Dude totally modified the lyrics, making what one could view as either a nostalgic gesture toward the old crowd or, as we'd like to think, a plea for his old job!

"I think I need to get back to Boston . . . I need to get out of Cincinnati, I think I need the Olde Towne to fill my heart again."

That's nothing. I hear Adam Dunn as an entire boxed set worth of I-hate-Cincy songs.


PR and Pretending

A lot of people have asked me why I think Clemens' legal team played the tape. Sure, the stated purpose was to merely provide the facts which could answer all of the questions that were swirling around after the fact of the phone call was reported (how noble of them to help the media in such a way), but the obvious answer is that his legal team thought that the tape made McNamee sound like a liar or, at the very least shifty. They're not 100% wrong about that -- he does come off sketchy at best -- but I don't think it was nearly as damning or clear cut as I would have wanted such a thing to be before making such a risky PR move on behalf of one of my clients.

Which leads me to question why Clemens is having his lawyers -- as opposed to some other spokesman type -- play the PR game in the first place. Sure, I'll admit that Rusty Hardin is a smarter cookie than I am -- and he's certainly more experienced -- but in the handful of cases I have had in which there has been media interest, I have found that there is very little upside to lawyers playing the publicity game. For the most part, the media simply isn't going to be as credulous of what a lawyer has to say as he would some spokesman or flack because they know going in that the lawyer is playing advocate in a way they don't typically acknowledge publicity types to be doing (even if they are). As a lawyer, it's much harder to get your message out just the way you want it, and it almost always comes back to bite you in some way later, be it it in a deposition, or in pretrial conference with a judge or what have you.

Then again, when I have a case, I'm usually interested in, you know, winning it as opposed to winning the news cycle. For Clemens, the usual logic is turned on its head: it's the PR war that is everything, and the lawsuit is the petty annoyance which he probably wishes would go away. I say this because I think Clemens jumped the gun in filing it, thinking he had to in order to thwart McNamee's threatened suit which, in hindsight, probably wasn't going to ever come. For now, though, he has to pretend that he filed it out of a fit of pique and righteousness.

Of course there is all kinds of pretending going on here. The lawyers are pretending to be public relations men. The most dominant and aggressive player in decades is pretending to be a victim. The man who ratted out his biggest client is pretending to still be his friend. Congress is pretending to be protecting children, those in positions of power within the game during the rise of steroids in baseball are pretending that the Mitchell Report provides closure of some kind, and many in the media are pretending that they know more than they do.

The only thing we know for sure? That it's all going to get crazier before sanity is restored.

Deep Thoughts

Between spending last night obsessing on Clemens stuff, working on a brief, and watching my Buckeyes get embarrassed yet again, I'm a bit spent this morning. Drinking a lot of coffee. Drinking so much coffee that my mind is starting to wander into randomness.

Thought that just popped in my head: Maxwell House or Folgers or someone should do a commercial set in the clubhouse just before an All-Star Game. Everyone's taping up, stretching, or doing whatever they do before games, when Big Papi or some position player walks up to a coffee pot and starts to pour a cup.

Cut to a shot of Papelbon, Putz, Rivera, and some other relievers standing up and angrily looking at Papi, and launching in to Alec Baldwin's "coffee is for closers" rant from Glengarry Glen Ross. Alternatively, MLB can hire Baldwin to reprise the role for their "This is October" commercials next year and talk about how second place gets steak knives. Beats Dane Cook, right?

OK, I know that's stupid, but cut me some slack. Clemens and his legal team are on Central Time so I have very little to work with so far today.

"This is War"

McNamee's lawyer:

"What does (Clemens) do, he calls him back with his lawyer in the room and a tape recorder going . . . He wants to play that game, he's going to get buried. I have no compunction about putting him in jail. This is war."

Fun quote, but what on Earth does he think his client has on Clemens that is going to put him in jail? If he had more dirt that would either implicate Clemens in drug stuff or, alternatively, set him up for a perjury rap, it would have been in the Mitchell Report already.

Of course, after seeing Clemens' demeanor at the press conference last night, it's possible that McNamee's legal strategy is going to be to goad him into physical violence during a deposition.

Another Shameless Plug

I'm quoted in Newsday again if you're interested in that sort of thing. Some of the quotes are a little bit off from what I believe I actually said -- the interview was late in the day as a lot of breaking news was happening, so some miscommunication between reporter and subject is understandable -- but the upshot is accurate.

When did you stop beating your wife?

The Sporting News' Gerry Fraley believes that Joe Torre's refusal to comment on a giant controversy involving pending litigation and Congressional hearings is somehow damning to Roger Clemens and, by extension, to Joe Torre.

Hey Gerry, how many shitstorms do you jump into on a daily basis?

Hat tip to Voros, who has a particularly sharp take on the situation.

McNamee's Side of the Story

Sports Illustrated's John Heyman has McNamee's most extensive comments since this all broke. Of note: McNamee says that he thinks Clemens would pass a lie detector test because "He might actually believe that he's telling the truth." Hurm. He also says that he believes Clemens when Clemens says that he had no knowledge of Andy Pettitte's HGH use.

There's obviously a lot more that needs to unfold, but I'm starting to believe that, rather than some head-on collision of contradictory assertions, McNamee and Clemens are going to do a lot of talking past one-another before Congress and in the course of their lawsuit. Ultimately, that may lead to a far more ambiguous resolution than many anticipate.

Monday, January 7, 2008

"Tell me what you want me to do."

I'm not set up for live-blogging, but I am listening to the press conference right now.

Clemens and his lawyers taped the infamous Friday night phone call between he and McNamee. The transcript will probably be available in a few minutes. Initial impression:

Multiple times Clemens says "I want the truth to come out" or "I didn't do steroids" or words to that effect. McNamee never refutes him. Instead he is sheepish and says on numerous occasions "tell me what you want me to do."

It's too early to make any conclusions -- and the context of the press conference put on by Clemens' lawyers is obviously one-sided -- but McNamee does NOT come off well in the call.

I know many people are tired of this, but this is riveting stuff.

UPDATE: WOW! Really Riveting! Clemens gets angrier and angrier over the course of the questioning, and then abruptly ends the interview following an emphatic statement about how he doesn't care about the Hall of Fame and expresses his anger over the whole affair.

Snap judgments are always tough, but my initial reaction is that Clemens is being truthful. It's all so clouded by his anger, though, that this could go in any direction.

This was a really incredible 45 minutes.

Clemens Takes the Gloves Off

Clemens' attorneys are certainly going for the knockout punch early, attacking McNamee's credibility from the get-go. After setting him up as a liar for what he wrote in the 2000 New York Times article, they unleash this one in paragraph 20 of the complaint:

Get your popcorn kids, this one is going to be a humdinger.

McNamee's Lawyer Does the Moonwalk

In my profession, it's often the case that we have to either back away -- or run away -- from a position or a case or a client from time to time. Unfortunately, lawyerly egos often prevent some of us from doing so in an open and forthright manner because, in the minds of some of my colleagues, changing course or even changing their mind represents an unacceptable risk that someone might say we were -- horrors! -- wrong about something.

What to do? The moonwalk, baby. Slowly distance yourself from that which has become unpleasant while never actually being seen to turn your back on the problem. The beauty of the moonwalk: everyone who counted on you thinks you're right there with them until at some point they happen to look up and realize you're gone.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the moonwalk in action:

Last week, attorney Richard Emery said, "Anything says that implies or states that Brian is a liar will cause him severe damage." But after watching Clemens waffle his way through 12 minutes with Mike Wallace last night, Emery said, "He definitely called Brian a liar in so many ways, it was tantamount to defamation. But the problem is, it was so unbelievable, it's going to be hard to prove that Brian was damaged."

Got that? McNamee's lawyer thinks Clemens was so unbelievable, that a jury may actually believe him, so they're not going to bother suing.

This is a short, right-after-the-fact article, but its implications are huge. McNamee and his lawyers are clearly backing down. If he's not willing to put it on the line to sue Clemens over the 60 Minutes interview, what will he possibly be able to provide a Congressional committee looking to slap Clemens with a perjury rap? Nothing, that's what. Clemens will now be able to say pretty much anything he wants to Congress later this month, secure in the knowledge that McNamee is in no way willing to forcefully contradict him.

The end game of this three week chess match is near, and Roger Clemens is poised to win handily. He has denied McNamee's charges, McNamee has now blinked when challenged, and unless Pettite or someone provides first-hand, eyewitness testimony calling Clemens a liar -- fat chance -- Congress will have no basis for questioning whatever story Clemens decides to tell them, true, false, or otherwise. The cement that constitutes the record of this whole affair is beginning to set, and given what will appear to be effectively unsubstantiated charges forcefully rebutted in numerous contexts, it is setting in favor of Clemens.

In other words, the little ju-jitsu strategy I described last week was a success, and somewhere there is a lawyer/sensei on retainer to Clemens who has earned every cent of the money he has charged.

Likewise, there are several commentators out there -- including every Hall of Fame voter who has denied McGwire because "if the charges were false he would deny and/or sue" -- who, sooner or later, are going to have to either vote him in to Cooperstown or else explain why they too have done the moonwalk away from their previous position.

Update: Clemens has now sued McNamee. Seems like a bridge too far to me, especially given that McNamee seems to be standing down. Only time will tell if this is the final nail in McNamee's coffin or, rather, a reenactment of the Wilde-Queensberry case.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Friends

Pat Jordan, over at The Baseball Analysts, with an interesting set of anecdotes about Roger Clemens, Brian McNamee, and Tom Seaver. Fun stuff:

During the three days I followed Mr. Clemens around Houston, he seemed like a child beholden to the whims of the sour, suspicious, and taciturn McNamee. It seemed as if Mr. Clemens would not do anything to his body, or ingest anything into it that Mr. McNamee hadn't approved. I found it strange that, at 38, Mr. Clemens still had to have someone dictate his diet and workout regimen down to the minutest detail at this late stage of his illustrious career. In fact, Mr. Clemens' devotion to Mr. McNamee's diet and workout routine seemed almost like a spiritual quest that must not be impeded.

A Message from East Berlin

I've shot a couple of barbs Steve Kettmann's way in the past, but it is probably important to remember that he really was way out ahead of almost everyone when it comes to steroids in baseball, writing in 2000 what was then an unprecedented piece about PEDs. Kettmann's article, in-turn, prompted the then-unknown Brian McNamee to pen an op-ed piece that is going to be marked with a little exhibit sticker at some hearing or deposition someday soon. At the time, Kettmann's piece didn't gain all that much traction -- it would take the confessions of Canseco and Caminiti two years later for people to really start talking about it -- but it now stands as an example of a singular, prescient voice raising an important issue at a time when no one wanted to hear about it.

Today in the New York Daily News, Kettmann examines the media's and the public's failure to pay heed to such voices. Kettmann has lived and worked in Germany for the past several years, so rather than rely solely on baseball, he has East German swimmers on his mind:

. . . I can recall being wowed by the guts U.S. swimmer Shirley Babashoff showed when she dared to speak out at the 1976 Summer Olympics about the mannish East German women who turned that competition into a mockery. I had no idea what was up with the East Germans, but I respected Babashoff's nerve. Many, however, wished she had kept her mouth shut. She was dubbed "Surly Shirley" in the press for making cracks about the deep voices of the East German women . . .

. . . One of the questions that needs to be asked, as people try to make sense of the Steroid Era in sports - which probably opened with those infamous '76 Olympics - is how so few sportswriters could avoid falling in to the same trap as the well-meaning sports reporters in Montreal who blamed Babashoff for demanding that they ask tough questions about the East Germans.

Media criticism aside, Kettmann's piece also provides an important reminder -- in the form of his reminiscences of the Manfred Ewald trial -- that while records and integrity of sporting events are worth discussing, the health risks and culture of PEDs -- especially to the extent those who otherwise wouldn't touch the stuff feel coerced into using -- are far more important in the grand scheme of things.

ShysterBall Takes Long Island

I'm quoted more extensively than good sense would dictate in this morning's Newsday piece about Clemens and McNamee.

Friday, January 4, 2008

Clemens and Congress

Now whatcha gonna do, Roger?

No one has ever been prosecuted for lying to Mike Wallace, but Congress is another matter. Then again, if my little ju-jitsu analysis from yesterday was right, Clemens was poised to lie under oath in a civil suit filed by McNamee anyway, so maybe he's an in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound-kind-of-guy. Not saying he should -- dear God, don't lie under oath, kids -- but I reckon he might given what we know about the thin state of the evidence provided by McNamee to date.

And now that I think about it, if it took the feds several years to indict Barry Bonds for perjury when they had mountains of documentary evidence establishing his PED use against him, how could anyone -- even Congress -- pin a perjury rap on Clemens given what we know now?

Less salient question given that Congress is going to do what it wants to do, but one worth asking anyway: why in the Hell is Congress spending my money on this?

Quote of the Day

Rob Neyer (Insider content), on the A's recent vets-for-prospects trades:

Last season the A's won 76 games. If they brought back the same team next season, they'd have been lucky to win 86 games, which almost surely wouldn't qualify them for the postseason. Essentially, 85 isn't much better than 75, and if you're going to win 75, you might as well win 65. Assuming, of course, that winning 65 puts you on the road to 95.

And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.

Nomo Sighting

Former big-name players signing minor league contracts over the winter usually don't interest me (they're almost always practice fodder), but a Hideo Nomo signing seems a bit more random than usual:

Hideo Nomo, who once blazed a trail for Japanese players heading to the US major leagues, said Friday he had signed a minor league contract with the Kansas City Royals.

More than a decade after his major league debut, the 39-year-old right-handed pitcher said he was not ready to retire just yet. "I want to hang in there no matter how, without getting injured," he said in a brief message on his official website.

While Nomo actually making the Royals would say some pretty awful things about the state of KC's pitching, I've always liked the guy and wouldn't mind seeing him latch on somewhere.


FYI: the Etch-A-Sketch artwork was done by a guy named George Vlosich, who's work can be found here. Lots of baseball stuff.

Politics

Between the Nick Swisher trade and Britney's standoff, I somehow missed that some kind of contest or whatever was going on in Iowa yesterday. Huh.

While I have no intention of allowing politics to seep into the otherwise unspoiled beauty that is ShysterBall, I will probably let-fly with some occasional, random, and primarily non-partisan political links between now and November. I mean, I believe that baseball is the only thing that matters, but I have to at least pretend to care what happens to the rest of the world, right?

First up, my good friend Ethan Stock, who has some provocative predictions for the next 20 years of our political lives based on the caucus results. Ethan is the founder and CEO of a pretty spiffy technology company -- not some CW-obsessed political writer -- so whether you agree or disagree with him, he can always be counted on to have a fresh perspective about such things. Those Silicon Valley guys are funny that way.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled offseason.

What We Didn't Learn From the Mitchell Report

I normally don't link to forum posts, but yesterday over at BTF, David Nieporent reminded us all of the many, many critical questions the Mitchell Report didn't answer (comment #6):

Look, based on the Mitchell report we can guess and infer stuff, but it doesn't answer basic questions like, Are these players the tip of the iceberg? Did many hundreds of players use, and it just happened that the feds got one supplier -- Radomski -- out of the scores out there? Or was Radomski the biggest supplier in MLB, so that catching him means that most guilty parties were caught? How often did people actually use? Were the primary users people who got hurt and were trying to come back more quickly? Stars who wanted to become HOFers? Minor leaguers who wanted to become major leaguers? Old players who wanted to stay in the game, young people who wanted to get in the game, or a representative cross-section? When did people actually start -- high school, college, minors, majors?

Was use individual -- did guys decide on their own, based on their own personal experiences, to use steroids? Or was it a team effort -- did certain clubhouses have a 'steroid culture'? Was it just word of mouth that led someone to a supplier -- or did suppliers actively push their wares? Were the people who didn't use those who had moral objections, or health objections, or simply didn't think they needed it, or were they the oblivious sorts who didn't know where everyone else was getting steroids from?
Any or all of these answers would have been more useful -- though far less salacious -- than "Here's a list of names, starting with Roger Clemens, of people who used, talked about using, or met someone who used."

Whether you're a steroid hawk or a Bonds apologist, it strikes me that it would be helpful to know the answers to these kinds of questions before making anything approaching a definitive judgment about the kind of impact steroids have had on this era.

Update: not that some people aren't content to believe that the naming of names was the sole reason to investigate steroids (note "winner" number 1).

Swisher Trade

There was a time when we'd all assume that if Beane was sending away a veteran for some prospects he was fleecing the other side. Why we all believed that had a lot more to do with PR than substance, but we did. I'm not exactly sure when the myth of Beane's infallibility was first questioned, but by the time he was getting bubkis for Tim Hudson it had (or at least should have been) put to rest for good.

Against that backdrop, it behooves us to consult the experts regarding the Swisher-to-the-Sox trade. I'm not up on most teams' prospects -- by the time I've heard of them, it's because everyone is already talking about them -- but John Sickles is, and he seems to think that the A's did a great job:

Blez: First of all, what do you think of the players the A's got for Nick Swisher?

John Sickels: I had Gonzalez as my number one White Sox prospect, and De Los Santos as number two, both Grade B+, both among the best pitching prospects in baseball . . .

. . . Blez: What's a guy have to do to earn an A from Sickels?

Sickels: I'm a tough grader. To get a Grade A- or even the very rare regular Grade A is quite tough. For me, B+ is high praise.

So I (and apparently White Sox fans) guess Beane did OK here.

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Now That's What I Call Moneyball

A study of Warren Buffett's plate discipline:

The theory behind [Ted] Williams' runaway success was quite simple. He split the strike zone into 77 cells, each of which made up the size of a baseball, and rather than swing at anything that made its way into the strike zone, he would swing only at balls within his best cell -- the ones he knew he could hit. If balls didn't enter his best cell, he simply waited for the next one -- even if it meant striking out now and then.

How does this relate to investing and Buffett's success? Buffett, like Williams, will "swing" only at investments that come right down the center, at just the right speed, straight into his best cell. As Buffett describes, the analogy works out better for investors than for baseball hitters because investors can never be struck out. Patient investors can wait around as long as they wish until they are served exactly what they demand.

Funny how no one ever criticizes Buffet for clogging up the basepaths.

Clemens' Brinksmanship

Not much room to wiggle now, is there?
Roger Clemens will face a lawsuit if he says in a “60 Minutes” interview that his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee, was not truthful when he said he injected Clemens with performance-enhancing drugs, a lawyer hired by McNamee said Wednesday . . .

. . . “He’s got a chance to protect himself,” said Emery, who is based in New York and specializes in libel and defamation actions. “We’re not going to sue him if he doesn’t do it. But if he does it, we’re going to sue him.”

A while back I suggested that Clemens didn't have all that much to gain from suing McNamee for defamation. Reason? There is a lot to lose when you sue for defamation, even if you are telling the truth:

  • Defamation cases are hard to win, damages are often small, and most defamation lawyers won't take cases on contingency;

  • Defamation lawsuits often create bigger audiences for the false statements than the false statements enjoyed in the first place;

  • Even when the statements made by the defamer really are false, the plaintiff may whiff on one of the other essential elements of the suit (e.g. actual malice; damages; a showing of a privileged utterance by the defendant). Right or wrong, if the plaintiff loses a defamation lawsuit, most people will conclude that the defendant was telling the truth even if he wasn't.

The fact that Clemens went on a PR onslaught instead of walking to the courthouse suggests to me that he was advised by some folks who hipped him to all of these obstacles. By boldly going on 60 Minutes, he has performed a little legal ju-jitsu, and has made them McNamee's problem.

Worst case scenario for Clemens is that at some point, a couple of years from now, a jury will conclude that he lied on 60 Minutes (though given that McNamee's lawyer has said that "McNamee had no documentation, like canceled checks or e-mail messages, implicating Clemens," that is far from certain). If so, he cuts a small check -- at least small to Clemens -- and releases a statement saying that the jury got it wrong. Call me crazy, but it strikes me that being found to have lied by a plaintiff and a jury he can rail against may be a preferable PR position to having been called a PED user in the Mitchell Report.

Best case: McNamee, even if he is telling the truth, fails to carry his considerable burden of proof or, even worse, ends up losing his legal team over financial issues and the case just melts away. If that happens, Clemens declares victory, the national media does an about-face, and the Rocket is voted into Cooperstown in his first year of eligibility.

A gamble? Sure. But one without a terrible downside. If he does nothing, Clemens becomes a pariah. If he slams McNamee on Sunday night, he at least has a shot at redemption. If I were in Clemens' shoes, it's a gamble I'd probably take.

Update: Newsday will be running an article assessing Clemens' curious tactics in Sunday's edition. The reporter, John Jeansonne, must have been takin' peyote yesterday because he decided it would be a good idea to interview me for the piece. Tune in to Newsday on Sunday to see just how out-of-his-depth an Ohio blogger/lawyer can appear under the big city media microscope!

Boss Biography

Peter Golenbock is going to write a Steinbrenner biography:

Celebrated baseball writer Peter Golenbock, author of Dynasty: The New York Yankees 1949-64, has signed a contract with John Wiley & Sons to write a biography of Yankees owner George Steinbrenner, it was announced today. The book will be called The Boss, and it is scheduled for publication in spring 2009.

Thank goodness we will all finally get a chance to learn something about the reclusive and secretive Mr. Steinbrenner! What, pray tell, may we learn that will finally put lie to the finely-polished image this humble and retiring Ohio shipbuilder has worked so hard to cultivate over the years?

Great Moments in Optimism

Rose-colored headline of the week:

"Knoblauch gets first crack at Hall"

The judges would have also accepted "last crack."

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

"Chemacterility"

Simmons believes he has found a market inefficiency in the NBA on par with Moneyball's focus on high-OBP guys:


Here's the new mantra for savvy NBA teams: "Chemacterility." Why haven't you
heard the term before? Because I just made it up. But it's an amalgam of three
concepts that have formed the foundation of the Duncan Era in San Antonio:
chemistry, character and (cap) flexibility. As soon as Duncan arrived, in 1997,
Popovich and Buford began to avoid bad guys and bad contracts, preferring role
players, quality guys and short-term deals.

No quibble with the stuff about bad contracts. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about the NBA as I am about baseball, but it strikes me that cap flexibility is the absolute key to long-term success or, at the very least, rebounding from long-term futility. Unfortunately, Simmons doesn't say much about that, spending far more time on the chemistry/character stuff.

I'll grant that chemistry, such as it is, probably matters far more in the NBA than it does in baseball given that basketball players have to interact with each other far more than baseball players do. After all, aside from the double play and relay throws, baseball really is a game of individual as opposed to team moments, and history has shown that you can win with 25 guys and 25 cabs.

That said, it's probably worth noting that the Celtics and Spurs -- which Simmons uses as his primary examples of good character, high-chemistry teams -- have the most talented rosters in basketball and happen to be winning boatloads of games at the moment. Query: if Simmons is right that the "chemacterility" approach is one that can be emulated and planned-for a-la the high-OBP approach espoused in Moneyball, he'd certainly be able to cite a relatively untalented team with good chemistry, right? One that has taken Gregg Popovich's thinking to heart but, dad gummit, just hasn't broken through yet? Alas he does not.

I'm not saying acquiring "good chemistry" guys is a bad way for NBA GMs to build a winning ballclub. I'd just like to see someone define what "good chemistry" is without reference to won-loss records before I give it the kind of props Simmons does.

THT Looks at the 60s

Steve Treder at The Hardball Times looks back at some of the things we may have missed in the 60s due to the low levels of offense and the high levels of drugs that defined the era. There is a lot of really good stuff in there, including a conclusion (which is backed up by the evidence, by the way) that is likely to send Sawx fans into a tizzy:


Tony Conigliaro

Stories don't get any sadder than this one, of course. But poignant as Tony C.'s case legitimately is, all too often we see him portrayed as a budding superstar, who but for his terrible beaning had MVP-caliber seasons surely awaiting. Candidly, the evidence just doesn't support that . . . Tony C. was a very good player, but his injury didn't rob us of a great career.

Bronx Boondoggle

Your tax dollars at work, New Yorkers:

The Yankees and hundreds of their VIPs will get free valet parking for the next 40 years, courtesy of New York taxpayers. The startling revelation of yet another subsidy for the richest team in baseball is buried deep in the fine print of a $237 million tax-exempt bond offering that city officials quietly issued the week before Christmas.

The Yankees are quick to crow about the $800M they're putting up to build their new ballpark -- and that is a lot as these things usually go -- but the private portion of the total cost seems to get smaller and smaller each day.

Interview of MLBAM Presdient Bob Bowman

Maury Brown, with an interview of MLBAM honcho Bob Bowman. Revealing tidbit:

Bizball: With the Mitchell Report being released last week on MLB.com, what, if any, actions did BAM do to prepare for what may have been the highest traffic day for MLB.com in its history?

Bowman: It was not even close. Not even close to the highest traffic day for mlb.com . . .the traffic was up substantially, but we’ve had days where we had 11 million visitors during the season during a regular day, and we didn’t get anywhere near that on the day of the Mitchell Report. We were in the 6 million-range . . .


Probably a useful fact to keep in mind the next time someone is going on about how the steroids mess has ruined baseball or what have you. Sure, it's important to the chattering classes (I've certainly written a lot about it) but your average fan is far more interested in seeing replays of sick double plays in August than he is reading what George Mitchell has to say.

Leyritz's Statement

Jim Leyritz has come out with one of those non-apology apologies:
"Due to the tragic and unfortunate events of Dec. 28, 2007, Mr. Leyritz and his family wish to express their deepest sympathies and condolences."
Everyone hates those kinds of statements. "Unfortunate events?" "Sympathies and condolences?" Those are things lawyers say, not people, and no one would ever consider such an apology to be genuinely heartfelt.

That said, people in Leyrtiz's position (i.e. high-profile folks in trouble) are kind of screwed when it comes to the apology thing. If they offer legitimate, heartfelt apologies they will inevitably be used against them in both criminal and civil contexts. Sure, some editor or readers may give the person a scintilla of credit for a genuine apology, but they'll receive no such benefit in litigation, where the words of apology will be ripped from their context, blown up on a white board and characterized (or mischaracterized) in the worst possible light for their author.

So why not just say nothing at all? Because Leyritz is going to face a sentencing judge some day, and sentencing judges like to cite a defendant's "lack of remorse" in cases like these, even if the alleged lack of remorse is due to the defendant, you know, asserting a defense and making use of their Fifth Amendment rights. The solution? Say enough to have said something, but really say nothing at all.

Even if we assumed that an apology could make any kind of real difference to Ann Veitch's family at this point (which it obviously can't) there's no escaping the fact that Leyrtiz is in a no-win situation when it comes to actually making one.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Happy New Year!


Today is one of the few days of the year on which baseball takes a backseat here at ShysterBall. My plans: to watch bowl games and eat bean dip until I'm either dead or divorced, after which I intend to fall asleep on the couch. I hope your day -- and your new year -- is as good as mine is shaping up to be.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Craig