While many players have had solid individual seasons in the American League this year, the race for the AL MVP comes down to just two players: Jose Bautista of the Blue Jays and Justin Verlander of the Tigers.

And I have a message for all of the folks who foolishly and obnoxiously say that pitchers should not merit MVP consideration.

Listen:

What do you think?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”
• For all MSF podcast subscriptions options, click here.

The post QuickCast: AL MVP a Two-Man Race Between Bautista and Verlander (and why pitchers should merit MVP consideration) appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

With Josh McDaniels now gone, and a new coaching staff in place that does not seem to believe in Tebow’s unique talents, it is time for the Broncos-Tebow marriage to end; and Miami might just be the perfect spot for Tebow’s next NFL stop.

Listen:

Correction: In the quickcast, and in the transcript below, I mention that Tebow started under McDaniels last year. I was wrong. I forgot that McDaniels was relieved of his duties after 12 games. Tebow started the final three games under the Broncos’ interim head coach. Thanks to the commenter who pointed this out.

What do you think?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

For those of you who would prefer to read rather than listen, here is a transcript:

It’s Time for the Denver Broncos-Tim Tebow Marriage to End

When training camp opened, Tim Tebow seemed to have a legitimate shot to start at quarterback for the Denver Broncos. Now two games into the preseason, Kyle Orton is firmly entrenched as the Denver starting quarterback and Tebow has fallen all the way to 3^rd on the QB depth chart, behind fellow first round disappointment Brady Quinn.

Sunday, Mike Freeman of CBS Sports reported that the Broncos were open to trade offers for Tebow, but that a drying trade market meant Denver would likely cut Tebow or keep him as the 3^rd QB.

Whether they end up keeping him or cutting him, the implication is clear: the Broncos do not believe in Tim Tebow the quarterback.

And really, why should we be surprised?

Image credit: LA Times

Because of obvious flaws in his throwing mechanics and the fact that he did not play in a pro-style offense in college, Tebow had no business being drafted in the first round. But he was. Josh McDaniels believed in him and made sure he got his guy.

In doing so, McDaniels blessed and cursed Tebow at the same time.

The curse is obvious: when a franchise picks a QB in the first round, he has to turn into a franchise QB or it sets the franchise back 3-5 years. Thus, the pressure on Tebow to succeed as a QB, and to do so quickly, has been enormous. But Tebow’s college success and high profile masked the truth: he is nothing more than a developmental QB at the NFL level, with a position switch possibly necessary within 2-3 years.

First round picks not named Aaron Rodgers rarely get that kind of patience though, and it has led to all sorts of premature judgments about Tebow and his NFL future.

But McDaniels did not totally screw Tebow. He did get Tebow the guaranteed money that comes with being a first round QB, so the young QB has that to help ease the frustration of his on-field struggles. More importantly though, McDaniels making the move to get Tebow ensured that the QB would be coached by a creative offensive mind committed to building an offense around his unique talents.

Ask any personnel man and they will tell you: when you have a uniquely talented player who does not fit traditional positional modes, that player’s success depends on being with a creative coach who has a clear vision for that player can fit into his system and be used to win football games.

Josh McDaniels very well could have been such a coach for Tebow as evidenced by Tebow’s solid three-game run to end his rookie season in which he threw 4 TDs against 3 INTs, averaged 218 passing yards per game, and led the Broncos to 23, 24, and 28 points, including a thrilling late victory over Houston in which Tebow’s famous winning attitude was on full display.

Update: Oops! McDaniels was relieved of his duties before Tebow became the starter. Way to go Jerod. You doofus.

The key word in that last sentence, however, was “could”. Because Josh McDaniels no longer coaches the Denver Broncos. John Fox does. And it should surprise no one that the public demise of Tim Tebow the quarterback has been steady since Fox took over as head coach.

John Fox is a solid NFL had coach. He had some very successful years in Carolina. But he’s an old school coach whose vanilla philosophy is build around defense, a strong running game, and a QB who can manage a conservative, pro-style passing game. He is close to the polar opposite of the creative McDaniels.

As long as McDaniels was around, Tebow had a chance as a QB. Now that he’s not, and now that the Broncos have a coaching staff that doesn’t have a vision for how Tebow can succeed at quarterback, we are seeing nothing but issue after issue. The fans want Tebow, and Tebow wants to start, but the truth is that he has no chance to succeed in Denver because his only chance – McDaniels – is now coaching up Sam Bradford in St. Louis.

And this is why the Tebow-Broncos marriage needs to end sooner rather than later.

Denver will be better off this season with Kyle Orton starting, but there is too much pressure to play Tebow because of his draft position and the buildup of the last year-plus. With Tebow out of the picture, the Broncos can move forward in their new regime with Orton as their starter and either stick with him long-term or find another young QB who more closely fits what Fox and John Elway want in a franchise QB.

It should be noted that because the new regime had nothing to do with bringing Tebow in, and because Josh McDaniels’ personnel decisions have been so widely ridiculed, it would not be terribly difficult for the Johns Elway and Fox to defend ending the Tebow experience that they didn’t start in the first place.

As for Tebow, he’ll be better off as well. If he can go to another team that did not invest a 1^st round pick in him, and with expectations now lowered because of his Denver demotion and whatever discount price will be paid to acquire him, that team can have patience with him. They can also be open to suggesting a position change a year or two from now if Tebow does not develop as a QB, something Denver would never have been able to do because of Tebow’s draft slot.

Should Miami Be Next?

And what team might be a good fit? I say the Miami Dolphins.

Tebow is obviously beloved throughout the Sunshine State, and since Jacksonville and Tampa Bay both have their young QBs of the future, Miami is the only Florida landing spot left. And let’s be honest: part of Tebow’s value to whatever franchise he goes to will be his appeal to fans. This is maximized in the state where he became a legend. Even if he did not play much this season his acquisition would generate buzz. In a fickle city like Miami, a former football town now dominated by the Heat, the Dolphins can use all the buzz they can get.

Plus, the Dolphins do not have a clear QB of the future. Tebow gives them someone who can be developed, with a possibility of playing later this season if Chad Henne stumbles, as most expect he will. It’s likely the Dolphins will be scratching and clawing for just 4-5 wins this season, so Tebow could get some consistent, relatively low pressure game action to show what he can do.

Now, I’ll grant you, Tony Sparano is very similar philosophically to John Fox, so I don’t think the current Miami coaching situation is very conducive to Tebow succeeding, but hell, the current Miami coaching situation might not be conducive to anyone succeeding. Tony Sparano was almost fired this offseason and almost surely won’t be back next season.  Miami can then bring in a coach who has a vision for how to utilize Tebow – either as a starting QB or as perhaps an H-back.

Here is the bottom line, at least as I see it:

Tim Tebow is going to be a good football player in the NFL. Whether it is at QB or fullback, I don’t know, but I do know that within 2-3 years I think he’ll have found a way to help a team win football games…so long as he finds a coaching staff that believes in him and his unique talents, which it does not seem like the Denver coaching staff does.

So for the benefit of both parties, Denver and Tim Tebow need to go their separate ways. Both would benefit, and the sooner the better. That there is a third party like the Dolphins that would seem to be such a good fit if the price is right makes it even more imperative that something get done and done now.

It’s a win-win-win situation, and right now these two struggling franchises and this struggling young quarterback need to take wins anywhere they can get them.

**********

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

And makes sure you check out The Twin Cats, whose song “Snow Globe Time Capsule” is used at the beginning and end of each MSF QuickCast.

The post QuickCast: It’s Time For The Denver Broncos-Tim Tebow Marriage To End … Should Miami Be Next? appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

Listen:

After you listen, use the comment section to tell us what YOUR at-bat song would be.

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

And makes sure you check out The Twin Cats, whose song “Snow Globe Time Capsule” is used at the beginning and end of each MSF QuickCast.

For those of you who would rather read than listen…this quickcast probably isn’t for you. I don’t even have a transcript to copy/paste.

And by the way, I know the goal for these quickcasts is to stay under 5:00, but I went well over on this one. Please forgive me. I promise to get back on the succinct track next time.

The post QuickCast #9: What Would Your At-Bat Song Be? appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

[Editor's note: This quickcast was originally posted on July 20th, 2011. Since then, Jim Thome has become the 8th player in MLB history to smash 600 homeruns, hitting 599 and 600 last night. I am pulling this post out of the archives because today is all about giving respect and recognition to an athlete who has embodied everything we want our athletes to be: great on the field while being humble and decent off of it.

Congrats to Jim Thome on joining one of sports' most exclusive clubs. I'll be cheering when you join another exclusive club: the Baseball Hall of Fame.]

In the third MSF QuickCast, Jerod Morris discusses the lack of attention surrounding Jim Thome’s quest for 600 home runs, as well as Thome’s Hall of Fame credentials and why they merit the Bunyanesque masher being a first ballot entrant.

Listen:

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes. (link coming soon.)
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

And makes sure you check out The Twin Cats, whose song “Snow Globe Time Capsule” is used at the beginning and end of each MSF QuickCast.

For those of you who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript for this quickcast:

Give Jim Thome the Respect, Attention He’s Earned

If you would have told me as recently as 5-6 years ago that I would be saying what I am about to say, I would have said you are crazy. But here I am, about to extol the virtues of a baseball player who for years was my sworn, mortal enemy.

You see, I’m a little miffed. I’m miffed that Jim Thome is not getting more attention as he approaches entry into one of the most sacred clubs in sports history: the 600 home run club.

I also a little miffed at, and definitely do not understand, the questioning I have seen and heard of Thome’s Hall of Fame credentials.

When Jim Thome gets to 600 home runs, he will be just the 8^th man to reach that rarified air, joining Barry, Hank, The Babe, Willie, The Kid, ARod, and Slammin’ Sammy. And if you want to insert a little real talk into this debate, Thome will become just the fifth member of the 600 home run club who was not either proven or strongly, strongly suspected of juicing.

So where is the attention for this extremely rare and exciting feat?

Image credit: Paul Battaglia/AP via MPR News

It was not long ago that ARod was approaching 600 home runs. It seemed like an eternity passed between his 599^th and 600^th home run, and I remember being constantly inundated with updates and live look-ins at his at bats. I realize that ARod is a much higher profile player than Thome, and I realize that the pinstripes have a lot to do the excess attention, but shouldn’t a man like Thome, who embodies absolutely everything we supposedly want our athletes to be, galvanize at least 40-50% of that attention?

I don’t care that he’s not playing every day. I don’t care that he’s toiling for a team struggling in 4^th place. And I don’t care that he’s only a DH tasked with pretty much one job at this point: mash home runs. This is Jim Thome.  In baseball, there is nothing more productive that one man can do in a single action than hit a home run. Nothing. And in baseball’s history, only seven men have done it more often than Jim Thome.

That’s worth celebrating, yet Thome – who spent the vast majority of his career in the Midwest – is flying so far under the radar that his quest for 600 home runs isn’t even common knowledge to the casual baseball fan. Which is ridiculous.

What is also ridiculous is questioning of Thome’s Hall of Fame credentials.

It used to be that 500 home runs was an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. It isn’t any longer now that steroids and jackwagons like Rafael Palmeiro ruined it. That’s fine with me though. But 600 home runs?

Again, only seven people in the history of Major League Baseball have hit more home runs than Thome has right now. Seven. The magnitude of the home run is so great that being that high up on the all-time list should make you a no-brainer, automatic, no questions asked Hall of Famer even if the rest of your numbers are subpar.

But have you looked at Jim Thome’s career stats? They are far from subpar.

• He’s a .277 career hitter; not bad for a Bunyanesque masher.
• And if you have a gripe with his batting average, consider that Thome’s career on base percentage is .403 which, for comparison’s sake, is 20 points higher than Derek Jeter’s.
• Thome’s career OPS is .960, the 17^th highest total of all time.
• He also has 1,646 RBIs and 8 seasons of 100+ runs.

I hear the arguments against him. He struck out a lot – true, over 2400 times – and he wasn’t the greatest defender, and he never finished in the top 3 in the MVP voting, and he’s just hanging on accumulating numbers and blah, blah, frieking blah.

Excuse my strong language, but would you cut the malarkey? Seriously.

You don’t just, quote, “accumulate” 600 home runs. Jim Thome is still playing because he brings value to the Minnesota Twins, just like he brought value to my White Sox before they foolishly let him go. He’s still a threat to go deep every time he steps to the plate and points his bat menacingly at the bleachers, and that’s a rare, valuable commodity in baseball.

You know what else is a rare and valuable commodity in baseball, heck in sports? Thome’s character and leadership, both of which should be factored in when his name comes up for Hall consideration.

My feeling on character and leadership is that they should not necessarily work against a player when it comes to the Hall of Fame, especially if their talent and achievements were so great as to make them Hall worthy despite their shortcomings. I actually think guys like Pete Rose and the best of the steroid turds like Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire, should all be in the Hall of Fame in spite of their swollen heads, shrunken balls, and sold-out integrity, though that’s a debate for another day.

I do, however, think that excessively strong character and leadership should work for a player, especially if people have foolishly placed him on the Hall’s borderline. If you don’t think Jim Thome is a Hall of Famer just based on the merit of his on-field accomplishments, fine. Reasonable minds can disagree I suppose.

But consider Thome’s integrity during a time when so many of peers sacrificed theirs. Consider his impeccable attitude, which is why proven winners like Ozzie Guillen, Joe Torre, and Ron Gardenhire have wanted him around despite his declining skills. Consider his presence in the lineup and what it meant for the great players who hit in front of Thome and benefitted from the damn near peerless protection he provided behind them. None of these things will show up on Thome’s baseball reference page, but they matter. At least, they should.

Jim Thome will get to 600 home runs whether America notices or not. And when he does, it shouldn’t be a question of if he makes the Hall of Fame, it should be a question of by how wide a margin he makes it on the first ballot. Because if the Hall of Fame isn’t there to celebrate and honor a guy like Jim Thome, who is deserving of enshrinement in every way, then what’s the point of even having one?

The post QuickCast: Jim Thome Hits #600 – It’s Time to Give Him the Respect and Attention He Has Earned appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

In Zambrano’s exit, and juxtaposed against the disappointment of the Wood-Prior-Zambrano trio, I find yet another way to appreciate their underappreciated contemporary: Mark Buehrle.

Click play on the player below to listen:

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

For those who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript:

As Carlos Zambrano Exits, Ol’ Reliable Mark Buehrle Stands Alone in Chicago

Last night, Chicago Cubs pitcher Carlos Zambrano did something that is starting to become such a Chicago Cubs thing to do: he walked out on his teammates.

Like Sammy Sosa before him, Zambrano has gone from a beloved Cubs superstar to an overpaid, underachieving, volatile pariah. And like Sosa, Big Z hasn’t been able to stand the heat…so he showed himself out of the kitchen.

When I heard about Zambrano’s selfish, impetuous act, two thoughts immediately flashed into my mind:

One, this probably, mercifully, signals the end of one of the most star-crossed and disappointing pitching phenom trios in baseball history.

And two, I somehow found a new way to appreciate Mark Buehrle.

Let’s deal with number one first.

In 2003, the trio of Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, and Carlos Zambrano went a combined 45-28 in 94 starts with an average ERA+ of 151.3 and more than a strikeout per inning. They were, simply put, the most fearsome trio of pitchers in Major League Baseball. Prior and Zambrano were both 22. Wood was 26. Finally, there was realistic hope for broken curses on North Side.

I don’t need to rehash the excruciating details of what happened to this trio in the seasons that ensued after Steve Bartman’s unfortunate rise to infamy. Simply put, it would not be an overstatement to call the fall of Wood and Prior one of the more extreme examples of unfulfilled potential in my lifetime as a baseball fan.

Big Z, on the other hand, stayed physically healthy and became the Cubs’ ace. From 2004-2007 he finished in the top 5 of the Cy Young voting three times. He’s won a total of 125 games while never making fewer than 28 starts in a season before last year. He was, I think, one of the 10 or 15 best pitchers of the aughts when you look at his entire body of work.

And Wood and Prior were both considered better than Zambrano. Can you imagine the Cubs’ pitching staff had those two been able to mature into grizzled 200+ inning machines like Zambrano? As a White Sox fan and lifelong Cubs hater, I shudder to think about such a reality.

The problem with Zambrano is that while he stayed physically healthy, his emotional health seemed to deteriorate by the season. Miscast as a #1 starter, the man to whom all pressure goes on a pitching staff, Zambrano routinely melted down. As his meltdowns increased, so too did his ability to confidently and competently take the ball every fifth day for his Cubs.

Zambrano finished fifth in the Cy Young voting in 2007. He made 34 starts. Over the next three seasons Zambrano would start 30, 28, and 20 games. This year he has started 24, but with a career-worst 4.82 ERA. Zambrano has never finished a full season with an ERA over 3.95.

And now, apparently, Zambrano’s career is done. Surely it’s done on the North Side.

With it, gone also are the final vestiges of that once-heralded trio of pitching phenoms that was going to overcome baseball history, billy goats, and Bartman to deliver glory to the partisans of Wrigley. Two thirds of the trio succumbed to injury of the body; one third fell to a failure of the mind.

And then there is Mark Buehrle.

Concurrently with Wood, Zambrano, and Prior pitching their first full seasons in the big leagues (1998, 2002, and 2003, respectively), the team on the south side of the city was breaking in a young, unheralded, soft-tossing lefty who had been a 38^th round draft pick. Mark Buehrle unexpectedly went 16-8 with a 3.29 ERA and a league-leading 1.066 WHIP during his first full season in 2001, but then proceeded to pitch progressively worse in 2002 and 2003.

By the time Buehrle posted an underwhelming 14-14 won-loss record in 2003, with a 4.14 ERA, he had become completely lost in the Chicago pitching shuffle due to the exploits of the aforementioned Wrigleyville Trio.

But just as the tide turned in 2003 for the Cubs’ young pitchers, so too did it turn for Buehrle. He lowered his ERA and went 16-10 in 2004 before having his career year in 2005. Buehrle went 16-8 with a 3.12 ERA while leading the league in innings pitched for the second straight year. It was his lone top-5 finish in the Cy Young voting.

Oh, and powered by pitching, the White Sox won the World Series, the first in the city of Chicago in over 200 combined seasons of baseball.

Since then, Buehrle has just kept on motoring. He had a down year in 2006 while dealing with the fatigue of the deep playoff run, but he has compensated for any inflated ERAs with his reliability. Since 2001 through this season, a span of 11 seasons, Buehrle has never won fewer than 10 games and never pitched fewer than 200 innings, which he is on pace to do again this year. He has pitched a perfect game, a no-hitter, won two gold gloves, set the MLB record for consecutive batters retired at 45, and is currently in the midst of a team-record streak of consecutive starts allowing 3 or fewer earned runs.  He is also the only player in MLB history to start and save consecutive World Series games.

This year, at the age of 32, Buehrle is having one of his best seasons at a time when his team has needed him the most. The White Sox entered this season proclaiming to be all-in. Unfortunately, many of the White Sox high-priced players have floundered. Not Buehrle. His current ERA of 3.06 would be his career best, as would his .667 winning percentage. Because of Mark Buehrle, the White Sox still have life in the AL Central. Without him? I shudder to consider.

I’ve long thought and argued that Mark Buehrle is one of the most underrated and underappreciated baseball players of the current era. Sure, I’m biased, but the list of accomplishments I’ve spouted off during this quickcast speaks for itself.

What’s ironic is that Buehrle has had such a spectacularly steady career on the south side after starting out in the shadows of burgeoning dominance on the north side. But what makes baseball such a great and fascinating game is that in every respect it is a marathon, not a sprint.

At bats can be marathons. Games can be marathons. Series can be marathons. And certainly seasons and careers are marathons. The second you think you have baseball figured out, the game is quick to flip your expectations 180 degrees.

In the case of Prior and Wood, this expectation flip was tragic in the sports sense of the word. In the case of Zambrano, the expectation flip was perhaps inevitable. And in the case of Buehrle, the expectation flip has been relatively anonymous and nondescript.

The best way I can sum it up is this: way back in 2003, Mark Buehrle was unquestionably the tortoise in the race to Windy City pitching immortality. One by one, the much-heralded hares that toed the rubber in Wrigley have fallen by the way side; and just like in the old children’s tale we all know so well, the tortoise has unexpectedly won the race.

I feel bad for Cubs fans today, looking back on what could have been and what ended up being. And such an ugly, ignominious ending; but one that is perhaps appropriate all things considered. As a baseball fan, I would have liked to have seen the greatness that Wood, Prior, and Zambrano would have produced together, even if the Cubs hater in me would have loathed it.

Regardless, I’m just happy that of the four young pitchers who started their big league careers in Chicago back at the turn of the century, the White Sox were the ones who got Mark Buehrle, because he has ended up having the best career of them all. That would have sounded crazy to say at the time, but it’s unquestionable now.

As Rangers manager Ron Washington might say, that’s the way baseball go.

Fellow White Sox fans, today is a good day to stop and appreciate what we’ve had and what we still have in Mark Buehrle. Consistency, reliability, and stability are three of the most underrated traits in a baseball player. Just ask a Cubs fan.

Especially on this day, I’m sure they would agree.

The post MSF QuickCast #8: As Carlos Zambrano Exits, Ol’ Reliable Mark Buehrle Stands Alone in Chicago appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

Click play on the player below to listen:

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

For those who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript:

Restoring Some Pride To The Word “Humbled”

This past weekend, seven men were inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. As is custom, each man gave a heartfelt, often emotional speech that thanked the people who helped him along the way and explicated why becoming a Hall of Famer was so special to him.

From Richard Dent to Shannon Sharpe to Marshall Faulk, there were plenty of genuine statements and moments that were compelling to watch and listen to.

Unfortunately, as is also custom at events like these, there was one word in particular so egregiously misused over and over again that someone might as well have just been running their fingernails across a chalkboard right next to my ear.

I’ve written about this before on MSF, and ranted about it on Twitter numerous times, so you may know the word I’m referring to:

Humbled.

Throughout the Hall of Fame speeches we heard phrases like “I stand before you humbled to be joining the rest of the men in the Hall of Fame” and “This is a truly humbling moment.”

Really?

The definition of humbled is to lower someone in dignity or importance. The secondary definition is to be decisively defeated.

Granted, I can’t get into these men’s minds and know exactly why they chose the word humbled, but it seems to me that they actually chose a word that means the opposite of what they meant to express.

I believe what they meant to say was “I stand before you proud to be joining the rest of the men in the Hall of Fame” and “This is a truly proud moment.”

Pride is defined as a feeling of pleasure from one’s own achievements. Call me crazy, but that seems like a perfect fit for the moment, whereas the use of humbled seems antithetical.

If they wanted to show honest humility, a line like “I am humbled to be in the presence of so many great players who I looked up to and who built the NFL into the great game it is” would have worked. That would appropriately place the more senior members of the Hall of Fame in a rightful position of greater importance.

But so say you are humbled to be joining them? Technically, according to the definition, that’s an insult.

Okay, so who cares right? Why do I feel the need to be the over-analytical, judgmental turd in the punch bowl when clearly no malicious intent was present?

I’ll tell you why: because words are important, and if their misuse and abuse is allowed to go unchecked, then words lose their meaning and unique ability to describe a particular thought, feeling, or action.

If a word can have its meaning, while also meaning the exact opposite at the same time, what purpose does it serve?

In addition, it’s ludicrous that we demand our athletes and other public figures be so vanilla and politically correct that rather than actually say what they are thinking, they either subconsciously or disingenuously try to mask their true feelings behind words they do not mean.

When I rant about the misuse of the word humbled, and I often do, it’s less about this isolated example and the people I specifically mention, and much more about the larger issue of respecting the power of words and the value of honest communication.

Unfortunately, a great word like humbled being misused over and over again on such a public stage perpetuates its misuse in everyday life by those who were listening and who subconsciously processed the erroneous context of the word without recognizing how much its meaning was bludgeoned by such use.

In this sense, we all have a responsibility to make sure we say what we mean and use words as they are intended, lest we further contribute to the erosion of words’ unique meanings, which in turn makes candid, efficient communication that much harder.

Look, despite this rant, I enjoyed the speeches that were given Saturday night. Watching these men speak with such deserved pride about the difficult obstacles they overcame to achieve their goals was humbling to listen to and consider. This night was theirs, and it was a celebration of their path to reaching the pinnacle of their profession. There is nothing humbling about that.

No, the reality is that there was only one thing humbled on Saturday night, and it was the word itself.

Just consider this quickcast my small effort to restore a little pride to one of my favorite, but one of the most misused, words in the English language.

The post QuickCast #7: Restoring Some Pride To The Word “Humbled” appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

Click play on the player below to listen:

Where do you fall on this issue?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

For those who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript:

To “We” or Not to “We” – That is the Question.

Or at least, that was the question earlier this week on Twitter; one that I discussed with fellow White Sox fan Rob Routzahn while we commiserated during another frustrating White Sox loss.

I referred to the White Sox as “we” and Rob responded that he cringes when he hears fans do that. As he put it: “They are my team, but I’m not on that team.”

And I respect that perspective.

Certainly there is no right or wrong answer here, but I am always interested to hear where fans fall on the we/them debate and why they fall where they do.

Personally, I always will unabashedly refer to my sports teams as “we”. And there are a number of reasons why this is the case, most of them having to do with how I grew up.

My dad was a college football coach back in the day, so my fall Saturdays were spent either on the field running around as a ball boy or cord monkey, or pacing around the house with my mom watching road games on TV or listening on the radio. We lived and died with every moment because, quite literally, our family’s life was being dictated by the wins and losses.

Being a coach of a professional or college sports team is a cutthroat job to have. Too many losses and dad could be out of a job. The stakes were real. Winning mattered to us in ways it did not for regular fans.

Plus, I knew the players. I knew the coaches. They weren’t just images on a TV screen or names in an article. When I was down there on the field or at practice, when a player would call out “Hey little Morris, go get me such and such” or when an equipment manager would say “Hey Jerod, quit playing grabass and untangle the cords!” I felt like I was part of the team.

So saying “we” felt natural in relation to sports, and it’s never really changed.

When I’d go to IU basketball games, I’d be hanging on every pass, every shot, every rebound. And as soon as the game was over, I’d be out in the driveway pretending I was Calbert Cheaney or Damon Bailey or Brian Evans. I had a pretty active imagination back then, so I’d play for hours on end, announcing entire games out loud right there on the driveway. Then afterwards, I’d go and input the stats from memory into a spreadsheet and keep track as my quote-unquote “season” unfolded.

Yes, I was that big a sports nerd.

And when I’d go to games, the IU players would not feel like just people out there on a hardwood stage that I was watching. These were people I’d played with, or as, out on my driveway. So of course I said “we” in reference to my Hoosiers.

And I still do. Old habits die hard, as they say, and fortunately so too does the commitment and emotional investment I have with my teams.

And this is good, because things have changed since my childhood. Obviously.

My dad is a scout in the NFL now, but I don’t ever go with him to training camp, and I rarely go to NFL games, let alone run around on the field for the team he’s with. I don’t go to the basketball hoops near my apartment and pretend to be Jordan Hulls or Victor Oladipo. And I don’t play wiffle ball with my friends and pretend I’m Mark Buehrle or Paul Konerko.

But I still say “we” when I’m talking about my teams because a) I always have and b) it makes following sports more enjoyable.

Yes, I can watch sports just for the sport itself and enjoy myself; but what I really love is getting involved. I love living and dying with every possession of an IU game, not being able to sit for the entire 40 minutes, and feeling, no matter how infinitesimally, like I’m part of it all.

I know I’m not. Of course I’m not. But sports are entertainment. They’re an escape. And I like to be fully invested. Saying “we” is one way that is manifested, and I’m not embarrassed about it, nor do I think there is any reason whatsoever to change it.

It doesn’t make me any better or more committed as a fan, it’s just how I choose to experience my sports. It’s natural.  For people like Rob Routzahn, the opposite is natural. And that’s perfectly okay too.

At the end of the day, we may have our difference, but we are all sports fans. And ultimately, that’s the we that matters most.

So which side of the fence do you fall on? Do you refer to your sports teams as we or them?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Leave a comment here, drop me a tweet at @JerodMorris, or comment on our Facebook page, Facebook.com/MidwestSportsFans.

Have a great weekend everyone!

The post QuickCast #6: To “We” or Not To “We” — That Is The Question appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

Click play on the player below to listen:

And because I’m curious, a quick poll:

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Know how I know this is an old picture? All the Cleveland Browns gear, plus who is that svelte guy on the left!?

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

For those who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript:

In Appreciation of Brother’s Day, A Morris Family Tradition

Today, August 1^st, is a very special day in my family. It’s Brother’s Day, a tradition we started about a decade ago. Basically, it is a day when my brother Joshua and I, and our little brother Bryce, show our appreciation for eachother as brothers.

And for the record, we would call it Siblings Day or Brother and Sisters Day, but it’s just us dudes; so we call it, simply, Brother’s Day.

Back in our younger years, Josh and I decided that while Mother’s Day and Father’s Day were great, worthwhile holidays, it was pretty lame that there was no day set aside for us. Little did we know in the immaturity of our youth that, in reality, for parents the other 363 days of the year are all about the kids, which is why it is important to set aside days like Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, so the often underappreciated efforts of moms and dads can be properly recognized.

Nonetheless, we aired our grievance and were fortunate to have it fall on the empathetic ears of our dear mom who loved it for two reasons. First, she saw it as a unique family tradition that, if properly respected and celebrated annually, would be something to bond Josh and I forever. And secondly, my mom loves any excuse to slip us an iTunes gift card or a little bit of cash.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: setting up Brother’s Day was just a diabolical plan by Josh and I to finagle some gifts with almost half the year still to go before Christmas. But I am not being disingenuous when I say that is not what this day is about.

We either exchange gifts or just hang out together, and take some time to appreciate the positives we’ve brought to eachother’s lives. And when Bryce became part of the family a few years back, we were glad to make him part of the Brother’s Day tradition as well.

As I’ve gotten older and gained more perspective, I’ve come to appreciate Brother’s Day more and more, and it’s made me wonder why there isn’t a national Sibling’s Day or Brother’s and Sister’s Day.

Why Don’t We Have a National Siblings’ Day?

Think about it: for most of us, the family members and loved ones that we will spend the most concurrent time on this earth with are our siblings. So if we are going to celebrate moms, and celebrate dads, and celebrate love and giving thanks, and celebrate anniversaries and important religious days, and presidents and historical figures and veterans, and, heck, even secretaries…why shouldn’t we take a day to celebrate siblings?

The fabric of humanity and the through-line that connects generations is family. And in many ways our greatest lifetime connection to family is our siblings. That absolutely should be celebrated. The more I think about it, the more silly it is to me that it isn’t.

Now I know that some will say that you shouldn’t need a holiday to appreciate your siblings, and you’re right. And I’m sure that the majority of siblings are able to show proper appreciation for eachother without having a specific day to compel them to do it. And some people would probably chafe at having yet another day on the calendar for which they feel obligated to send a card or buy a gift.

But all of that misses the point.

As a society, setting aside Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Valentine’s Day, anniversaries, and all of the other myriad holidays we celebrate not only gived us designated days in our busy schedules to focus on celebrating love and family with those we are closest with, they also give us a shared societal experience that helps us define, on a macro level, what we collectively value and honor.

There isn’t much that is more worthy of valuing and honoring than the lifetime connection we have with our siblings. That’s why Brother’s Day took hold and has become an important tradition in our family. And I bet it would in most other families as well.

Regardless, my goal with this QuickCast is not to preach or say that our family is somehow better than yours. We’re not perfect, far from it, just like your family too I imagine. But I do think we figured out something pretty special with Brother’s Day, and my hope in sharing our tradition is that, whether you start one of your own or not, you take a moment to appreciate your siblings. Forget about the rivalries, the arguments, and the strife. All brothers and sisters experience that on some level, and overcoming it is part of what makes these relationships special and built to last. But that stuff should never overshadow all the positives.

If you have a second, call you brother, call your sister; let them know they’re important to you. Tell them you appreciate them. Tell them you love them.

That’s what this day is about for us. And I look forward to spending some time with my brothers today, on our day. Brother’s Day.

The post QuickCast #5: Why Don’t We Have a National Siblings’ Day? appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

Listen:

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes.
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

For those who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript:

“All In” White Sox Can (and Should) Improve Their Hand

It is no secret that the mantra for the 2011 Chicago White Sox has been “all in.”

Through 98 games though, things haven’t exactly gone as planned on the South Side.

But that does not mean it is time to abandon the “all in” mindset. It just means the White Sox need to look in the mirror and make sure they have a prudent “all in” thought process to salvage the next 64 games and fight their way into the playoffs.

You see, in poker there are three reasons to go all in.

First, you can go all in when you are short stacked. This is the term for when you have the fewest chips at the table. This all-in strategy is a desperate attempt to stay alive by hoping luck can help you double or triple the few assets you have left. A second reason to go all-in is because you believe you have the best hand at the table, so you have little fear of losing. Neither of these best describes the White Sox all-in strategy before the season started.

The third reason to go all in is when you are pot-committed, meaning you’ve bet so much in the hand already, and the pot total is so large, that it makes sense to see it through. This reason, being pot-committed, is why the White Sox went all in.

After the Peavy, Jackson, and Rios transactions of the last two years, the White Sox had clearly sacrificed the future to win now. Not signing Paul Konerko or making a big splash with a guy like Adam Dunn would not have made sense. If you’ve sacrificed the future to win now, damnit, you better win now.

So while the Peavy, Jackson, and Rios transactions all may have been irrational, ill-advised moves (which they all probably were), they essentially made the White Sox pot-committed to 2011, so pushing the chips to the middle in the offseason made sense.

With a roster full of hungry veterans led by the World Series experience of Paulie, Buehrle, AJ, and Ozzie, and seemingly more questions surrounding the other AL Central teams heading into the season, 2011 was clearly a promising one on the South Side, and going “all in” not only made sense, it seemed like a pitch perfect rallying cry. And despite the team’s struggles, it still is.

With the trade deadline approaching, now is absolutely not the time for the White Sox to wave any white flags or suddenly look towards the future. As bad as things have been, the Sox sit just five games out with plenty of series left against AL Central opponents and the starting and relief pitching to suggest that a strong finish is possible.

But now is absolutely the time to make to make any possible bold moves to impact the here and now. It is the time to shake things up and create a spark, especially in the lineup.

You see, the White Sox may be all in, but they haven’t played all their cards. A baseball season is not so much a game of Texas Hold ‘Em as it is a hand of 5-card draw. So while the Sox may have pushed their chips to the middle, they still have a chance to trade a few cards in and hope the new cards fit a little better.

And I think everyone knows what cards need to be traded in: the deleterious duo of Adam Dunn and Alex Rios.

Rios has not had an OPS higher than .750 since May of last year, and his OPS’s by month since then are: .735, .712, .645, .480, .630, .685, and currently .418 in July. At this point, I’m not even sure divine intervention can turn Rios back into a productive hitter. Certainly Greg Walker and Ozzie Guillen can’t.

As for Dunn, his struggles need not be discussed in specifics. Instead, here is audio of a dying cow.

The remarkable thing is that while the White Sox moribund farm system has very little to offer, the two highest performing players it does have play exactly the positions Dunn and Rios do.

Dayan Viciedo has hit 16 home runs and is slugging .507 at AAA Charlotte. And he has the body and defensive acumen that fit perfectly in a DH role. Viciedo’s teammate Alejandro de Aza plays a solid center field, is also slugging over .500, gets on base at a .384 clip, and has 22 stolen bases. Not only could he step in for Rios, he is probably even a better leadoff option than Juan Pierre.

Are Viciedo and de Aza guaranteed to maintain these levels of production in the big leagues? Of course not. But both have big league experience, and if they’re even 60% as good as they’ve been at AAA, a decent bet, they’ll be better than Dunn and Rios have been.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The White Sox as currently constructed are a sub-.500 team, with a plenty large enough sample size to judge on, so why keep trotting the same group out there?

The White Sox may be “all in” in terms of money and chips, but they are not “all in” in terms of moves and options. In poker, if you bet strongly but then follow it up with weak, passive bets, you’ll get eaten alive. But if you strongly and stay bold, you give yourself a fighting chance.

I know that Alex Rios and Adam Dunn are making big money, but they’re also wasting at bats while showing no signs of turning things around. The White Sox may not have much flexibility, but the two best options they do have could immediately replace the two heaviest anchors on a ship that simply can’t seem to set sail.

If the White Sox really are “all in” – and they are – then now is not the time to worry about feelings or the chips that are already in the middle. Rios and Dunn will make their millions whether they hit or not, whether they play or not, and whether the White Sox win or not.

This season is far from over, but now is not the time for blind hope when obvious action can be taken. The White Sox may end up all out at the end of this “all in” season, but they better at least play all their cards. Otherwise, what the hell was the point in playing the hand in the first place?

The post MSF Quickcast #4: “All In” Chicago White Sox Can (and Should) Improve Their Hand appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

This has always been an issue I’ve had with “the beautiful game”, but it really hit home, so to speak, watching our women lose in yesterday’s World Cup final — a spectacular match that should have been determined playing soccer, not a glorified skills competition.

Listen:

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes. (link coming soon.)
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

And makes sure you check out The Twin Cats, whose song “Snow Globe Time Capsule” is used at the beginning and end of each MSF QuickCast.

For those of you who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript for this quickcast:

Penalty Kicks: The Ugly Problem with The Beautiful Game

Imagine the Super Bowl ending in a tie after regulation and overtime, and then having the kickers decide the outcome of the game with extra points.

Imagine Game 7 of the NBA Finals being tied after one overtime, and then deciding the winner with a free throw content or a game of HORSE.

Imagine Game 7 of the World Series being tied after an extra inning, and then trotting Robbie Cano’s dad out to toss a series-determining round of Home Run Derby.

Each of those examples sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?

Well that is essentially what we watched yesterday when Japan defeated our women on penalty kicks in the championship match of the Women’s World Cup.

Image credit: Martin Meissner/AP via New York Daily News

Frankly speaking, this asinine, nonsensical way of determining winners in the closest and most exciting of matches, the ones it is easiest to get fully invested in as a fan, is part of what keeps me from fully embracing soccer.

For a sport known as “the beautiful game” it sure does have an ugly way of ending its most spectacular matches.

And that is what yesterday’s battle between the U.S. and Japan was: it was spectacular. And it deserved a spectacular finish, the kind that could only come from the outcome being decided by the same game that had been played for the previous 120+ minutes, not some glorified skills competition that barely even belongs in an All Star game.

Look, I can understand needing a gimmick like penalty kicks to determine matches at the youth level, where you cannot simply have games going on and on for an indefinite period of time. Scoring goals is difficult in soccer, very difficult, and it stands to reason that it gets more difficult to do the longer a match drags on and the more tired the legs of the players on the pitch become.

I can even understand using penalty kicks to determine winners early in a tournament, even in one as big as the World Cup, when TV and game schedules necessitate having a way to put an end to a match that might otherwise drag on for another thirty minutes, or an hour, or more.

But for the championship? Come on. At the very least, the championship match, which has no match following it and thus no reason to be artificially truncated, should be determined on the field, by the teams, playing the same game they played to reach the stalemate in the first place.

I am not a huge fan of sudden death overtimes, but I would much, much, much rather see a second overtime period added that is sudden death. Roll the ball out and the first team to score wins. If that happens in two minutes, great. If it takes two hours, great..

Sure, the players would be exhausted and perhaps barely able to walk. But all that would do is make the moment and the memory more compelling, for everyone, while maintaining the full integrity of sport’s competition.

Remember when the Dolphins and Chargers battled to the point of exhaustion in the NFL playoffs? It gave us the iconic image of Kellen Winslow SR barely being able to walk off the field, having left everything on it in the quest for victory.

Remember last year’s epic tennis match between Nicolas Mahut and John Isner? It lasted 11 hours and five minutes, spanning two days, with the final set being won 70-68. It was an unprecedented, once in a lifetime type match that will never happen again but that deserved to happen as it did. The game they were playing never changed. In tennis, you have to win by two, and by god you are going to stay out there until you win by two.

That’s how it should be. You don’t completely alter the competition at the most crucial juncture of a sporting even just because it would be more convenient for it to end. That’s little league stuff.

But that’s how soccer does it, and probably how soccer will always do it.

I guess the upside is that soccer matches have a finite ending point that is known beforehand, and penalty kicks do offer a certain dramatic flair…that is, until you think about the travesty of their presence at the end of match in the first place.

I don’t come offering a specific solution that would be the perfect panacea for this ill of the beautiful game. But I do know that the solution revolves around a very simple idea: keep playing soccer to determine the winner of soccer matches, especially in the most consequential of matches, like yesterday’s.

Whether that means playing 30 minute periods until one ends with a team having the lead or turning to sudden death, pick one. Any such option would give us a far more legitimate and satisfying conclusion than the current system, which is not legitimate or satisfying at all.

Update: To soccer’s credit, they have tried using “golden goals” and “silver goals”, though certainly not universally (hat tip to @BKibbs for the link). Either of these options are better than penalty kicks.

The post MSF QuickCast #2: The Ugly Problem with The Beautiful Game appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.

We know you’re busy, we know you’re on the go, and we know that attention spans on the web are short. MSF QuickCasts, quite simply, will be rants and raves about sports (and the occasional non-sports topic) that start and finish in less time than it takes to check your email.

That’s it. Quick, concise, and convenient. Like everything on the web should be.

And I’m leading off with the first QuickCast today. The topic: the MLB All Star Game.

We know Bud Selig needs to get rid of the silly rule that awards World Series homefield advantage to the league that wins the Midsummer Classic, but I’ve got another simple, noble way that the Commish can easily and profoundly improve the best of the major sports All Star extravaganzas.

Listen:

How to subscribe to the MSF QuickCast

• Subscribe to the MSF QuickCast on iTunes. (link coming soon.)
• Join the MSF QuickCast Email Digest to get an email whenever a new quickcast is posted
• Follow the MSF QuickCast on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new quickcasts are posted.
• Download this quickcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”

And makes sure you check out The Twin Cats, whose song “Snow Globe Time Capsule” is used at the beginning and end of each MSF QuickCast.

For those of you who would rather read than listen, here is the transcript for this quickcast:

One Simple, Noble Way to Improve the MLB All Star Game

Personally, I enjoy the MLB All Star Game far more than the NBA All Star Game, certainly more than the Pro Bowl, and I don’t really follow the NHL so I have no reasonable basis for comparing its All Star game to baseball’s.

But despite my affinity for the show MLB puts on each July, it could be better. Much better.

The first improvement is obvious: end the silliness of making it, quote, count. This point is so widely accepted now that I need not expatiate on it further.

There are plenty of other ways to make the MLB All Star Game more compelling though, and today I’m going to talk about one in particular:

Let’s do away with the previous season’s World Series managers managing the AL and NL teams.  I’ve got a much, much, much better way to do it.

Ron Washington and Bruce Bochy are good managers, solid baseball men, and interesting in their own way – especially Wash – but let me ask you this: wouldn’t it have been more interesting this year to have Bobby Cox manage the National League and Joe Torre manage the American League?

I propose that during Spring Training each year, the commissioner appoint two legendary, retired managers from each league to head up that year’s All Star managing staff. Not only would it give these men a chance to be honored and remembered by players and fans alike during the All Star weekend, they would be able to make more informed choices on reserves.

With today’s setup, players and managers are choosing reserves. While I’m sure some take it seriously, during the season most have to have tunnel vision on their own daily duties for their team, which is why no-brainer All Stars like Paul Konerko and Andrew McCutchen have to back into the All Star game as a, quote, “last man” or injury replacement. If veteran baseball men like Torre and Cox paid attention all year to the entire league, my guess is they would make much better choices than we currently see.

But selection fairness is far less of a reason to implement this system than simply how much more compelling it would be.

Imagine the intrigue of Joe Torre being back in a dugout with Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez (assuming that they had been healthy enough to play, of course).

Imagine getting to see Bobby Cox manage, for a night, Roy Halladay, Cole Hamels, and Cliff Lee…the present day version of his 1990s Braves staffs.

Imagine once Ozzie Guillen retires from managing, bringing him back to the dugout for an evening. His antics are often criticized and lambasted now, but they’ll be romanticized and missed once he’s gone, and his presence would interest baseball fans in general.

How about a retired Tony LaRussa bringing his unique style back for a night and getting to write “Albert Pujols” on a lineup card again? Or Jim Leyland getting to rah-rah the troops for one more big game after he hangs up his stirrups for the final time?

I could go on and on.

Baseball managers are the most interesting head men in professional sports. Many of them never went to college, all of them are “baseball lifers”, and so many of them are quirky and idiosyncratic and endearingly unpolished in ways that just are not, nor could be, appreciated in other sports.

Guys like Ron Wash, and Charlie Manuel, and Tito Francona. These men, like so many before them, are baseball treasures, part of the unique fabric of America’s pastime that links today’s managing characters to the Lou Piniellas and the Sparky Andersons and the Earl Weavers and the Connie Macks of years gone by.

But in today’s 24-hour sports attention span, the phrase “out of sight, out of mind” has never been more apropos. And that’s a shame.

I miss Bobby Cox and the consistent excellence be brought to the game. I miss Sweet Lou and his emotional distress.  I miss Joe Torre and his steady hand in the eye of the omnipresent New York storm. And I’ll miss Wash, Oz, Tito, and so many more once they are gone.

So for one night each season, let’s bring a couple of these legendary old boys of summer back into the spotlight. It will be more interesting and educational for fans, it will be good for the fairness of the rosters and the integrity of the game itself, and, most importantly, it will honor deserving men who spent a lifetime dedicated to the game of baseball.

Joe Torre, Bobby Cox, and so many others deserve one more nostalgic, loving curtain call, and the fans deserve one more appreciative, damp-eyed hat tip.

Image source: AP via PinstripedBible

Memories and emotions are what making something compelling, what make something, quote, count; not the location of the games with the most important outcome being determined by the game with the least important outcome.

Hey Bud, want the All Star Game to count? This is how you do it.

Final thought:

Remember the old saying it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, but how you play the game? That should be the guiding principle of the MLB All Star Game. And what better way to keep that in mind each year than by honoring the best to ever teach players how the game should be played.

The post MSF QuickCast #1: One Simple, Noble Way to Improve the Major League Baseball All Star Game appeared first on Midwest Sports Fans.