Wezen Ball - A Baseball Blog

Sesame Street Video Fun

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:30:00 +0000

Earlier this week, the wonderful "Sesame Street" celebrated its 40th anniversary. Which is just amazing if you think about it: "Sesame Street" has been around as long as the Kansas City Royals or the Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals. When it debuted in November 1969, Willie McCovey and Harmon Killebrew had just been awarded their MVP awards, Tom Seaver received his first Cy Young award, and Lou Piniella had just been honored as the American League Rookie of the Year. Oh, and Jamie Moyer was a prime target for the new show, being only one week shy of his 7th birthday. I'm not sure there's any other way to explain just how old that is.

But here it is, 2009 and "Sesame Street" is still going strong. It's pretty cool, really. In honor of that, and to end the week on a nice positive note, I thought I'd share a few of the baseball-related clips that I was able to find. Above is a ballgame from the Teeny Little Super Guy, who I easily recognize on site but who I would never have been able to name in a thousand years (or whose theme music I wouldn't have been able to sing, unlike the terrific girlfriend...). The next video is a great little story called "Home Run on the Range", a "Sesame Street" take on "Casey At the Bat" starring Forgetful Jones.

(Click "Read More" to continue reading/viewing)

And finally, here's a quick Bert and Ernie clip. It's a rainy day and Ernie's feeling a little glum because he can't go to his Little League game. Bert, of course, comes along to tell Ernie that he can still enjoy his baseball game - if he only uses his imagination.

There's been a lot written about "Sesame Street" this week, and it's all been deserved. It's a great program that has intelligently and unapologetically striven to help young kids learn, and it has done that exceptionally well these last 40 years. There's nothing more that I can add to that. I can remind you all just how great the show was, though, by including these clips. So watch and enjoy your trip down memory lane. It's never a bad road to take.

Thoughts on Veterans' Day

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:18:42 +0000

Today is Veterans' Day, and I wanted to take the time to thank every veteran out there for all that you have done for us and for all that you have sacrificed for us. It is a tough, seemingly-thankless job, and we all appreciate what you do. So thank you.

I also wanted to take the time here at the blog to explore baseball's ties to the military and to war. We all know the tales of Ted Williams and Bob Feller and all the other major leaguers who went off to fight in World War II - books upon books have been written on those guys - and so I was hoping to find something a little more rare, a little different. I spent all yesterday evening browsing through old newspapers, magazines, books, and photos, just looking for the right one to use as inspiration. One that would be entertaining and intriguing, and that would remind us just how important military veterans are to our lives. In this day and age, the hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas can sometimes be an afterthought. This wasn't always so, and I thought that, by finding the right story to tell, I might be able to remind a few people of that.

You see, Veterans' Day is important to me. Much of my family has been in the military at one time or another (one uncle just finished a 25+ year stint in the Air Force, for example), and my brother is currently a captain in the Army. He is serving his second tour of duty in Iraq as we speak (Camp Taji, about 20 km north of Baghdad). Not only does that mean that he's been in harm's way for 24 of the last 36 months, it also means that his wonderful family - his wife and three daughters - has been without him as a father and husband for that period. And, believe me, that's a huge sacrifice.

After spending a few hours looking through all those different sources for just the right story, I still couldn't find it. I don't know - maybe I just didn't know how to search for the story I wanted, or maybe I didn't know what it was I was looking for well enough. Whatever the case, when I went to bed last night, I didn't know what I was going to write about today. But then it occurred to me: today is important to me, as it is to millions of other people out there, because of my family - because of my brother. So why not tell a quick story about baseball, him and me? Sounds good to me...

(Click "Read More" to continue reading)

My formative years, in terms of my love for baseball at least, spanned ages 8 through 11. At that time, my family (with five kids) was quite poor, and we lived in apartments. I don't know the exact reasons - I would guess the annual rent increases - but we would move from one apartment complex to another about every two years. In fact, until I was 15 or 16, I don't think I ever celebrated more than two Christmases in a row in the same home. Not that I'm complaining. I knew we were poor, of course, but I rarely felt it. Which, for a kid, is great.

My two older brothers and I had plenty to keep us busy, but what we came back to most often was baseball and baseball cards. This was the late '80s, so packs of cards were still only 50 cents, affordable(ish) even to a bunch of poor kids. We'd make the trek to the Payless Drug Store around the corner every chance we could to pick up a pack or two of the beautifully blue-bordered 1988 Donruss, with it's Warren Spahn puzzle pieces and wonderfully illustrated Diamond Kings (Kal Daniels! Scott Fletcher! Tommy John!), or the still-classic 1988 and 1989 Topps (how many Gregg Jefferies' "Future Stars" cards could a kid get?!). Of course, "every chance we could" to us was maybe twice a month. Fifty cents wasn't a lot of money, but it's not like quarters were falling out of the sky either.

One of the best birthday presents I ever remember getting was in 1989. Casey, the brother currently in Iraq, was only 11 at the time, but he had had a paper route all summer, delivering the Fresno Bee to the entire complex (easily 200 units). For my birthday that October, he spent some of his paper-route money on a present, which was pretty special in itself. We weren't exactly in the habit of buying each other birthday presents. When I opened it, my jaw just about dropped to the floor. He had gotten me a full wax-box of the 1989 Topps set! That's 36 packs. I probably didn't even get 36 packs of cards all summer, and now I was getting them all at once! These things were expensive - a small fortune, I imagined - and I was ecstatic. I doubt I hugged him or anything, but I'm certain I stammered "ThankYouThankYouThankYou!" and then spent the next few hours opening packs and admiring and sorting my new stack of cards. I still have detailed memories of those cards because of that one box.

But what I remember most about that time was playing baseball with my brothers. The three of us would take our bat, ball, and glove and hike out to the vacant lot past the set of apartment complexes. It was a nice, mostly green field. To the left was a rarely-used back-street and a big, concrete wall separating the neighborhood from the freeway down below. To the right was the edge of the apartment complex, including the two complex pools. We'd often play ball while listening to everyone swim on a hot summer day. Straight-ahead of us, and what seemed like 1,000 feet away, was the wooden fence that marked the rearline of the neighborhood houses. There was also a chainlink fence/gate deep down the rightfield line. Both of those fences were way out-of-reach for a small kid like myself, though, on a good day, one of my brothers might be able to get close.

The games played out as one might expect a baseball game between three kids would. My two older brothers would represent the opposing teams, and I would float between them. I would usually be "all-time pitcher" so that whichever brother was currently on defense could play the outfield, though I do remember being "all-time batter" occasionally (but I have no idea how that worked anymore). We had a system worked out for when a ball would be an automatic out or when it would be in-play. We ran the bases ourselves on the hits, but resorted to ghostrunners after the end of each play ("One out, ghostrunner on second, four-to-two!"). It was a fantastic time, and I don't remember ever turning down an offer to play.

Eventually, we moved away from that apartment complex to a house in the country. It was nice to finally live in a house, no matter how old and creaky it was, but leaving that field really put a kink in things. We still played ball in the new yard, but it was a pretty different experience. Plus, my brothers were getting a little too old to put up with their little brother in a silly kids game. Eventually, we stopped playing.

A few years ago, my brother and his family were stationed close enough to everyone in California that we three brothers got to hang out one Christmas. One morning that week, the three of us took a bat, some balls, and a couple of gloves to the ballfield on base. We weren't playing the same game that we had as kids - no ghostrunners that morning - but it was still a blast to once again have a little batting practice together. I can say with certainty that, if it weren't for those ballgames and our collective love of baseball cards when we were young, I would not have the love of the game that I have today. And it took all three of us to make that happen.

On this Veterans' Day, I hope you take the time to remember all of the men and women in the armed services around the world. Whether they're stationed abroad or at home, in an active military-zone or at a base far from the fire, these are fathers/mothers, sons/daughters, and husbands/wives who are doing what is best for their families and their country and who are sacrificing a lot - more than we can imagine, really - to do so. Please thank them and honor them. And to my brother, Capt. Casey Granillo, we thank you, we love you, and we can't wait to have you home. Stay safe and we'll see you soon.

(okay, so that was more a collection of memories than a story - sue me!)

Der Baseball

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:00:00 +0000

EDIT: Someone pointed out that I'm wrong about the number of players born in Germany. I got that information from Baseball-Reference, but I didn't stop to think to check for West Germany, which BR keeps a list of separately. If you look at that list, you'll see some famous names like Ron Gardenhire or Glenn Hubbard. It certainly explains why the gap in players born in Germany began right at the onset of the Cold War. I suppose this takes much of the wind out of these sails. Enjoy the piece anyway - at least the sentiment remains the same.

Since 1901, there have been only three players born in Germany to reach the Major Leagues. The first two were born before the Cold War era got well-underway in 1950:

Heinz Becker was born in Berlin in 1915, and played in 152 games for the Cubs and Indians between 1943 and 1947, during the War.
Mickey Scott was born in Weimar, Germany, in 1947, in what would soon be known as East Germany. From 1972 through 1977, he pitched in relief in 133 games for the Orioles, Expos, and Angels. He also served in the military in Vietnam in 1967, a year after leading the New York-Penn League in wins and strikeouts.

The third player is Tobi Stoner, who was born in Landstuhl, West Germany, in 1984, and made his major league debut for the Mets less than two months ago. Stoner finished the AAA season strongly, winning his last four starts, before getting the call up. He pitched well enough in limited relief for the Mets, giving up four runs in four appearances for the Mets (with three of those in one three-inning stint against the Phillies). He'll certainly be hoping for some more innings next year, as he enters his age-25 season.

There is little written about Stoner's time growing up. He graduated high school in central Maryland and went to a small West Virginia college called Davis & Elkins College. Seeing as how Landstuhl, Germany, is home to two key U.S. military stations - Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base - it seems likely that Stoner was born there due to military ties (much like other famous Landstuhl-born performers, such as LeVar Burton and Rob Thomas). I cannot find any verification of this, though.

I write this because yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Sadly, I have no memories of when this happened (though I do remember the earthquake-scarred Battle of the Bay only one month earlier), so I can't add any personal recollections to the discussion around the blogosphere. Shysterball and his commentors provided some good stories, though, and the Wall Street Journal's Daily Fix gives us an interesting perspective on how the sports world changed that day.

Baseball is most assuredly not as important in the grand scheme of things as the fall of the Berlin Wall. That wall coming down meant freedom and the end of oppression for millions of people, while baseball is just a game that we like to work ourselves up over for the fun of it. But sometimes it's nice to analyze how a major event affected minor things, to get a feeling for the full impact of the event.

I suppose a player born on a military base in a foreign country (and that's my assumption, of course) isn't exactly the textbook definition of the league expanding its horizons, but, considering the long history of American military bases in Germany and the complete dearth of major league caliber players born in Germany in the last 60 years, it could be seen as a start. Stoner might not be the next Dirk Nowitzki, but it's nice to see that, after a century of war - both hot and Cold - we can celebrate a momentous anniversary like this one with at least one German-born player in the big leagues. Hopefully that expansion, growth, and diversity will continue on for decades to come. It can only make the game more exciting.

At the (Baseball) Movies with Roger Ebert

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:00:00 +0000

Not that I have to remind anyone here, but today marks the start of the first full week of the baseball off-season. With the end of the World Series, all that we have to look forward to over the long, cold winter will be MVP awards, Hall of Fame voting, and the hot stove. Meaningful baseball is not going to be played for another five months. It's a sad statement really, especially for those of us who have committed to writing about the game on a daily basis. What are we to do in the meantime (besides rail against Scott Boras, of course)?

One worthwhile suggestion is to spend the winter revisiting the old classic baseball movies. With so many great baseball films out there - Death on the Diamond, The Pride of the Yankees, Bad News Bears, Field of Dreams, Major League, Mr. 3000... - one could easily watch a film a week all winter long without running dry, and it might just be the best night of your week. (Okay, maybe not...)

Whether you decide to spend all winter watching baseball movies or not, it's still nice to look back at some favorites every now and then. I'm not going to give you a top ten list or anything like that - there have been way too many attempts at that over the years. Instead, I thought it'd be interesting to see how some of our favorite hardball movies were received when they were first released.

The foremost movie critic of the last thirty-plus years has, of course, been Roger Ebert. He's been reviewing movies for the Chicago Sun-Times since 1967, and has been synonymous with film for nearly my entire life. Thanks to this wonderful internet-age that we all live in, his entire collection of movie reviews can be found online at his website, rogerebert.com. Using that as a resource, I went through and found Ebert's reviews of a few of the most popular baseball films of the last three decades. How did he see them at the time? Are our memories and feelings tinted with years of nostalgia, or were these movies just as good when they were new? What did people think of them with a "fresh" pair of eyes?

The Bad News Bears (1976)

It's been so long since The Bad New Bears was released, and so many movies, tv shows, etc. have tried to copy its formula, that it's hard to realize just how new and unique it was when it came out. This is what Ebert had to say about it:

The movie's about a team that's surely one of the worst ever assembled (although I once played right field for one that wasn't much better). The kids are uncoordinated and demoralized and afraid of the ball, and wouldn't be playing at all except that a liberal city councilman has made them a test case. The members include a black, a couple of Mexicans, various other minority group members and, eventually, a girl.
...
All of this is pretty much as we'd expect it, and there are obligatory scenes in which the Bears finally get their uniforms, Matthau finally shaves, the boys say they won't wear their athletic supporters until Amanda wears one, too . . . and the team wins its first game. But beneath this entertaining surface stuff, there's something else going on. We begin to sense how important, how really crucial, Little League is to the adults involved in it. How much emphasis they place on winning.

(Click "Read More" to keep reading.)

The Sandlot (1993)

I would bet that, if baseball fans were asked to name the movie most similar to The Bad News Bears in spirit and subject, the most common response would be The Sandlot. The rambunctious, foul-mouthed kids who aren't that great at baseball - it seems like a pretty easy stand-in for The Bad News Bears. Ebert might not agree:

If you have ever been lucky enough to see "A Christmas Story," you will understand what I mean when I say "The Sandlot" is a summertime version of the same vision. Both movies are about gawky young adolescents trapped in a world they never made and doing their best to fit in while beset with the most amazing vicissitudes.
...
All of these events are told in an original, quirky, off-center, deliberately exaggerated way. This is not your standard movie about kids and baseball. It's so unconventional, it doesn't even end with the sandlot team winning the Big Game. This movie doesn't even have a Big Game. (The one game they play is a pushover.) The movie isn't about winning and losing, it's about growing up and facing your fears, and as the kids try one goofy plan after another to get the ball back, the story gently leaves the realm of the possible and ventures into the exaggerations common to all childhood legends.

The Natural (1984)

There are a few key scenes that everyone remembers when they think of The Natural: Roy Hobbs getting shot, Roy building "Wonderboy", the blood on his jersey, and the exploding light-tower. Sure, there are a few other scenes that are pretty memorable, too, but it's these four scenes that highlight the "epic-ness" of The Natural. They are the lasting impression of the movie and they help to frame our opinion of it. Either you can accept the unbelievability of some of this and enjoy the story of a near-mythological "natural" like Roy Hobbs, or you see the movie as much-too-blunt and cheapened by a very "Hollywood" ending. Roger Ebert was of the latter:

Why didn't they make a baseball picture? Why did THE NATURAL have to be turned into idolatry on behalf of Robert Redford? Why did a perfectly good story, filled with interesting people, have to be made into one man's ascension to the godlike, especially when no effort is made to give that ascension meaning? And were the most important people in the god-man's life kept mostly offscreen so they wouldn't upstage him?
...
THE NATURAL could have been a decent movie. One reason that it is not: Of all its characters, the only one we don't want to know more about is Roy Hobbs. I'd love to get to know Pop Fisher (Wilford Brimley), the cynical, old team manager. Robert Duvall, as the evil sportswriter, Max Mercy, has had his part cut so badly that we only know he's evil because he practically tells us. Richard Farnsworth, as a kindly coach, has a smile that's more genuine than anything else in the movie. But you have to look quick.

Bull Durham (1988)

The posters for Bull Durham called it a "romantic comedy about America's other favorite pastime". So, is it a "chick flick", or just a movie about love, sex, and baseball? I know many people do consider it a "chick flick" these days, but I'd argue that that's because we've seen it so many times now that we ignore all of its subtlety and depth and just see it on a superficial level anymore. When seen with a fresh pair of eyes, it is certainly much more than that:

A lot of baseball is played along the way. "Bull Durham" was written and directed by Ron Shelton, who spent some time in the minor leagues, and this is a sports movie that knows what it is talking about. There are quiet little scenes that have the ring of absolute accuracy, as when a player is called into the office and told his contract is not being picked up, and the blow is softened by careful mention of a "possibility of a coaching job in the organization next season. . . ." And there probably isn't a coaching job, and nobody wants it anyway, but by such lies can sad truths be told.
...
"Bull Durham" is a treasure of a movie because it knows so much about baseball and so little about love. The movie is a completely unrealistic romantic fantasy, and in the real world the delicate little balancing act of these three people would crash into pieces. But this is a movie, and so we want to believe in love, and we want to believe that once in a while lovers can get a break from fate. That's why the movie's ending is so perfect. Not because it seems just right, but because it seems wildly impossible, and we want to believe it anyway.

Field of Dreams (1989)

And then there's my favorite (and I know I'm not alone). Field of Dreams worked on a lot of levels - Ray and Annie at the PTA meeting, the conversation with Doc Graham, Ray trying to kidnap Terrance Mann - but what we all connected with was its magic. And I'm not talking about the magic of great characters or dialog or anything, I mean the good old fashioned magic that brought Shoeless Joe to Ray and Ray to his dad. The kind of magic that lists "The Voice" as "HIMSELF" in the credits. It's blatant and unforgiving, and very rare in movies these days, and we all loved Field of Dreams because of it. Including Roger Ebert:

As "Field of Dreams" developed this fantasy, I found myself being willingly drawn into it. Movies are often so timid these days, so afraid to take flights of the imagination, that there is something grand and brave about a movie where a voice tells a farmer to build a baseball diamond so that Shoeless Joe Jackson can materialize out of the cornfield and hit a few fly balls. This is the kind of movie Frank Capra might have directed, and James Stewart might have starred in -- a movie about dreams.
...
"Field of Dreams" will not appeal to grinches and grouches and realists. It is a delicate movie, a fragile construction of one goofy fantasy after another. But it has the courage to be about exactly what it promises. "If you build it, he will come." And he does.

I have no idea if anyone reading this will make it part of their winter routine to watch all the great baseball movies (I don't even know if I will, even though my terrific girlfriend and I are pretty stocked up when it comes to quality baseball films), but I hope that revisiting some of these movies and seeing them through a fresh pair of eyes has helped you remember why you loved the movie in the first place. I understand that Roger Ebert isn't necessarily for everyone but I think it's pretty hard to argue with anything he said in this list of reviews. If you have any thoughts on these movies (or others), or maybe any thoughts on what Ebert had to say when they were new, feel free to let me know in the comments.

The Yankees on the Front Page

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:00:00 +0000

2009, Yankees over Phillies (click the image for a larger size)

This was the sight that greeted New York Times subscribers yesterday morning after Hideki Matsui powered the Yankees past the Phillies for the World Series crown. It was the twenty-seventh time that the Yankees were World Champions and it was the twenty-seventh time that the New York Times memorialized the victory on their front page.

One of the greatest things about the Times is that its entire 150+ years history is available online. Much of it is behind a paywall, but, if you have access to the archives, there's a ton of information to be found.

I thought it'd be fun, then, to take a look through the Times' archive to see how the various Yankees' titles were celebrated. I originally wanted to create a slideshow of all twenty-seven front pages, but that seemed like it might be pushing things a little bit. Instead, I chose a select few to feature here that hopefully show how the front page celebrations have evolved over the last 80+ years.

Enjoy!

(Click "Read More" to continue reading.)

1923, Yankees over Giants (click the image for a larger size)

Here's the Times' front page from October 16, 1923, when the Yankees won their first ever World Series. As you can see, the Yanks earn the first column, but nothing more. I'm no newsprint expert, but this tells me that, while the victory was big news, it wasn't profound - it was not important enough to dominate the front page. Or maybe the technology wasn't there to expand the article across multiple columns. I can't say. It certainly seems rather small when compared to what we see today.

1950, Yankees over Phillies (click the image for a larger size)

Twenty-seven years and twelve World Championships later, the Yankees defeated the Phillies for their third Series title in four years. As you can see, the Times has expanded their feature to cover two full columns and even included a nice action shot of Whitey Ford. This seems to reflect a higher level of interest in the Yankees (which only makes sense, of course), but it still is nothing close to today.

1977, Yankees over Dodgers (click the image for a larger size)

From 1951 through 1962, the Yankees would win seven more championships before going into a funk. Over the next fifteen years, they would go 0-for-3 in the Series. But then 1977 and Mr. October rolled around. Reggie's three-homers in Game 6 secured the Yankees' first Series title in fifteen years and landed him a prime spot on the cover of the Times. It's impossible to say for sure, but you get the feeling that, if not for the terrorists/hostage drama that played out that day, the Yankees would've dominated the front-page even more. As it is, they take up a pretty good amount of real estate - much more so than '23 or '50. It's starting to look familiar.

2000, Yankees over Mets (click image for a larger size)

When the Yankees won Game 5 of the 2000 Subway Series, they clinched their third consecutive World Series title and fourth in five years. It was the exclamation point on the franchise's 1990s dynasty and everyone knew it. Needless to say, it was a big deal. The real estate that they gave the Series on the front page, from the four-column-wide victory hug to the smaller picture of a dejected Mike Piazza, is remarkable, and it says a lot about its importance. This is the kind of thing that we expect to see in this day and age, but it was a long time coming. I don't imagine it'll ever regress, but it's hard to say. Maybe we'll appreciate simpler things in the future...

Make of this little exploration what you will, but I think this evolution of front page celebrations clearly shows two things: the growing importance of both major league baseball and the Yankees to New York fans, and the country's steady progression of how we consume our news, from a dense, varied view in the early-'20s to a more streamlined, local viewpoint today. It certainly makes for a nice presentation, though. It'll be interesting to see how the Times' presents the Yankees' future titles in the next twenty-seven or fifty years.

A Lesson from Game 6

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:30:00 +0000

Yesterday afternoon, in anticipation of the Phillies/Yankees Game 6, SportsCenter came up with a list of the ten best Game Six moments in World Series history. Joe Carter's series-winning, walk-off homer off of Mitch Williams in 1993 was their number one moment, but there were plenty of other memorable ones. One of the most famous, of course, was the Bill Buckner error in the tenth inning of Game 6 of the 1986 World Series (and to my friends who are Red Sox fans, I apologize for bringing it up).

We all remember that moment - and that World Series - as one of the most exciting and memorable of the last twenty-five, or even fifty, years. It seems impossible to think of it in any other way. With that in mind, I found it pretty funny when I came across this article the other day. Written by Bill Conlin and published Sunday, October 26, 1986, the article was called "Paled by the playoffs/This Series is truly an anticlimax". An excerpt:

"In the wake of two of the great individual games in the history of the pastime, two emotionally spent ballclubs have produced what so far has been a forgettable World Series.
Major-league baseball must now ask itself a serious question: Is it fair to expect 48 guys who already have driven themselves through 30 exhibition games and the 162-game regular season to hang out their skills for what could be 14 consecutive Super Bowls with their attendant media circus?

"I think that's a bit much to ask of professional athletes," Mets outfielder Mookie Wilson said. "We get paid a lot of money to play the best we can play, but we're human beings and we can only stay on an emotional high for so long and you have to come back down again and go back up again."
...
"After you put so much into a series there's bound to be a letdown," Wilson said. "We've had somewhat of a letdown after that series (with) Houston. We're just beginning to get ourselves back up.""

Mookie would, of course, go on to have a key role in the Buckner game. Conlin wasn't done explaining to his readers just why the Series was underwhelming that year.

"In case you've dozed off around 11 p.m., or the fifth inning - whichever came first - nobody is comparing this World Series with the 1975 classic between the Red Sox and Cincinnati Reds. Nobody is even comparing it to last autumn's forgettable Missouri Waltz, when the only play anybody can remember a year later was a blown call at first base by American League umpire Don Denkinger.
Cutoff and relay men have been missed, and the baserunning has been right out of a 1962 Mets lowlights film. Wade Boggs, the best average hitter the game has seen since Ted Williams, has flogged the ball at a .227 clip."

(Click "Read More" to continue reading)

This article was published in the "2 Star Edition" of the Houston Chronicle on Sunday, October 26. I can only imagine that the "2 Star Edition" is the early edition because, as you may or may not know, Game 6 of the '86 Series was played on Saturday, October 25. That's right - this article was published after the Buckner game, though it was obviously written before the game was over. Or perhaps he just "dozed off around 11 p.m., or the fifth inning - whichever came first". You gotta love those early deadlines, right?

The article wasn't a total whiff for Conlin, though. Here's some very prescient insight on Buckner:

"Bill Buckner never could run or catch the ball very well, but at least he could hit. His presence at first base on those high-top elevator sneaks left the Red Sox playing a game of 8-on-9 in their own ballpark. Buckner is batting .174 in the Series with a lone RBI."

We can't fault Conlin for not being able to predict one of the most remarkable endings in World Series history. That play still amazes me every time I see it 25 years later, and it was simply impossible to see coming. What I find remarkable about this piece - other than the fact that the Red Sox were still playing Buckner with a lead in the bottom of the 10th of the clinching World Series game despite columnists writing things like this about him - is that this is a glimpse of the 1986 World Series mere hours before what has come to be one of the most memorable moments in the history of the Fall Classic, and it shows us just how utterly bored people were with the Series at that time. It's amazing how one bad inning and one slow roller can change everyone's perceptions so drastically.

There were no such dramatics in last night's Game 6. The Yankees pulled out to a big lead early on and just never looked back. Congratulations to them and to the Yankees fans that I know. They were the best team in baseball this year, and clearly showed it this postseason. Congrats again.

Time will tell how we remember this World Series. I somehow doubt we'll be talking about it as one of the best championships ever in the near or far future. We did see record-setting performances by Chase Utley (the good kind) and Ryan Howard (the bad kind), but those same records were also set in 1980, and few people outside of Philadelphia or Kansas City reminisce about that. No matter how this game turned out, though, or how we remember this Series, this article by Conlin is a good example of just how quickly things can change for the better - and for the immortal. The baseball season may finally (sadly) be over, but that doesn't mean this lesson shouldn't be remembered: as long as there is some game left to be played, there is always a chance for something great, memorable, and life-changing to happen. Now how many days until spring training?

Decades of Blown Calls and "Bad" Umpires

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:55:34 +0000

There's plenty of talk today, as there has been all month, about the poor umpiring in these playoffs. In last night's Game 2, we saw Ryan Howard pull off a 3-4 double play after the first base umpire Brian Gorman incorrectly said that Howard caught the ball on the fly. Replays seemed to show that the ball took an oh-so-small short-hop into the mitt, but Gorman wasn't in the best position to see it. It was a tough call and one that you can't really fault the umpire for, but it was wrong all the same.

And it was exacerbated the next inning, with the Phillies up to bat. Chase Utley grounded the ball to second and, after Cano and Jeter did an excellent job turning a tough relay to get the lead runner out, he was called out at first by Gorman for the double-play. Replays were much more conclusive on this one, and Utley was clearly safe. Many people, Phillies and Yankees fans alike, had no choice but to wonder if it was a "make-up call" by Gorman (don't believe me? Twitter will vouch for that.)

So, considering all of that, this quote doesn't seem too far-fetched:

Whatever else this World Series is remembered for, it will be remembered for the uneven quality of its justice. As in previous Series, plenty of solid work was turned in behind the plate and on the basepaths. But in this one, much of it was undone by a few fateful blinks of the eye.

Okay, maybe it's not 100% true, but it's pretty close. And since it's a column from 1992 (by Jim Litke), when the Blue Jays were busy winning their first of two back-to-back championships, I think that's understandable. The point here is that, while it may seem like the umpires are worse this year than they've ever been, it's really hard to say if that's true. Umpires have been blowing calls on the big stage for years, for decades. More from the article:

(Click "Read More" to continue reading.)

Each time bad calls call this much attention to themselves - see Don Denkinger's call at first base in the 1985 Series - the question arises whether the quality of officiating has deteriorated.
...
When the question is put to Marty Springstead, who spent 18 years in the business, including three Series, and now supervises the American League's crews, he answers it this way:
"The only real difference is every time you have a call now, when it's controversial, it gets replayed 18 times. And the umpire," he said, "is the only one who doesn't see any of them."

Sound familiar? Litke continues:

Imperfect as human beings are, umpires have blown calls in every era and will continue to do so. What has changed is that modern technology came along to provide immediate and often-incontrovertible evidence so that their critics can now be assured of being more correct than the umpires criticized.
The stakes also are much higher at this time of the year. If an umpire blows a call in mid-May in Seattle, it merits one line in an already short story. Let him do the same thing anywhere in mid-October, and every sports show on television treats the film clip like a segment from Now It Can Be Told.

That's about as timeless of a statement as can be made in baseball. Litke mentions the Denkiger call from the 1985 Series. I wasn't old enough in 1985 to have heard about the play, but it's clear that it had an effect on fans and sportswriters. A quick Google search for "umpires blown calls World Series" shows that it was cited for years afterwards as how a bad call can negatively affect a World Series game. For those who don't know much about that call, here's how Wikipedia describes it:

It was Game 6 (October 26), with the St. Louis Cardinals leading the Kansas City Royals 3 games to 2. The Cardinals had taken a 1-0 lead on an 8th-inning single by little-used backup catcher Brian Harper after Danny Cox (of the Cardinals) and Charlie Leibrandt (of the Royals) had battled tit-for-tat all game long. Todd Worrell was now in the game for the Cardinals in the 9th inning, facing Jorge Orta, the leadoff batter for the Royals. Orta hit a slow roller to first baseman Jack Clark, who tossed to Worrell covering first base. First-base umpire Denkinger called Orta safe, but television replays and photographs clearly showed that he was out by half a step.
...
According to Cardinals players, as well as fans, frustration over Denkinger's bad call contributed to the Cardinals loss of focus during the remainder of game 6, and into game 7, where they lost 11-0 to Kansas City.

A bad call, sure, though I find it hard to believe that the Cardinals were so rattled by the call that they then went on to lose Game 7 11-0 (with Denkinger now behind home plate).

But that only takes us back to the '80s. Bad calls have been around for much longer than that. Take Game 5 of the 1968 World Series between the Tigers and the Cardinals. The LA Times article from that game claims "Cardinals Charge Umpire Blew Call on Brock at Home". Here's how the New York Times described it:

The drama - and the argument - unfolded after Brock had doubled to left field in the fifth inning for his third straight hit. The Cardinals were leading, 3-2, and when Julian Javier lined a single to left Brock took off.
...
But Horton fired a throw to Freehan, a one-time football player at Michigan who blocked the plate as Brock went flying in. Brock did not slide, they collided and Umpire Doug Harvey went up with his right hand.

Brock, who the Times called the "greatest base-runner in baseball", was certain he had stepped on the plate before Freehan came around to tag him after the collision, but Freehan claimed that there were clear spike marks in the dirt showing that Brock had missed the plate. Everyone questioned why Brock didn't slide, including his manager, Red Schoendienst. But the issue came down to whether the umpire made the right call:

Schoendienst and his disappointed Cardinals even invoked the marvels of television to support their argument. Each dugout during the World Series is equipped with a small TV monitor in one corner and the Redbirds intently watched the replays and slow-motion films.
"I was watching Javier rounding first base," Schoendienst said, "so I didn't see the collision at the plate. I guess I thought we had a sure run. But all our guys who saw the play and the replay - Roger Maris, Dick Schofield, Joe Schultz and the others - say Brock stepped on the plate. But when I went out and argued, the umpire insisted he missed it."

That was forty-one years ago and, even then, players, managers, and fans were questioning umpires' calls through instant replay. And people are trying to say that things have changed? That the umpiring has somehow gotten worse? I don't buy it.

That's not to say that things shouldn't finally change for the better. Just because this "human element" of the sport has been around forever doesn't mean that we have to put up with it. Major League Baseball certainly needs to take a look at some different ways to improve umpires' performances - instant replay, better incentives for the best umps, an ump in the booth - but please don't tell me that today's umpires are somehow worse than ever. We have decades of newspapers and films that show us otherwise. It couldn't hurt to improve, though.

Video Fun Friday: South Park Makes the Playoffs

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:15:00 +0000

The first two games of the World Series have been great. Strong pitching performances have kept the games close late, and most of the scoring has managed to be exciting. The umpires were a little questionable last night but, in the end, the Yankees earned their victory. With the Series back in Philly and tied at one game apiece, the next few games should prove to be a lot fun. I can't wait.

In the meantime, on this off-day, I thought I'd keep you entertained with this clip from the South Park Little League episode. If you haven't seen it, it's great: the South Park kids make it all the way to the Little League State Finals despite not liking the game at all. It's not exactly the Bad News Bears, but some of the elements are there. Enjoy this scene, as the kids finish off what they think is their last game of the season.

Check out the Bloguin Awards!

larry@wezen-ball.com (Larry Granillo) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:48:10 +0000

Before I forget and it gets too late to do anything, I just wanted to mention that I'm nominated for Best Baseball Blog over at the First Annual Bloguin Awards. Yeah, it's exciting.

The Bloguin network was born only 1 year ago with a grand total of four basketball blogs. In that short time, things have exploded. There are now 100 different Bloguin blogs covering all the major sports and more. It's a pretty good list, and everyone's putting out great content on a regular basis.

I joined Bloguin only two months ago, and I'm very happy to be here. I can't imagine going back to Blogger and having to leave this place behind (especially that sweet banner). It really is nice to be nominated alongside some great blogs so go check it out and vote for your favorite!