THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

It’s not so much a “find and replace the names” article, but the annual pro- and anti-DH articles that come with interleague play each year are certainly repetitive (which is why I’m writing one of my own right now; nothing like piling on the rotting horse carcass).

No list, but some dude has a fantasy baseball hall of fame out there now.  What is the world coming to (http://www.fbhof.com).

I guess I have one, I can’t stand the annual small ball vs. power ball articles.  You know, the Angels win because they are scrappy and all.  David Eckstein rules, etc.

If you want a specific article, click the link in my name for a(n) FJM post about Mike Scioscia.

There is little doubt in my mind that the number one offender are the socres (actually hundreds) of All-Star articles about why the fans should or should not have voted for X, Y, and Z.

Like this dumbass (in all fairness to the author, there are dozens of similar dumbass articles, not that that excuses him) article:

No vote of confidence
Phillips’ All-Star snub proves fans’ voting out of hand

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080708/COL03/807080324/1062/SPT&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

If you want to write an article about who did not get chosen to go to the Game and deserves it (although it is not like everyone does not already know who those players are), that is fine.

If you want to complain and whine about why the voting is “unfair” and how “dumb” the fans are, save it.  We’ve heard it a thousand times already, it is an exhibition game that no one cares about, and the whole purpose of the game in the first place, it to allow the fans to watch whomever they choose! At least that is the case as long as the system is to have the fans vote.  And it is not like the same authors would not be telling us about all the “snubs” if there were any other system in place to choose the participants.

If they treat it more like American Idol, rather than “revere” the game as something special, maybe they’d finally get it.

This was a turning-point game. Now the team will turn it around. You need only insert the team and the date. An example. On Sunday, the Braves won a 17 inning game at home. AJC columnist, Mark Bradley, wrote a piece in which he said that this could be a turning point for the Braves. Of course, on Monday they were one-hit by Kuroda.

In spring training: So and so is finally healthy, has a new plate approach, made some mechanical adjustments to his delivery, changed bats, got lasik, stopped drinking, found Jesus, etc.

Pedro (insert any name) is good again (they said that after his first or second start after he came back a few weeks ago).  No, wait, Pedro is done.  Stick a fork in him.  They said that after his last few starts.  Nope, we were wrong.  He is still good.  They said that after his last start (which wasn’t all that good - he just had a big lead).

Same thing with teams.  The Yankees are good.  No, wait, they are bad.  Wait, they are still good.  Nope, we were wrong. They are bad. Same thing with the Tigers and probably some other teams. Etc. Etc. Ad nauseum.

A crappy pitcher has a good game because the hit balls he allowed found gloves instead of grass and we read, ” made a mechanical adjustment between starts and it really showed today.” In Seattle, Miguel Batista found “the secret” a while back.  Apparently, he immediately forgot it.

...coming into camp in the best shape of his life…

How about (insert team) can or might just (insert anything you want) if (insert anything you want)?

Reading this headline on ESPN.com reminded me of that.

...the Mets could run away with the NL East if they...

An article telling us why X team is surprisingly good or bad this year.

So-and-so is playing well, better than expected, or so-and-so is playing poorly, worse than expected, or so-and-so got hurt.

As if we didn’t know all of those things.