May 11th, 2008

Banny Log 05.11.08

Start No. 8: Vs. Baltimore Orioles
Innings: 8
Earned runs allowed: 0.
Strikeouts: 5
Walks: 2
Homers: 0
Decision: Win (4-4)
Number of pitches: 109
Number of strikes: 75
BABIP: .095 (2 for 21 — now we’re talking!)
Season BABIP: .276 (45 for 163)

So, OK, you people really, really hated the last blog look. I kind of liked it — simple, elegant, no frills, my kind of blog. However, at last check 82% of the people voted against it, which is, yeah, a pretty direct message. Even Hillary would bow out at 82%*.

*Not to talk politics but I do disagree with all the people getting mad because Hillary will not quit. I mean, she’s not going to win, and she’s probably doing damage to the Democratic party and all that. But, hey, I’m always drawn to delusional people who refuse to quit. I remember a couple of years ago, at the Winter Olympics in Turin, a few of us went to a curling match featuring the United States men. As I remember it, they were still in contention for a gold medal, and this was an important match, and even though I’m not exactly a curling expert — and somewhere along the way I managed to tick off a lot of curling fans — I thought it would be a worthwhile writing event.

It was not. The U.S. team lost so badly they conceded before the match even ended, and then were pissy afterward. I realize that they had to be upset with the loss, and I always try to be sympathetic to athletes who have just tasted bitter defeat but … um … come on. It’s curling. You want to sell your sweepy sport, you might want to put away the Steve Carlton attitudes the one time in four years anyone is actually paying attention. Maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, on the bus back, we all realized that we had absolutely nothing to write. The U.S. team had conceded, they had not avoided questions when it ended, what the heck was there to say? So, for fun (and because I was high on Italian chocolate) I started saying that we should all rip them for conceding before the match was even over. What kind of Olympic spirit was that. I was kind of joking at first but after a while (being high on Italian chocolate) I kind of started to believe what I was saying. I mean they did quit when it was still mathematically possible to win. It was not ACTUALLY possible for them to win, I guess (I think it would have taken the equivalent of two gutter balls in a row) but hey, play it out, what the heck else are you going to do, right?

Well, we were all bored, so we kept this gag going for a long time. We made it back to the press center, and it was about midnight, and the only place open was the McDonald’s so we went there and kept the gag going for a little while longer. There was only one other guy in the place. He listened to us for a while, and then suddenly he said: “Excuse me guys, it sounds like you’re talking about my sport, curling.

And then this guy — this is absolutely true — reaches into his gym bag and pulls out … A SILVER MEDAL. It was the silver medal he had won curling in Nagano.

“The sport’s not going anywhere,” he barked at us as he shook the medal. “The people are watching! The kids are playing!”

Turns out he was a pretty good guy. He was editor of the Curling News or something like that, and he said that he was a little tired of all these people bagging on curling, but he seemed to have a pretty good sense of humor about it. Of the three of us, two were pretty apologetic — hey we didn’t mean anything by it, we were just joking, we LOVE curling and all that. I’m proud to say I was the third. I’m telling you, I had eaten A LOT of Italian chocolate.

“Hey man,” I said. “Let me ask you a question.” And I told him that, in all seriousness, I thought it was pretty wimpy to quit at the Olympics when you still had a mathematical chance to win. And then this guy surprised us one more time. He actually AGREED with me. He thought the U.S. should have at least tried for the miracle. Isn’t that what America’s about?

OK, so now I’m floating this new blog look … it’s not quite as busy as the old blog, but still has a little pizazz and I can change that photo to something else. And if you don’t like this one, hey, I’ve got plenty of others. I can change this thing every day. Hey, I’ve got more looks than Russell Crowe**.

*One more pozterisk before we get to the show. I have a friend who cannot stand Russell Crowe, which I find a perfectly acceptable position. I think he’s good, and he’s got a little bit of that “I might just go bonkers any minute and punch you in the nose” Hollywood instability which I like and which played so well with Brando and Penn. So, yeah, I like him. Still, I don’t have a slavish devotion to him, and I certainly understand and appreciate why someone might despise the guy.

BUT her reason for despising Crowe is this: “Oh, he always plays the game guy.” And that’s unacceptable. I mean, look, there are a thousand reasons to not like Russell Crowe — hate his voice, his attitude, his hair, his mannerisms — but … always the game guy? Seriously? I’m at a total loss here. I mean, LA Confidential and Beautiful Mind and Gladiator and Cinderella Man and the Insider? As far as I could tell, there were NO similarities among these characters or the way he played them. So, sadly, I have no choice but to reject her dislike of Russell Crowe. I call this my “Show your work” rejection. I’m fine with anyone having any opinion at all … but if their work and reasoning is entirely faulty, I have no choice but to decline their request. I have a friend who has been trying to hate U2 for 15 years, but his reasoning is stupid and false and so I simply do not accept his right to dislike them.

* * *

All right. Finally. Banny. This blog is not about saying “I told you so” but … yeah. Is Emil Brown having a better year than Jose Guillen? Yes, he is. Are my Tampa Bay Rays playing sparkling ball (and look out below, Kazmir’s healthy, C-Craw is beginning to start hitting, Troy Percival is dealing) while the Blue Jays plotz around? Yesh. I mean I cannot do much more for you people. I’m giving you gold, Jerry. Gold*.

*Thank God for small samples. As soon as Guillen passes Brown and Rays collapse, I’m disappearing in Mexico.

And I TOLD you people watch Banny closely this time out. He was coming off a couple of bad starts, and you just had to know he was going to make some necessary adjustments. I have not had a chance yet to talk to Banny about his adjustments — and he might not want to get into specifics right now — but it seems to me that he was throwing with more purpose. I mentioned that in his last outing, he was throwing quite a few pitches in the mid-80s — fastballs at 85, sliders at 84, cutters at 85. Brian and I have talked at some length about pitching back and forth; he believes (and I concur) that it’s so important when you can’t throw 96 mph to be able to keep a hitter guessing about how fast the pitch will come. This, in fact, seems to be the big advantage of a flame thrower — if you are facing Josh Beckett, you better pony up because that speedball can throw right by you (make you look like a fool, boy). Anything good coming at a lesser speed makes for a tough adjustment. It’s not as tough when the top speed is 88 or 89.

Banny’s pitchers were much more defined on Sunday as far as pure speed. Look at the middle innings:

3rd inning
1st out, 83 mph slider.
2nd out, 76 mph curve.
3rd out, 89 mph fastball.

4th inning
1st out, 89 mph fastball.
Walk to Nick Markakis (Banny decided not to mess with him — walked him twice)
2nd out, 88 mph fastball
3rd out, 88 mph fastball.

5th inning
1st out, not listed.
2nd out, 84 mph changeup (Looks like a brutal pitch on pitch fx but he got away with it to Adam Jones)
3rd out, 89 mph fastball.

6th inning
1st out, 82 mph changeup (much better pitcher, up and away)
Melvin Mora reached on Alex Gordon error after 83 mph changeup
2nd out, 89 mph fastball (struck out Markakis — caught stealing third out)

It was like that. Banny was mostly working fastball as he does when he’s successful, but his secondary pitches were generally not coming in the red-zone 84-85 mph range. Plus, it looked like Banny had a really good fastball. He got 11 swinging strikes, which is a lot for him, and most of those came on fastballs. He had his command too. I sent him a text after the game, and he wrote back to say: “Just had to let my Babip regress before I started dealing again.”

Seriously, how can you not love this guy?

Before I go to find a new blog theme, I think it’s worth it take a look at two stat lines:

Pitcher A: 15 innings, 6 hits allowed, 0 runs, 12 strikeouts, 0 walks, 10 saves in 10 save opportunities.
Pitcher B: 14 1/3 innings pitched, 4 hits allowed, 0 runs, 16 strikeouts, 1 walk, 8 saves in 8 save opportunities.

It’s not too tricky. Player A is, of course, Yankees reliever Mariano Rivera. The guy’s just a freak of nature, that’s all. He’s 38, he’s still throwing that same one UFO cutter pitch that he’s been throwing for 14 years, and he’s more unhittable than ever. The guy is Professor Simpson come to life, that’s all, he discovered some sort of chemical substance that makes the world’s best hitters poke routine ground balls to a middle infielders. Carve the guy’s face into Rushmore. Ain’t nobody like him.

Except … a lot of people think Pitcher B IS like Rivera. That’s Joakim Soria. They throw different pitches, of course (because nobody before or since has ever thrown whatever it is that Mariano throws), and they don’t look alike really … but there’s something about the kid that makes you think “Mariano.” Maybe it’s the way he sets up with his glove sort of folded into the crease between his chest and his arm. Maybe it’s the placid look on his face, like he’s watching it all on Tivo (“I already got this guy out … he just doesn’t know it). I don’t know. But I’m telling you, lots of people noticed a similarity last year. And obviously, as you can see by the numbers, the similarities are pretty pronounced this year. The kid’s out of sight.

May 11th, 2008

The Jordan Chronicles … Director’s Cut

We’ve had a lot here from the eminent and brilliantly profane Pat Jordan … but then we sort of got off track with the swear-off and everything else. I’ve never had a chance to publish the entire interview.

So here you go. Some of this has been published already, but let’s just give you the whole thing. You already know Pat Jordan. He’s an author, journalist, conservative, Miami Hurricanes fan, one-time flame throwing pitcher. He’s written 13 books, all good, though “A False Spring” is the acknowledged classic, much to Pat’s irritation. His stepdaughter Meg Ryan is a story all her own. His collection, The Best Sports Writing of Pat Jordan (edited by friend Alex Belth) is fabulous, of course.

From the story “King Rat,” 1992.

The White Rat tells jokes. Sexist jokes about the spinster and the foul-mouthed parrot. Racist jokes about the black dude in the elevator. Redneck jokes about the gay cowboy in the bar. He sits there, in the dugout, chewing tobacco, spitting into a plastic bottle, talking. He is surrounded by younger baseball players. They look down at him and smile. He is sixty-years old, a pugnacious-looking man from another time and place. He has a bristly, rust-colored crewcut; a bullet-shaped head; a jutting jaw; a big hard belly; and, curiously, a child’s bottled up energy. He rocks back and forth as he talks. He reaches out to touch a player on the arm, the shoulder, anywhere, just to make contact, to draw them closer. “And so,” he says, “this cowboy looks up from the bar and says, ‘Moo moo, Buckaroo!” The players laugh, shake their heads, “That’s funny, Rat.” Then they trot off to batting practice.

* * *
I hate the start of interviews. I find myself asking some absurdly obvious question — “How’s the season going so far” — just to get into things. Sometimes, this works. More of often it doesn’t. But it’s not like I can change. You seem a lot more direct. How do you like to begin interviews?

It depends on the kind of piece I’m doing. If it’s a profile I’ll want to get to know the person so I’ll talk about myself, find something that we have in common. For example, John Kruk was a legendary beer drinker. When I first met him in Bristol, Connecticut, I had just stopped drinking two or three months before. But I told my wife, Susan, “I’m going to have to go out drinking with this guy if he goes out drinking.” So John and I go out to a Mexican restaurant. So I go, “You want a drink, John?” And he says, “No, I gave up drinking.” I said, “You did? Me too.” And we started talking about how we both gave up drinking.
 
OK, now that awkward moment is out of the way … let’s start with Jose Canseco. I really did love the Canseco story. I loved it because to me it got us readers close to Canseco without even getting us anywhere near the guy. In your mind is there anything Canseco himself could have said that would have made the story more intimate?

Speaking to Jose would have made the story less interesting.  Most of the time, athletes’ responses make a story duller, but magazines insist on having athletes talk, say, about their view of the greenhouse effect, which they think is where you go to buy a corsage for your latest girlfriend.  In a small way, the Jose story was like my version of Gay Talese’s great Esquire piece “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold.” Talese couldn’t get a one-on-one with Sinatra but hung around him and his entourage long enough that he got an ever better story than if he had spoken to Sinatra.  I recently re-read that story, and the entire “Fame and Obscurity” collection, and am still amazed by what a wonderful reporter Talese was.  I do think he was too easy on Sinatra and DiMaggio though. He was hard on Plimpton instead. Actually, in reading Talese, and W.C. Heinz lately, I didn’t realize how hard I am in comparison at times.

For that matter, it seems that mainstream sportswriting can get overly obsessed with quotes and access and the often inane cliches that people utter about themselves. Do you see it that way?

Today writers look for the pull quote — “Jose claims Deadspin writer was on deca durabolin when he wrote Chasing Jose” — and not the fuller story. People aren’t just the sum of their outrageous quotes.  There’s more subtlety involved but writers are either too lazy or too ill-equipped to search it out.

I saw an interview with you and Alex where you both talked about preferring “A Nice Tuesday” to “A False Spring,” in part because it felt more authentic. I completely agree. I think A Nice Tuesday feels more complete and real and true, you know? But A False Spring is so much fun.

“A False Spring” was a good book, but “A Nice Tuesday” was better, fuller, more mature, with more edges and nuance, which can be attributed to the writer’s maturity. Any writer’s life makes a better story once it has played out longer. But it was also less of a baseball book and some of the critics didn’t like all of the stuff about my dogs. They wanted ant to be “A False Spring” redux. but I was no longer that person. “A False Spring” was all of a piece, about a career of failure in the minor leagues. It was very structured and ordered. “A Nice Tuesday” was more open to mystery, to where life takes you—my dogs, for instance.  

Do people prefer to read about youth and invulnerability then they do about the tender and bittersweet way people get old?

I like to read about older people talking about their youth.  At that point, they have a deeper understanding of it, and their old age, too. 

Let’s talk a little bit about your start as a writer. The thing that interests me is that most young, star athletes, at least in my experience, do not seem to have the sort of introspection and heightened sense of experience that you might expect from writers. I get the sense that this is because the experiences in their lives are already so heightened, that it would be like turning up the sound on a Metallica concert or something. When were you first drawn to words and stories and why do you think you were, at least as far as I can tell, different than other star athletes?

I had a scattered attention span as a kid, which was death for an athlete, but a gift for a writer.  As for sensitivity, well, I got fired from every job I ever had when I had to work with people.  Being a writer, alone, constitutionally is the only job I can do. 

What was the first story you wrote?

It was a short story for Ingenue magazine based on my experiences as a teacher at an all-girls catholic high school. I got a check made out to Miss Pat Jordan which was a compliment since i told the story through the eyes of a 16 year old girl. The first sports piece was on Muhammad Ali that I sold to Lew Eskin at Boxing Illustrated. After I left baseball, or baseball left me, as I used to say, I wanted to write a book about my minor league career. At first I wanted to write a book out of spite, about how the Braves had done me wrong. That changed over time, but it is what gave me the idea to write in the first place.

I started small, writing for a local newspaper. I wrote a couple of funny columns about my experiences playing minor league baseball in McCook, Nebraska and I bundled them together and sent them to Al Silverman at Sport. He told me to put them together into what we call “a string of pearls.” String of Pearls means that the columns were only connected tangentially, like, “I remember one day this happened, and another day this happened.” There wasn’t an organized story. It was like the Ten Funniest Moments of my minor league career. Sent it to him, and he bought it. I was shocked. He never ran it, but said, “You’re a pitcher, maybe we’ll have you do a story on a pitcher.”

My first major piece was in ’69, for True on Phil Niekro, whom I’d played with in the minor leagues. After that piece, the editor said he’d give me four stories a year at $2,500 a pop. That’s ten grand. I was making $8,800 as a school teacher, so I quit my job. Then in June I went to the editor’s office and he was gone. Nobody at the magazine knew anything about me. I had no money, only $3,000 in the bank. Then Al Silverman called me back, I don’t know, maybe six months after we first spoke, and said, “I want you to go to Montreal and do a story on Jim Maloney, the Cincinnati Reds’pitcher.” I didn’t know how to get on the plane, practically. This was a period, in the late sixties, when people didn’t fly regularly. Flying was still a little bit novel unless you were a business man. I said, “What hotel should I stay at?” He said, “I don’t know. The team is staying at the Queen Elizabeth.” I couldn’t get in the Queen Elizabeth but right next door was a Hotel Champlain. I was really disappointed because I wanted to be where the Reds were. I get to Montreal and the Queen Elizabeth is this old, rundown mausoleum of a hotel with a coffee shop. And the Hotel Champlain was a new skyscraper. The maids in the room were gorgeous. I’m in a fantasy world. I got a note on the pillow when I came back to the room one morning in lilac ink in French. I thought the maid was interested in me. So I brought it down to a cab driver and asked him what it said and he said, “If Monsieur wants his laundry done, leave it out in the hallway.”

Your first book, which I have just read, is called “Black Coach.” It’s really terrific. Can you talk about that?

When I got my first book contract it was so I could ostensibly write “A False Spring.” I gave them “Suitors of Spring,” a collection of my early Sports Illustrated pieces on pitchers, and then was assigned to do “Black Coach,” too, which I wrote before “A False Spring.” “Black Coach” was the first time I ever attempted anything that long. It was reporting-heavy book about a black coach becoming head football coach in an all white school in North Carolina in the late sixties, early seventies. There was lots of below the surface tension but no cross burnings. Ironically, another writer turned the idea down because there was no conflict, i.e. cross burnings. 

Another favorite story of mine was your story about Meg Ryan, who is of course the daughter of your wife Susan. They have, over the years, had a strained relationship. How difficult was it for you to write that piece?

Easy. Meg was trashing my wife, her mother, in the press every week. This was after she had become “America’s Sweeheart.” She and her mother had a falling out because her mother was concerned that Meg’s fiancé at the time was a cokehead, which he was. Meg, who was in high school when her parents split, went on and on to the media about how her mother had abandoned her. It became so painful for my wife that I wrote the story to stop Meg, to let her know that her mother, through me, could fight back. 

There’s a lot of personal feeling in your work. I think all writers think about where they fit in the story, of where they do not fit. Do you think about these things specifically or do you write and let these things work themselves out?

I let the story and the act of writing bring out any personal stuff of mine that might relate to the subject.  I don’t interject my personal stuff into the story unless it makes sense. Which doesn’t mean I don’t have a personal take. My writing style is understated, I want to let the story tell itself and not get in the way of that, but I always have a take on what I’m writing about. Years ago, I was at lunch with Pat Ryan and Ray Cave, my editors at Sports Illustrated. They used to take me to lunch and I’d have too many bloody Mary’s and start pontificating about who knows what. One time, Pat Ryan got pissed with me, “Why do you always have to be right?” And Ray said, “It’s not that, it’s just that Pat is a moralist.” Which isn’t strictly a “right” or “wrong” thing. I don’t know exactly how to describe it, but when I do a subject, I have a basic feeling, a judgement, if you will, if the person is a good person or not. And again, it’s not “good” in the sense that they are pious or anything like that. It’s more about whether or not the subject is an authentic person. Because I can admire someone even if I don’t share their same values, so long as they aren’t a phony. I can’t tolerate phonies.

I guess it comes down to a confidence issue. Are you a confident writer?

Now, maybe. I’ve been doing this for so long that I am a confident craftsman. If I give a piece to Alex to take a look at before I send it to my editor, I’ll ask him something specific. Like in the case of the Canseco piece, I gave it to Al and asked, “Tell me if it’s funny.” That’s all I wanted to know. I don’t need help with line-editing so to speak at this point. But still, I’m terrified of that blank piece of paper and that first sentence. It takes me days sometimes to get that first sentence. I’m obsessive in how I approach each story—reading clips on the subject, then writing out my questions, then doing the interviews, and then transcribing them, organizing the quotes and my other notes, musings, into themes, creating outlines, revising the outlines, before I ever start to actually write. Once I get that first sentence then the writing takes on a life of its own. 

Here’s an odd question: Do you have your wife read your stories after you finish them? I do that.

My wife doesn’t read my stories, necessarily, but sometimes I’ll read a scene to her while I’m writing and ask what she thinks. Or a sentence, or an image. But by now I pretty much know whether what I’m doing is good or not. If it isn’t I can’t go on until I unravel it. Susie used to come with me when I went to do a story. All the time in the mid, late eighties, before we got dogs. You know, I’d be in a hotel for a week and it’d be like a vacation for her, fun. And since Susie is an actress she was able to give me insights into that profession that would help me when I approached an actor for a profile. Cause what did I know about acting, I was a jock. She’d tell me, so-and-so has a hard time with comedy, so I might mention that in a question, “It’s been said that you have a hard time with comedy,” to see what kind of reaction I’ll get.

Susie was with me at Cyndi Garvey’s house the day she spilled her guts about her marriage. In the car when we left, Susan and I were going back-and-forth, we were both charged up. Here’s the other thing with Susie. If she’s gone with me on the interview, when I’m writing the story, she will add things to it that I might have missed. I’ll tell her, “I’m writing the scene where we’re in the house with Steve and Cyndi,” and she’ll say, “Well, did you write about the Leroy Neiman paintings?” And I’ll say, “Oh shit, I forgot them.” She’s a second set of eyes.
 
What was the experience like for you and Alex putting all these stories together for the book?

Great experience. Al’s a great reader. There were some stories I remembered as being great and when Al didn’t like them I re-read them and most often found he was right. Then, there were some he liked and I didn’t and when I re-read them I found they were better than I’d remembered. Sometimes as a writer, you remember a story based on how much you enjoyed writing it which doesn’t necessarily make it a great story, and vice versa.  I’m an egomaniac but I’m not overly sensitive when it comes to criticism of my work. You have to have the skin of a rhino in this business. I don’t take that stuff personally.

You wrote a very insightful piece on Roger Clemens for my friend Rich at the beginning of this whole Clemens-McNamee massacre. Has it surprised you at all the way Roger has handled all this?

No. That’s the only way Roger knows how to deal with things. Dig in like a pitt bull. That’s they way he pitched. No change ups just throw harder and harder.
 
And one of the great questions seems to be how this whole steroid thing will shake out — how people will remember this era in baseball. What do you think?

I don’t care. I’m not and never have been a fan of any sport. just ask Alex. I watch sports as a jock not as a fan. The only team I care about is University of Miami, college football.

OK, a few quick questions:

Mantle or Mays?

Mantle, though Mays was a better all around player. 

Do you listen to music when you write? What music do you listen to in general?

Only the music in my head: Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps, Ersel Hickey.  The radio in the car when I’m driving across alligator alley is tuned to 102.7 FM, oldies, nothing after 1960. That’s the only time I listen to music.

I love the different ways you imagine Canseco writing his “Vindicated” masterpiece. How do you write? (I was reading that Gay Talese writes a single sentence, puts it on a board, stares at it for hours, moves around the words, reworks the sentence, stares at THAT for hours and so on. Seems like this might make things tough on deadline).

I write on typewriter on yellow second sheets. I bought the last seven cartons of yellow second sheets available in the country, and have them stored in my attic. It’s enough to last me the rest of my lifetime. One of my old editors called me a troglodyte. I take it as a complement. I use scissors, cut and paste, corrective pencils, white out, and even yellow white out for the second sheets, and that white out isn’t even made anymore. I do what Talese does but on paper. I’ll re-write first sentence on a sheet 20 times till it’s right, then cut it out and paste it following the next sentence. I use a lot of glue. 

Why won’t Tom Seaver concede you threw harder than him?

Jealous. 

You write so well about your comeback in “A Nice Tuesday.” Was it hard to let go of your career? Did that help?

It was hard at 21. Now, it’s not so hard. What was hard was discovering I fucked up my own career, God’s gift. I hope God isn’t still mad at me for that. Which is why when I became a writer I was determined to be as methodical, disciplined and orderly as possible. I was determined not to squander the talent I had at writing magazine profiles. Not only that but in writing about people about learning how to engage them and be empathetic, I became a nicer person, less egocentric.

Alex came up with a list of essential baseball books. What are your five essential books — not baseball, just books? Not including your own, of course.

True Confessions. Exiles by Michael Arlen, Fame and Obscurity by Talese, anything by Hemmingway, most things by Elmore Leonard.

Hillary or Barack?

Neither. McCain. Am an NRA member. Nuff said. 

Yankees or Red Sox this year? I ask that knowing that you are a Yankees guy.

Red Sox. I’m no longer a Yankee fan. Too much money and too little thought spent on building that club.

Is there any must-watch TV for you?

Been watching the John Adams saga. Love that. Sense and Sensibility. I watch all kinds of British Crime Serials, Foils War, House of Eliot. I saw the four seasons of Hustle which I thought was a lot of fun. I watch Lifetime. Take Home Chef with Curtis Stone. And then MSNBC for news, especially with anything that has Tucker Carlson on it.

I’m at Augusta now … you wrote a wonderful story about a couple of young golfing prodigies, the Howard sisters. What do you think about golf?

I think it’s pool on a big table. 

Sports or Hollywood?

Neither. It depends entirely on the person. People are fun, like Marilyn Chambers, the ex-porn star, and Bob Miles, a deceased neo Nazi, and some are boring like Jose and Clemens. I’m more drawn to people who are not celebrities, athletes or actors. Car runners in Florida; coal miners in West Virginia; a 911 dispatcher in Portland, Maine, a female bodyguard. I did the St. Paul Saints in the mid-nineties. Mike Veeck always interested me, partly because his father—whom I had never met—wrote something nice about “A False Spring” in one of his books. So I wanted to do the St. Paul Saints, heard funny things about them. I love minor league stories because nobody wants to do them. Mike wanted to meet me. So I go out there, get my press pass and I never went to see Mike, I just hung around the Stadium that first night ‘cause I didn’t want a guided tour. I wanted to see what was going on myself. So I hung around, sat in different sections, talked to people, and then the next day I went to Mike. He said, “Pat, where were you I was looking for you?” ‘Cause he didn’t know what I looked like. I said, “Oh, I just wanted to check it out myself.” He said, “You’re the only guy who ever came and did that. They all come to me, ask me 20 questions and then leave.” I said, “Well, the story is not only about you it’s about what’s going on here.”

So I’m still writing the story a few months later. I had to call up Veeck to check a couple of facts and I see in the paper, in The Miami Herald, that Veeck has invited Charlie Sheen, the actor, to pitch for him. I call Veeck up and kiddingly, I said to him, “What’s the story, you invite that fucking actor to pitch for you? I’ll get in shape and I’ll pitch for you.” He said, “Okay, get in shape, I’ll pitch you.” So I hang up and Susan says, “What’s wrong? Your face looks white.” I said, “I just told Veeck I was going to pitch for him next summer.” She says, “You put your foot in your mouth, but it’s not my business.”

I was 56-years old. I hadn’t thrown a baseball in thirty-thirty-five years. Oh, I had a catch here and there with my ten-year old son, but I mean THROW a baseball. So I go to the park. I’m standing on the mound and the first pitch I throw, I fall down. I couldn’t even stand upright. So I had to get closer to the plate, start with lobbing the ball. To make a long story short, it took me six months to get in pitching shape. By the time I was ready to pitch for Veeck, he had hired a girl to pitch for him. I called him up and told him I was ready to pitch and he said, “I can’t. I’ve got a girl pitching for me. If I have an old man too, it’ll be a freak show.” It was a freak show anyway, but I guess a woman and an old man was over the top even for him.

So he sends me to Miles Wolff of the Northern League. Great guy. Real baseball fan. Miles hooked me up with another team in Waterbury, Connecticut and I went and pitched an inning for them. Did well, and wrote a book about it called “A Nice Tuesday.” All because of my involvement with Mike Veeck.

May 9th, 2008

Rage, rage against the Intentional Walk

Took the family to the Royals-Orioles game Friday night, our first family ballgame of the season. It’s an exciting time. Elizabeth, our oldest, is 6 now, closing in on 7, and she’s beginning to get her bearings around a baseball game. She has started to ask, “What’s the score?” every so often. She constantly wants to know what inning we’re in (partly, of course, because she knows the hot dog race is in the fifth). She knows the difference between the two teams, is beginning to get the basic concept of how runners get on base, what a pitcher is trying to do, what a home run represents.

“Daddy,” she said, “cotton candy just melts right on your tongue.”

“It sure does.”

“It’s amazing! It just melts away. It just disappears!”

“Yes, it does,” I said.

“And also,” she said, “I cannot believe Mr. Hillman intentionally walked Markakis in the fifth with two outs.”

Well, she is my girl. I think I made it brutally clear how much I despise the intentional walk in a recent blog post when I said that I would have fired Toronto manager John Gibbons roughly seven seconds after he intentionally walked Tony Pena Jr. I appreciate now that firing him would have been unfair. Instead, I would like very much to have a few Jaywalking* tickets printed up and send them to managers for bad intentional walks.

*I know someone in Cincinnati who got a Jaywalking ticket. It can be a tough town on those adventurous street crossers. Frank Deford once wrote of the town that Cincinnati is the sort of place where people don’t just follow the Don’t Walk signs — they follow the Walk signs too.

I would begin this week with Trey Hillman’s intentional pass Friday night. I cannot begin to even tell you how many different ways I despised that walk.*

*Yes I can, actually.

The situation: The score was tied 2-2 in the fifth inning. Two men were out. Freddie Bynum was on second base, thanks to his base hit and an error on the pickoff throw. Gil Meche was pitching. Nick Markakis was at the plate. Aubrey Huff was on deck. Markakis was intentionally passed.

I despised the walk because it came in the top half of fifth inning. The stinking fifth inning. The game wasn’t even official yet. As far as I’m concerned there should be a rule — unless there’s a pitcher coming up or some rough American League equivalent — you are not allowed to intentionally walk anybody until the eighth inning.*

*The rule would further state that any football coach who orders a two-point conversion before the middle of the fourth quarter will be immediately suspended and sentenced to spend six weeks in solitary confinement where he will be forced to listen to old Paul Tagliabue press conferences over and over.

I despised the walk because it came with two outs. There was no strategic reason to do it — the only reason you walk Markakis there is because you believe you can’t get him out. I hate this because it’s wimpy, wussy, weak candy-ass baseball. I hate this because it shows no faith in your pitcher or your team. I hate this because it’s telling your offense, “Boys, I don’t really expect us to score again tonight.” I hate this because Nick Markakis, while he’s a fine player, ain’t exactly Ted Williams. I hate this because you’re putting another runner on base, which not only could haunt you but SHOULD haunt you if the baseball gods are paying attention.

I despised the walk because Huff — like Markakis — hits from the left side, which means you don’t even get the nominal “righty-righty” pitcher advantage. Also Huff is a professional hitter with a little power — he’s not Markakis, but he’s not Mark Belanger either. I don’t have the math capabilities necessary but someone reading probably does — if you sent Nick Markakis up 500 times with a runner on second and two outs, and and you Aubrey Huff up 500 times with a runner on first and second and two outs, which scenario do you score more runs. I have a guess.*

*It was brought to my attention afterward that Meche has had more success against Huff than Markakis and this could have played into Hillman’s decision-making. Well, I looked it up. Markakis was 2-12 with five strikeouts (and a homer) against Meche. Huff was 3-18 with seven strikeouts. I’m not really seeing much difference there.

I despised the walk because people pay a lot of money to go to baseball games, and they carry kids through vast parking lots, and they pay $20 for popcorn and lemonade, and maybe they want to see if Gil Meche can get Markakis out in that key situation. I’m all for playing to win the game, but chess has not been an interesting spectator sport since looney-bird Bobby Fischer played Boris Spassky for the right to not have to shave, bathe or say another sane sentence for the rest of his life.

And inevitably I despised the walk because Huff cracked the three-run homer that put away the game — and I cannot help but realize that’s EXACTLY WHAT THE ROYALS DESERVED. That’s the biggest problem of all with a bad intentional walk; it sets you up to subtly pull away from your own team. I know as a fan, it embarrasses me when my team is not tough enough to try and get a player out in a key situation. Sure: I get the intentional walk when it’s in the late innings, when it sets up a crucial double play possibility, when it sets up a dominating pitching matchup, something like that. I don’t often agree with it. But I get it.

But to walk Markakis to face Huff with two outs in the fifth inning of a 2-2 game? I don’t get that one at all. Elizabeth didn’t say that stuff, of course, but she really didn’t like the walk either. It delayed the hot dog race. And that made it very wrong.

* * *

Postscript: A couple of people — including the excellent analyst Rany Jazayerli — point out that this was only Hillman’s second intentional walk of the season. That’s the fewest in baseball. This fact doesn’t make this particular walk any less egregious, but it is certainly worth noting that Hillman seems to be avoiding the intentional walk, and that’s a good thing. In fact, his avoidance of the intentional walk all year makes me wonder even more about this one — maybe Meche wanted the intentional walk there. I don’t know.

I actually think Hillman’s game management early this year has been OK. The team’s not scoring any runs, but to be blunt there is no managing technique that can turn a .309 on-base percentage with 19 home runs in 35 games into a run-scoring machine. True, he has tried to run too much with a team that really lacks speed, and the Royals have really hurt themselves on the bases. But I understand the frustration. There aren’t too many ways for the Royals to score.

* * *

Postscript II: Well, while we’re talking a little Royals baseball …

Emil Brown: .274/.301/.385, 3 homers, 29 RBIs, 21 runs scored.
Jose Guillen: .189/.226/.323, 3 homers, 15 RBIs, 13 runs scored.

Not exactly the clash of the titans, but I think it’s clear who’s out front.

Obviously, it’s early. I don’t think Guillen will hit anything resembling .189 the rest of the year. He’ll get hot, probably sooner than later, and I suspect he will get his average up into the .260s or .270s with 15-20 homers and 75-80 RBIs. Of course, even that is not exactly 12 million worth; this is a continuation of the point that I tried to make during the offseason — guys like Jose Guillen historically don’t age especially well. This is because, well, baseball players IN GENERAL don’t age all that well. Last year, only 36 everyday players in baseball were older than 32 — barely more than one per team — and while some (Oh-wee-oh Magglio,* Chipper, Posada, Thome, Helton) had terrific years, most were pretty average or lousy. This is a tough game to play when you’re 32 or older.

*I’m trying to get the Wizard of Oz chant started for Miguel Olivo in Kansas City — “Oh-wee-oh, O-lee-vo! Oh-wee-oh …”

Well, Guillen turns 32 in one week. And players like him seem to age especially poorly.

Here are the 10 Baseball Reference comps for Jose Guillen:

1. Juan Encarnacion. Same age as Guillen; sadly we’ll never know how we would have aged because his career seems to be over after the horrible on-deck circle incident. I was at that game, by the way, but I did not see it live because precisely when that happened, Scott Baker was throwing a perfect game against the Royals, and I was trying to keep up with that on television.

2. Kevin McReynolds. He was the guy I compared Guillen to — after age 32, McReynolds’ OPS+ were 93, 91 and then he retired.

3. Joe Rudi. Terrific player who hit the wall at 32. After age 32, Rudi’s OPS+ were 90, 64, 79.

4. Mel Hall. One of my favorites. He was out of the game at age 31 — though he did come back for a brief and misguided 26 at bats with San Francisco at 35. He hit .120 and his OPS+ was -26.

5. Jermaine Dye. He is still a story in progress. He had a resurgent and monstrous year when he turned 32, and then he hit .254/.317/.486 last year — though with some home run power. That bandbox in Chicago might help him stay above water for a while. Guillen, meanwhile, moved to one of the tougher home run parks in the game.

6. Dusty Baker. Aged very well, as a hitter — was very good at 32 (132 OPS+) and 33 (130 OPS+) and was productive is a as a platoon player through his 36th year. Is Guillen at all like Dusty Baker, though?

7. Jacque Jones. Off the cliff. Had 87 OPS+ at age 32, and has been released this year at 33.

8. Torii Hunter. He’s about the same age as Guillen and seems to be holding up pretty well so far this year.

9. Luis Gonzalez. An anomaly, he had his best seasons after he turned 31. It is not for us to ask why.

10. George Hendrick. Actually had perhaps his best season at 33, and was valuable as a part-time player at 36.

May 8th, 2008

Heinz and Blogs

We have a post coming up at some point here, but first I did want to post this comment from Kevin in case you missed it in the comment section because I think it makes a really good point:

I respect your work very, very much, but your previous comment that if W.C. Heinz were 25 years old today he’d be writing a blog is wrong on about 13 different levels. Heinz would most likely be writing long narrative stories about the Iraq war, ala George Packer to Steven Coll. He was a reporter’s reporter, one who loved dialog, and felt there was a lot more truth to be unearthed in observing and recording history than there was commenting about it. He would have had a lot of outlets for his work beyond just the Internet. All due respect, but those who knew Heinz found your statement to be quite the reach.

I have nothing at all to argue with Kevin’s major point because I believe it is dead on … Heinz was indeed a reporter’s reporter But I do have one disagreement — and it makes me think I wasn’t as clear as I should have been about this whole thing with Heinz and blogs.

So let me make my point again: I never was suggesting that Heinz would be writing blogs about firing coaches or that he would be printing photos of quarterbacks in hot tubs or spewing some off the top opinion about Roger Clemens or having silly polls about regular or peanut M&Ms. And I was also never suggestion that he would ONLY write blogs. So let me be clear: He would not. Absolutely not. He would, from what I know about him, despise and avoid that goofy stuff (well, maybe not the M&Ms poll — he might have been a big peanut M&Ms guy).

Let me repeat it one more time: Heinz was a master reporter and a brilliant writer, and there’s no doubt in my mind that if he was 25 years old today he would be a master reporter and brilliant writer. I don’t want there to be even the slightest crack here: I don’t think W.C. Heinz would be any less the man, the reporter or the gentleman in today’s world.

My point is: Why wouldn’t he write a blog? And it makes me think, once again, that some people miss the point that a blog can be ANYTHING. Maybe it’s the name: Blog. Maybe people see that name and cannot get beyond a certain image. But a blog really can be whatever the author want s it to be. It can be long, narrative stories about the Iraq war. It can be haunting and poetic reporting about the horrors of Darfur. It can (and is) absolutely anything.

My point is taken right from Kevin’s comment: George Packer writes a blog. Steve Coll, I believe, is now director of the New America Foundation, a nonprofit policy institute which, of course has a blog. And for that matter, Andrew Sullivan writes a blog, Laura Rozen writes a blog, James Wolcott writes a blog (and he mentioned me!), Malcolm Gladwell writes a blog, and so on and so on and so on.

People from everywhere who love writing are drawn to the blogosphere — and how can you not be? It’s unlimited space. It’s an open canvas. Some of it is lousy. Some of it is brilliant. That’s just the way it goes with open canvases.

I have no doubt that even in today’s crazy world of newspaper layoffs and magazine downsizing that a 25-year-old W.C. Heinz would write for magazines and newspapers and books and all that. But I honestly do not get why anyone who knows, loves, respects, admires Heinz would take insult to the notion that one of the really fine writers of the 20th century would take advantage of the Internet too. It’s a big, blog world out there.

May 7th, 2008

Banny Log 050608

Start No. 7: Vs. California Anaheim Los Angeles Halos
Innings: 6 2/3
Earned runs allowed: 5.
Strikeouts: 3
Walks: 2
Homers: 1 (3-run shot)
Decision: Loss (3-4)
Number of pitches: 103
Number of strikes: 64
BABIP: .449 (13 for 29 — yikes!)
Season BABIP: .303 (43 for 142)

Well, I didn’t get to see this messy game because I was driving back to Kansas City.* It’s probably just as well. Banny’s getting hit pretty hard these days — Tuesday, it was Garret Anderson who was giving him the business — and it is again a reminder how sharp and how smart he has to be in order to get outs.

Let’s take a quick look at the critical third inning using MLB.com’s Pitch FX:

Lead off: Casey Kotchman. Gets ahead 2-1, and then Banny throws him an 84-mph fastball (really? A fastball? Maybe a changeup?) up. Kotchman rips it to right for a single.

Second batter: Torii Hunter. First pitch swinging, gets an 85-mph fastball (Maybe a cutter? A slider?) up and yanks a double down the line.

Third batter: Garrett Anderson. First pitch swinging, gets an 85-mph something on the outside corner and he pulls it over the right field fence for a three-run homer.

And there you have it. Five pitches. The Angels obviously came into this game ready to swing early and ready to swing at anything up. And the fact that they all hit pitches in that brutal 84-85 mph range tells me that Banny really did not have his stuff. He can’t get Major League hitters out at 85 mph (the only way you can is if your fastball is 97 mph and that’s your change-up or split-fingered fastball). Banny can get them out at 81 mph. He can get them out at 89 mph. But a Banny 85-mph fastball is no-man’s land.

*OK, so you will love this story. Well, maybe not, but I love it. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned that I’m doing this book on the 1975 Cincinnati Reds. Big Red Machine. Did I mention that? Anyway, so I’m driving back home from Cincinnati Tuesday night as mentioned, and I really don’t think I’m speeding — I realize this has become something of a trend on this blog — and suddenly I see the red flashing lights behind me. I am just one of these people. I have friends who consistently drive way over the speed limit, and they never get pulled over — it’s like they’re driving Wonder Woman’s invisible plane or something. Me, if I go a few mph over the speed limit even for a moment, I will inevitably get pulled over. I’m really not complaining, I live a charmed life. Flashing red lights must be my penance.

Anyway, the officer comes over and taps on the window, asks for the license and registration and all that, and he asks me if I know why he pulled me over. Now, why do they ask that? I probably have a pretty good idea. But I say something like, “I didn’t think I was speeding, but I guess I was.” And he said, yes, he caught me at 76 mph, which would be pretty bad in a school zone but doesn’t seem all that bad for a major interstate. Maybe it was in a 65 mph zone, I don’t know.

He says: So, where you going? I tell him I’m going back home, and he says, “what were you doing in Cincinnati?”

Well, I have to take my shot here, right? So I say: “Yeah, well, I’m doing a book on the 1975 Reds.”

And he just stops. And he says: “Hold on. Rose. Bench Morgan. Perez. Uh, Foster. Right? Concepcion. Um, hold on here, Griffey? Yep and uh, centerfield, sure, Geronimo.” He’s naming every member of the Big Red Machine. He has this huge smile on his face. Trucks are rumbling by. The car is shaking. The wind is whipping. This guy is back 33 years, when he was a kid, when the Reds were the best team ever.

Then he says: “Wow, sure wish we could have another team like that one.”

Then he gives me a warning ticket. This book has already made me money. I love America.

Back to the game. Banny got in more trouble in the fifth. He walked Vlady,* Then gave up a single to Kotchman (on a 1-0 count), got Hunter to fly out on a high fastball, and then from what I can tell on Pitch FX, Bannister threw Anderson a pretty good slider on the outer half of the plate. Anderson singled and scored Vlady. I think Bannister just got beat there.

*You know, Vlad Guerrero has this reputation as a free swinger in the Roberto Clemente mold — and there’s no question that he swings and hits some crazy pitches just like Clemente. But he really has a lot more plate discipline than Clemente ever had. Clemente never walked 60 times in a season, and his career OBP was .359. Clemente struck out about twice as often as he walked. Vlady, meanwhile, has a .390 OBP and and has walked 629 times while striking out 757 times. I think the Clemente comparison is apt in some ways, but Vlady’s reputation as a hacker is not really right..

Then finally in the seventh, Vlady drilled a double on an 84 mph slider that caught too much of the plate. Then Kotchman swung at the first pitch (out), Hunter swung at the first pitch (out), Anderson swung at the first pitch (88 mph cutter way up) and banged it to center for a single. Brandon Wood then swung at the first pitch too (an 85 mph slider — Banny’s slider was obviously not sliding) and hit an infield single. That did it for Brian. He allowed five runs and all five came on Garrett Anderson hits.

So what’s the lesson? I’m not sure — I was in the car driving through Indiana at the time — but I’ll take a guess because, hey, this is Banny Log. It seems to me that the league has made a couple of adjustments. They’re swinging early in the count. They’re pouncing on pitches up. And for the moment Banny does not have enough definition on his pitches — the slider, cutter, fastball and even change-up all seem to be going about the same speed. You know the guy will learn from this*, and I’m betting here he has a few wrinkles his next start. We’ll see.

*Yep, we’re linking again, this time to Buzz Bissinger’s really good interview with The Big Lead. It is really good even if I am mentioned briefly in it. Ignore that part. In summary, Buzz regrets how he came across, and regrets that he threw all blogs into one pile, and regrets yelling at Will. He also regrets that his point got lost. Really, if you care about this, you should read the whole thing, it’s very good stuff.

It also cleared up a couple of things for me. As I mentioned in my original post about Blog-gate, I really respect and admire Buzz. I don’t know him, but I’ve read quite a bit of his work — even beyond Friday Night Lights and the La Russa book — and I think the guy is one heck of a reporter, one heck of a journalist, one heck of an author. I just think the world of his work.

His performance on Costas Now did not make me think any less of him as a journalist … but I just didn’t get it. I try hard to not only hear what someone is saying but to figure out what someone means. I’ve mentioned a couple of times that I had this horrendous six-week radio show — I remember I would say stuff on the air, and I would constantly think, “What did I just say? Did I mean it? Could I defend it? How far would I go to defend it?”

It’s bad when the first part of that thought is “What did I just say?”

So, I understand that people sometimes rush their words or they misspeak or they get all fired up about a subject and go much closer to the edge than they would if the lights and microphones were off. But I just didn’t GET what Buzz was trying to say. He started with that bit about W.C. Heinz, and he read that one story from Deadspin, and he just seemed all over the place. He was angry, but I was not quite sure why. He was screaming at Will Leitch, and I didn’t get the point.

But now that I’ve read his interview — which is sensible, well-meaning, apologetic, all that — I think I get it. Buzz is upset about how shrill and profane the tone has become in sports these days. And he wanted to speak out against that. I think that when he was yelling at Will, he was really lashing out at EVERYTHING that’s shrill and profane these days — lashing out at the worst of talk radio, the worst of the Internet, the worst of mainstream media, the worst of athletes behavior, the worst of everything. I don’t think he meant that blogs were bad. I think he meant that there’s a lot of bad stuff out there.

I think that’s why he brought up the great old writer W.C. Heinz, who was, above all, a gentleman. He was class. He wrote with grace and dignity, and I’m sure that’s what Buzz feels is missing out there. He wanted to speak out, scream out against the viciousness in the air. And I get that. Now, I don’t know that we’ve changed as much as a society as people believe — I’m reading all this stuff about 1975 now, and man, fans were pretty nasty and angry back then. In LA, they threw so many bottles and batteries and stuff at Pete Rose and called his mother so many names that he admitted for the first time in his life the game wasn’t even fun. In Cincinnati, Bob Watson crashed into a wall, broke his glasses, was on the ground in pain … and some fans poured beer on him. And for all the talk about the nasty political blogs these days, in 1975 it seemed like every other day there was another assassination attempt at President Ford. And so on.

So, no, I don’t think people have changed all that much — that’s good old days talk. But now after reading I think I have a much better understanding of where Buzz is coming from. You could call it ironic that Buzz came across so much better on a blog than he did on television, but I don’t think it’s irony at all. It’s just this crazy thing we call the future.

« Previous PageNext Page »