Add me to the long list of those who were thoroughly unimpressed by Mark McGwire's public confession two weeks ago, that he used anabolic steroids during a decade-long period that culminated with him breaking the single-season major league homerun record with 70, in 1998.
If McGwire felt liberated by finally speaking out publicly on his long history of steroid use, then I am genuinely happy for him. He is probably sleeping better at night, and as one who has had difficulty sleeping through rough periods in my personal life, I applaud him for coming clean. Except that he failed miserably on the one crucial point, when he insisted that the many years of using a variety of PEDs did not, in fact, enhance his performance.
It's common knowledge now that Big Mac hired former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, now the head man of Fleischer Sports Communications, to guide him through his coming out, of sorts. But if Fleischer advised Mac to say that steroids didn't help hit a baseball, then I think he did a great disservice to his new client. Rather, I think Mac would have been much better served, when asked by Bob Costas on the MLB Network about the benefits of steroids, to say that he didn't know for sure, but that even if 'roids did help hit more home runs, it was impossible to say how many more. Such an answer, I believe, would have been much more credible, and would have served him much better in the long run in the court of public opinion, including with the baseball Hall of Fame voters.
Speaking of the HOF, I was not surprised to see McGwire down around 24% of the vote (far short of the minimum 75% necessary from the baseball writers), but I was very disappointed to see that fellow first-baseman Fred McGriff, in his first year of eligibility, garnered just 21%.
To me, just as a vote against McGwire (and a vote against Bonds three years from now) is a vote against obvious and long periods of heavy steroid use, a vote for McGriff would be a vote in favor of those who put up excellent numbers, albeit numbers overshadowed by steroid users during a steroid era. In other words, you'd have to be an extreme cynic to believe that McGriff used 'roids. He was long&lean as a rookie in the Big Leagues, and he was long&lean when he retired. His body never changed. He hit 493 homeruns, with an average of .284, a solid glove, and a clutch performer, as Giants fans will attest to, particularly from the 1993 season, when the Giants won 103 games, only to finish second in the NL West to the Braves, who won 104, led in large part by McGriff, who hit .310 with 19 homers and 55 RBIs in 290 at-bat, after being acquired in a mid-season trade from San Diego.
In short, a vote against McGwire is a vote against those who cheated the game, and the fans. A vote for McGriff doubles that sentiment.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Brett Favre
Beware of that ESPN.com story, saying Brett Favre told Ed Werder that he was leaning heavily toward retirement. To me, it's either a non-story completely, or if one does report it, one must also add that it's a completely natural reaction immediately after (or even a day after) such a grueling and discouraging loss. In other words, the fact that he said he was leaning heavily toward retirement last night or this morning means absolutely nothing in the long run.
It's unfortunate that stories like this have life in them, because not only is it as exhausting as watching CSN report every freaking night from Raiders headquarters on the Tom Cable situation, when there is nothing to report, but it also fuels this anti-Favre fever across the country. Fans get angry, again, because they think Favre is indecisive, and is leading them on. When, in reality, all he did was say how he felt at that moment, and ESPN rides with it. Ideally, he should say, "Ed, this is not a good time to ask me that question, because I'm emotional and I'm exhausted, mentally and physically." That kind of answer would serve him much better.
But we all know these speculative Favre stories (will he retire or won't he?) will be reported on the Worldwide Leader in Sports nearly every day until he decides whether to play another season. And, in the process, fans will grow increasingly tired of him, when in reality, they should re-examine who's really at fault here. Favre needs time to decide whether he wants to quarterback the Vikings again, at age 41. Almost to a man, his teammates would love to see him come back, and why not? He's a great team leader, and he had one of the best seasons of his career, with 33 touchdown passes and only seven interceptions. Yes, the media should back off and give him time.
It's unfortunate that stories like this have life in them, because not only is it as exhausting as watching CSN report every freaking night from Raiders headquarters on the Tom Cable situation, when there is nothing to report, but it also fuels this anti-Favre fever across the country. Fans get angry, again, because they think Favre is indecisive, and is leading them on. When, in reality, all he did was say how he felt at that moment, and ESPN rides with it. Ideally, he should say, "Ed, this is not a good time to ask me that question, because I'm emotional and I'm exhausted, mentally and physically." That kind of answer would serve him much better.
But we all know these speculative Favre stories (will he retire or won't he?) will be reported on the Worldwide Leader in Sports nearly every day until he decides whether to play another season. And, in the process, fans will grow increasingly tired of him, when in reality, they should re-examine who's really at fault here. Favre needs time to decide whether he wants to quarterback the Vikings again, at age 41. Almost to a man, his teammates would love to see him come back, and why not? He's a great team leader, and he had one of the best seasons of his career, with 33 touchdown passes and only seven interceptions. Yes, the media should back off and give him time.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
One Dysfunctional Organization
The Warriors are one of the most dysfunctional organizations in all of professional sports (along with the Raiders), and yet, the fans have apparently been guzzling kool-aid from the late Jim Jones, because they seemingly have no clue as to why this team has failed to make the playoffs in 15 of the last 16 years. It starts with Chris Cohan, it continues with Bobby Rowell and Don Nelson, who is in this merely for the money and for 21 more wins which would make him the winningest coach in NBA history (and close to being the losingest, as well), and who began this 16-year disaster when he couldn't get along with his rookie franchise player Chris Webber, and ignored passionate advice from Al Attles and Ed Gregoy, among others, and traded him. It continues with GM Larry Riley, who is merely Nelson's lapdog, along with Cohan. It's embarrassing, to say the least.
And yet, beginning with Webber, the Warriors fans haven't a clue. They blamed him for tearing apart the Warriors, when all he wanted was to be treated with a little respect and decorum, particularly publicly, when Nelson (in those days) loved to ride and ridicule his rookies, with rare exceptions. Cohan, who had just completed a hostile takeover of the franchise from Finanne and Fitzgerald, could not have come on board at a worse time, because Finnane&Fitzgerald, had they still been in power, would have told Nelson, "Get your ass in a room with Webber and work things out, or you're outta here!!" Instead, Cohan did whatever Nelson wanted, and the dye was cast.
Since then, the fans have dumped on Webber, with vitriol, they've dumped on Antawn Jamison (who never complained in the slightest), they've dumped on Gilbert Arenas (whom Cohan wouldn't pay), they've dumped on Baron Davis, whom Chris Mullin wanted to re-sign, and on January 29th they'll be sure to dump on Stephen Jackson, even though Jack is merely a symptom of a much deeper disease that permeates this franchise, and starts at the top. Soon, Monta Ellis will get traded, and then the fans will dump on him.
Collectively, these fans are the biggest morons of all. What they should do is stop buying tickets until Cohan sells, and until Nelson is gone, along with Rowell and Riley. Only then will the sad, embarrassing and disgraceful fortunes of this franchise start turning around.
And yet, beginning with Webber, the Warriors fans haven't a clue. They blamed him for tearing apart the Warriors, when all he wanted was to be treated with a little respect and decorum, particularly publicly, when Nelson (in those days) loved to ride and ridicule his rookies, with rare exceptions. Cohan, who had just completed a hostile takeover of the franchise from Finanne and Fitzgerald, could not have come on board at a worse time, because Finnane&Fitzgerald, had they still been in power, would have told Nelson, "Get your ass in a room with Webber and work things out, or you're outta here!!" Instead, Cohan did whatever Nelson wanted, and the dye was cast.
Since then, the fans have dumped on Webber, with vitriol, they've dumped on Antawn Jamison (who never complained in the slightest), they've dumped on Gilbert Arenas (whom Cohan wouldn't pay), they've dumped on Baron Davis, whom Chris Mullin wanted to re-sign, and on January 29th they'll be sure to dump on Stephen Jackson, even though Jack is merely a symptom of a much deeper disease that permeates this franchise, and starts at the top. Soon, Monta Ellis will get traded, and then the fans will dump on him.
Collectively, these fans are the biggest morons of all. What they should do is stop buying tickets until Cohan sells, and until Nelson is gone, along with Rowell and Riley. Only then will the sad, embarrassing and disgraceful fortunes of this franchise start turning around.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Define Patriotism
You might have missed what happened at a small minor-league ballpark in Newark, New Jersey, earlier this summer. During the seventh-inning stretch, the crowd was asked to stand for a rendition of "God Bless America." Three teenage boys declined to stand, and were kicked out of the stadium by the president and co-owner of the Newark Bears, Thomas Cetnar.
Those three teenagers are suing the Bears, claiming their constitutional rights were violated.
While I assume that most Americans would scoff at the claim, I believe those boys have a great case.
Personally, I have never failed to stand for our National Anthem, or for God Bless America. But I would vehemently defend anyone's right to remain sitting.
In fact, it reminds me of an incident surrounding the Dallas Cowboys' Duane Thomas, in 1970, when he failed to stand at attention for the National Anthem before a game in Buffalo. He was booed loudly by the fans, all of whom were apparently watching Thomas, rather than saluting the flag. The next morning newspapers around the country called for Thomas's suspension. My high school buddy and I, though, sent a letter to the Chronicle sports section, defending Thomas's right to sit, and for questioning Americans' support of blind patriotism. The Chron printed the letter, sandwiched between two other letters calling for Duane Thomas's scalp. I cut out the Letters section that morning. And I still have it.
Those three teenagers are suing the Bears, claiming their constitutional rights were violated.
While I assume that most Americans would scoff at the claim, I believe those boys have a great case.
Personally, I have never failed to stand for our National Anthem, or for God Bless America. But I would vehemently defend anyone's right to remain sitting.
In fact, it reminds me of an incident surrounding the Dallas Cowboys' Duane Thomas, in 1970, when he failed to stand at attention for the National Anthem before a game in Buffalo. He was booed loudly by the fans, all of whom were apparently watching Thomas, rather than saluting the flag. The next morning newspapers around the country called for Thomas's suspension. My high school buddy and I, though, sent a letter to the Chronicle sports section, defending Thomas's right to sit, and for questioning Americans' support of blind patriotism. The Chron printed the letter, sandwiched between two other letters calling for Duane Thomas's scalp. I cut out the Letters section that morning. And I still have it.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Al Davis Embarrasses Himself Yet Again
I have been a KCBS Sportscaster for more than 18 years, and worked at KNBR for seven years before that. And I lost track long ago of the number of bitter, childish and vindictive press releases I have received over the years from the Raiders. More specifically, from Al Davis, because he's the only person who could have possibly written these horribly embarrassing missives, in which he invariably feels the need to strike back, on a very personal nature, at someone he feels wronged him or his precious football team. It is beyond absurd. It is beyond embarrassing. And it has happened yet again.
This time, the target is Lane Kiffin. You remember Lane Kiffin. He's the guy Davis hired away from the USC staff to coach the Raiders. Kiffin won 5 of 20 games with the Silver&Black, a record not unlike all the other coaches Davis has hired since he let Jon Gruden get away. In the process, of course, Kiffin had the temerity to speak out publicly when he felt Davis was stipping away whatever independence Kiffin thought he deserved to have as head coach. It was hardly a match made in heaven. And, not surprisingly, when Davis fired him, he announced in a bizarre (even by Davis's standards) press conference that went on seemingly forever that he would not pay Kiffin the balance of his contract because of alleged insubordination. To which Kiffin sued Davis.
Segue to this week: Kiffin's new employer, the University of Tennessee, revealed that it was looking into a possible recruiting violation by Kiffin, for allowing ESPN to be present during a meeting he had with a pair of recruits. "The Raiders" (a euphomysm for Al Davis) immediately released a statement, saying, "Lane Kiffin is a flat-out liar. He lied to the team, he lied to the fans, and he lied to the media. He will try to destroy that university like he tried to destroy the Raiders, and he will eventually clash with Summit and Pearl," the latter a reference to the school's two basketball coaches, Pat Summit and Bruce Pearl.
Nasty? Yes. Vindictive? Yes. Totally unnecessary? Yes. Helpful, in any remote fashion? No, not at all. Typical of Al Davis? Absolutely.
For the record, Lane Kiffin never lied to KCBS Radio. I wish I could say the same for Al Davis.
This time, the target is Lane Kiffin. You remember Lane Kiffin. He's the guy Davis hired away from the USC staff to coach the Raiders. Kiffin won 5 of 20 games with the Silver&Black, a record not unlike all the other coaches Davis has hired since he let Jon Gruden get away. In the process, of course, Kiffin had the temerity to speak out publicly when he felt Davis was stipping away whatever independence Kiffin thought he deserved to have as head coach. It was hardly a match made in heaven. And, not surprisingly, when Davis fired him, he announced in a bizarre (even by Davis's standards) press conference that went on seemingly forever that he would not pay Kiffin the balance of his contract because of alleged insubordination. To which Kiffin sued Davis.
Segue to this week: Kiffin's new employer, the University of Tennessee, revealed that it was looking into a possible recruiting violation by Kiffin, for allowing ESPN to be present during a meeting he had with a pair of recruits. "The Raiders" (a euphomysm for Al Davis) immediately released a statement, saying, "Lane Kiffin is a flat-out liar. He lied to the team, he lied to the fans, and he lied to the media. He will try to destroy that university like he tried to destroy the Raiders, and he will eventually clash with Summit and Pearl," the latter a reference to the school's two basketball coaches, Pat Summit and Bruce Pearl.
Nasty? Yes. Vindictive? Yes. Totally unnecessary? Yes. Helpful, in any remote fashion? No, not at all. Typical of Al Davis? Absolutely.
For the record, Lane Kiffin never lied to KCBS Radio. I wish I could say the same for Al Davis.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Letting Lincecum Hit
Last Saturday Bruce Bochy made a managerial decision that had play-by-play announcer Dave Flemming scratching his head on the Giants' radio broadcast. The Giants and Diamondbacks were locked in a scoreless game in the bottom of the seventh inning. The Giants had two on and two out, with Lincecum due up. Lincecum had thrown 82 pitches through seven innings, with 11 strikeouts. Flemming said, essentially, that it was a no-brainer, that Bochy had to take Lincecum out for a pinch-hitter, that he had to go for the win when he had the chance.
I was sitting in my car at the time, having just parked at an Alameda soccer field, looking forward to coaching my U19G team on a gorgeous afternoon at Hornet Field. But I had to wait to see what Bochy would do. And I remember, at the time, thinking that I did not agree with Dave, that I would let Lincecum hit, and here's why: Lincecum was pitching a fabulous game, and probably could have thrown two more innings. And who knows--the kid has such a flair for the dramatic, and he is such an incredible competitor, that he might even get a hit. He's certainly improving as a hitter. He hit .093 as a rookie, and .157 last season. Not only that, I still have vivid memories as a child of seeing a Giants starting pitcher removed from the game while in the midst of a masterpiece, and how it would upset my mother. In those days it was Marichal, more than likely. This day it was Lincecum.
Sure enough, Bochy let him hit, and Lincecum groundout out to short to end the threat. Lincecum then pitched a scoreless eighth inning with two more strikeouts, and Bochy removed him from the game after eight innings, 98 pitches and 13 strikeouts. But that's where I now find myself questioning Bochy. In other words, if I had known that Bochy was going to limit Lincecum to eight innings, then I'd have taken him out for a pinch-hitter in the bottom of the seventh. In other words, I think it was right to let Lincecum hit, but only if you, as the manager, were fairly well committed to letting him pitch two more innings, as long as he stayed sharp. But to let him hit and then take him out an inning later? I have a little trouble with that.
Segue to the Sunday game. Randy Johnson was taken out of the game after seven innings of one-hit ball and just 73 pitches, with a 1-0 lead. Fortunately, the Giants won 2-0, but I wondered why the Unit could not have thrown another inning, and possibly even two, given how dominant he was. After the game Bochy said 73 pitches was enough for a 45-year old pitcher, and maybe he's right. The only hit Johnson gave up was a leadoff double in the seventh, which prompted a reporter to ask Bochy if he would have considered removing Johnson after seven innings if he still had a no-hitter going. Bochy said he'd have asked Johnson first. Can you imagine Johnson's reaction? I'm guessing he would have respectfully insisted on staying in the game. A younger Unit may not have been so respectful.
I was sitting in my car at the time, having just parked at an Alameda soccer field, looking forward to coaching my U19G team on a gorgeous afternoon at Hornet Field. But I had to wait to see what Bochy would do. And I remember, at the time, thinking that I did not agree with Dave, that I would let Lincecum hit, and here's why: Lincecum was pitching a fabulous game, and probably could have thrown two more innings. And who knows--the kid has such a flair for the dramatic, and he is such an incredible competitor, that he might even get a hit. He's certainly improving as a hitter. He hit .093 as a rookie, and .157 last season. Not only that, I still have vivid memories as a child of seeing a Giants starting pitcher removed from the game while in the midst of a masterpiece, and how it would upset my mother. In those days it was Marichal, more than likely. This day it was Lincecum.
Sure enough, Bochy let him hit, and Lincecum groundout out to short to end the threat. Lincecum then pitched a scoreless eighth inning with two more strikeouts, and Bochy removed him from the game after eight innings, 98 pitches and 13 strikeouts. But that's where I now find myself questioning Bochy. In other words, if I had known that Bochy was going to limit Lincecum to eight innings, then I'd have taken him out for a pinch-hitter in the bottom of the seventh. In other words, I think it was right to let Lincecum hit, but only if you, as the manager, were fairly well committed to letting him pitch two more innings, as long as he stayed sharp. But to let him hit and then take him out an inning later? I have a little trouble with that.
Segue to the Sunday game. Randy Johnson was taken out of the game after seven innings of one-hit ball and just 73 pitches, with a 1-0 lead. Fortunately, the Giants won 2-0, but I wondered why the Unit could not have thrown another inning, and possibly even two, given how dominant he was. After the game Bochy said 73 pitches was enough for a 45-year old pitcher, and maybe he's right. The only hit Johnson gave up was a leadoff double in the seventh, which prompted a reporter to ask Bochy if he would have considered removing Johnson after seven innings if he still had a no-hitter going. Bochy said he'd have asked Johnson first. Can you imagine Johnson's reaction? I'm guessing he would have respectfully insisted on staying in the game. A younger Unit may not have been so respectful.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
World Baseball Classic
Yesterday, while recording our weekly KCBS Sports Fans Podcast with my esteemed colleague Stan Bunger, I asked him if he had any interest in the World Baseball Classic, which began this week. Without hesitation, Stan said no. None whatsoever. Not in the slightest. He'd rather watch grass grow.
Knowing that Stan loves baseball like I do, I can safely say that he doesn't know what he's missing.
Earlier today, the Netherlands beat the Dominican Republic 3-2, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Think about that for a moment. The entire Big League experience on the Netherlands roster can be condensed into two words: Rick VandenHurk. The big right-hander threw 14 innings for Seattle last season, allowing 12 runs, 20 hits and 10 walks. That's it. And this team beat the mighty Dominicans, a team of Major League all-stars, including David Ortiz, Hanley Ramirez, Jose Reyes and Miguel Tejada. When the game ended, the winners celebrated on the mound as though they'd just won the World Series. The losers were stunned. And that was just the opening game of the WBC for both teams.
Next up was the U.S. against Canada. Nearly 50,000 fans, in the middle of hockey season, filled the Rogers Centre in Toronto. The Canadians have some great hitters, including Justin Morneau, Jason Bey, Russell Martin and Joey Votto. But their two top pitchers, Rich Harden and Ryan Dempster, are out with injuries. In fact, they have just two starting pitchers with Big League experience: Scott Richmond, with 27 innings last season for the Blue Jays; and Mike Johnson, who has a career ERA of 6.85 in 218 innings, mostly with the Expos. That's right, the Expos. He hasn't pitched in the majors in seven years, and spent the last two in the independent Atlantic and Northern Leagues.
And yet, Johnson had his moments of glory against the U.S. today, and the Americans barely won, 6-5, when Jason Bey flied out with the tying runner at second in the 9th. Votto had doubled with one out, not only bringing the fans to their feet in a collective roar, but the scene in the Canadians dugout far more resembled the excitement of a World Series game than a spring training affair. The players were going nuts. As I watched the drama unfold, with the electric atmosphere in both the stands, and on the field, I had to pinch myself with the realization that this was baseball in early March. Awesome.
And yet, Johnson had his moments of glory against the U.S. today, and the Americans barely won, 6-5, when Jason Bey flied out with the tying runner at second in the 9th. Votto had doubled with one out, not only bringing the fans to their feet in a collective roar, but the scene in the Canadians dugout far more resembled the excitement of a World Series game than a spring training affair. The players were going nuts. As I watched the drama unfold, with the electric atmosphere in both the stands, and on the field, I had to pinch myself with the realization that this was baseball in early March. Awesome.
As one who went to see the semifinals and the final, at the inaugural WBC in San Diego three years ago, I can honestly say that if you're a baseball fan, and haven't given the WBC a chance, you're really missing something. Three years ago, I was totally caught up in the excitement of walking the Gaslamp District in downtown San Diego, surrounded by baseball-crazy fans from the Dominican Republic, South Korea and Japan, along with Americans of Cuban descent. They had all gathered in southern California to watch those four nations battle for the first WBC title, which Japan finally won, led by a brilliant right-hander we would all come to recognize shortly thereafter--Daisuke Matsuzaka.
Meanwhile, back to 2009: The mighty Dominicans are one loss away from elimination. The top two teams from each of the four four-nation groups advance to the quarterfinals, in San Diego and Miami, with the semifinals and final at Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. The fact that both the D.R. and the U.S. failed to reach the semifinals three years ago was an embarrassment to the players on both rosters, and serves as a major motivating factor for them this year. But it won't be easy. The Dominicans already discovered that, today. The Americans, barely victorious, did as well.
I'll be watching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)