Some Fucking Amazing Shit

From the Reds MLB site, Ryan Freel on how he would pitch if he ever did the 9 positions in
one game thing:

"I would definitely throw the first one behind the guy's head," Freel
said. "Just to make him think, 'I don't know what the heck is going on.' Then
I'd provably groove in a strike and hopefully he doesn't hit a home run. Then
I'd probably throw the next one over his head again and play around with him."

And if the batter takes issue and charges the mound?

"I'm hoping Dunn can come in from left field real quick," Freel
said. "Actually, I'll just run out to left field. The guy won't catch me, I'll
tell you that."

That sounds like the strategy that Wily Mo Adams used for streetball when we were 12. Except I was way faster.

Huzzah!

Looks like we won't have to change the blog title for at least two more years: Freelio's contract was extended until 2009.

Hot damn!

Ah Ha! Got You, Peter Jerk!

That's my new name for Peter King when he talks about baseball: Peter Jerk.
It's got a certain ring to it.

Here's what Mr. Jerk said in Monday Morning QB ("QB" referring to the position in game of American football, a game that is not baseball):

Mike Scioscia's a great manager [the Angels are 6-6]. Charlie Manuel's not. The Phillies [3-8] look like they never went to spring training.

Here are multiple reasons why this is a dumb thing to say:

(Preface) First of all, I'm going on the premise that PJ is basing his wise observations solely on the records of the managers' respective teams. Am I missing something here? Did Scioscia reportedly do something really inspiring or noble in the past week?....
And did Manuel kick Jimmy Rollins in the shins for only OPSing 1.177 in the first couple weeks? BP has no quotes from either in their weekly roundup, so I guess not.


1) Managers have little to no control over wins/losses. It's been estimated that the most influentialest managers affect the outcome of only 10-12 games per year*. That's less than one every 15 games or so. No team has played more than 13 games as of today.

Beep beep boop bop beep bop bup. I just put the numbers in my calculator and it told me that Mike Scioscia and Charlie Manuel have probably only influenced the outcome of 0.815 games so far this year (and that's rounding up). This means that they are not solely responsible for the performance of their teams.


2) But even if they were, the Angels are technically underperforming (keeping in mind #4 below). They're only at 6-6 and they were predicted by most to be in the World Series! How does that make Mike Scioscia a great manager?


3) I'm still confused; robot helping aside, how is Mike Scioscia a great manager?


4) Small sample-size, dickhead. And this is something that writers of ANY and EVERY sport should be aware of (and violate constantly even so), so several extra "you are suck"s heading your way, PJ. It's been two weeks; The Yankees are in 4th and the Reds are atop the NL Central. These things might change.


There, now you've had it, Peter King! Surely you have learned your lesson and will never try to write about baseball again. Surely!


*UPDATE:

References:

-"a team that has a good versus an average manager is likely to win several more games over a season, all else equal"

Singell, L.D. 1993. Managers, Specific Human Capital, and Firm Productivity in Major League Baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal 21(3): 47-59

-plus, a whole bunch of stuff in the article "Is Joe Torre a Hall of Fame Manager?" from the book from the Baseball Prospectus guys: Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know about the Game is Wrong [check out a preview on Google books].

Debunking Some Reds Myths

Wooeee! Look at this fun little feature! What a clever prompt I've created for myself! Here we go!

So, anyways, I feel compelled to bring some clarity to both the local and national consciousness about the Reds and certain players. And since I'm not a scout nor a beat writer nor a really rich old guy who lives near Sarasota or Cincinnati, I gotta do this based solely on statistics. Bear with me.


MYTH 1: Alex Gonzales Gots Glove

This isn't a myth so much as a lame excuse for me to bring up the disparity between what EVERYONE says about A-Gon's defense and what the statistics say. I can't say I've ever seen the guy play defense, but word is he's ultra-smooth, and he's been given rave reviews by pitchers, managers, and beat writers alike (although the only statistic they ever point out is that he only made 7 errors last year, woopdeefreakingdoo).

So it was kind of disconcerting when I looked up his BP card and found out that he rates below average in pretty much all defense metrics they use (keeping in mind that even sabermetricians aren't really pleased with the ability of any currently available defense metric available at the moment):

FRAA(Fielding Runs Above Average): <0 in all but 2 of his 9 full seasons, which is at least better than Felipe Lopez (negatives in every season), but certainly no Juan "manos de oro" Castro (negatives in only 2 of his 11 seasons). I wish I knew what this meant.

That said, I'm pretty sure there's something there that the stats are picking up. I posted an abbreviated version of my theories on C. Trent's blog a couple weeks ago and he responded as such:

after watching lopez, aurillia and clayton for the last couple of years, he
looks like ozzie freakin' smith. i think the guy is really, really good

i've read as much as i can about sabermetric ways to measure defense -- picked up john dewan's fielding bible -- and as impressive as the research and the conclussions are, i still look at defense as a know it when you see it kinda thing

In spite of and because of C. Trent's dorkiness, I believe him. Plus, there was that one time I saw Gonzales turn a slick-ass double play. You should have seen it. Can't put a number on that shit. Yeah! Stats are for fats!

No seriously, though, in this case I do actually think the stats blow.



MYTH 2: There are more myths

It's true, there aren't. I just wanted to bring up the Gonzales thing. It wigs me out. Suck it.

The Only Prediction That Counts. Because It Comes With Boobs.

Foxxy Sports' Monica Leigh gives the real lowdown on the NL Central. She thinks the Cardinals blow, too. And she stakes the Reds' chances on Junior's health. Also, the Pirates have "loads of hung...young hungry players." BUT the biggest news is that she picks the Cubs to "maybe even win! The World Series for the first time in 98 years."

Oh my God, just watch it. It's amazing. You'll see.

You know, the worst part about this is that the level of research that was put into making those predictions and displaying them on posterboard that was placed just to the right and below the camera was not that much less than that put in by some actual sports networks.

Also, my favorite anchor: Gretta Van Substance

Move Over, Complaining-About-East-Coast-Bias; Making-Fun-of-the-Cardinals-Woes is the New Kid in Town

I'll take on some bad karma here and rejoice just a little that Chris Carpenter's right elbow is inflamed. Not that I would ever wish injury on anyone.

John Heyman Hates Me

Here I am getting my hopes up because the Reds are universally predicted to be terrible- thus paving the way to become a true "surprise" team- and lo and behold, SI's John Heyman picks them both as a possible "surprise" team and as the division winner.


Fucking great. There goes the season. Thanks, Heyman.



Ass.


Also, OPENING DAY IS 22 MINUTES AWAY AND I'M GOING TO WET MY PANTS!!!!

Fucking Bold Predictions

Thank Jesus, Opening Day is tomorrow.

(what but no the metscards blah blah blah suck all of the balls that I have )

And so it's high time I get on the prediction bandwagon. Here we go:

Overrated Team of the Year: Diamondbacks

I've read about 43 articles about how the Diamondbacks are the surprise team of the year- I guess because they have about 20 hotshot rookies and a rotation full of washed-up aces and Brandon Webb. So whatever, they might be good.

BUT, the things is, one lesson I've learned from reading this prediction shit for at least a decade now: the team picked to be the surprise team NEVER EVER EVER actually ends up doing that well.

For example: The Brewers have been the surprise team for the past 5 years. Also, the Reds were a "surprise" team pick in 2003 (69-93).

I can't think of any others off the top of my head, but I swear that this is pretty much a law carved in stone. Its converse is also true: the actual "surprise" teams are UNIVERSALLY PREDICTED TO BE SHITTY. For example: the Tigers and Marlins last year, the Indians and White Sox in 2005, the Royals of 2003, the Reds of 1999, etc. Given that,

Surprise Team of the Year: Nationals

In contrast to the D-Bags, the Nats have been labelled by most journalistic outlets as the worst team in the history of baseball, and I'm not entirely sure that's fair. They do at least have a solid young core in Zimmerman, Kearns, Lopez, and Patterson. PLUS, they can count on adding Dunn, Harang, and Griffey midseason in a trade for Jim Bowden's loud fart.

The Suck Team: Cardinals

I really want to think I'm not getting my hopes up, but good lord, the Cardinals have the potential to be utterly awful this year. I already wrote about how converting Braden Looper is a loud Jim Bowden fart waiting to happen. Also, with Edmonds falling apart from years of being an asshole to the Reds, the only bats they have are Pujols and Rolen. Aside from that, they have a slew of preschoolers filling out the rest of their lineup and the worst hitting catcher in the world in Yadier Molina (last out of every single other player last year in VORP). AND their only good starter just got lit up for 5 runs in 6 innings tonight. The suck team.

How the Reds Will Do: Dunno

This is getting stupid. Here's what we have going for us: the Reds are UNIVERSALLY PICKED TO DO SHITTY.

On the other hand; Eric Milton.

Josh Hamilton Prediction:

.254/.332/.900, 10 hr, 51 rbi, 35 shutouts

The Ultimate Insult

Forget the predicted last place finish in the NL Central. Forget the 27th overall ranking.

The real slight here is assigning none other than Jack-of-All-Sports, Thoughts, and Ideas Peter King to write the Reds preview for SI's MLB Preview feature. On an only slightly less insulting note, the entire article is about how the success of former BOSTON RED SOX guy Bronson "Used to Be a Red Sock" Arroyo of the Not-Boston-Red-Sox-Anymores will determine the Reds' fate this season.

Surprisingly, despite the enormous potential for making me angry, it's not a bad article (except if you want to nit-pick at the misspelling of Cincinnati ("Cincinatti") in Theo Epstein's quote (although it's possible that that is not a misquote at all, but that Theo actually verbalized "Cincinatti" and that Peter King (who frequently writes about the Bengals, and so must actually know the correct spelling) is actually poking fun at the silly child-GM) but probably 70% of those living in Cinci spell it that way too. So fuck it).

And I do kind of agree that the Reds are very likely effed if Arroyo doesn't perform close to how he did last year (or someone else- douse me with water, but I still have faith that Eric Milton might revert to 99-01 form; also there's Bailey and of course Kirk Saarloosoos(!!)).

Also, props for the interesting tidbit about the Reds ranking 9th last season in runs scored despite being 2nd in the NL in both homeruns and walks. Although I disagree with the explanation that it was due to low team BA. Au contraire, it was lack of heart. Don't dispute it.

You win this time, Peter King. But someday you're going to write something brainless about baseball again...probably next week, in fact. Then I'll get you. Grrrr.

Sometimes What You Are Looking for is the Rule that is Right Under Your Exception to the Nose; Also Peter King's Opinions About Not Football Must Stop

I don't know what that means. But what I was conveying clearly, I think, was that I found a reliever-turned starter who has had success after being mercilessly converted with little prior experience.

His name is Dustin Hermanson and he is apparently the front runner to assume the closer role for the Reds. He qualifies in that he had never even started in the minors (dating back to 1994) before the Montreal Expos converted him in 1997 to a pretty darn successful starter (successful for the first two years, at least).

Dustin Hermanson (switched to full-time starter age 24 in 1997)
-before: 7.35 ERA, 1.74 WHIP (in 32 games)
-after: 4.10 ERA, 1.35 WHIP (in over 300 games)

So clearly there's a pretty small sample size with the before #'s, but I think it works. However, I am going to go ahead with some irresponsible analysis and pick out from among the myriad of variables that no doubt contributed to his success the fact that he was fairly young (24) when converted. Which may be why his arm/mentality/capacity for adaptation/magic-pitching-dust wasn't permanently compromised as seems the case for the other examples. Except I just looked it up and Kim was also 24 when he was converted, so, y'know, shit. At least Kim is arguably the second-most successful conversion.



And just because I'm tired of semi-serious analysis, I wanted to berate Peter King (as I find myself wanting to do every Monday morning for some reason- and I know I'm not alone) for continually forgetting that his lofty status as SI's #2 NFL guru does not give him license to pretend that he's intelligent- or that his readers give a flying fuck about what he thunks he thonk - about things that aren't football.

I've seen better examples of the above (especially when he tries to talk about baseball) in the past, but this week there are at least a few inane comments:

Just discovering the iPod, one of the great inventions of all time, and my one recent find was Norah Jones. What an incredible voice. Shows what a music dolt I am that I barely knew her.

One of the best discoveries of midlife: St. Patrick's Day. Never thought I'd love Guinness, but it's pretty close to the perfect beer.

Goddammit, Peter. Nobody gives a shit about how pop-musically out-of-the-loop you are. And saying Guinness is "pretty close to the perfect beer" is like beer-connoisseur and journalist Ephram Monarchyson declaring in his weekly column "Tidbits I Ponder that I Ponder" that Steve McNair is pretty close to the perfect quarterback. It's just plain ignorant.

And furthermore, in these two statements, Mr. In-Truth-Only-a-Pretty-Good-NFL-Writer feels qualified enough to declare that a) the iPod is "one of the great inventions of all time," b) Norah Jones has an "incredible voice," and, again, c) Guinness is "pretty close to the perfect beer."

Please, Master Peter- I am lost without your insight! - enlighten me with your knowledge of the best Tex-Mex restaurant (of all time) in Indianapolis!

Also- Really? Really?! The mp3 player is one of the great inventions of all time? Does it really rank up there with the, er, wheel? The printing press? The world-wide-web? Antibiotics? Steel? The microcircuit? The aeroplane? The internal combustion engine? The bow-and-fucking-arrow? Gunpowder? Duct tape? A Google search of "great inventions of all time" gave me chicken broth, how about that? Light bulb? Steam engine? Kirk Saaarlooos's arm? Cotton gin? The number "0"? Gary Majewski's hairstyle? Ryan Freel? Here's another gem from Google: the potluck dinner party? More Google results: Bic pens, "my new Bissell steam vacuum," plywood, spreadable butter, or dental floss? Any of those as great as the mp3 player? I do hope he writes about those next week.

I should stop. I have a sarcasm clog in my toilet, and that shit is thick.

Is There a Connection Between the Health of Your Mouth and the Health of Your Body?

There may be. Something something something about toothepaste.


Do you think the person who wrote this commercial has a brain? That person may not.

I Got It! (more on relievers-turned-starters)

Byung-Hyun Kim. Motherfucker is third in the line of evidence suggesting Braden Looper's arm is going to explode this year.

First, though, thanks to Midre and our other reader, Daniel, for suggesting other examples of relievers-turned-starters. However, I think the thing that distinguishes Graves, Riedling, and Looper from the likes of Gossage, Leiter, Pedro, Ryan, and even Derek Lowe is that the former three were used exclusively as relievers for at least three years in the majors prior to being converted to full time starters (Graves had only made 3 starts in the minors, Riedling pitched terribly in 74 minor league startes, and Looper last started 9 years ago at A level). All of the latter dudes started lots in the minors or majors before relieving in the majors for a short time.

After racking my brain for awhile, the only other pitcher I could come up with that fits this criteria is Byung-Hyun Kim, who had only one start in the majors and 5 in the minors before converting to starter in 2003. He happens to show the same trend as Graves and Riedling:

before: 3.21 ERA, 1.18 WHIP
after: 4.62 ERA, 1.42 WHIP, on the trade block with the Rockies

I'm sure there's an exception somewhere. I just hope it doesn't end up being Looper.

It's Not in the *CARDS* This Year!!!!! HA HA HA!!!

See, I can be a sports-column titler too!

Anyways, I know I'll probably eat these words later, but one of the most exciting things about the upcoming baseball season for a Reds fan has to be how much the Cardinals are going to blow this year.

The latest reports have Edmonds and Encarnacion starting the season on the DL, which honestly makes me want to skip gaily through a field of flowers and butterflies.

But I first started feeling that me and Cardinals' suckiness might have a romantic spark when I read this article by the Enquirer's Kevin Kelly a couple weeks ago that discusses the Cards' grand plans to turn Braden Looper into a starter. I'm not sure why Kelly was writing about the Cardinals, per se, but I like to think that he was snickering at their hopelessness while doing so.



So here's the situation:
...okay, wait, lemme check....yep, that actually did happen....The World Series Champs have lost 3/5ths of their starting rotation in the offseason (Weaver, Suppan, and Marquis) not to mention they won't have Mark Mulder back until midseason at the earliest...all the while acquiring zero other pitchers of note (the most classic of wash-ups Kip Wells as well as Ryan Franklin) and talking about turning both Looper and fellow reliever Adam Wainwright into starters.
O Glorious day!

Here's what Yadier Molina had to say about the Cards' pretty bad pitching staff:

"We've got a pretty good pitching staff," Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina said. "It's just getting them to feel comfortable. You just try to communicate with them, see what they like and what they don't like, what they like to throw in certain counts and what they don't like to throw.

"Communication is going to be an important part of this process."

Yes, Yadier, if by "communication" you actually mean "acquiring reliable starting pitchers."

But the best part is the whole Looper thing (gosh, it's making me tingle!), because it makes me think fondly of how the Reds are no longer sweating-ass making desperate moves to fill in their Bowden-neglected rotation with the likes of formerly good relievers like Danny Graves and John Riedling.

I welcome your terrible ideas with all of my heart, LaRussa. Here are the stats for Graves and Riedling before and after they were made sacrificial lambs for Bowden's inability to develop/acquire/give a shit about starting pitching:

Graves (switched at age 29, never more than 110 innings pitched)
-before: 3.32 ERA, 1.32 WHIP
-after: 5.10 ERA, 1.47 WHIP, out of league

Riedling (switched at 27, never more than 47 innings pitched)
-before: 2.54 ERA, 1.25 WHIP
-after: 4.99 ERA, 1.59 WHIP, out of league

Looper, btw, is older (31) and worse (career 3.57 ERA with a 1.37 WHIP) than Graves and Riedling were at the time and has never pitched more than 86 innings in a season. And, for historical context, Derek Lowe (whose anomalistic success as a reliever-turned-starter in 2002 (at age 29) sparked the trend) had 31 major league starts under his belt before that and had pitched over 109 innings in back-to-back years.

Not that I'm complaining. Please, LaRussa, ignore the evidence and kill your best relievers. Don't mind us! We'll just go ahead and find a way to lose out to the Cubs instead.

So thank the Lord, it seems as though the tables may actually be turning- Say what you will about Krazy Krivsky, but the fact is that for the first time in, Jesus, I dunno, 98 years, the Reds have more than 3-4 pitchers capable of starting with some success in the big leagues...and the Cardinals have only 2 (Carpenter + .5Kip Wells (still exists???)+.5Anthony Reyes)! And that makes me giddy.

Someday maybe I'll write about a team I don't hate.

Happy Birthday Ryan Freel!

(Thanks to our loyal and only reader midre cummings for the tip: http://static.flickr.com/58/175997054_aadb6acaa5_o.jpg)

This one's for you, buddy. And congrats on being named "Hooters Hungry Hitter of the Day" way over there in Sarasota. Seems like a legit honor. Looking forward to some more Pujol's robbing psycho dives("Freel's Diving Catch," pause at 36 seconds, marvel at extension) this season. God, you're awesome.

Also, maybe you should give us the keys.

We Must Encourage This Good Behavior

Good Starky Warky! Who's your buddy?! Is he Fluffy McAdamsers?! Whooza good BOY?! Whooza?! Izz it YOOOOO?!??!?

Yes, it is you, ESPN, because gosh darn it all if you didn't publish TWO Reds-centric articles in one single day! And they weren't stupid or uninformed, either!

First, we have Jayson Stark maybe halfway acknowledging ESPN's eastcoast bias (maybe more under the guise of "big market bias") by HOLYCOWingly introducing the nation to last year's NL batting champ (freaky Freddy Sanchez of the Midwest Whatevers) and wins/strikeout champ (Aaron Harang, whatwhat!!). So I'm happy about that, except, geez, I mean, it is March. Apparently even Mr. Useless Info found a way to overlook these guys for the 5 months that have passed since the regular season ended.

Second, Salisbury Sean McAdam (if C. Trent can make up 49 nicknames/post, so can I) writes some nice things about the Reds closer situat...but Jesus Christ, oh my god, I'm just re-reading this right now and realizing that fuck-of-all-things he HAS to compare the Reds possible "closer-by-committee" approach to that used by....THE RED SOX apparently in 2003.

Goddammit, Salisbury, it doesn't count as a non-eastcoasty article if the entire first paragraph is exclusively about the fucking Red "Scrotum" Sox.

Oh, NOW I see, the ONLY reason he writes about the Reds is because Jerry "Jrr Nrr" Narron used to be a Scrotum Sock:

Narron, in fact, understands better than most. He was the Red Sox bench
coach in 2003, when "closer-by-committee" famously sputtered and became a daily talking point among the anxious fan base.

Famously sputtered?! FAMOUSLY SPUTTERED?! Famous to WHOM, pray tell?! Who the fuck outside of -or, shit- even inside Boston remembers this, much less is going to be lumbering around their space-age nursing home in 50 years reminiscing about the dramatic heart-string-pulling, angst generating, in-pants-urinating 2003 Boston Red Sox closer-by-committee saga?!?!?

Damn you, McAdam, I was almost ready to forgive you for flagrabiasingly declaring Boston's bullpen as the Cold-Plate Special, but wow, I guess the futility of Boston's bullpen is a huge sticking point for you, isn't it? You dick.

I swear I wasn't planning to bitch when I started writing this and the truth is that it's a decent article besides the obvious urge to make the Red Sox the focus, so I'll try to be constructive. See, there's a MUCH better and WAY MORE relevant comparison McAdam could make. Especially since, when you think about it, there is absolutely no reason to use the Red Sox (except the Narron driving through Boston excuse) because how many other teams have used the closer-by-committee approach at some point in the past 4 years?!

Here's an example of a team that did it successfully, and is relevant because it's the same team the article is ostensibly about in the first place: the 1999 Cincinnati Reds

Danny Graves: 3.08 ERA, 27 saves
Scott Williamson: 2.41 ERA, 12 saves
Scott Sullivan: 3.o1 ERA, 3 saves
Stan Belinda, Gabe White, Dennys Reyes: 2 saves each

And, y'know what, I think Scotty Williamson even pitched for Boston a year and a half as did Stan Belinda, way back during Boston's Great Bullpen of Death of 1995-96(McAdam, 2007). So there's your flimsy tie-in.



References Cited

McAdam, Sean. "BOSTON BOSTON BOSTON BULLPEN BULLPEN DID YOU KNOW BOSTON HAD A BULLPEN SOMETIMES IT IS GOOD SOMETIMES IT IS BAD I LOVE BOSTONBOSTON REDSOX." Daddy's Scratchy Face Inc. Bristol, Connecticut 2007. 17,399 pages.

C. Trent Done Smacks This NY Daily News Bitch Down, Fo' Real

Here we go with some serious metablogging: blogging about bloggers attacking other bloggers.

I just threw up.

But so you gotta love Rosecrans ("ugh"): singlehandedly infiltrating the New York Daily News blogosphere to bitch-slap some idiot trying to make a big story out of utility outfielder (op ed: and hopefully LONGSHOT to make the 25-man- sorry, C.T.'s article makes me want to root for him, but the fact is that he's been really really woeful at the plate his entire career) Bubba Crosby's innocuous comments about his tenure with the Nixon administration.

Here's how it went down:

C. Trent: "I will write an article about Bubba Crosby."

Bubba: "I'm kinda excited to be here 'cause utility outfielders get way more playing time in the NL. I say this because it is a fact well known by anyone who pays attention to major league baseball in any way, much less someone who writes about it professionally."

This schmo who writes about baseball professionally [real quote this time]: "Bubba Crosby ripped the Yankees for not giving him the opportunity to show his stuff."

C. Trent, commenting on the schmo's own blog: "Yo momma showed me HER stuff, dig?!"*

Moral of the story: C. Trent is the man we want at the front lines. Right next to the Majewster.

P.S. For all other Bubba Crosby news, you know where to get it.

*a loose translation of the following [real quote from comment section of NYDN blog]:

"in no way did bubba 'rip' torre and the yankees. he just
said it was different. he was saying in the national league a fifth outfielder
-- especially one on jerry narron's squad -- is going to get a lot more at-bats
than a fifth outfielder on an american league team.this was unused, but better
sums up the tone of the interview

"It was an honor that Joe had enough faith and trust in me
to throw me out there. In 05 I started three of the five games of the
postseason. But if an offensive situation came up and it was me or Bernie
Williams, Bernie was going to hit. I understood that role."

i didn't even see it as being an anti-yankee rant, which
some people are taking it as here. bubba said he knew his place in new york and
he enjoyed his time there and his time as a yankee, but thought his skills were
better suited to the national league"**

**an even looser multi-translation of the following (thank you Babel Fish)

"As for momma of Yo in me her raw materials, excavation? It showed!"

A Decidedly Non-Heymanesque Spring Storyline

C. Trent: Hamilton overload

I know I'm jumping the gun on this, what with no article having been published yet, but C. Trent and John Fay have done well in hyping up this whole Josh Hamilton story to the point at which I might have to give up my 24/7 surviellance of Curt Schilling aimed at discovering what....may be about(?) him (see below) to see what all the fuss is about.

As Much as I've Enjoyed the Intermajewskission...

...it's time to get back to making fun of crappy and biased and uncreative sports writing.

The following is a list of the cities and subjects of each of Jon Heyman’s Spring Training Storylines.

lead-in: Boston, sexy new pitcher man

1. New York, Arod blah blah
2. Chicago, $$$$$$$
3. New York, Mariano Rivera, extension?!
4. Chicago, Carlos Zambrano, " " " ?!?!!
5. Boston, literally, "What about Curt Schilling?" What th...? Wha...? Jesus.
6. Boston, New York, Houston, Clemens dicking them around
7. New York, I kid you not, "Will George Steinbrenner...say something funny?" I mean, I guess Heyman's trying to be funny. I'll just put this out there, though: attempted humor and non-bias are not mutually exclusive.
8. San Fran, Bonds, will he behave?
9. Texas, Sosa's comeback
10. Boston, brace yourselves: "Can Manny Ramirez find happiness in Boston?" NO! JESUS F-ING BASTARD NO!!! WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS! HE'S A DAMN CHILD! WHERE'S THE FUCKING STORY THERE?
11. Trade targets, featuring Todd Helton (COULD HE GO TO BOSTON!?!?!), and, inexplicably, Carl Pavano (honestly, does ANYONE give a shit- much less have a reason to give a shit- about Carl "Shittingly Nondescript" Pavano anymore?)

I'm pretty sure this speaks for itself. In addition to the obvious bias, though, I just noticed that Heyman sure seems to be stuck in 2001, what with the preponderance of old, old news (Arod not fitting in, Sosa existing, Clemens jerking everyone around, Manny being a petultan toddler, etc.) and old, old players (ditto). Oh, hey, also Heyman is neglectful of his personal dental hygiene, the jerk!

C. Trent's Majewski update

Cincinnati Reds: Majewski update#comments

I mean, maybe he'd be ready to pitch if he spent less time engaged in epic sword fights like a badass in the offseason. Just a suggestion.

I Love Gary Majewksi...

...but only because it takes some seriously weighty balls to sport the medieval movie character look.