The estimable Leonard Koppett has an interesting article on the inherent inaccuracy of pitch counts. He rightly argues that lumping pitches that are called strikes, pitches that are fouled off, and pitches that are struck for either an out or a hit under one umbrella called strike misrepresents the calliber of the pitcher's performance.

On my scorecard I record each pitch. I have a separate section under the batter's diamond for all the pitches thrown against that batter. I have symbols for a ball (B), a strike swinging (K), a called strike (backwards K), a foul fly (F), a pitched fouled back (backwards F), a foul tip (T), a check swing (check), a ball bunted foul (f), a pitch out (O), a hit batsman (H), an intentional ball (I), a wild pitch (W), and a ball put in play (P). I record all of these events on the sheet and then when I taly them for the inning, I just record balls and strikes. I think I'll take Koppett's advice and break strikes down into balls in play and ones not struck.

Everybody try it: it's what the cool sabermatricians are doing.

Our old friend Christian Ruzich investigates the history of the Cubs' woes in June. I thought it ended with the demise of day games at Wrigley but Christian proves otherwise.

Let's hope for Christian's sake the Cubbies can shake their blues in 2003.

I used to enjoy ESPN's The Sports Reporters. It was a Meet the Press for the sports world. They discussed the issues of the day in a humorous, but still journalistic vein. Host Dick Schaap was a dignified, well-spoken, diplomatic consensus builder resolving any issue among his guests with a droll aside. I looked forward to it every Sunday.

Little did I know that it would lead to sports journalism being ruled by sound-bite heads shouting each other down.

Schaap passed away, and with him the spirit of the show died. But that didn't stop ESPN from proliferating the show with The Sports Reporters II, Pardon the Interruption, and now the Jim Rome Is Burning (we don't need no water yudda yudda) show. Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon were frequent guests on the old Sports Reporters and had their fair share of gibes and well-played points, but they were always within the Schaap-inspired context of the show. As the hosts of PTI, Kornheiser and Wilbon "play" two angry sports fans shouting at each other with ill-conceived, ill-researched, and ill-mannered opinions, or more to the point rants (not that there's anything wrong with it). Bob Ryan, another frequent Sports Reporter guest was suspended recently by the Boston Globe for obnoxious comments he made about Jason Kidd's wife that must have sounded like a great sound-bite to his id at the time.

That is the root of the problem, this type of "reporting" is so contextually based that unbelievable comments may be uttered by somewhat intelligent people but they sound reasonable at the time. It's some ultra-cool sports journalism Fight Club that is understood on a visceral level but nobody talks about (since that's the first rule of Fight Club after all).

Along the same lines, a guilty pleasure appeared on Comedy Central a few years ago that poked fun at the politically correct world with two hosts who played dumb boors but were obviously smart, sophisticated individuals. Yes, they were offensive but they made fun of themselves and the medium they exploited. I'm talking about Frasier of course? No, sad to say, I mean The Man Show. I never watched it regularly but if I passed it by channel surfing, it was always good for a chuckle or two. When one of the hosts, Jimmy Kimmel, was given his own late-night show, I thought that he could shake up the genre the way Letterman did in the Eighties. Unfortunately, his show has been a crashing bore and will probably soon go the way of the deer-in-the-headlights-ness that was the Chevy Chase Show.

What do these two things have to do with each other you ask?

Enter one Bill Simmons, who is a columnist of sorts for ESPN2 (the Deuce, you say?). He is a sound-biter of the highest, or lowest, order as well as a writer on the ill-fated Kimmel Dead show.

Simmons recently wrote about Roger Clemens' failed attempt to secure his 300th win against his former teammates and Mr. (and I use the word loosely) Simmons' favorite team, the Red Sox. You see, Simmons still carries a grudge against Clemens for having the audacity to have left his beloved Sox in the first place. He wrote an article a few years ago explaining why Clemens is the antichrist. It's kind of a funny idea if done with the proper tone, but Simmons' ham-fisted screed against Clemens that totally ignored the facts regarding Clemens' career as well as his departure from Beantown was far from funny. It was a good sound bite though. He presented the rest of the sports world as some sort of idealized Rockwellian romp that was despoiled by the roué (Clemens), who deflowered the girl, er, franchise while continually twirling his evil moustache.

In the non-300-win article, Simmons calls Clemens a "traitor" who "sold out an entire city. He didn't care about us." Simmons relayed that when Clemens was hit on the hand during win 299, also against the Red Sox, he "was muttering under my breath, 'I hope it's broken in eight places.'" Look, I'm a Philadelphia fan, and I know mean-spirited fandom.

I have witnessed, but never participated in, my fellow fans cheering a severe injury to the Cowboy's Michael Irving, throwing batteries at J.D. Drew, and throwing snowballs at Santa Claus. And even I cannot understand wishing serious injury to an opposing player, especially one who for so long plied his trade for your team. When Robert Person entered the Clemens game as a Red Sox reliever, I gave him a hand, not that he could hear it (or heaven forefend, the Yankees fans in my section could), but he had played for my Phils and I just wanted to tip my cap to him.

So back to the mouth that roared: why did Simmons so hate Clemens that he would enjoy a serious injury to the Rocket? He gives us three reasons in his diatribe-"there are three smoking guns against Clemens which are indisputable". I will list them and review the basis in reality, if any, in each:

"1. After signing with Toronto -- and let there be no doubt, Clemens grabbed the highest offer -- he didn't spend more than five seconds thanking the Boston fans in the 'I'm fleeing for Canada even though I always said I would only play for Boston or Texas' press conference."

So? Ballplayers say a lot of things. "I'll never play for them" or "I only want to play for them" or "it's not about the money". Playing baseball is a job. It's always been a job and it will always be a job. If your heroes don't live up to your expectations by taking less money to stay with an organization that sees him as being in "the twilight of his career" when he still have at least three Cy Youngs in his arm, then maybe you should stick to fiction instead of reality.

Clemens was a free agent. Toronto offered him a lot of money. Dan Duquette was busy running the Red Sox into the ground. He didn't believe in Clemens. He wrote at the time:

"For a number of reasons -- such as his health and conditioning, poor run support and minimal support from the bullpen -- his record and performance had slipped in his last few years with the Red Sox."

Tom Verducci has a great response to this:

The numbers clearly do not suggest that Clemens let himself go physically. In fact, he averaged a whopping 125 pitches per start in '96, a career high. And if somehow you did think Clemens wasn't in proper condition while posting the second-best strikeout rate of his career and throwing his career high in pitches per start, wouldn't you keep him to find out what he could do by "getting into shape?"

Clemens did have a few injuries toward the end of his career with Boston, but isn't that part of the game? Doesn't it happen to a number of athletes without the claim that they are "dogging it"?

For Clemens' part he explains the departure as so:

"It's no different than one corporation asking you to work for them, saying we want you, and the other corporation lets you go," Clemens said. "It's pretty easy. If [the Red Sox] had gotten anywhere close in the ballpark it would have been an easy decision [to stay]."

Bill, if CNN/SI offered you twice what you were making at ESPN, are you seriously going to tell us that you would stay with ESPN? If so, you are as dumb as you sound.

Look, sports are big business. He worked his tail off; he left. Now move on.

As shall I, to this "throwing the fans a bone issue." What bone? And to whom should he throw it? Simmons talks about Drew Bledsoe taking out full-page ads thanking the fans. Well, that's nice, but he still left and what does your "thank you" get you? Besides why thank a city and a team that had made it clear you were no longer wanted.

"2. The following spring, Mr. Ungrateful arrived in Toronto in the best shape of his career. Why? As he kept telling reporters, he wanted to prove to Boston management that they were wrong about him."

Maybe Clemens wanted to prove that he was not in the twilight of his career. He had a personal challenge and he did his best to overcome it.

David Eckstein is revered for considering his height, or lack thereof, as a personal challenge that he had to overcome. Sports figures especially the ones getting longer in the tooth are fighting the detritus that befalls their bodies on a daily basis. So Clemens had a place to focus that challenge, the Red Sox management. He got himself in great shape and owes the latter half of his career to that training regimen. Good for him.

J-Lo uses a past relationship that ended badly to impel her forward and she's Driven. Clemens does it and he's a wicked a-hole? He was no longer on your team. When he was, he pitched well. Move on.

"3. Frustrated by the losing in Toronto, Clemens orchestrates a shady trade to our archrivals -- the Yankees, a little like switching over from the Bloods to the Crips -- with help from an illegal 'You can ask for a trade if you're not happy after two years' clause in his contract."

First, "illegal"? If the contract were illegal, why didn't the Jays take it to court?

Second, he was 35 and coming of his best back-to-back years of his career. His team was treading water, and he wanted a championship. He had an opportunity to go to a sports dynasty. Why not explore that opportunity?

No one forced the Blue Jays to offer Clemens an out in his contract. They're big boys with big lawyers, who all knew what the implications were. They got three major-league players in the trade so don't bleed for the Blue Jays.

Besides, aren't you a Red Sox fan? What do you care if Clemens screws over Toronto? What does it have to do with you?

And don't talk about shady trades when Boston has been able to exploit its close ties to Bud Selig to pick a star player off of the baseball-owned Expos roster and retrieve a player who had signed a contract with a Japanese team. Let's discuss illegalities for a second...

To sum up, "he just doesn't give a crap. And that's the root of the problem here. That's why Roger Clemens is the only modern-day superstar who doesn't belong to a single city."

First, that's not true. Bonds played for Pittsburgh and the Giants. Maddux, the Cubs and Braves. Glavine, the Braves and Mets. Randy Johnson, four clubs. And your beloved Pedro Martinez started life as a Dodger, blossomed as an Expo, and then was wrested away from Montreal by a richer organization, your Sox. And by the way, Larry Bird coached the Pacers, not the Celtics. And you beloved Bobby Orr finished his career with the Blackhawks, you moron--sorry, it just slipped out.

And second, of course Clemens doesn't care about you. Is he supposed to be altruistic or is he supposed to play baseball? As Durocher said, "Nice guys finish last." You had a great pitcher for many years. That does not mean that he has to send you flowers the morning after or call you the next week. The fans are big boys. They can handle it.

By the way, Simmons says that:

There are many ways to figure out true Sox fans -- like when someone calls Bill Mueller "Mule-er" (it's pronounced like "Miller")

Are you really that mental? Mueller played seven seasons in San Fran and Chicago before you, who are afflicted with a Boston-strain of baseball myopia, discovered him.

This is really what it's all about, isn't it? I have defended my choice of Boston fans as the best on my "About Me" to Yankees fans on numerous occasions. I harken back to my days at Fenway when I lived in Boston in the late Eighties and Early Nineties. It was a time when older fans seemed to collect around the infield portion of the stands keeping score and discussing the pros and cons of certain strategies employed in the game. In the outfield bleachers, younger fans enjoyed a college-like atmosphere, tossing beach balls and acting obstreperously charming.

I finally realize that those days are gone. Maybe it was the strike. Maybe it was Dan Duquette. Maybe it was the end of the Yawkey regime. Maybe it was the deification of this "Curse of the Bambino" tripe.

Whatever the cause, I can no longer characterize the Red Sox fans as the most intelligent any longer. When the spirit of the fans is typified by troglodytic, self-involved, self-important horses asses like Simmons, I have to reassess my opinion. For the time being, I'll leave the space fallow while I mull it over. It's not as if it matters to anyone else, but it matters to me.

Apparently, George Steinbrenner and Derek Jeter are not only willing to bury the hatchet, they are happy to be paid to do so according to this NY Post article from my friend Mike. The Boss and the playboy will poke fun at this past ofseason's imbroglio with, what else, a VISA commercial. To paraphrase Gil Scott-Heron, the reconciliation will be televised.

It's too bad that the lightheartedness of this commercial belies what has been an acrimonious 6 months for the Bombers. Maybe this is Steinbrenner's first of many attempts at fence-mending, but it seems that as this ad ends one contoversy another mushrooms in its place. I get the feeling that if things don't go their way this season, the Boss is going to make some sweeping changes for 2004, and Joe Torre and his staff seem to head that list.

ESPN reports that the Red Sox and Diamondbacks have agreed in principle to swap Shea "Scotty Cooper II" Hillenbrand for Byung-Hyun "Derek Lowe II" Kim. Apparently, the D'Backs are ready to give up on underproducing Matt Williams. The Red Sox have a starting third baseman in Bill Mueller and can replace Hillenbrand easily at first with either Jeremy Giambi or Kevin Millar. They get a tail-end starter or possible closer.

The Yankees won the rubber match in their series with the Red Sox at Yankee Stadium in a rather odd fashion. After being led by Mike Musina for eight strong innings, the righty allowed two baserunners in the ninth and was replace by closer Mariano Rivera. Rivera proceeded to give up five hits and allow the Red Sox to tie the game in his one-inning performance but he earned the win because of an unusual couple of plays.

The score was tied, 5-5, there were two out, and there were men at first and second. The lead runner, Hillenbrand, was the go-ahead run. On the next play, Trot Nixon hit a ground ball that went through Todd Zeile at first and went toward the right-field line but was retrieved in time by Alfonso Soriano to get the sluggish Hillenbrand at home.

In the bottom of the ninth with one out, Hideki Matsui hit a long fly ball to left that was a sure double. Designated left fielder Manny Ramirez threw the ball toward teh third-base, visitors' dugout, which allowed Mastui to go to third. The Red Sox were lucky that the Yankees had installed a fence in front of both dugouts. If the ball had gone into the dugout, Matsui woukld have been awarded two bases, and the Yankees would have won right there.

As it was, the next two batters were walked intentionally to load the bases. Jorge Posada then drew a full count walk to force in the winning run. Baseball Tonight argued as to whether the third ball was a bad call or not, and I have to agree with Harold Reynolds that it was too far inside.

So there were a couple of key decsions made by Red Sox manager Grady Little that affected the outcome of the game that I's like to critique. First, I agree with the decision to keep Hillenbrand representing the go-ahead run at second base in the ballgame and not bring in a pinch-runner. One could argue that a speedier runner would have scored on the loose ball, but the Red Sox didn't have any speedy runners left. Damian Jackson had already been used in that inning and that left a collection of first base/corner outfield types plus the backup catcher. You're better off with Hillenbrand.

And as far as sending Hillenbrand home on that play, sometimes you have to say what the... heck. Soriano had to make a very good play, first to retrieve the ball and second to make a good throw. Even with Rivera on the ropes, there's no reason to play conservatively. If it takes a very good play to stop the runner from scoring then I would send him. It seems a high-percentage call to me.

Second, I disagree with the walk that loaded the bases full in the bottom of the ninth. This is an easy one to disagree with as it led to the bases-loaded walk and the winning run. However, with one out, I do not see much of an advantage in walking the bases loaded as opposed to walking the first batter and playing for the double play. In either case, a single, a deep fly ball, a wild pitch/passed ball, or a balk will score the run. However, the advantages in just walking one man are that the pitcher cannot walk in the winning run on the next batter. The disadvantage is that you lose the out at every base. Big deal! Also, the runner at third can hold up on a shallow ground ball hit to the drawn-in infield. You still have the same doubleplay possibility, however. I know that the load-the-bases strategy is set in stone, but I believe the obvious disadvantages outweigh the plusses. The advantage of a force out at home does not outweigh the possibility of walking in the winning run.

Mike Maroth lost his tenth decision of the year tonight for the moribund Tigers, 8-2 to Cleveland. That puts Maroth half way to becoming the first man in 23 seasons to reach the magical tally of 20 losses.

Maroth has a 5.56 ERA but if you consider that his 1.18 WHIP is the best in the Tigers' starting rotation, he should stay in their Detroit rotation for some time.

ESPN projects Maroth's season total at a 3-32 record. If he actually lost thirty ballgames, he would be the first pitcher since 1899 to do so.

The Braves first three hitters today, Rafael Furcal, Mark DeRosa and Gary Sheffield, led off the game with consecutive home runs. The pitcher, Jeff Austin, was grooved each pitch like a BP tosser. This is the second time in baseball history.that the first three batters for a team have all hit home runs The other time was by Marvell Wynne, Tony Gwynn, and John Kruk April 13, 1987 for the Padres.

The odd thing is that Mark DeRosa only has two home runs on the season and this is his first as the number 2 hitter this season. You say that he had only had 15 at-bats in the #2 spot oming into the season. That's true. However, consider in 84 at-bats in the two hole over the last four years, DeRosa only had one home run.

Wynne only hit two home runs for the entire season in 1987. So maybe it's not so odd after all.

Main Entry: 1gam·mon
Pronunciation: 'ga-m&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old North French gambon ham, from gambe leg -- more at GAM
Date: 15th century
1 chiefly British : HAM 2
2 chiefly British a : a side of bacon b : the lower end of a side of bacon

- Webster's online

Peter Gammons invented a word tonight on Baseball Tonight: exuberation. Look it up. It's a figment of his imagination, but then again a lot of things are.

Harold Reynolds seemed ready to laugh in Peter's gibbering face when he claimed that the Orioles should be content not to contend because they have a four-year plan. Gammons further blathered on about the amount of money that the O's had lost over the last three years and how they needed to cut salary. Reynolds rightly pointed out that everyone is in the same boat except the Yankees.

Reynolds and Bobby Valentine continued to spit out giddy asides of "But they have a four-year plan" for the rest of the program. Gammons seemed slightly annoyed and confused whenever it happened, but that seems to be his usual demeanor so it's difficult to say if the gibes registered.

One thing's for sure, he did not display any exuberation irregardless.

That was Jon Miller's hilarious call on the Ruben Rivera baserunning brain freeze from yesterday's Giants-D'Backs game, which I finally saw on Baseball Tonight tonight.

If you are not familiar with the play, I'll set the mood: Ruben Rivera pinch-ran for Andres Galarraga at first with one out in the ninth inning of a 2-2 ballgame. Galarraga himself had reached on an error by Arizona's shortstop, Tony Womack. Marquis Grissom was the next batter and he sent a high fly ball to right that David Dellucci misjudged for another error. Thinking the ball would be caught, Rivera was returning from beyond second base to first when the ball bounced. He headed back toward second, but took a Grete Waitz-like shortcut across the infield grass toward third instead. About three yards past second base, he realized his mistake (reportedly fans were gesticulating for him to return to second) and doubled back to second. And then he mysteriously tried to proceed to third. Cut-off man Junior Spivey at this point had relayed the ball to third. Even though he had plenty of time to get the chicken-with-his-head-cut-off baserunner, Spivey's throw went through Alex Cintron for the third error of the inning. Seeing the ball loose, the ever-creative Rivera headed home. Unfortunately, the ball caromed back onto the field and Womack threw him out by a good 10 feet.

Then Jose and Miguel Agilar ran into each other on a ground ball up the middle on the next play (That's a Bad News Bears reference, by the way). The Giants ended up winning the game, but Rivera had not looked that bad since he stole Derek Jeter's glove.

If you are curious as to why Rivera was not automatically out for running outside the baselines and cutting across the infield, the reason is that the rule says that he's only out if he's avoiding a tag. The only thing Rivera was avoiding was baserunning logic. Here's the rule:

7.08
Any runner is out when (a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from a direct line between bases to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball

No tag, no out.

So why isn't he out for passing second and then doubling back? You are allowed to touch 'em all as long as you retrace your steps on the way back:

7.02
In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order. If forced to return, he shall retouch all bases in reverse order, unless the ball is dead under any provision of Rule 5.09. In such cases, the runner may go directly to his original base.

If Rivera had not touched second on returning to first, the D'Backs could have appealed at second and he would have been out. The only way that Rivera's baserunning makes any sense is that he thought he had not re-touched first and, therefore, could bypass second altogether. It didn't look that way in the replay and besides it does not mean that he can cut accross the infield to get to third anyway.

This one, in my opinion, is a close rival to the botched infield fly play by the Expos also at Pac Bell earlier this year. That one gets the slight age as three Expos misunderstood the infield fly rule on the play as opposed to one bench player getting turned around on the bases. However, the number of mistakes and duration of the play, a good 20 seconds, do weigh in Rivera's favor (or disfavor).

Though my trip to the Bronx yesterday did not yield being witness to Roger Clemens' 300th win, it was nonetheless a fun visit to the ballpark.

The day began ominously with my drive on the New Jersey Turnpike in a driving rain. I met my friend Mike and we took off for the Stadium hoping that the game would not be canceled before we got there. On exiting the subway train we saw Yankee fans leaving in droves, or at least drovelets, and feared the worst. After a call to Mike's brother Murray confirmed that the game was still on, we decided to look around a grab a bite since the game was still delayed indefinitely.

This afforded us the opportunity to walk about the neighborhood that George Steinbrenner so often denigrates. I had never left the unfriendly confines of the area adjacent to the Stadium before. Given that my impression of the area was formed by the dense travel, elevated train tracks, and dilapidated, urban detritus surrounding the stadium, I was pleasantly surprised to find a thriving, attractive neighborhood in the two or three block trek we attempted in and around Lou Gehrig Plaza. So the next time George spouts off about the area, don't buy it.

The trip yielded a Babe Ruth T-shirt, but the restaurants were packed so we decided to ballpark and grab a dog or two there. We headed towards our seats in deep right field and stopped at a concession stand. Mike explained to me how Yankees Stadium has a graduated pricing scheme, that regular hot dogs behind homeplate cost as much as jumbo hot dogs in the outfield. Baseball's version of bread and circus, I guess.

Anyway, we munched our lunch down in our designated seats that were luckily high enough to protect us from the weather. It afforded us a nice view of the municipal park adjacent to the stadium, the George Washington Bridge between Jersey and Manhattan, the cluster of buildings where Hilltop Park used to sit, and the housing projects that stand were the Polo Grounds had been.

The rain started to let up as well, but the crowd was pretty thin. Another call to Mike's brother, informed us that they had secured better seating in the loge section that also happened to be better protected from the elements. We were lucky enough to remain in those seats for the rest of the game.

My friend Armando, I found out later, had made the trek down from Boston and was stuck up in the nosebleed section for the entire ballgame. I told him that was the difference between New Yorkers and Bostonites, much to his chagrin.

Anyway, we met up with Murray and Chris (who wrote the article on the 2002 Reinsdorf Award that I posted). Soon it was announced that the game would start at 2:45, an hour and forty minutes later than scheduled, but a happy announcement nonetheless. We spent the remaining time watching old Yankee footage and discussing baseball in general. Chris had a great story about his one-time encounter with then-Yankee Ed Whitson. And we speculated as to whether Joe Morgan's crew would be covering the game for ESPN, and if so, whether or not he would beat the bejesus out of my for continual roasting of him.

Finally, the game started and before the first pitch, there was a meeting at the mound. We saw Roger Clemens throw his club towards the dugout and receive a different one. Somehow we figured out that second-base ump Joe West had asked Clemens to remove the glove due to a 300-win logo. Clemens looked very strong in the first, expending 11 pitchers, eight of which were strikes. Unfortunately for Clemens, his opponent, Tim Wakefield, was having a great night with his knuckleball-I guess it is added by the damp weather.

The Yankees anemic offense was hitless through three and one-third, though they had collected three walks. Clemens struck out the side in the second but allowed the first of many runs on the day. Even though Manny Ramirez had the big hit in the inning, the strike out to Doug Mirabelli to end the inning, I thought, was the most telling at-bat. The weak-hitting Mirabelli, made Clemens throw 10 pitches (35 for the inning). After Clemens got ahead 1-2, Mirabelli fouled back four pitches and worked the count full before the final whiff. I said at the time that when Mirabelli is timing your fastball, it's not a good sign, and it wasn't.

Clemens gave up two more runs in the third and threw another 29 pitches. We all questioned the wisdom of intentionally walking Ramirez to load the bases (after a wild pitch put runners at second and third) with Clemens looking wild. That decision looked worse after Nixon walked and Walker scored the fourth Boston run, but given that only one other run scored, it almost felt like a lucky break.

The fourth was more of the same with Clemens relinquishing two more runs, one on a wild pitch (his second) and another couple of balls that looked like batting practice shots.

Meanwhile, Wakefield looked like he was playing catch with his kid. His easy motion-just a flick of the wrist that started seemingly behind the ear-made it appear that he could pitch all day.

This seemed to change as Ventura broke up the no-hitter and a couple of hits from the bottom of the order drove in three runs (after Mondesi struck out looking on three pitches). The score was now, 5-3, and Clemens seemed to have newfound resolve, striking out the side n the fifth.

The Yankees walked the bases full with one out in the fifth, but Mondesi grounded into a 6-4-3 doubleplay to end the inning, and in essence, the Yankees' night. Clemens came out and got two quick outs, including his ninth strikeout on the night and his fourth in five batters, but Doug Mirabelli stroked a single on a 1-2 pitch over Ventura's head and Clemens night was done two batters and two singles later.

The Yankees managed one more night on the night, a seeing-eye fly between three fielders by Soriano that led to the only other New York run. Both defenses looked poor, each committing two errors. The Yankees looked especially bad on almost every play, except for a nice catch by Matsui in center. We were joking that the Columbus express would be waiting for Rivera after the game (Mike invoked the name of classic flunky Bobby Meacham).

PA announcer Bob Sheppard had a particularly tough night. My friend Mike proved prescient when he joked that the Sox have two players named "Miller" and neither can spell it right during the announcement of the lineups. Bill Mueller (pronounced "Miller") and Kevin Millar (pronounced "Mill-R") gave Sheppard fits all night. First, he called Millar "Miller" in announcing the lineups and prior to his first AB. The second time he corrected himself, however. One time when Mueller came up, Sheppard called him "Mill-R", which was heartily enjoyed by all.

The crowd was particularly excited but for the most part in a good way, and we saw no fights break out (which is still somewhat disappointing at a Yankees-Red Sox game). There was only one incident in which a fan (apparently a Boston one according to the guy sitting next to me with binoculars) threw a foul ball back and it dribbled toward the mound while Clemens was stationed there. The Red Sox fans seemed to outnumber the Yankees faithful, perhaps because the New Yorkers expected the game to be canceled. The Boston fans had already made the trip-they were going nowhere.

In the men's room line after the ballgame, we heard cheers of "A-hole" and "1918" whenever a Boston fan appeared. But given that their Saux had just shellacked the Yanks, they didn't seem to care. The Yankees fans themselves seemed too jovial about in the first place. It's like some sort of dance that both parties have resolved themselves to be a part of. The Yankees don't mind because they have the confidence of champions and the Red Sox don't get too upset because they have the neuroses of an also-ran. As someone who has lived in both cities for a substantial period of time, I just sit back and enjoy it.

I didn't get Roger's 300th win, but I got a free clear plastic bag with a Yankees logo to hold my stuff (clear so that they can see what you are carrying) and at the beginning of the day, it didn't even look like I would get a ballgame, so why complain?

Last week's Joe Morgan chat review is finally done. Scroll down to see.

From MLB:

--- 2003 ALL-STAR ONLINE BALLOT - VOTE NOW

I'm still working on the Joe Morgan chat session for this week.

I was delayed today by a trip to Yankee stadium to see Roger Clemens (unsuccessfully) attempt to garner his 300th win with friends Mike, Murray, and Chris.

I should finish it tomorrow.

Did you ever notice that a Joe Morgan chat session is like a trip back in time to the baseball age of jive, when commentators could promulgate stands like wins are all that matter in evaluating pitchers, that ballplayers today are inferior to those in the commentator's day, that RBI is the true measuring stick for a batter, etc. In other words their homespun hokum was the commerce of the day and since no one ever checked any of it out, their word was sacrosanct. Joe's more retro than a J.R. Richard jersey.

Not only did the sabermetric revolution that took root in the Seventies with the founding of SABR and the first publication of Bill James' Baseball Abstracts (on his own dime yet) pass Joe completely by; Joe believes that the baseball world is centered around his mid-Seventies Big Red Machine Cincinnati club. He will be trying in the coming years to induct everyone from that club starting with Dave Concepcion down to Ed Armbrister into the Hall of Fame via his Vets' Committee. Yeah, they were a great team, but Morgan, Johnny Bench, Sparky Anderson, Tony Perez, and eventually Pete Rose should be enough to represent that team in the Hall.

But I digress-To repeat, Joe is stuck in the Seventies when pitchers were expected to finish the games they started, stadiums were all alike cookie cutters, and hitting 50 homers was as rare as a doubleheader is today. Listening to his broadcasts is like watching an episode of Welcome Back, Kotter on Nick at Nite: it's got that reassuring nostalgic feel of a simpler and gentler time but just does not stack up to the way you remember them to be. Aside from the nostalgic value, he leaves me as flat as an umpteenth listening to Play That Funky Music, White Boy.

Joe is so Seventies that his chat sessions make about as much sense as an episode of Happy Days with Ted McGinley. His responses are as trite and nonsensical as the catchphrases from the Seventies sitcoms. For example:

Ooo Ooo Ooo! (Arnold Horshack, Welcome Back, Kotter)

Heyyyyy! (The Fonz, Happy Days)

Hey HEY Hey! (Dewayne, What's Happening!!)

Dynomite! (J.J., Good Times

Nanoo Nanoo (Mork, Mork and Mindy)

Who?... What?... Where? (Vinny Barberino, Welcome Back, Kotter)

Sit on it! (Various, Happy Days)

Hello (Lenny & Squiggy, Laverne and Shirley

Kiss My Grits! (Flo, Alice)

Up your nose with a rubber hose! (Sweathogs et al, Welcome Back, Kotter)

De Plane (Tattoo, Fanstasy Island)

Zoinks! (Shaggy, Scoobey Doo, Where Are You?)

Handle It! Handle It! (Governor, Benson)

You get the point.

Actually, the Seventies nostalgia that has gripped the country the past five years or so could only appeal to someone who did not actually have to live through the Seventies. It is remembered for its awful disco music, but anyone who lived through the decade knows that its two greatest crimes were garish baseball uniforms and Sid and Marty Krofft. The Seventies featured some of the ugliest uniforms ever conceived. Here are my top-10 most garish in no particular order:

1. The Indians' all-crimson pullovers (introduced 1975).

2. The Astros' rainbow orange (1975)

3. Phils' all-burgundy (1979-they were so ugly the players revised to wear them more than once)

4. Pirates' all-yellow with pillbox hat (1977)

5. Orioles' all-orange (1971)

6. Braves' powder blue with fake cartoon feather on sleeves (1973)

7. Reds form-fitting home pullovers (1972-Pete Rose in lycra, eek!)

8. White Sox shorts and old-timer uniforms (1978 and '76 respectively)

9. Excrement-colored Padres home uniforms (1973)

10. A's all-yellow sleeveless with green undershirt (1970-the one that started it all)

As far as Sid and Marty Krofft, they were purveyors of hallucinogenic children's television programs throughout the Seventies. My top-10 "What the..?" Krofft TV show list:

10. Lidsville-a show about a kid lost in a world of hats. Too derivative: H.R. Pufnstuf with hats and Charles Nelson Reilly.

9. Dr. Shrinker-A mad scientist shrinks a bunch of kids.

8. Far Out Space Nuts-Gilligan's Island in outer space with Bob Denver and some fat guy riffing the Skipper.

7. Sigmund and the Sea Monsters-Bily Barty crammed into a green garbage bag with Jody from "Family Affair" as his companion and local would-be songster.

6. The Bugaloos-The Monkees with a PC bend. Oh, and they are bugs for some reason, and Martha Raye plays someone named Benita Bizarre, who wants to do something nefarious and/or kooky to the band.

5. Big Foot and Wild Boy-A feral child and his avuncular Sasquatch, which made his cameo on "The Six Million Dollar Man" seem heavy-handed.

4. The Brady Bunch Variety Hour-Exactly as monumentally great and earth-shatteringly horrific as the title indicates.

3. The Bay City Rollers Show-Billy Barty was some evil German guy with a monocle chasing a no-hit wonder band.

3A. The Lost Saucer-Jim Nabors and Ruth Buzzi play space robots that abduct two earth children in a good way. Wackiness ensues.

3B. The Krofft Supershow-extra doses of pain.

2. The Land of the Lost-"Marshall, Will, and Holly on a routine expedition, met the greatest earthquake ever known. High on a rapids they lost that tiny raft and plunged them down a thousand feet below. To the land of the lost (lost lost lost)." Cha-Ka. Sleestacks. Uncle Jack replaces Marshall in another earthquake (huh?).

1. H.R. Pufnstuf-The granddaddy of all mind f's. The Citizen Kane of hallucinations. Drugs had to be used constantly and in great abundance on the set. From the trippy song that somehow explains the plot to the English kid with the magic, talking flute (that looks like Ken Burns-the kid, not the flute) to Witchy-poo to the froggish dude who gave the show its name to the midget identical-except one was green and one was red-cops, one of which was again Billy Barty, to a talking mushroom (ahem!). Witchypoo wants Freddy the Flute for some reason and tricks the young Ken Burns to come to her talking island. He is aided by the rest of the characters to get back home or at least score some good T. This was the basis for Star Wars in the sense that it wasn't.

With this heinousness afoot, who cared about silly disco music? Especially, when it was commonly known that the great songwriters of the day, before they turned to punk music, plied their trade via television theme songs. Theme songs in the Seventies were in most cases better than the shows they introduced. Today, shows come and go so quickly, no one even remembers their songs, but in the Seventies they could become big hits and stay with you, literally, for the rest of your life:

"Welcome Back" (from Welcome Back, Kotter)

The Ballad of "The Partridge Family" ("To make you happy")

Sanford and Son (penned by Quincy Jones)

Good Times ("Aint we lucky we got 'em?")

Movin' on Up to the East Side ("The Jeffersons")

All in the Family ("Boy, the way Glen Miller played...")

Bob Newhart Show ("Hello")

Brady Bunch (you know)

Odd Couple (Loved the into(s))

Quincy (More students faint than in a class with Mr. Vargas from Fast Times)

Love Boat (love the Tom Jones)

(And then there's) Maude

Barney Miller (I think it's Weather Report)

One Day at a Time (Two words: Valerie Bertonelli)

Taxi (How long is that darn bridge?)

(I'm at) WKRP in Cincinnati

MASH (what happened to the lyrics though?)

What's Happenin!!! (Does Rerun ever make it on that truck?)

Mary Tyler Moore (The hat)

Rhoda (La la la. La La...)

Hello Larry (They killed Henry Blake for this?)

NBC Mystery Movie (Columbo, McCloud, McMillan and Wife, etc.-great whistling theme)

Even the kids shows had great songs:

Scooby-Doo

Land of the Lost

H.R. Pufnstuf

Josie and the Pussycats

Bugaloos

Fat Albert (Hey Hey Hey)

Hong Kong Phooey

Super Chicken

George of the Jungle

Electro Woman and Dyna Girl

Wonder Woman

Groovie Ghoulies

Friends ("Sigmund and the Sea Monsters", sung by Jody)

Stop the Pigeon ("Dick Dastardly and Muttley in their Flying Machines")

The New Zoo Review

Not to mention Sesame Street, Electric Company, or School House Rock

So what does all this have to do with Joe Morgan? Not a whole heck of a lot, but this week's session was a bid dry so I had to pad it out.

With that great into, here 'tis:

The Good

Nick (San Diego): Hey Joe, is there anything better than broadcasting a Red Sox-Yankees game with Curt Goudy? That was terrific! Where does it rank on your list of most memorable achievements?

It ranks high on my list of accomplishments, esp. as a broadcaster. It was very enjoyable for me. When I played, he was the voice of the game during that era. I just loved his style of broadcasting. He was always fair to everyone. It was a treat to be in the booth with him.

[Mike: Yeah, that was pretty good (even with Joe in the booth).]

Nick (Greensboro, NC): HEY Joe. Enjoy your work. In your opinion do you see batters in the future still trying to hug the plate? Or do you see them backing off a little? Thanks.

There is no reason for them to back off. Pitchers don't pitch inside much anymore. With the protection they get from the umps, with all the warnings, I don't see any of that changing.

[Mike: Right, enforce the batter's box and things will change. Otherwise, there is no reason for batters to change.]

Travis Cammilleri (Candia, NH): Joe, how long do you think it will be before the Mets begin their fire sale? Boston sure could use Stanton, Weathers or Benitez!!!

Well, they are in a very difficult situation. There are not a lot of players they can get rid of. They all have high salaries. They are also not playing very well. The fire sale for them will be difficult.

[Mike: Besides this Ghordian Knot of a team will not be solved until a new GM is in place. Phillips having a fire sale is tantamount to accepting defeat and probably dismissal.]

The Bad

Matt (Bradenton, FL): For some reason, Lou Piniella started batting Rocco Baldelli fourth behind Aubrey Huff this week. This is a reversal of their usual positions. Why would you ever want to bat your best hitter for average behind your best home run hitter? I don't understand why he made this swap -- and it doesn't seem to be working, as the Rays lost all three games against Texas.

He's trying to get more production out of his HR hitter. He wants to have a good hitter behind him so Huff will get some more pitches to see. He's saying that Baldelli doesn't need as much help to get the job done.

[Mike: No, he's saying Huff is really a better hitter and he needs more at-bats. His average is lower but he can take a walk which Baldelli has not yet learned to do. So their on-base percentage is about the same, but Huff hits for much more power. If the Devil Rays had a decent lineup, Huff would bat third no question.

Adam (Ottawa, Canada): Hi Joe, What is going on with the A's in 1 run ball games? Last year they seemed to win the majority of them, and this year can't seem to win any. Is their bullpen just not that good? Or is it lack of offensive production from their star players when it counts? Who's your pick to win it all this season?

I remember last year Tejada was the MVP and he had a great percentage with runners in scoring position. He is off to a slow start and that probably contributes to losing the 1 run games. I think it's more the offense.

[Mike: How about good old fashioned luck? The A's were 26-13 in one-run games in 2002, but only 6-9 this year. Their Pythagorean record for 2002 projected to 96-66, 7 games worse than actual. Their 2003 Pythagorean record so far is 31-18, two ahead of actual. So they got a lot of lucky wins last year and aren't getting them this year (so far). Before you blame the bullpen, consider that their pen's ERA is 44 points better than it was in 2002. I doubt Tejada is responsible for each of the nine one-run losses.]

Jeff (Los Altos): Joe, what is the most over rated statistic in baseball?

Batting average. If you hit .300 they say you are a great hitter. That means you are making 7 outs out of 10 and if you make those outs with runners in scoring position, you are not a good hitter.

[Mike: What, not on-base percentage? Joe, you disappoint me.

I prefer RBI since they are to a large degree a function of what the rest of the lineup is doing and where you fall in the batting order, but batting average is a good'un. But it's not necessarily because of how someone bats with men in scoring position. It's just that all hits and all outs are not created equal, and that's basically what batting average records.

Besides Joe is being disingenuous here: he is one of the main culprits of overvaluing batting average in the first place.]

wayne (new yawk): Joe, I understand that players sometimes pick which team they want to go into the HoF for greedy reasons, but I think players should really be able to at least speak to a committee or something about the reasons they want the team they want to be picked. On that note, I think Roger has earned the right to choose whichever team he wants to go into the HoF. It doesn't hurt for me that he wants to go in as a New York Yankee! What are your thoughts?

The HOF is a museum which chronologically follows a players career. Wade Boggs reportedly signed a contract with the Devil Rays to go in as a Devil Ray and he should be allowed to do that. There has to be some rhyme or reason and at this point, the HOF, which is a museum, does it without any emotion. If you get mad at an organization and decide to not honor them, then what? The point is, it is being done properly.

I didn't have a choice myself. I accomplished more with the Reds and that is how they put me in. They did not ask me if I wanted to go in as an Astro but they were my first team. I played 8 years with each team.

[Mike: "Chronologically"? How about alphabetically? Or multi-dimensionally? Whatever.

Look, the Hall doesn't want players selling their cap rights. It's their museum; they're entitled. It started with the well traveled Gaylord Perry, blossomed with the Red Sox fawning all over Carlton Fisk, and became out-and-out venal with the Padres and Yankees bidding over Dave Winfield's chapeau. Gary Carter may consider himself a Met and Clemens a Yankee, but their predecessors ruined it for them.

By the way, Clemens seems to have forgotten that he ever played for the Blue Jays let alone had two of his best years there.]

Don (Mtn. View, CA): Joe, Now that Bernie Williams is out 4-6 weeks, Nick Johnson is out, Karsay will not return this year, do the Yankees need to make some moves?

Injuries are part of the game, that is why when someone asked me earlier if they would win 120 games, I said it was too early to say. Sometimes you have to ride with the injuries for awhile. If it looks like it will be longer, then you make moves. I think it is still a little too early.

[Mike: Sure, they'll make moves: They'll place Williams on the DL and recall Juan Rivera.

The Boss will get involved if the losing continues unabated. They needed relief help before Karsay was lost for the year.

By the way, here is what Joe said two weeks ago in his last chat session about the Yankees: "It's too early to give them the championship but they are not a bad pick!! Being the best team in the game doesn't always translate to winning it all." ]

Jim (Bayfield, WI): Joe - Is there anything good to say about the Brewers? Tell me there's something! Thanks.

Yeah, they have a beautiful stadium!!!

[Mike: That leaks.]

Jack, Moncton, Canada: Joe. Do you think Tim Raines has a shot at the hall of fame?

I think he does have a shot. But the writers vote on Raines. I only get a vote on the Veteran's Committee. But he does have a shot.

[Mike: To quote Bill Ray Valentine in Trading Places, "Thanks. You've been halpful."

So Raines has a shot. Is that what your saying. Well, he has played over 10 major-league seasons, so you're right.

How about an opinion on the matter though? I think Raines is a clear-cut Hall-of-Famer but I doubt he will get a lot of support because what he did well does not necessarily translate well into today's analysis. I see him as an ideal Veteran' Committee candidate. See, Joe-it didn't hurt a bit.]

Joey, Nj: Do you think Jesse Orosco is going to be playing until he is 50 years old?

If you are a lefthanded pitcher and you have a funky motion like he does and you can get left handers out, you can pitch forever!

[Mike: Yuck, yuck. There have been 341 major-league pitching seasons past the age of forty (not including this year): 259 by right-handers, 80 by lefthanders, and 2 by pitchers of unknown handedness.

Here is the breakdown by age and handedness: