Craig Calcaterra

CHICAGO, IL - MAY 08: Bryce Harper #34 of the Washington Nationals is intentionally walked in the12th inning as David Ross #3 of the Chicago Cubs
waits the pitch at Wrigley Field on May 8, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)
Getty Images

Bonds: Harper should diversify his game to adapt to walks

10 Comments

WASHINGTON — When pitchers were intentionally walking Barry Bonds more than anyone else in baseball history, his father had simple message for him.

“It’s your fault,” Bobby Bonds told his son. “You didn’t have to be this good.”

That’s what Barry Bonds thinks when he sees Bryce Harper getting so many free passes to first base. But he also believes the Washington Nationals outfielder and reigning National League MVP needs to diversity his game if opposing teams are going to take the bat out of his hands.

“He’s going to need to learn to steal bases and get to second base and make his teammates’ job easier,” Bonds recently told The Associated Press.

The Chicago Cubs walked Harper 15 times during a four-game series earlier this month, including four times intentionally, and he scored only three runs. Bonds, baseball’s intentional walk king, said too much was being made of Ryan Zimmerman‘s struggles batting behind Harper as the Cubs swept the Nationals.

Teammates had bad series hitting behind Bonds, too, when he was intentionally walked. But Bonds remembers what he said to his children during his playing days.

“My kids used to tell me, `Daddy, I’m sorry they walk you all the time,”‘ said Bonds, who led baseball in intentional walks 12 times and tops the all-time list with 688. “I said, `Yeah, but my job’s now to steal.’ I could run then, so I had to steal bases and my job’s to score runs and keep the pressure on the team regardless of what happened. But I had a different game than him.”

Bonds stole 514 bases during his 22-year major league career. Harper has 43, and it’s an element that Bonds says would make the 23-year-old a five-tool player.

That doesn’t mean that Bonds believes Harper is doing anything wrong.

“Bryce Harper can only do what his job is,” Bonds said. “If they walk him, his job is to go to first base and then run bases. His teammates’ job is to drive him in. Bryce Harper can only do what he’s capable of doing and what he’s given the opportunity to do.”

After the final game of the walk-this-way series against the Cubs, Harper said he was walked a lot during high school and that he can’t get frustrated if the treatment continues.

“You’re getting on base, and that’s what your team asks you to do,” Harper said. “If I can get on base every time I get up there, I’m doing it the right way. If it’s a hit, a walk, I get drilled or whatever. Get on base. Maybe steal second, steal third and get it done.”

Dusty Baker is the common thread between the two superstars, as he managed the San Francisco Giants during Bonds’ heyday and is now managing Harper with the Nationals. Baker said the onus is on Harper’s teammates to make opponents pay for all the walks.

When Bonds was playing, Baker didn’t have to give him any advice because he could lean on his father’s and godfather Willie Mays’ experiences.

“I knew how to deal with it,” said Bonds, now the hitting coach for the Miami Marlins. “I had my own father in me. I had my dad and Willie. I had enough pressure with those two that I didn’t need to add more with Dusty.”

Harper has plenty of pressure on him as the face of the franchise and one of the best players in baseball, but he can only hit what he’s thrown. Bonds became baseball’s home run king with 762 despite walking a major league-leading 2,558 times.

Bonds estimates that he lost four or five years of at-bats from walks. Still, if he were pitching to Harper, he wouldn’t give him much to hit.

“If I was a pitcher and I need to leave it in the ballpark, I’m going to pick somebody who’s going to leave it in the ballpark more than someone who has a chance to hit it out of the ballpark,” he said. “Not every time, but there will be a situation. Even me as a pitcher, he’s going to have to walk if it’s the game on the line.”

AP Sports Writer Andrew Seligman contributed to this report.

No, the Bautista-Odor fight wasn’t “great for baseball”

39 Comments

I’ve seen a lot of sentiment since yesterday afternoon that the Jose BautistaRougned Odor fight was supposed to have great meaning of some kind. More to the point, that it was actually good for baseball. I don’t think it was bad for baseball — it was just a thing that happened, just like fights have happened in baseball for 150 years — but to say it was “great for baseball” seems odd to me.

C.J. Nitkowski of Fox thinks it was great for baseball because it “created buzz” and jacked up the TV ratings. If you saw some of his tweets yesterday, you learned that it was also great because it, somehow, put “nerds” in their place. I don’t fully understand what Nitkowski was getting at with that, but it had something to do with the slide rules and people wanting baseball players not to get injured which, I guess, he considers to be a bad thing. You’ll have to ask him about that.

Joel Sherman of the New York Post thinks it was great for baseball for another reason: there’s too much friendliness in the game, in his view, and it’s better when opponents hate each other. As New York writers always do, Sherman makes something that has nothing to do with New York about New York and uses it to explain how upset he is that Yankees players are friendly with David Ortiz now instead of hating him like the Epic Yankees-Red Sox rivalry allegedly demands. Never mind that the grand old days of the rivalry he describes are, like, 12 years old and no one is left on those teams from that time except for Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez. Never mind that the rivalry past 2004 or so, the last time the Yankees and Red Sox met in the playoffs, is primarily a creation of fans and the media and that the players don’t care at all anymore and likely didn’t care as much as people like to think they did.

These takes have one thing in common: for them to make coherent sense, players have to play roles to satisfy an audience rather than be actual human beings with feelings. Bautista and Odor are buzz-creators or rivalry-stokers here as opposed to humans who got caught up in an emotional thing and let their aggression take over for a few minutes due to some provocations that made sense to them in the heat of the moment. No, they were serving the audience in some way and, not only that, they had to! For the good of the game!

This is all artificial nonsense. Baseball players are people. Their job is to serve the audience when they play baseball. While there were aspects of what happened yesterday that were in and of themselves entertaining (mostly because no one got hurt) it’s not their job to serve fans and the press with that stuff and the fact that they did didn’t Mean Anything Big And Important. It was just a thing that happened. Players likewise can be and should be friends with one another if they choose to be without it harshing the buzz of some columnist who misses what he got to write about over a decade ago. Not saying Odor and Bautista ever will be, but if they do a commercial goofing on their fight this fall, we will not have lost anything by their antipathy being diminished.

I don’t know. I read stuff like what Sherman and Nitkowski wrote and I wonder whether the people who think like that view players as people with agency or mere characters in a drama. I wonder, if Bautista and Odor issue statements apologizing to one another today or make that commercial one day, if guys like Sherman and Nitkowski will be sad. More than anything else when I see stuff like this I think about all of the weird and unfair gladiatorial expectations we place on athletes and remember exactly where it comes from.

Houston Chronicle editor apologizes for column about Carlos Gomez

Houston Astros' Carlos Gomez (30) reacts after hitting a double in the second inning of a baseball game against the Minnesota Twins, Tuesday, May 3, 2016, in Houston. (AP Photo/Eric Christian Smith)
17 Comments

A couple of weeks ago Brian T. Smith of the Houston Chronicle wrote a hit piece on Carlos Gomez, blaming him for the bulk of the Astros’ problems. That was bad (i.e. inaccurate) enough, but the column was made worse by Smith’s inclusion of a quote of broken English from Gomez that seemed to serve no other purpose but to cast Gomez in a bad light. In doing so, Smith eschewed any number of techniques journalists use in such situations to deliver a somewhat more empathetic story, even if they’re being critical. Paraphrasing, brackets, etc.

Yesterday the editor of the Chronicle offered an apology about the column and talked about trying to do better in this regard. It was delivered to Richard Prince at the Journal-Isms blog:

“With regards to quoting Carlos Gomez: We sincerely apologize for any offense that was taken. Our writers are encouraged to adhere to AP style rules, which are quoted below. I reviewed the rules myself after this arose and found the guidelines on quotes to be less than adequate for a community like ours, full of immigrants from all over the world, and for whom English is often a second language. I’ve asked some top editors to review this policy, research best practices, and recommend guidance for all of our writers in the future. We always want to be respectful of those we are interviewing.”

As Prince notes, major style guides hold that quotes should not be altered, but common practice involves using paraphrasing to convey the meaning of quotes which don’t come out cleanly as a means of not portraying the subject in a less-than-flattering light. Obviously a lot of judgment is used in such cases, but as he and his sources note, it also seems like the style guides are in need of an update or a review about such matters.

Brad Ausmus is probably in some trouble

Seattle Mariners v Detroit Tigers
24 Comments

The Tigers have been stinkin’ up the joint. They’ve lost 11 of 13 and, but for a questionable call or two in yesterday’s game vs. the Orioles, it could’ve been 12. But one loss matters far less than 21, which is the total number of their losses, and 7.5, which is how far back they are in the AL Central. Another number that matters is $200 million, which is the team’s payroll. May as well throw in the number 86, which is how many years old owner Mike Ilitch is, and he’s not getting any younger.

Manager Brad Ausmus was on the hot seat last year following the team’s last place finish and right after the season ended it seemed like even odds that he’d be fired and the Tigers would sell off some pieces. But rather than tear down and rebuild, new GM Al Avila went out and added pieces in Justin Upton and Jordan Zimmermann and kept Ausmus on board. Whether those were the right pieces to add is something people can disagree about, but the clear signal coming from the front office heading into 2016 was “the Tigers are expected to compete this year.” Except they’re not competing.

All of which tends to lead to managers getting fired, and Ausmus is clearly on the hot seat. Today both the Free Press and the News have columns speculating on Ausmus’ job security. Losing in bunches and losing in dispiriting fashion — and bullpens blowing big leads is dispiriting — doesn’t help matters. Whatever one thinks of the composition of the 2016 Tigers and no matter how little input Ausmus had into that composition, the manager in this situation often takes the fall.

I feel like it’s only a matter of time before Ausmus falls. The real question is going to be whether he outlasts Fredi Gonzalez in Atlanta. On the one hand, sure, the Braves are way, way worse. On the other hand, no one in Atlanta’s front office expects their team to win anything. The expectations in Detroit are far, far different.

If I were Brad Ausmus, I’d do my grocery shopping by the day.

You people don’t know what a “sucker punch” is

ARLINGTON, TX - MAY 15:  Adrian Beltre #29 of the Texas Rangers holds Jose Bautista #19 of the Toronto Blue Jays after being punched by Rougned Odor #12 in the eighth inning at Globe Life Park in Arlington on May 15, 2016 in Arlington, Texas.  (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)
Getty Images
84 Comments

Forgot to mention this in my earlier Bautista-Odor post, but it’s really bugging me. I’ve seen a lot of people — almost all of them Blue Jays fans, but let’s ignore that for a second — referring to Rougned Odor‘s punch to Jose Bautista‘s jaw as a “sucker punch.” Here’s an example. And another. And another. Here’s a total Twitter search for it and you can see a gabillion examples.

This is madness. A sucker punch is, by definition, a surprise punch, hitting a person who is not expecting it, not looking or who is otherwise unaware that he’s about to become the recipient of some violence. It is not a punch to someone who has literally got his dukes up, preparing for a fight. And, in Bautista’s case, has a hand extended already, be it for a punch or some preemptive defense or whatever it is he’s doing here:

Screen Shot 2016-05-16 at 10.37.18 AM

What Odor did after that was not a “sucker punch.” It was a “punch.” Because the two men were in a “fight” and just because Bautista lost the fight does not make it a “sucker punch.” Nor is it a sucker punch because, most of the time, ballplayers don’t punch each other. Unless I missed something and there are unwritten rules about that too.

Like I said above, this almost all comes from Toronto people because, it seems, they are very invested in making Odor out to be the bad guy here. When, as I explained this morning, everyone was kind of a jackwagon in this whole incident. If it makes you feel better to think one side was way worse than the other, fine, do what you gotta do. But at least appreciate that words mean things and “sucker punch” does not mean what you’re saying it means here.