And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights

53 Comments

Royals 3, Tigers 0: Big Game James coms up big in a big game. In the rain. So he’s more like Big Rain Game James. Anyway, seven, two-hit shutout innings followed by Kelvin Herrera and Wade Davis.

Braves 6, Nationals 2: Big Game Harang  . . . nah, that doesn’t work. But Aaron Harang did come up big for the Braves, helping them avoid a sweep, allowing one run over seven. Justin Upton drove in three. Brother B.J. homered off Stephen Strasburg. Which he’s done before. He should just be played in games against Stephen Strasburg, really. Who objects to that?

Orioles 10, Red Sox 6: Wei-Yin Chen was perfect into the sixth and by then he had a big bunch of run support so it was a particularly easy night for the O’s. Caleb Joseph homered and drove in three. Other than Joe Saunders melting down in the ninth — a situation he doesn’t see if the O’s aren’t up 10-1 — it was a pretty perfect day for Baltimore, who has won 11 of 14.

Pirates 6, Phillies 3: Andrew McCutchen hit a standup inside-the-park homer. As always, of course, if the outfielder plays it a tad differently or if the right or left fielder comes over to, you know, back him up some, it probably doesn’t happen, but we’ll let that go. McCutchen is hitting .311/.403/.539 on the year with 23 homers 75 driven in and he’s 17 for 19 in stolen bases. It’s gonna be really interesting to see the MVP vote.

Reds 4, Cardinals 2: Alfredo Simon allowed two runs over seven innings and hit two doubles, driving in a run. Both hits came on the first pitch he saw. Which, frankly, is what I think most pitchers should do. It’s likely the best pitch they’re gonna see in an at bat and it’s not like any pitcher these days outside of maybe Zack Greinke has the chops to adjust and outthink and do all of those things to get the best of major league pitching. In other news, allow me to remind you of my views on the designated hitter.

Mets 2, Rockies 0: Eric Young went 3 for 3 with a triple and Rafael Montero got his first win. No word if either of those two are married or if they have children and have become less aggressive since doing so.

Yankees 8, Rays 5: Down 4-0 after the top of the first you almost felt like the Yankees were gonna pack it in before they got started. Or at least their fans. Following Yankees games in real time on Twitter with my Yankees fan friends has become an exercise in pessimism lately. But the ballplayers haven’t given up. Mark Teixeira hit a triple. I don’t personally believe that, but it says so in the box score so it must’ve happened. Brain McCann homered and drove in three. He’s been on fire since September began. Doesn’t help salvage his season, but at least it’s something to grow on, maybe.

Brewers 4, Marlins 1: Wily Peralta gave up one earned run and five hits to help the Brewers snap their losing streak and win for just the second time in 15 games. Peralta also [altogether now] helped his own cause. In other news, allow me to remind you of my views on the designated hitter. Wait, I already did that.

Blue Jays 11, Cubs 1: Drew Hutchison registered 10 strikeouts in six and a third to help the Jays sweep. They outscored the Cubs 20-3 in those three games.

Giants 5, Diamondbacks 0: San Francisco keeps humming along, with the second straight domination of Arizona. The Snakes have lost five in a row and seven of nine and look like they’re already booking tee times for October.

Angels 8, Rangers 1: Albert Pujols was a homer short of the cycle. Which makes me wonder how much money would you win if you bet on both him and Teixeira hitting triples yesterday? I’m guessing someone would give you 50-1 odds on that. Maybe more. Matt Shoemaker allowed one run in six and two-thirds. The Angels pitching has actually improved since they lost Garret Richards for the season. Team-of-Destiny stuff.

Dodgers 4, Padres 0: Dan Haren pitched seven shutout innings. He’s turned his season around, too. After a craptastic July, Haren has allowed no more than one earned run in each of his last four starts, going 5-1 in his last seven and notching his 13th win of the year last night. Carl Crawford was 4 for 4 with three doubles and two driven in.

White Sox 2, Athletics 1: The A’s had a 1-0 lead behindJeff Samardzija’s seven shutout innings, but then Avisail Garcia drove in two runs with a bases-loaded single in the eighth. It’s the third time in four games that the Athletics’ relievers blew a lead. Given that the Tigers and Mariners did too, it didn’t hurt them too bad, but the A’s need to figure something out.

Astros 5, Mariners 2: Jose Altuve had two hits, including an RBI double, to break a mini-slump and to notch his 200th hit of the season. After the game interim manager Tom Lawless said that Altuve joined a “small club” in reaching the milestone. I guess it’s small in the grand scheme. It does, however, have like 500 guys in it, so the club doesn’t tend to meet for dinners and things as it costs a lot to get a banquet hall that big.

Twins vs. Indians: POSTPONED: As a man I ain’t never been much for sunny days. I’m as calm as a fruit stand in New York and maybe as strange. But when the color goes out of my eyes its usually the change. But damn Sam I love a woman that rains.

Goose Gossage, Pete Rose and “unwatchable baseball”

Getty Images
1 Comment

There are a lot of things that, in my view and in the view of many others, are suboptimal in today’s game.

You’ve either heard me go on about them in the past year or two or you’ve heard others go on about them, but a short, non-exclusive list includes the view that there are too many home runs and strikeouts now, bullpen use has changed the nature of the game in less-than-great ways, and the game-going and sometimes merely game-viewing experience has become prohibitively expensive for some and annoying in many respects to everyone, to the point where it has become a barrier to even enjoying the product in the first place.

While I never hesitate to make my views known on these matters, I also acknowledge that I do not have a monopoly on wisdom with respect to them. Indeed, there’s a lot to be said about all of these issues — both in support and in pushing back against my views on them — to further the discussion. Baseball has been around a long time, it changes more often than our nostalgic view of its history suggests, and all of us have our blind spots. The only way to deal with that stuff is to talk more about it, to add more voices to the conversation and, perhaps most importantly, to accept that we’re never gonna settle on anything definitive. One person’s ideal game is one person’s “unwatchable” game and it has always been thus.

Are there are limits to who we should talk to about all of this, though? For example, do we really need to know what Goose Gossage and Pete Rose have to add to this conversation? Bob Nightengale of USA Today thinks so. Here’s Gossage:

“I can’t watch these games anymore. It’s not baseball. It’s unwatchable. A lot of the strategy of the game, the beauty of the game, it’s all gone. It’s like a video game now. It’s home run derby with their (expletive) launch angle every night.”

Rose:

“It’s home run derby every night, and if that’s what they want, that’s what they’re going to get. But they have to understand something … Home runs are up. Strikeouts are up. But attendance is down. I didn’t go to Harvard or one of those Ivy League schools, but that’s not a good thing.”

As a matter of editorial philosophy I question whether it ever makes sense to ask Goose Gossage and Pete Rose about anything that is not specifically about Goose Gossage or Pete Rose and even then I’d exercise caution. Gossage has spent the last ten years as every writer’s go-to for easy quotes hating on anything that has happened in baseball since 1988. Rose, in addition to being a loathsome human being who is banned from the game, is also one of those dudes who thinks his generation and his generation alone Played the Game the Right Way. The less we hear from them on this stuff the better, as far as I’m concerned.

Yet, they’re not wrong.

At least they’re not wrong as far as what they’re saying above. That’s how frickin’ messed up baseball is right now. Even Goose Gossage and Pete Rose are on my side of the matter. It’s enough to make a guy sit down and take stock, ya know? At least it’s enough to make me want to be more specific and objective about what it is that bugs me about the game today, so as not to lazily fall into an “everything is new sucks” stance, which I suspect is what animates these two particular stopped clocks.

I think it helps to break it all down into two categories, which lead to very different conversations. One category is the aesthetics of baseball. The other is the structure of baseball.

On the aesthetic side we’re dealing with how any given game plays out. How, on any given night, it seems, that we have nearly a dozen 14-7 games in which the bat boy, or someone quite like him, hits three homers while also taking the mound and striking out 14 guys but somehow getting the loss anyway, with the game ending a crisp four hours and sixteen minutes after the first pitch. This is a slog. It has a lot to do with the juiced ball and the manner in which both hitters and pitchers have been selected for thanks to analytical trends, changes in the strike zone and all of that.

On the structural side we’re talking about the business, economics and leadership of the game and how it has led to a situation in which multiple teams are tanking — telling their fans that, at best, they’ll be competitive two or three out of every ten years — while fielding a roster of players who would have at least a moderate fight on their hands to ensure first place in the International League. This while still charging ridiculous prices for tickets, concessions, and parking while making the games harder and harder to watch on TV without paying for premium cable plans. Nightengale notes that attendance is down something like 800,000 overall so far this year, coming off last year’s 15-year low in attendance. None of this is an accident, of course. When you tell fans you’re not going to try to win while giving them no other incentive to come to the park, you’re going to have fewer fans coming to the park.

As I said, these are two different areas of complaint. I’m open to the idea that my aesthetic distaste for what’s going on in baseball right now is merely my opinion. I’m a middle aged guy and, even if I work extra hard to not be some nostalgic, sentimental simpleton, I’m not immune from falling into that trap of “everything was better when I was 12.” I probably do that more than I care to admit. I don’t think I’m alone in hating the juiced ball game right now, but I also have to nod in deference to people who love it, as I’m sure there are many.

Where I start to become less “it’s all good, everyone’s opinion is valid” about all of this, though, is when observe that a lot of the aesthetic stuff is a direct product of the structural stuff.

  • We have home run fests because we have a lot of guys pitching who have no business being out there but are because a lot of teams are tanking. I think it’s OK to feel differently about a game that has changed because a non-trivial number of teams aren’t interested in competing;
  • We have home run fests because the ball is juiced. MLB denied this for a while and then when it became undeniable they accepted it and claimed it was an accident but now it’s gone on so long it’s an accident that they seem to have no interest in fixing whatsoever. I think it’s OK to feel differently about a game that has changed because of a juiced ball;
  • We have a legion of high-velocity strikeout pitchers because that’s who front offices have all, almost uniformly, decided to favor, and it’s been helped along by a redefinition of the strike zone — there is no wide strike anymore — that has made control or finesse pitching close to impossible. I think it’s OK to feel differently about a game that has changed because of a lack of creativity and a lack of latitude to be creative when it comes to talent development;
  • We have front offices who see no incentive to be creative when it comes to talent development because — thanks to baseball revenues being substantially detached from winning baseball games — there is no upside to going against the prevalent orthodoxy and/or taking any financial risks. And with that, we go back up to bullet point number one.

Again, it’s OK to like the current state of baseball. It’s OK to presume that some of us — be it Goose Gossage, Pete Rose or me — are turned off by it to some extent because we’re just crotchety old dudes who hate change. But it’s fair to say that, like most change in baseball, it has not been exclusively organic. Like most change it is the product, at least in part, of a change in circumstances and incentives. Though, in this case, that change is not necessarily benign. It’s driven by a bottom-line mentality that, while always present in baseball, has far more of an impact on the game on the field than it has in a very, very long time because it’s a bottom-line mentality that can afford to be indifferent about the winning and losing of baseball games.

Maybe history will prove me to be a crank when it comes to this stuff. But I feel like it’s worth examining the roots of the aesthetic issues in baseball via reference to what led to them. If it’s garbage-in, is that which comes out not garbage?