David Robertson calls Mike Scioscia “bush league” after replay controversy

39 Comments

There was some controversy in the ninth inning of last night’s Angels-White Sox game. It started with this play, in which Erick Aybar struck out to lead off the ninth against Dave Robertson. The ball was in the dirt, so catcher Tyler Flowers reached out to tag Aybar on the leg. Aybar was called out, but Aybar still broke for first base, claiming no one ever tagged him:

 

A replay challenge ensued on whether the tag was made. After the out was confirmed, Mike Scioscia came out to argue and/or get an explanation from the home plate umpire. As he did so, he stood in front of home plate.

After the game Robertson, who went on to blow the save that inning and force extras, called the move “bush league” by Scioscia. From CSN Chicago.com:

“I thought there were a lot of ridiculous things that went on in that inning,” Robertson said. “I feel like Scioscia was very bush league going out there and standing in front of home plate after the play had already been reviewed. I feel like once it has been reviewed, it’s been reviewed on film, he’s called out, there’s no reason for you to come back out and argue a call.”

An unspoken implication there was that Scioscia was icing Robertson and keeping him from tossing warmup pitches by standing in front of the plate.

For his part Scioscia claimed he wasn’t arguing or engaging in any kind of gamesmanship. From ESPNChicago:

“Absolutely that was not my intent,” Scioscia said. “Absolutely not. It was an important part because it was a possible protest. In fact, I thought I moved out of the way so he could throw. But he would have gotten a chance to throw anyway. Absolutely not — not one iota of my intent was any gamesmanship. I had to get a reason for the ruling because if the ruling was that he killed the play then it was something I could protest. I had to get a ruling.”

No matter, as the White Sox went on to win in a walkoff, but put David Robertson down as another member of the not-a-big-fan-of-Mike-Scioscia Club.

Roger Clemens says he’s not running for Congress

Getty Images
10 Comments

Apparently some people in Texas wanted Roger Clemens to run for Congress? At least enough people to where Clemens felt it necessary to tell Pete Olson, the congressman whose seat is going vacant due to his retirement, that, no, he had no interest in running for it.

From ESPN:

“The climate in politics at this time is much more than I would want to undertake, along with my family considerations,” Clemens said in a message to Olson that was obtained by ABC News.

“I am a Republican and I support our President and will continue to do so,” Clemens said. “No matter who our President may be, I will continue my support of them and root for them to be successful, just as I did when President Obama was in office.”

That’s a pretty diplomatic answer from Clemens. But even if he did not have family concerns and even if the “climate” disinterested him, I’m struggling to imagine Clemens as a viable political candidate in the first place.

For as good a pitcher as he was — and for as generally popular as he may be in Texas — the guy has some serious baggage, right? And I mean that beyond just the broad arc of the PEDs controversy that surrounded him for so long. The specifics of that controversy spun off his indictment for perjury before Congress, for example. He was acquitted — and I think it was a proper acquittal — but that was not exactly his finest hour.

It also led to a nasty battle of defamation lawsuits with a drug dealer that, remarkably, caused Clemens to come off way worse than the drug dealer, and that’s quite a trick. That whole process also revealed that he had an extraordinarily problematic extra-marital relationship with a now-dead country music singer. In all, it was a profound, 100% self-inflicted, reputation-trashing, public relations disaster that, even years later, he has taken no responsibility for. It was the sort of episode that, in addition to the ammo it might give any political opponent he may have, calls into serious questions Clemens’ judgment and sense of strategy, both of which are things that, to put it lightly, can be useful in politics.

Clemens, of course, is not going to cite any of those things as a reason for not wanting to run for office, nor does he have to. His simple “no” is all he needs to say and he can go back doing whatever it is he does for the Houston Astros.

But I am struggling mightily to understand why those people who are apparently encouraging him to run for office are doing so despite all of that being out there on the record. Is fame all that matters in politics now? Is a win bought by fame the be-all and end-all, even it means electing a candidate who is profoundly compromised both ethically and morally?

Haha, just kidding. You don’t need to answer that. I think we already know the answer.