FIRE JOE MORGAN: GMC Diamond Cutters!


Where Bad Sports Journalism Came To Die

FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over. You can still e-mail dak, Ken Tremendous, Junior, Matthew Murbles, or Coach.

Main / Archives / Merch / Glossary / Goodbye

Tuesday, August 09, 2005


GMC Diamond Cutters!

High, high comedy tonight on Sportcenter's GMC Diamond Cutters.

Your cast:
Karl Ravech (KR), put-upon host, forced to deal with two former athlete co-workers who do their best to avoid research as well as logic and reason.
John Kruk (JK), fat load, weirdly proud of being consistently wrong.
Harold Reynolds (HR), somehow disdainful of Kruk despite being wrong almost as often.

First, a totally unedited, comment-free (with the exception of descriptions of tone of voice) transcript so you can enjoy the natural ebb and flow of GMC Diamond Cutters. The topic: your pick for AL Cy Young winner.

KR: "The way you always do everything ... Whoever's got the most wins -- that's the guy."

JK: "Why change? I'm consistent, Karl. I'm taking Jon Garland of the Chicago White Sox. He's got 16 wins! His ERA's not horrendous. It's not like he has a 6.00 ERA -- this guy can pitch! And who thought coming into the season that you would be talking about him for a Cy Young anything? I mean, we thought he was going to be their fifth starter. Now, he's their number two starter behind Mark Buehrle, probably should be their number one. But this guy -- there has to be something said for pitching on a winning team and having the the most wins.

KR: "But if Buehrle ends up with more wins than Garland --"

JK: "Then Buehrle wins!"

HR: (sarcastically) "I'm picking the best pitcher. He's got 30 straight saves. He blew two in the beginning of the year against the Boston Red Sox. I'm talking about Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees. His stuff is electric. He's back throwing like no one else in the league right now, and because of him, they're riding this guy all the way to the postseason once again, and to me, he deserves to win a Cy Young."

KR: "Would you ever consider a closer like Gagne a couple years ago?"

JK: "No."

KR: (very dismissively) "No, 'cause they don't win."

JK: "No, because they don't --"

KR: "He's on a winning team, he does answer that."

JK: "Because they don't start. Starters should win the award. They have an award for relievers."

KR: (pauses, then, visibly upset) "Rolaids."

JK: "That's right. I need one."

KR: (embarrassed) "John Kruk and Harold Reynolds. I'm Karl Ravech."

>> I'm not gonna lie: Jon Garland is certainly a Cy Young candidate at this point. But I don't think he's the best pitcher on his own team. Mark Buehrle's ERA is half a run lower, he strikes out more guys, and he's pitched the most innings in the AL.

Kruk's reasoning is, as is par for the course for him, absolutely terrible. Wins are a poor measure of a pitcher's worth. Obscenely poor. Using wins as the sole metric for the Cy Young Award causes unforgivable travesties.

Also, who cares about what expectations were for Garland going into the season? That should have no bearing on who wins the award. You're wasting everyone's time even talking about that.

Let us never forget: in an argument about who should win the Cy Young Award, John Kruk actually said, "It's not like he has a 6.00 ERA!"

He means this as a joke, but he's still an idiot.

Rivera I also believe is a legitimate Cy Young candidate, although really, the standard for relievers has to be ridiculously, ridiculously high given how few innings they pitch. Bizarrely, I almost agree with Kruk on that point.

Anyone see a problem with this sentence, though?

"He's back throwing like no one else in the league right now, and because of him, they're riding this guy all the way to the postseason once again, and to me, he deserves to win a Cy Young."

The Yankees are currently 3.5 games back in both the AL East and Wild Card races. Not so fast, Reynolds.

The best part about tonight's GMCDC was how upset Ravech clearly was throughout the whole segment. We had many, many readers write in about how he held Joe Morgan's feet to the fire on Sunday's Baseball Tonight. Unfortunately, I missed that episode, but it's really entertaining to watch him struggle to maintain a professional demeanor while dealing with two men he doesn't respect intellectually at all.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Junior  # 2:41 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I did see the Morgan-Ravech exchange on Sunday, but unfortunately was watching on my non-Tivo equipped tv (Yeah, that's right. I have two televisions). It was even better/worse in terms of Ravech barely able to keep it together in the face of staggering, prideful ignorance.

I am worried, though, that Joe Morgan, in all of his grudge-holding babyness is now going to refuse to work with Ravech, and ESPN will of course side with Morgan, resulting in the dismissal of the best BT guy to come around in recent memory.

Am I worrying too much about this? Is it too early to start
The way Ravech sighed deeply and said "Rolaids" out of the side of his mouth was priceless.
A related note from FJM reader masimo29:

"There was a similar exchange between Jeff Brantley and Sean McDonough during Monday night's Brewers/Cards telecast. McDonough was absolutely incredulous as Brantley explained that there was no such thing as a 'hard luck loser' on the mound--that guys who lost 2-1 games were not the victims of bad luck or random flucuations in run scoring, but of their own failure to inspire -- I think he used the term 'project confidence' -- greater run scoring by his teammates. An obviously baffled McDonough responded: "'That's an interesting theory.'"

I think at this point, you can say just about anything on television and get away with it. Forget facts and reason. Just talk without thinking. You'll do just fine.
Post a Comment

<< Home


04.05   05.05   06.05   07.05   08.05   09.05   10.05   11.05   12.05   01.06   02.06   03.06   04.06   05.06   06.06   07.06   08.06   09.06   10.06   11.06   12.06   01.07   02.07   03.07   04.07   05.07   06.07   07.07   08.07   09.07   10.07   11.07   12.07   01.08   02.08   03.08   04.08   05.08   06.08   07.08   08.08   09.08   10.08   11.08  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?