At some point in probably like 1974 or so, comedians everywhere, in a sort of collective unconscious kind of way, all started talking about how hard bags of airline peanuts were to open. This led jokes about that subject to become something people in the professional comedy world call "hacky." Some other examples of jokes/observations that became hacky, over time, include:
If the black box survives plane crashes, why don't they make the whole plane out of the black box?If the Professor can make a radio out of a coconut, why can't he fix the hole in the boat?
When I smoke weed, I get the munchies so bad!
There were two different guys who played "Darin" on "Bewitched": Dick Sargent and Dick York.
Also, who do you think was hotter -- Jeannie or the Bewitched chick?
-- Ginger or Marianne?
Men like to watch television and scratch themselves while women want to talk about their feelings.Women shop a lot.
Monica Lewinsky!!!!!!!
And so on. You all know what I am talking about.
Now, officially, today, I would like to nominate a new member to the hacky joke Hall of Fame. The notion that
bloggers live in their mom's basements.And who better to put the final hacky nail in this hacky coffin than
Boston's own Dan Shaughnessy.
Shaughnessy wrote this column because Curt Schilling has started a blog,
38pitches.com, so that he can communicate directly with his fans. Seems like a good thing to do. Why not? Unfortunately, Shaughnessy, it appears to me, has now seen the writing on the wall for muck-raking journalists like himself, who have careers mostly because they get access to athletes beyond that of the general public and thus get to poke and prod them for quotes and then write articles detailing their every move. If the athletes get to talk right to their public, what use is there for middlemen like ol' Danny? Some real estate agents are going to disappear eventually because of on-line video tours of houses. Brokers took a hit from e-Trade. Brick-and-mortar bookstores suffered from Amazon. The internet is a highly effective middleman reducer.
Now, far be it from me to downplay the role of journalists in sports reporting. There are many good ones, and I personally enjoy the old-timeyness of the on-site reporter. And, just as in politics, I believe that the public does benefit from professional prodders professionally prodding athletes. (I wish they had prodded more over the last 20 years, when it must have been blindingly clear that everyone in the league was juicing and not one single journalist had the guts to report it. Or even raise it as an issue. Their fancy journalism degrees didn't serve them -- or us -- very well then, did they?) But I also, as you might imagine, see the great benefit in the personal blog. It simply cannot be a bad thing to have more outlets for athlete-fan communication, if for no other reason than giving the average $80 ticket-buyers a chance to speak directly with those whose services we are paying to see.
Shaughnessy thinks differently. He thinks blogs are for nerds who live in their mom's basements. He thinks Schilling is just an attention-seeking glory hound. (Which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that Schilling has been critical of the media in Boston.) He thinks this whole blogging business is something to sneer at, deride, dismiss, and ridicule. And that is why he is a dinosaur who will grow up to be more bitter and miserable than he already is.
(The premise of his article is that it's excerpts from Schilling's chat.)
38 Pitches: Fire away guys. I've got a few hours of spare time before my next start and would be happy to answer questions about anything. Like I've been saying, the idea of this blog is that it allows me to communicate directly with my fans without any misrepresentations from those nitwits in the media.Sycophant38: Hey, Curt. This blog is so cool. I can't believe you actually communicate with us directly. You will always be a god to me, Curt. You and the bloody sock. You honor me and my friends with this blog. So, let me ask you, do you think you would have won 25 last year if the umps weren't squeezing you?
38 Pitches: You'll never get me to say anything bad about the men in blue, Sycophant38. But thanks for joining the chat.
I like that enjoying the ability to chat directly with a player makes you a "sycophant."
Lapdog38: Hey Curt. This blog is awesome. I mean, I can't believe it's really you. I'm nervous just typing, knowing you are there on the other end. Let me tell you a little about myself. I am 38 years old (pretty cool, huh, 38?) and I have your jersey in XXL (both home and away versions). I'm living at home, in the basement, rent free, and I've got cable and plasma TV. Domino's delivers. I guess you could say I'm living the dream. Anyway, I was wondering if you could tell us who's going to be on the final 25-man roster for the Sox this year?
I'm sorry -- it makes you a lapdog. A fat lapdog. A fat lapdog who lives in a basement.
Yes: here's the first instance of "living in [mom's] basement." Well done. Good parody. By the way, Danny, parodies of things need to have grains of truth in them. Your parody of the questions on Curt's chat is clearly taking the position that the questioners are sycophantic nerds who live in their moms' basements. I will now cut and paste a bunch of the actual questions that were asked of Schilling, so we may contrast and compare:
Q-Who else has upgraded their starting pitching in 2007?
Q-I understand the desire to not face AL East teams, but isn’t the reverse true? Might you learn something from them by facing them in ST?
Q-Does one hitter protect another in the lineup, in the pitchers mind?
Q-I read that Beckett’s problems last year were him relying on his FB too much, doesn’t Tek make sure that doesn’t happen?
Q-What is the one thing you need in a game to be successful?
Q-Worried about pressure on Pedroia?
Q-What’s Daisuke been like to watch in person?
Q-Can the O’s overtake us?
Q-You have set incredibly ambitious goals for 38 Studios and its role in the gaming industry. Are you worried at all about losing sight of your goals, or the company being passed down into incapable/corrupt hands? If so, what measures have you put in place (or wish to put in place) to prevent that from happening?
Q-Your recap reminded me, I’ve always wanted to know; what goes through your mind between innings when things aren’t going well or you are worried that you don’t have all the tools you want or need on the mound on any given start?
Q-On SoSH awhile back there was a discussion what is more valuable: A catcher with an exceptional bat or exceptional catching skills?
Q-Who do you think is the best lefty of all time? Does RJ beat out Koufax?
Sorry to clip so much, but I wanted to show that the questions were not particularly sycophantic. Not at all, in fact. They actually seem like pretty interesting and thought-provoking questions. There is no indication that the Qers are lapdoggish, to me.
To be fair, there are also a fair number of questions about on-line gaming, because Schilling is a hard-core gamer, and is even developing his own gaming studio. These questions are pretty nerdy. But not sycophant-y.
None of these facts will stop ol' Shaughnessy, however. Some more excerpts...
Suckup38: Curt, you are the best. Thank you for this blog. It completes me. You had me at hello. I have blood stains on all my white socks. I was wondering if you would please consider going back to the negotiating table with the Red Sox during the season. If you leave Boston, I'll be forced to leave, myself.
Fanboy38: God bless you, Schill. You are the greatest human being, ever. I'm glad you have this blog because I could never speak to you face-to-face. It's so much easier to communicate anonymously, without eye contact or using my real name. That's why blogs are better. Anyway, I was wondering if you'd consider running for Senate or perhaps President? The White House could use a guy like you, Schill.I don't understand this criticism. So what if you don't have to use your real name? This is an informal Q and A. It's not an article voicing an opinion. Schilling is using his real name, which is all that matters -- and which is the whole point of the exercise.
This is a criticism we here at FJM get a lot -- anonymity. With us, since we're bitching about things, I see the validity. We stay anonymous for several reasons, most of them having to do with our real jobs (I am at my desk right now, as I type this). But I get why someone whose work we attacked might find it distasteful that we don't use our real names. To them I say: sorry, I guess. But in this case, who cares if the Qs are anonymous as long as the As are not? What is the problem there?
38 Pitches: That's flattering, Fanboy38, but I just feel there is so much good I can do with my other ventures, saving the planet, saving mankind, etc. I wouldn't want to be stuck in a stuffy Oval Office all day, unable to speak my mind. I much prefer a forum like this where all of you can say whatever you like about me. No holds barred. Good spontaneous give-and-take. Just let it fly.
Another insinuation that these questions are softballs. Again, the questions on Schilling's site are actually pretty tough. There's
Q-Does [the Sox'] “no renewal” stance make you feel like they are, in effect, betting against you having a big year? Does that bother you?
and
Q-Why should the Sox pay you 13 million dollars for the 08 season?
and
Q-Baseball is incredibly out of sync with the rest of the world.
But Shaughnessy has just decided that all of the questions are sycophantic, and is presenting that view, without actually looking at the material he is "parodying." That's journalism! And this is comedy:
Loser38: I used to go to Star Trek conventions and comic book trade shows. No more. Now this blog is my life. My girlfriend says I'm spending too much time on this site. I say she's being ridiculous. I mean, what's six hours a day when you have a chance to communicate -- cyberspace to cyberspace -- with a legitimate Hall of Famer? Do you think I'm being reasonable, Schill?
Loser 38. Star Trek conventions. Wow. That is original and fresh. William Shatner himself made fun of Star Trek conventions...on Saturday Night Live...on December 20, 1986. And here, only 20 years later, you are making the same joke. Well done.
Also, don't you know anything about making fun of nerds, Dan? Nerds don't have girlfriends! Nerds masturbate to pictures of Princess Leia in the gold bikini outfit from the Jabba's palace scenes.
LonelyHeartClub38: Any chance you can blog during games this year?
38 Pitches: Funny you should ask. I've been toying with the idea of blogging between innings. I mean, how cool would that be? I come into the dugout after punching out Vernon Wells, then I tap out some thoughts for all of you and return to the mound for the second inning.
This is a joke. But I think that would be kind of cool. I'd rather he prepare for the next inning, but if he strikes out Vernon Wells a lot this year and then comes into the dugout and writes: "Fuck yeah!" and posts it, I'll be happy.
CHB38: What do you say to those media morons who contend that you are a self-important blowhard with an ill-informed opinion about everything and an insatiable need to be worshipped by sheep-like fans and late-night blog boys who live in Ma's basement?
First of all, the moniker "CHB" that Shaughnessy has chosen...for those of you who do not obsessively follow Boston sports, that stands for "Curly-Haired Boyfriend" (sometimes reported as "Curly-Headed Boyfriend.") It is a thing that Crazy Carl Everett said to Globe writer, Gordon Edes, I believe, about the jheri-coiffed Shaughnessy: "Where's your curly-haired boyfriend?" I'll refrain from postulating why Danny would use that little bit of code for himself at the end of this article. I would add, however, that if he really wanted to drive his point home in re: anonymity, he should have just had it read: Dan Shaughnessy, Boston Globe.
And then, of course, we have the hilarious and cutting remark about us late-night blog boys who live in Ma's basement. Ouch! Ya burnt, blog boys!
Schilling is a loudmouth. He is an attention-seeker. These things are true. But this blog is kind of awesome, I think -- if more athletes did this, perhaps people wouldn't feel so alienated from the sports stars they worship. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to walk up a flight of stairs to my mom's kitchen so she can cook me some pasta shaped like TIE-fighters, which I will eat before rewatching last night's Battlestar Galactica season finale, which was the most exciting thing I have seen since Leroy Jenkins hit YouTube.
Labels: blogs, carl everett, curt schilling, dan shaughnessy, mother's basement
Thanks to reader Sam for pointing me in the ultimate direction of this one, but let me start by saying:
Ever since late Thursday night, I've been thinking about this one really strange record that you may not have heard of yet. It was buried deep in the
story of Boston's third straight loss to the Royals:
Emil Brown homered in the Royals' sixth. But Schilling also went into the record book in a good way. His 54th straight start without allowing an unearned run broke his own major league mark...Schilling also set the mark by going 53 in a row with Arizona over 2001-02 without an unearned run. This current streak began after he gave up two unearned runs on June 14, 2004 at Colorado. [emphasis mine]
This seems like one of the strangest coincidences I've heard of since Scott Youkilis
caught his brother's foul ball. I mean, it's impossible that Curt Schilling has some sort of incredible ability to prevent unearned runs (relative to earned runs), right? And yet this guy has not only the longest, but the second longest streak of starts without an unearned run in major league history.
I guess it makes sense that the record would belong to a very good pitcher; and certainly Schilling was excellent during the 01-02 span in Arizona (ERA+s of 154 and 136). Obviously, the fewer runs in general a dude gives up, the less likely he is to give up unearned runs.
Of course, there's another, much more important, super obvious reason why a guy might not give up a lot of unearned runs...but first, let's hear why
Tom Singer thinks Schilling is so fucking good at not giving up ERs.
Curt Schilling, the intense Boston right-hander, has not allowed a single unearned run the last two seasons. That makes him tops in an overlooked category we've always considered an important tell-tale sign of pitching verve: The ability to steel up, rather than let down, after mistakes behind you.This Schilling guy sounds tough. I remember when he pitched that game with the blood and everything! Of course he steels himself better than other players. He's the guy with the bloody sock! I bet he likes hockey. Tell me more about this verve!
It's an art, part of a pitcher's makeup. The knack of not only keeping your focus, but sharpening it, in response to peril. He's tough
and he's an artist? What a dreamboat! This guy's verve is so hot I want to suck on it.
Next time you see a Schilling game and there is a defensive breakdown around him, watch closely. He'll pace behind the mound with deliberate steps, impatient to get the ball back in his glove. Once he's got it, he'll climb the hill purposefully, look in for the sign with a determined squint ... and make his subsequent pitches with an extra grunt. That I-got-your-back attitude helps explain the fact he has not permitted an unearned run in 260 1/3 innings over the last two seasons.
This sounds an awful lot like the Curt Schilling I usually see pitching, even if a defensive lapse hasn't happened. Determined squint? You mean, like, more determined that a non-defensive-lapse-has-just-happened squint? "He'll climb the hill purposefully"? Is he usually climbing the hill with a clown nose and a pair of flippers on?
To others, errors are a refuge from responsibility. Runs are diverted from their earned run averages, prompting them to waver, even if subconsciously. "I did my job, what happens next isn't on me," is a natural reaction in any workplace -- where it isn't as measurable as on a diamond.Man, I hate those guys. The non-Schillings. The guys who secretly love it when a dude on their own team fucks up so they can somehow pad their stats by giving up runs (impossibly).
"Everyone strives for perfection -- but it doesn't happen," says Buck Showalter, the Texas manager. "Picking up for others is part of the job description. The game is played with human beings, not computer chips. There will be failures -- and how you handle it is what separates you."It's true you guys. Computer chips can not be there to pick up for others. Unless they are programmed to do so.
Overall this is a level playing field. Across a long season, every pitcher presumably runs into that monster: The Four-Out Inning! They all have an equal chance of taming it.Well, yeah, they're all probably going to have at least one "four-out inning." But just how many will a given pitcher have?
And, here's where we finally get to the real point. It's pretty simple, really. The streak in question is comprised of starts without an unearned run. What, more than anything else, leads to the scoring of unearned runs? Errors. So what's the biggest factor in a streak like this? Errors.
Don't believe me? Let's look at Curt Schilling, 6/16/04 - present day.
-- 3 quick notes:
1) Yahoo! and Retrosheet have different dates for the last time Schilling gave up unearned runs, in Colorado. 6/14 or 6/16/04. Whatever.
2) The streak only includes starts. Schilling of course pitched in relief for some of '05. Though Martinez includes those appearances in his discussion, I'm not taking the time to look at them.
3) Yes, unearned runs can also be a result of passed balls and catcher's interference. But, come on.
Okay, so, the idea is: let's look at all of Curt's starts over this span and find all the times that Curt had to pick up his fellow teammates after they fucked up in the field. Remember, according to Tom Singer, it's something to watch for -- the guy steels himself and everything. I used retrosheet for '04 and '05 starts and Yahoo box scores for '06, fwiw.
In reverse chronological order, a list of games Schilling started that included an error by the Red Sox:
7/4/06: BOS 6 TB 9 -- 2 errors
4/30/06: BOS 4 TB 4 -- 1 error
9/10/5: BOS 9 NYY 2 -- 1 error
4/23/05: BOS 5 TB 6 -- 1 error
4/18/05: BOS 12 TOR 7 -- 1 error
4/13/05: BOS 2 NYY 5 -- 1 error
9/21/04: BOS 3 BAL 2 -- 1 error
9/10/04: BOS 13 SEA 2 -- 1 error
6/27/04: BOS 12 PHI 3 -- 1 error
Ten errors total. In 54 starts. But wait, it gets better:
One of the errors on 7/4/06 was after Schilling was in the game. And the other was an error on Schilling himself. Schilling himself also had the only error on 9/10/05. And 4/23/05. The error on 4/13/05 was, again, after Schilling left the game. (I know this is boring, just bear with me.) Finally, the error on 6/27/04 was also post-Schill.
So the final tally for errors while Schilling was in the game:
3 errors by Schilling himself
4 by other players.
Four errors by other players. And Tom Singer has seen this enough to notice a purposefull climb and a determined squint? Wow. I mean this seriously: either that guy is really,
really an insightful baseball analyst, or he is making shit up.
Here's what Schilling did on each of the four occasions when he purposefully climbed the hill following horrible relapses by his defense.
1) 4/30/06:
With two outs in the bottom of the third, Joey Gathright steals second and takes third on a throwing error by Jason Varitek. Schilling squints to home and promptly walks Johnny Gomes. Then he strikes out Ty Wiggington.
2) 4/18/05:
Two outs again, top 2nd. Bases loaded, and Bill Mueller drops a foul pop off the bat of Frank Catalanotto. Schilling then strikes him out on the next pitch.
3) 9/21/04:
One out, top 2nd. Javy Lopez reaches on another Mueller error, sending Surhoff to second. So first and second, one out, and Schilling K's Jay Gibbons and Larry Bigbie.
4) 9/10/04:
One out, bottom 1st. Randy Winn reaches on another error by Bill Mueller. Edgar Martinez succumbs to the squint and grounds into an inning-ending double play.
Granted, he struck out 4 of the 6 guys he faced after defensive "meltdowns" -- or more accurately, he struck out 3 guys in full at bats and threw one strike to strike out another. But it's not exactly like these were life-threatening situations. It's not like he was facing Albert Pujols with no outs in the bottom of the 8th in a 2-2 tie. And, of course, the bottom line is, we're talking six plate appearances over 2 1/2 seasons.
Seven errors in 54 starts. Four by players other than Schilling himself.
And I'm supposed to believe the reason for this guy's incredible streak is his squint.
EDIT: "less runs" to "fewer runs" (thanks to KT, who finds it acceptable to use "Occam's Razor" as a verb and still call out other people on grammar)
EDIT ALSO: Info on the Catalanotto at bat. There were two strikes already at the time of the error.
BIG EDIT: Somehow I thought this article was written by Buck Martinez. It was written by Tom Singer.
Labels: curt schilling, tom singer, unearned runs
Just a modicum of research would have helped Ryne Sandberg's response to this question immensely.
2. Are the Boston Red Sox better off with Curt Schilling in the bullpen or starting rotation?
He is the only one who knows the strength of his body right now and if his ankle will allow him to throw 100-plus pitches in a game. But I think the Red Sox have a better chance of winning with Schilling as their closer.
He has broken down as a starter this year and the Red Sox bullpen has faltered on many occasions. Going into the playoffs, I would give Schilling the closer role. It would turn every playoff game into an eight-inning affair.
>> Really. Every playoff game. Eight-inning affair. Please consider what you're saying, Mr. Sandberg.
Schilling's pitched 24.1 innings since coming off the DL. In those 24.1 innings, he's allowed 14 earned runs for a tidy ERA of 5.18. That's not good by any standard. Danys Baez would kill himself if he woke up tomorrow with a 5.18 ERA. Schilling has allowed earned runs in five of his last eight appearances, including two 3-run disasters.
Here are some closers who have a better ERA than Curt Schilling has as a reliever this year:
Bob Wickman
Jose Mesa
Braden Looper
Ryan Dempster
Mike MacDougal
David Weathers
Former Braves closer and human disgrace Danny Kolb has a better ERA, and he has a WHIP of 1.69.
Now, I don't even totally disagree with Ryno's overall point, which is that it's pretty unlikely that Schilling will be an effective starter given his physical condition. And it's not out of the question that Schilling, with his past record of success, would be a better bet in the playoffs than David Weathers.
But he hasn't proven that he's even remotely close to being a lights-out closer, so let's not anoint him as the next Mariano Rivera just yet.
Labels: curt schilling, ryne sandberg
