Conan, and Generation X, Got Screwed

NBC is run, evidently, but a bunch of douchebags.

When Conan O'Brien first came on the air back in the early 90's, I wasn't much of a fan. He was always set up to appeal to the late night college crowd, and I was a part of that crowd during his early days, yet I didn't really appreciate his humor.

Over the years, however, he's come to grow on me and I was glad to see him move into the Tonight Show spot (not that I watch the show much, but it was nice knowing he was there if I wanted to tune in).

I never really understood why NBC wanted to get rid of Leno and give the Tonight Show to Conan, but it didn't really bother me that much - I assumed Leno was ready to move on. It's only in recent days that I've learned that Leno never wanted to leave in the first place. NBC just wanted to keep Conan and they thought the only way they could do that would be to give him the Tonight Show.

When I heard that Leno was going to do a 10 pm show, I thought what probably most other people thought - that it would be a flop. Not because Leno isn't funny, but simply because that sort of show at 10 pm is just too unusual for mainstream pop culture to embrace.

But to turn around and give the Tonight Show back to Leno and more or less leave Conan holding his bag...it's a total WTF moment. A prime example, I suppose, of very poor leadership on the part of NBC.

I'm glad Conan is bilking NBC for nearly 50 million dollars. That's the price they deserve to pay for being so stupid. And not only is Conan walking away with more money than he could ever spend, but he'll also get another show on another network and probably be quite successful. So good for him. Boo for NBC.

I don't know if Leno deserves to be viewed as the bad guy in all this, but the whole situation has definitely put a bad taste in my mouth towards him - and I've always been a Leno fan. It seems to me that the decent thing would have been to simply admit that his 10 pm show failed and move on. Go to another network. Open a comedy club. Start a sitcom. Whatever. But to go back and take his old show back from the person it had been rightfully given to? That's just crappy. I kind of hope his ratings stay in the toilet.

My sister pointed out that this is a prime example of the continued antagonism between the Baby Boomers and Generation X. Leno is definitely a Boomer (born in 1950), and Conan (born in 1963) is from the earliest days of Gen X. And while Leno has always been geared toward that older, Booomer crowd, Conan has definitely always been geared toward the Gen X crowd.

In society, Gen X is characterized by constantly living in the shadows of their Baby Boomer forebears. The Boomers just won't go away, and Gen X is finding itself squeezed out of prominence by the Millennials (or Generation Y). So Gen X is stuck in limbo. It can't compete with the Boomers before it, or the Millennials after it.

You see this illustrated in so many things in society. Consider "Prince Charles Syndrome" (another example given to me by my sister). Queen Elizabeth represents the Boomers (she's not a Boomer, of course, but she came to the throne in the middle of the Boomer era of the early 50's), and Prince Charles represents Gen X (again, he's not a Gen Xer himself, but he represents them in this analogy). The old bitty won't die, so he's left holding his bag for all these years, waiting to become king. But now it's been so long that his son, William (who represents the Millennials in this analogy), is starting to overtake him in prominence and there is talk that William might as well just succeed Elizabeth, because Charles is so irrelevant now.

Or consider the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. If you know anything about the HOF in recent years, you'll know that there has been a distinct stigma in the last decade against players from the 1980's and early 1990's. They aren't "historical" enough to be talked about in the same sentence with Ruth, Gehrig, and Mays, and they seem to pale in comparison to the steroid-fueled players of the 2000's. So again you have the Boomers represented by the "old time greats," and you have the Millennials represented by modern players who have become machines on the field, and squeezed out in the middle, holding their bags, are the players from the Gen X era - the 1980's and early 1990's.

I don't know about you, but as a Gen Xer, I'm getting tired of holding my bag.

McGwire Insists Steroids Didn't Enhance Performance

Yesterday, I posted about Mark McGwire's admission that he used steroids throughout his career.

In that post, I noted that I appreciated his sincere apology and that it had renewed my opinion of him. I also stated, however, that I still felt that he did not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, because whether he has apologized or not, that doesn't change the fact that he cheated by giving himself a competitive advantage using banned substances.

Last night, Bob Costas interviewed McGwire on the MLB network. In that interview, Costas asked McGwire if steroids helped him to hit more home runs in his career than he would have without steroids.

I was disappointed in McGwire's reply.

He essentially said that he did not feel that steroids had enhanced his ability to hit home runs. He argued that his ability to hit home runs was a natural gift, given to him - in his words - by "the man upstairs," and thus steroids did not increase his home run totals.

By his account, McGwire took steroids in order to heal more quickly from injuries and to feel 100% when he was on the field. He talked about his numerous injuries throughout his career and argued that he had taken low dose steroids in order to recover better from those injuries. Essentially, he argued that the steroids helped him to play more often, and to feel healthier when he was on the field.

There is a disconnect here that should be pretty obvious. First of all, if steroids helped him to heal more quickly so that he could play more often, and if steroids helped him to feel better when he was on the field, then that, by definition, was a competitive advantage that steroids gave him. Those who did not take steroids simply had to play through the pain or miss more games due to injury. Playing more often, and feeling 100% when you play, will naturally increase your overall productivity. So even if the benefit of steroids on Big Mac's home run total wasn't a direct influence, it still had a clear and legitimate indirect influence.

Secondly, if he genuinely believes that steroids didn't have a direct influence on his home run totals (by giving him extra strength, bat speed, etc.), then he is surely the only person under that delusion. But if he does, in fact, genuinely believe the steroids didn't directly enhance his play, how can one explain his guilt and contrition? If you've read the statement he made, he makes it clear that he feels an enormous amount of guilt over what he did. He apologizes several times. He says he wishes he had never played in the steroid era. He clearly regrets his steroid use immensely. Furthermore, in the Costas interview, his contrition is even more obvious. He actually broke into tears at one point. He apologized to his teammates, to Bud Selig (commissioner of MLB), to the fans, to his coach, to all MLB players, and to the Maris family. He even called Roger Maris's widow to apologize personally to her.

How can that sort of guilt and contrition be explained if McGwire doesn't acknowledge that the steroids gave him a competitive advantage and helped him to ultimately hit more home runs and break Maris' record?

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's lying when he says that he doesn't think the steroids gave him an advantage. I think he just hasn't fully connected all the dots. I don't think he has fully faced the ramifications of what he did. I don't think he has fully put two and two together. I don't think he has considered the fact that taking steroids in order to feel better is the same thing as taking steroids in order to have a competitive advantage, and a competitive advantage, by definition, means that his productivity (like home run totals) was increased due to steroids.

I feel sorry for Big Mac. I still accept his apology, I still feel like he is sincere, I still feel like he genuinely feels guilty. I just don't think he has yet been able to face the reality of what his steroid use really means in regards to his career and his productivity as a player.

McGwire Admits to Steroid Use

Mark McGwire, who is returning to Major League Baseball this year as the hitting coach for his former team, the St. Louis Cardinals, has issued a statement today admitting that he used steroids throughout much of his career, including in 1998 when he broke Roger Maris's home run record.

"I wish I had never touched steroids," McGwire said. "It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize." (Read the whole statement here)

In 2005, McGwire tarnished his reputation when he testified before Congress and continually refused to answer their questions about steroid use, repeating that he didn't want to "talk about the past."

McGwire before Congress in 2005

Once considered by many to be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, he has failed to get even half the number of required votes in his first several years on the ballot.

In his statement, he made clear that his purpose in coming clean now was because he is getting ready to return to the field as the Cardinals' hitting coach. But one has to wonder if he's not hoping to do a bit of damage control with the Hall of Fame too.

A lot of people that I've heard comments from seem unimpressed. One baseball fan I know called him a "loser" and said that McGwire "doesn't count now."

I have a bit more compassion. I appreciate his openness and willingness to make the admission and apologize. In my eyes, it restores his reputation. It doesn't mean that what he did is okay or that we can just forget about it now, but it does make me feel more kindly towards him now than I have for the last 5 or 6 years.

It's important not to unfairly punish McGwire for sins that half of baseball was guilty of committing in the 1990's and early 2000's. That doesn't mean McGwire gets a free pass, but it's not like he was the only one doing it.

Having said that, I still am patently opposed to him getting into the Hall of Fame. Apology or no apology, it doesn't change the fact that he used performance-enhancing drugs.

But I can at least have the compassion to forgive someone who has admitted his transgressions and apologized.

Hall of Fame Results

The Hall of Fame results were just announced, and only Andre Dawson got in. I couldn't be more happy of course, growing up watching Dawson play.

But I'm immensely disappointed that Barry Larkin only pulled 51% of the vote (you have to have 75%). How can such a good player miss out on so many ballots?

Robbie Alomar also didn't get in, which is a travesty as well.

What the hell is wrong with the sports writers of the BBWAA? They induct Ozzie Smith on the first ballot - a player who was a fantastic fielder but had minor-league talent on every other aspect of major league baseball - yet look past Robbie Alomar and Barry Larkin? Absurd and outrageous.

Either way, congrats to one of my childhood favorite players, the Hawk. It's about damn time.

Baseball Hall of Fame

On Wednesday, this year's baseball Hall of Fame inductees will be announced. For those not intimately familiar with the process, it tends to create the same sorts of heated debates and controversies that the BCS selections create every year in college football.

The biggest problem is that the entire process is flawed. Hall of Famers aren't chosen based on statistics. They aren't chosen based on perceptions from other players or managers or owners or anyone else who actually works within the industry. They are chosen based on the subjective opinions of sports writers. Specifically, members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that sports journalists are all incompetent douchebags. But its clear that they are not the ideal group to be selecting members of the Hall of Fame. Just because someone is a sports writer doesn't mean he has extra special information that your average baseball fan doesn't have. Fact is, a given sports writer is just as likely to be biased and uninformed as anyone else. Someone may cover the local MLB team in the local paper, but that does not mean he/she has any special insight into players who played on other teams, in other leagues, in a different era.

That last point is especially poignant - the issue of players from different eras.

A player must be retired for five years before he can appear on a ballot. That, of course, is to give time for his "legacy" to sink in. If a player receives at least 5% of the vote, he will remain on the ballot for the following year. 5% is not much, so many players remain on the ballot for many years. Twenty years have to pass before a player loses eligibility. Thus, in 2010, for instance, there could be players on the ballot who retired as far back as the mid-80's - long enough ago that some of today's BBWAA members were only children at the time. Are they really qualified to be making the decision?

The fact is, it has become more and more obvious in recent years that there is a distinct bias among modern BBWAA members against players from the 1980's. The reason for this is because of the performance-enhancing drugs boom of the mid-1990's and the resulting scandal of the early 2000's. Suddenly 40 homers in a season wasn't such a big deal. Suddenly a slugging percentage of .500 was ho-hum. Offensive numbers skyrocketed as a result of widespread cheating, and even though we now know what happened and why, it hasn't changed the perceptions that resulted from those steroid-enhanced numbers of the 1990's and 2000's. It's left us with the perception that those players from the 1980's - the guys who played in the last generation before the steroid boom and who are now the players on the Hall of Fame ballots - it's left us with the impression that these guys weren't all that great. So you have top player after top player after top player from the 1980's and early 1990's who are languishing on the Hall of Fame ballots year after year because they are being judged against the drug-enhanced power numbers of the modern era instead of against the era in which they played.

A prime example is Andre Dawson.



Here is a player who won one MVP award and was runner-up MVP two other times. He won the Rookie of the Year award. He won eight gold gloves. He was the first player to really combine consistent power with consistent speed, hitting double digit homers and stealing double digit bases in 12 seasons. He hit over 400 home runs (again, pre-steroids era) and stole over 300 bases. He had nearly 1600 RBI. He was an 8-time All Star. He was a 4-time Silver Slugger. In 1987, he lead the league in both homers and RBI.

The fact is, Dawson was among the very best players of his era. Any discussion, circa 1988, of the "best player in baseball" would most definitely have included Dawson. He was among the best of the best.

Yet he has languished on the Hall of Fame ballot for nearly a decade now. A decade!! It's unbelievable that someone who so dominated his sport and his position for so long could end up being so overlooked by today's baseball writers. He is a prime illustration of the kind of bias we have today in this post-steroid scandal world.

Andre Dawson, for what it's worth, will probably get in this year. He only missed by a few votes last year. And new candidate Roberto Alomar will probably be a "first balloter" this year as well. Barry Larkin deserves to be a first balloter, but my guess is that he will not make it this year in his first chance.



Despite being the premiere shortstop of his era (famous but one-tool Ozzie Smith notwithstanding), Larkin is just one of those underrated players that people tend to overlook. He played in the shadow of the more familiar Ripken and Smith, and the the last few years of his career he was overshadowed by the rise of the power-hitting shortstops like Jeter, A-Rod, Tejada, and half a dozen others. But make no mistake, Larkin's overall numbers are better than any of his shortstop peers during the prime of his career (roughly 1987 to 1997).

Jayson Stark, writer for ESPN, wrote a fantastic article last week about Larkin and why he deserves to be in. If ever member of the BBWAA read this article, I think he'd get in to the Hall of Fame tomorrow on his first ballot. But not every member of the BBWAA will read it. Here's the link: Underrate Larkin Deserves Spot in Hall

If I was a member of the BBWAA, my ballot would have Larkin, Alomar, Dawson, and Atlanta great Fred McGriff.

Fuck the Cubs

I'm done with the Cubs. I've been a fan since at least the age of 9, but I am absolutely done with them this time. 2003 was painful, when they blew a 3-1 game lead in the NLCS, but this hurts a lot worse.

They had the best record in the NL, and had the best record in the majors for a lot of the season, and this was their year of destiny - exactly 100 years since their last World Series victory. It was a season of hope and change and vindication.

And they threw it all away.

Outscored 26-5 in a 3-game series. Their worst 3-game series all season, without question. They played like a cellar team, not like a team that had the best record in the NL.

Fuck the Cubs. I am done. I no longer consider myself a fan of the Chicago Cubs. They can suck my liberal dick.

Parity in Baseball: Which League Has Better Balance?

Parity: par–i–ty; noun; equality, as in amount, status, or character.

There are many ways to evaluate the National League versus the American League in Major League Baseball. One can look to individual and/or team statistics, league nuances and styles of play, World Series victories, All-Star game victories, interleague victories, and so on. In terms of specifically evaluating balance among teams in each league, one can look toward statistics, payrolls, and team prominence. It is this last portion – team prominence – that I believe makes a strong argument toward parity, and I believe a good way to evaluate prominence is by looking at post-season appearances. When one evaluates playoff teams over the last decade or so, one discovers that the American League has a tendency to send the same handful of teams to the playoffs each year, whereas the National League has a wider variation of representation in the playoffs. This, I believe, indicates a better general parity – and therefore level of competition – in the National League as opposed to the American League.

Everyone who follows baseball knows of the prominence of the Yankees and Red Sox. Together, these two American League teams (which are both not only in the AL, but also in the same division within the AL) have had 20 post-season appearances in the last 13 seasons (since Major League Baseball went to an 8-team playoff format). Additionally, they have had 11 AL championship appearances, and 8 World Series appearances. That means that the American League pennant has been won 8 out of the last 13 years by either the Yankees or the Red Sox. Add in the Indians, and 10 of the last 13 pennants have been won by only 3 American League teams.

By way of comparison, the two most playoff-bound teams in the National League – the Braves and Cardinals – have had only 18 playoff appearances between them in the last 13 seasons. And while these two teams have had more NL championship appearances between them (12) than the Red Sox and Yankees, they have only 5 World Series appearances combined. To reach 10 pennants (equal with the AL’s Yankees, Red Sox, and Indians), one would have to add together the totals of no less than 6 separate NL teams – twice as many as the AL.

But do parity arguments end with merely the most prominent AL and NL teams?

Not in the least. Consider the following:

In the last 13 seasons, there have been a total of 52 American League playoff berths (4 each year). A total of 11 AL teams (71%) have made it to the playoffs at least once during that stretch. However, nearly 60% of the berths have been filled by just 3 teams. Add appearances by a few additional teams, and only 7 AL teams (exactly half of the total league) have accounted for 85% of playoff appearances in the last 13 years. The Yankees, of course, have been in the playoffs every year during that stretch, accounting for fully one-quarter of all AL playoff appearances.

The NL, on the other hand, has had a total of 13 different teams (81%) in the playoffs over the last 13 seasons. Additionally, the NL’s top three teams have totaled only 46% of all playoff berths (compared to the 60% of the AL’s top three teams). If we add in appearances by a few more NL teams, 7 teams have accounted for only 77% of NL playoff appearances in the last 13 seasons (compared to 85% in for the AL’s top 7). The Braves have appeared 11 times, for a total of 21% of all playoff berths (but none in the last two seasons, and they are under .500 this year).

Appearances in the championship series’ have been slightly closer in parity, with 6 AL teams making up 85% of all ALCS appearances, and 6 NL teams making up 81% of all NLCS appearances. In the AL, the Yankees and Red Sox (and also the Yankees and Indians) have accounted for 11 total appearances (42%), while the Braves and Cardinals have combined for 12 total appearances, or 46%.

In regards to World Series appearances, only 6 American League teams (43%) have made it to the World Series in the last 13 seasons, whereas 9 National League teams (56%) have made it. Only 3 AL teams account for 77% of American League World Series appearances, and nearly half are by the Yankees alone. In the NL, the top 3 teams account for only 54% of NL World Series appearances, and every other NL World Series team has appeared only once. The top NL World Series team – the Braves – has appeared only 3 times, and not at all since 1999.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly in a discussion of baseball parity, there are a number of trends evident when looking at the teams who have appeared in the playoffs in the last 13 seasons. From 1995 to 1999, there were only 6 different AL teams represented in the playoffs, accounting for a total of 20 playoff berths. During the same span, the NL fielded twice as many – 12 different teams. From 2002 to 2005, again the AL only fielded 6 total teams, while the NL fielded 9. From 2002 to 2007, the AL fielded only 8 different teams, while the NL fielded 13 – more than 80% of the total National League.

In 1998 and 1999, the AL fielded the exact same 4 teams in consecutive years. The National League has never done that during this 13-year span. The AL has fielded 3 or more of the same 4 teams in consecutive years 6 different times; by comparison, the NL has done the same thing only twice. Furthermore, the AL has never fielded 4 different teams in consecutive years. The NL accomplished this in 2006 and 2007. Finally, the AL has given us identical championship series’ in consecutive years two different times – Yankees-Mariners in 2000 and 2001, and Yankees-Red Sox in 2003 and 2004 (the Yankees and Red Sox also met in 1999). The NL, however, has done this only once, with the Cardinals and Astros in 2004 and 2005.

All in all, I believe it is clear that an evaluation of playoff appearances indicates a much better parity and competitive balance in the National League than in the American League. Having shown this, I would also suggest that better competitive balance means better competition and better game-by-game enjoyment by the casual fan. For this reason, I prefer to watch the National League, and generally feel the urge to change the channel when yet another Yankees-Red Sox match-up is being shown nationally.

Cincinnatireds!! Cincinnatireds!!

A GREAT GAME

I attended my second Reds game of the year on Friday, June 16th. The Reds played the reigning world champion Chicago White Sox, and got summarily beaten down, losing 12 to 4.

Despite the hometown team losing, it was a very enjoyable game, as I was able to watch from the 4th row right behind the Reds’ dugout. It was my Father’s Day gift to myself, and cost me 60 dollars.

GETTING THERE IS HALF THE FUN

I arrived in northern Kentucky about 6:40, parking on a little neighborhood street that runs along the Ohio River and dead-ends right before the Roebling Bridge. By parking there, I parked for free, had no serious game traffic to contend with, and had easy access to get across the river and to the park. The Roebling Bridge – a Victorian monstrosity built in 1865 by the same architect who built the Brooklyn Bridge – has a walking path outside the roadway, and deposits you about a block from the stadium.

It was a beautiful afternoon, sunny and warm but not uncomfortable, a cool breeze blowing in off the river. A perfect evening for baseball.

Walking along the Roebling Bridge, I felt the vibration of the walkway under my feet every time a car zoomed past. The walkway is outside the superstructure of the bridge, but is basically shielded from the traffic only by the struts and wires of the superstructure. So you feel drawn to walking on the outside of the walkway, to get as far away from the cars as possible. However, the fence along the walkway is only about 4 feet high, and the drop to the water is a good 100 feet. So you don’t feel comfortable too close to the fence either. You end up attempting to stay right in the middle, until such a time as you come up on slow-pokes waddling along and have to pass them.

THE SEATS

I got into the stadium about 7 minutes before game time. Finding my section (131, Row I, Seat 9), I started down the steps toward the field. Since I was in Row I, I was expecting to be in the 9th row. However, as I continued down the steps, it became apparent that Row I was much closer than that. Turns out, there are no Rows A-E in that section, because the dugout is in the spot where those rows would be. So Row I is the 4th row. I was seated directly behind the camera pit, which sits at the end of the dugout. I could see what was on the camera’s screen throughout the game. First base was directly in front of me.


Needless to say, the view was excellent, and each time the Reds came into the dugout after the inning, I got a very close-up view of them. It’s amazing to see them so close and see how BIG some of them are. Adam Dunn seems to just dwarf Ken Griffey Jr., and Griffey is no small guy!

THE GAME

At 7:10, the Reds take the field. Brandon Claussen, who I had seen just a week earlier pitch a decent game against the Cubs but still get the loss, is on the mound again for the Reds.

Scott Podsednik leads the game off for the White Sox, flying out to center. Not bad, first batter down.

The next batter singles to center, and Griffey bobbles the ball, allowing the runner to advance to second. Grrrr. Frustration, but things are still in order. No reason to panic.

Next batter walks.

Then the next batter walks again.

Suddenly the bases are loaded and there’s only one out. The fans are beginning to get restless. No one wants to see the bases loaded in the first inning.

Joe Crede steps up to the plate. Claussen pitches him a fastball, which he watches for strike one. Claussen then hurls the second pitch. Crede swings and promptly deposits the ball into the left field stands, about 15 rows high.


Grand slam.

It’s now 4-0, there’s still only 1 out, and only 5 batters have come to the plate!

It can’t be every day that you see a grand slam with the 5th batter of a game. That’s only one batter away from the quickest grand slam possible. Makes you wonder if the 4th batter of any game has ever hit a grand slam. I’ve attempted to look such a statistic up on the Internet, but with no luck.

THE FUN BEGINS

After Crede’s grand slam, the crowd was getting quite upset. In one of the funnier moments of the night, an old man, about 65, sitting in the next aisle, began screaming at the top of his lungs, complaining and hurling insults at the White Sox. He yelled for Claussen to give the next batter as brush-back pitch. His voice was strained to the point of being screechy and gravelly. As Claussen prepared to pitch to the next batter, the old man screamed, “Put it in his ear! PUT IT. IN. HIS EAR!!!!!”

In the bottom of the first, the Reds put some runs of their own on the board, with Rich Aurilia hitting a three-run homer, making it 4-3. Unfortunately, the White Sox kept on scoring but the Reds didn’t. It was 10-3 by the 4th inning, and ultimately ended 12-4.

THE CHEERLEADER

About the 7th inning, another man began calling out. He was roughly 45 or 50, and sitting behind me and by himself. I don’t know if he had moved down from a higher spot, and that’s why it took so long for his antics to start, or if it just took 7 innings of beer, but either way, he seemed to have dubbed himself the Official Cincinnati Reds Cheerleader. Standing up, he would begin chanting, “Cincinnati Reds! Cincinnati Reds!” enunciating each syllable crisply and distinctly, and very fast. “Cincinnatireds! Cincinnatireds!” Then he started into the familiar, Let’s Go Reh-ehds, clap clap, clap-clap-clap. Let’s go Reh-ehds, clap, clap, clap-clap-clap. A few fans would follow him, but most just sort of laughed and stared. He called out to the White Sox first base coach, who actually turned and glared at him for a few seconds, and informed the coach that he was standing in Beautiful Cincinnati Ohio, Home of the Cincinnatireds.

There was a very close play at first base about this time, and the umpire called the play in favor of the White Sox. This was the third or fourth close call that had gone against the Reds by this same umpire. The Official Reds Cheerleader stood up and began heckling the umpire with a string of abuse that could only be described as an art form. There was no profanity in the tirade; instead it was just classic baseball heckling, like a throwback to the 1930’s. I don’t remember word for word everything he said, but one particular line stood out among the others, and I transcribed it on my phone’s notepad for posterity: Hey Blue! You must be in bad need of some good eyeglasses cuz’ you haven’t made a call all night, ya cotton candy eater!!

JUST FEEDIN' THE FISH

All in all, it was a good experience. I was amused, as I have been in the past, at how much baseball players are like royalty and the fans are like the rabble begging at their feet. After every inning, the Reds players would trot off the field and enter the dugout right in the vicinity where I was sitting. Whoever had made the last out would either toss the ball into the stands, or throw it to the Reds’ first base coach, Billy Hatcher, who would then throw it into the stands. So when the end of the inning became imminent, the fish would begin schooling at the end of the aisleway right above the dugout, squirming and pushing and holding up their fins. They’d wave their gloves and call out for the ball. When the ball was thrown, they would jump and dive and fight over it like it was a diamond. And the players, particularly Billy Hatcher, seemed so completely disinterested. He'd toss the ball up there out of habit, like throwing crumbs to fish, and wouldn’t even watch to see who caught it. Toss and turn away, with never an expression on the face. Just feedin’ the fish.

IF IT'S FREE, I WANT IT!!

Likewise, in between innings, staffers dressed in outrageous and silly costumes would run along the tops of the dugouts, shooting cheap cotton T-shirts into the crowd out of high-powered air guns. If you’ve been to a baseball game anywhere, you’ve probably seen this sort of thing. People stand up and cheer and scream and wave their arms, and then dive and jump and fight and kick and punch and murder each other to get that shirt once it comes near them. You’d think these idiots in grass skirts and coconut bras were shooting wads of cash out of their air guns. It always makes me want to get on the stadium’s microphone and say, “What are you people doing? It’s a 3-dollar T-shirt that you’ll probably end up using to paint or mow the grass in, and you’re jumping around and yelling to get one, as if they’re made of gold!” If it’s free, and only a few people get it, then it doesn’t matter WHAT it is...people will kill to have it. I think that’s a curious commentary on our culture.

THE BODY OF FANS

The crowd at any sporting event is amusing, and it’s interesting how each team’s body of fans seems to develop a personality of its own. If there was any one thing that marred my experience at this game, it was the fans. On the way home, I was thinking about my various experiences at ballparks over the years, and I have come to decide (based purely on my own experiences – which I acknowledge may not be the same as everyone) that Reds fans don’t have much class.

At Friday’s game, there were a number of people who were making general asses of themselves. There is the aforementioned Official Cincinnati Reds Cheerleader, but he’s not even really who I’m talking about. He was entertaining, and a certain amount of friendly heckling, particularly at the umpires, is as much a part of baseball tradition as the home run. But most of the heckling I heard was just unclassy and rude.

For instance, there was a group of guys sitting in front of me, dressed more for an evening of clubbing in Cancun than for a baseball game – Abercrombie clothes, Sunset Beach tans, steroid-inflated biceps with the tribal tattoo, clothes and accessories arranged in very specific and intentional ways, arrogant and cocky attitudes. They reminded me of the sort of people you’d see on MTV’s Spring Break telecasts. They continually heckled the White Sox first base coach, Harold Baines. Baines is a former major leaguer himself and had a solid career with the White Sox, one which may eventually get him into the Hall of Fame. I actually saw him as a player at a White Sox/Angels game in 1987 at Comisky Park in Chicago. These MTV Spring Break wannabe’s heckled Baines all night, patronizing him by calling him by his first name, making fun of him when he held the base runners’ shin guards, patronizing his own playing ability with various comments, etc. They got several other groups of people sitting in the vicinity heckling Baines too. They also heckled the Cincinnati first baseman (presumably their OWN team’s player), after he failed to scoop a throw in the dirt, which led to a run. They were basically just rude and showed no class all night long. Their shenanigans didn’t end until (thankfully) they left in the 7th inning (presumably to go hit the clubs downtown).

There were a bunch of kids sitting around me who were apparently there without adults. Or, the adults were sitting elsewhere, and the kids had come down to the good seats. Either way, they were totally un-supervised, and were generally rude and pushy. They didn’t bother to move their stuff when I tried to get out of the row to go get food, and when I knocked over one of their bottles of Mountain Dew (which had the cap on, thus not causing a spill), one of the kids huffed and puffed and acted offended. Late in the game, a bunch of people came and sat down in the seats that had been vacated by early leavers, and they just marched right in and sat down, taking up 7 seats next to me, right up to the seat where I was sitting. The lady who was leading them plopped down next to me with her enormous handbag, and proceeded to sit sideways, facing the people she was with, so that I had the flank of this not-so-small woman practically blocking my view. I finally had to move down a seat to give myself some space.

In past years, I have had similar experiences with fans at Reds games. In 1990, at a Reds/Pirates playoff game, the Pirates won. As we were walking out, I remember seeing a man, who was obviously drunk, yelling and screaming obscenities and decrying the Reds for losing. In a game in 2003 or so, a group of friends and I went to see a Reds/Cardinals game. One of the people with us was a big Cardinals fan. The Cardinals led most of the game, until Barry Larkin hit a pinch-hit, walk-off homerun in the bottom of the 9th to win the game in dramatic fashion. As we were walking out, someone heckled my friend (who was wearing a Cardinals hat) and attempted to knock the hat off his head. I remember at the time my friend saying something to the effect of, “I’ve never had something like that happen to me,” but I didn’t think too much of it at the time.

Furthermore, I’ve noticed over the years that Reds fans routinely boo their own team. I can understand booing your team after a particularly bad inning, or a series of errors. But Cincinnati routinely boos their own team, and even boos individual players. I’ve seen two games this season, and the Reds fans have booed their own team in both games, despite the fact that Cincinnati is having its best season in years, and was in first place as short a time as a week ago. In Friday’s game, Brandon Claussen did not pitch well, and gave up 8 runs in the first three innings before being taken out. As he came off the field, the crowd booed him. That is a terribly unclassy thing to do, in my opinion. It’s not like he was trying to give up 8 runs. He’s out there working hard, doing the best he can do. You don’t boo your own team, particularly not like that, singling out a player while he takes his walk of shame off the field.

Ken Griffey Jr., after coming to the Reds and experiencing a lot of trouble with injuries, was blasted numerous times in the local press, and booed on more than one occasion. This is a future Hall of Famer, someone unanimously considered the best player of the 1990’s, and a native Cincinnatian who took far less money than he was worth to come play for his hometown team in 2000. And that’s the treatment he got from the fans. Just no class at all.

Everyone gets frustrated with the team sometimes, and sometimes it’s appropriate to boo the team when the team has a particularly bad play or inning. But you don’t boo your team every time they do something you don’t like, and you definitely don't boo individuals.

REDS FANS vs. ASTROS FANS

When I take all these experiences, and compare them to the experiences I’ve had seeing Astros games in Houston, it paints a bleak picture. I’ve seen some two dozen games in Houston – far less than I’ve seen in Cincinnati, but still enough, I think, to make a fair comparison. The fans in Houston are much more classy, much more supportive, and not nearly as obnoxious and rowdy. Of course any stadium at any time can have people who get drunk and make fools of themselves. But as a group, Houston fans are very supportive, very friendly, and provide a nice, pleasant environment to watch baseball in.

I’ve never, not even one time, heard the Houston crowd boo their team. Not even after Aramis Ramirez of the Pirates hit three home runs against the Astros in a 2002 game that I saw there. My experiences in the Astrodome and Minute Maid Park are simply polar opposite from my experiences in Riverfront Stadium and Great American Ballpark. As I said before, the body of fans seems to take on a personality of its own, and Cincinnati’s fans seem to basically have no class, while Houston’s fans seem, to me, to be very classy.

I realize part of this may be due to the fact that Houston has had a winning organization for the last 15 years, whereas the Reds have struggled to stay above .500. So I realize that frustration plays a part in how the fans act. But I don’t think that explains everything, because even in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when the Reds were good (they won the World Series in 1990), the fans still tended to be fickle and hard to please. Eric Davis, the Reds’ premier player back in those days, was constantly criticized in the local press, and booed on the field from time to time.

So it seems that nothing ever changes in Cincinnati.

Still, I'll keep going to the games, and suffering the rude fans, because it is baseball, and it is baseball's oldest franchise - the great, storied Cincinnatireds.

The Rise and Fall of Luis Gonzalez

Luis Gonzalez is a former Astro, Cub, and Tiger who made a name for himself as an Arizona Diamondback. Because of a break-out season he had in 2001, there has been much speculation about him being one of the many major leaguers who used steriods and HGH (human growth hormone). Yesterday, after rumors of his steroid use were alluded to by his own team's owner, he called a press conference to deny the rumors of his use of performance-enhancing drugs. In light of that, I decided to actually delve into his career stats and see what the numbers say.

His first full season in the big leagues was 1991 at age 24. For the eight seasons between 1991 to 1998 he switched teams 5 different times, playing for a total of 3 different teams. He batted exactly .300 one season, but never came close to .300 in any other season during those years. His career batting average through 1998 was .268. He was somewhat of a base-stealing threat, stealing 20 in 1993 and 15 in 1994, and stealing 10 or more four different times. Through 1997, the most home runs he ever hit in a season was 15, which he had done twice, and in 1998 with the Tigers he hit his then career high 23. Between 1991 and 1998, his HR per at-bat ratio was about 1 in every 36 at-bats. He never had more than 79 RBI in any one season, and averaged 68 RBI per season during those years.

So by age 31, you have an 8-year veteran journeyman with consistent but highly unremarkable numbers, and his biggest statistical achievment was batting .300 in 1993. Typically a 6 or 7 batter in the line-up, he didn't even become an every day player until his 3rd full season in the majors.

Then, in 1999, he makes his 6th team change, moving to the 4th team of his career, signing with the Diamondbacks. That year, at age 32, he hits a career high 26 home runs, knocks in a career high 111 RBI (31 more than he'd ever knocked in before, and nearly double his career RBI average), and bats a career high .336 (36 points higher than his previous career high and nearly 70 points higher than his career average). His HR per at-bat ratio moves up a staggering 13 points to 1 in every 23 at-bats.

In 2000, he bats .311, and hits 31 home runs and 114 RBI, again setting new career highs in those two categories. He only steals 2 bases, by far a career low. His HR/At-bat ratio moves up to 1 in 19.

In 2001, he bats .325, hits 57 home runs, and knocks in 142 RBI. He only steals 1 base. His HR/At-bat ratio jets up to a McGwire-esque 1 in every 10 at-bats.

By 2005, he hits only 24 HR, the fewest he'd hit in any one season since joining the Diamondbacks (with the exception of his injury-plagued year in 2004, where he missed 50 games). He knocks in 79 RBI, and bats .271. Like his home run total, both are career lows with the Diamondbacks. His numbers suddenly look remarkably similar to his pre-Diamondbacks numbers.

This season, 2006, he is on pace to hit 13 HR and knock in 70 RBI. He is batting .265.

Since joining the Diamondbacks, he has never stolen 10 or more bases in a season, despite doing it 4 different times in his pre-Diamondbacks years.*

So what you have is an average, unremarkable journeyman player with average, unremarkable stats, a consistent player to fill a line-up spot, but destined to fade into oblivion by his mid-30's. Then, at age 32, when most players have passed their prime and are moving into the last seasons of their career, Gonzalez suddenly becomes a superstar. At age 34 he has his best season ever, and his mid-30's prove to be his most productive period, despite the fact that this is the period that most players see their careers winding down.

The numbers don't lie. This sort of career progression doesn't happen in nature. A player doesn't suddenly become an all-star, a franchise player, and a major league stand-out in his mid-30's, after a 10-year career as a journeyman with average, unremarkable stats. It just doesn't happen without something unnatural involved.

The numbers tell an obvious story. In 1998, McGwire and Sosa had put home run hitting at the top of everyone's radar, and steroids and HGH were all the rage. Upon arriving at the Diamondbacks for the 1999 season, Gonzalez, who was facing the certain prospect of his unremarkable career winding down within the next couple of seasons, got introduced to performance-enhancing drugs, and began using them. His stats immediately improved. By 2001, he hit his peak. By 2004, the word was out on steroids, mandatory testing started, and Gonzales had to stop. Maybe he'd already stopped by then. Either way, his body broke down once he was off the juice, and he ended up missing a third of the 2004 season with injury.

Since then, he has been the same old unremarkable player he was from 1991 to 1998.

I always liked Luis Gonzalez. As a Cubs and Astros fan in the 1990's, I was very familiar with him as a player. Despite being the 6 or 7 hitter and standing well in the shadow of his more talented teammates, he was always a fan favorite because he was a nice guy and very friendly, always smiling. He brought a lot to the team and certainly filled an important role. I remember being sad to see him leave the Astros for the last time in 1998 and join the Tigers. But I think his career is marred now. I would much rather have seen him retire in his mid-30's, and remember him as a local fan favorite who was an integral part of a lot of good Astros teams in the 1990's. Instead, now he's just another statistic in the very long Book of Baseball Cheaters.

*P.S....the stolen base stats are important because as Gonzalez began taking steroids and bulking up, he subsequently lost speed, which is evidenced by his decreasing ability to steal bases after he joined the Diamondbacks. Barry Bonds experienced a similar loss of speed on the base paths after he began bulking up in the late 1990's. People who take steroids inevitibly get stronger, but slower.