Small baseball grumble

I haven't commented on the MLB playoffs because I just don't have that much to say. I'm in awe of the improbably streak of wins the Colorado Rockies put together just to get into the playoffs and I'm dumbfounded by the fact that the Arizona Diamondbacks won the most games in the NL despite being outscored by their opponents this season! [According to Bill James' "Pythagorean prediction model" (see here for more on that), the D-Backs should have won 79 games. Instead, they won 90! I won't go into the details, but a difference of +11 is very improbable.]

In the American League, ... Well it's the AL, so of course I'm not that interested. Seriously, the Red Sox and the Yankees were the big names. The Sox advanced and the Yanks lost. That leaves Boston and Cleveland to battle it out. I guess I'll pull for the Indians just because I'm sort of sick of the Sox.

Regardless, what I want to talk about today is the media's coverage of baseball. I already ranted to Caffeine Bro about the idiocy of one Chip Caray doing the play-by-play coverage of the games. Let's just say his dad (Harry) wasn't the only Caray prone to exaggeration when describing a play. No, what I want to comment on today is the media's reporting on baseball managers. It's a sports cliche (and one of the tritest) that the quarterback or manager or coach or etc. gets too much of the credit when a team wins and too much blame when a team loses. I agree with that general statement, but the media seems to have bastardized it. The media now seems to believe ALL the credit for winning is due to baseball managers and NONE of the blame is due to the man in charge.

Take the Cubs this year. Their manager, Lou Piniella, completely lost control one night in a mid-season game and suddenly the Cubs went on a glorious winning streak. It's all due to Lou, right? Well maybe if you ignore the fact that the Cubs had been woefully underperforming compared to their Pythagorean prediction to that point and they finally got all 3 of their big bats healthy at the same time. Sure, it had to be due to Lou.

Then there's the Mets. In case you've had your head under a baseball rock, you likely know the Mets managed to do something no other team in the (LONG) history of baseball had ever done. They lost a 7 game lead with only 17 games left in the season. Plus, this is New York -- the most pressure-filled market in which to coach/manage/play. So, should Willie Randolph (the manager) be fired? Not according to the media. No, you can't blame Willie, he didn't strike out at a crucial time, give up a late homer, or drop an easy fly to cost the Mets a late-season game. One more time -- NOT HIS FAULT! Got it?

For the most part, I agree with the lack of blame attributed to Randolph. He was, in fact, most certainly NOT the guy doing the boneheaded things that cost the Mets the division. Still, though, I wonder how the media types square these two positions. In case they hadn't noticed, I'll remind them of Lou Piniella'a season totals for the Cubs: 0 HRs, 0 RBI, 0 Batting Avg., 0 Wins, 0 Saves, etc. Egad, his stats are exactly the same as Willie Randolph's! Yet Lou gets heaps of credit and Willie gets no blame.

I think Lou may have done some positive things attitude-wise for the Cubs' clubhouse and I figure Willie failed to pull off those same kinds of things for the Mets. In my opinion, Lou should get some credit for holding the Cubs together through a rough first half of the season and Willie should get some blame for letting his clubhouse fall apart at the end of the season. Neither deserves the lion's share of the credit/blame, but I'm miffed by this "we want it both ways" attitude the media apparently has adopted.

Sorry, I know this rant was totally uninteresting to something like 99% of you, but I had to vent.