If you thought the war on women was being waged this week in Tampa, FL, there’s an smaller effort afoot in Major League Baseball’s midtown Manhattan officesCards C Yadier Molina risked having his brains scrambled in bearing the brunt of the above collision with Pittsburgh’s Josh Harrison last night, but the not-so-suave typist in charge of MLB.com’s Twitter feed picked a particularly uncerebral way to characterize the play. “Yadier Molina was forced to exit after this devastating collision, but he held onto the ball because he’s a man,” was the offending passage, which caused The Good Phight’s Liz Rocher to pen the following reply ;
What do you think is wrong with that tweet? Is it:
A) Sexist B) Hideously unfunny C) Stupid and in poor taste
D) All of the above
The answer, of course, is D. Sexism isn’t right anytime, anywhere (duh), and here it seems like whoever wrote that tweet was trying to make a joke. A bad, unfunny, unnecessary joke about a guy who had to leave a game after getting crashed into by another guy running at top speed. Isn’t that totally hilarious?! Even funnier? He held onto the ball! BECAUSE HE’S A MAN. It’s not because he’s tough as nails or good at his job. It’s because he doesn’t have ovaries or a uterus, which automatically make you inferior.
Ms. Roscher has a point here. If an MLB.com representative opined, for instance , that black men lacked the skills to become general managers, the person responsible would rightfully face termination (after claiming the account was hacked). If the same author suggested a ride on the 7 Train was an unsavory experience due to the rich cultural mosaic on board, he or she would probably be pounding the pavement tomorrow. But suggest to MLB’s target audience that lady-folk are too dainty to withstand physical punishment, that’s apparently a-ok, if not business as usual.
Challenging Channing Frye for the title of Dean Of American Professional Athletes Turned Film Critics, Braves P Brandon Beachy awards Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight Rises”, “four out of 5 Beach Balls” (link swiped from Repoz and Baseball Think Factory)
I thought Christian Bale, one of my favorites, delivered another great performance. My natural inclinaiton to think back to watching “The Princess Diaries” with my little sister always makes me skeptical of anything Anne Hathaway is in, but I was pleasantly surprised with her portayal of Catwoman. If I had one complaint from this otherwise very entertaining movie, it would be the voice of Bane. I found it to be ridiculous and a little distracting.
“A club does away with itself, HSV have become a caricature of themselves,” wrote Die Welt. “Not fit for the first division,” sniffed Hamburger Abendblatt. “Their fiftieth year in the Bundesliga could well be their last,” warned Süddeutsche Zeitung. Tabloid Morgenpost went further still: “Sixteen weeks without the Bundesliga were not long enough as far as the Hamburg supporters were concerned. Every day at HSV without football is a good day.”
“No one’s ever gone down after the first game,” argued manager Thorsten Fink on Saturday, not unreasonably. But neither a lack of perspective nor typical media knee-jerkism can be blamed for headlines such as “naked fear” (Morgenpost) – Hamburg’s catastrophically inept 0-1 home defeat by Nürnberg was in truth only the latest low point in a painful, drawn-out decline. “It’s been a constant for two years now, there’s has been no development, we haven’t made one step forward,” said midfielder Marcell Jansen with alarming honesty. “I don’t feel as if there was any progress,” admitted sporting director Frank Arnesen.
Fink is sticking to his “it’s all about confidence” defence but his utterings are increasingly unpersuasive. “We didn’t believe in ourselves enough to take the lead, how can a side that’s been criticised all year play well?” he wondered. Not that criticism is the problem, however, it’s the team. And those who are responsible for it.
…..LEST YOU BE TWEETING HIS PRESS CONFERENCE. If you thought Jim Tressel’s ethical missteps might’ve resulted in a sea change at Ohio State, rest assured that under the Meyer administration, the power of Buckeyes football trumps all other considerations. In the words of the Akron Beacon Journal’s Jason Lloyd, “this reeks of a power-hungry program flexing a little muscle in a rare area where they don’t have any and searching for control in areas out of their domain.”
Want to ban your players from using Twitter? Fine. Want to keep the coaches off it? That’s their prerogative. But attempt to tell a room of reporters from around the state when they’re allowed to report news and problems are sure to ensue.
It appears as if, at least for this week, everyone in the room abided by the request. I didn’t use my Twitter account during the news conference because I wanted to reserve judgment on the policy in hopes of hearing a better explanation. I didn’t really get one.
After speaking with a couple of the school’s media relations people, the reasoning ranged from the success they had banning Twitter during some closed practices over the summer to how reporters can’t really listen to the news conference if they’re constantly tweeting what Meyer is saying.
My job is to decipher what is worthy of reporting instantly on Twitter and what is worth saving for later. I don’t need OSU officials to make the decision for me.
A Sunday shouting match between Nationals manager Davey Johnson and GM Mike Rizzo after Washington were swept by Philly over the weekend attracted no shortage of attention. And there’s nothing weird about that, not when Johnson allegedly asked Rizzo, “Why don’t you come down here and manage this team?” within earshot of Nationals beat writers. But no worries, Washington fans, not when Nats Insider’s Mark Zuckerman is ready to assist with the coverup. “It all sounds like juicy and salacious stuff,” admits Zuckerman, before insisting, “blowing off a little steam at the right moment never hurt anyone.” That should’ve been Rob Dibble’s excuse!
Don’t mistake the occasional raised voice a sign of animosity between the two. The level of respect Rizzo has for Johnson and vice versa is as strong as you’ll find between any manager and GM in baseball. They’ve each got opinions on a lot of matters, and they’re not afraid to make those opinions known, but they’re on the same page when it comes to the big picture.
Maybe it’s because the Nationals have cruised along all season without any hint of adversity, occupying first place in the NL East for all but 10 days over the last five months, but we tend to forget a baseball season is full of emotional highs and lows. The Nats have done a remarkable job staying even-keeled through it all, not getting excited over winning streaks, not getting demoralized over losing streaks.
But that doesn’t mean these guys don’t have emotions. That doesn’t mean they don’t get upset when something bad happens, whether it’s tossing over a bat rack after striking out or knocking over a clubhouse chair after giving up a run.
“Paterno”, the lengthy Joe Posnanski tome that’s under heavy scrutiny was just squashed by a heavy scrutinizer. Fox Sports’ Jason Whitlock lowers the boom on Posnanski, declaring the book unwittingly serves as a cautionary tale about what happens when “a coach and a writer sacrifice their integrity one compromised decision at a time.” So it’s not as likely to command as much money on eBay as this book, then.
With the exception of Posnanski’s interaction with former Penn State fullback Don Abbey, the book reads like a series of cleverly written blog postings buttressed by brief telephone interviews. Posnanski, the storyteller without ego according to his passionate band of sycophants, is center stage throughout “Paterno,” most often without good reason. He delights in explaining how inconsequential figures in the book acquired nicknames. He showboats, sharing nerdy, pointless and colorful background stories on Herschel Walker and Bear Bryant. Posnanski dances and distracts because he has little that is new or enlightening to share about his subject, Joe Paterno.
Based on the content of the book, Posnanski barely had any more access to Paterno and Penn State football than the typical Penn State beat writer. All the dialogue with Paterno reads as though it transpired during a couple of rushed interviews after Penn State dismissed Paterno and the coach’s family realized it needed a biographer/stenographer to record Paterno’s rationalizations.
A self-righteous man doesn’t sacrifice integrity overnight. It happens methodically. It happens when his ambition concludes the calendar isn’t cooperating. A middle-aged sportswriter might still dream of being as famous as Mitch Albom. An aging coach might want to be as revered and beloved as John Wooden. Paterno, Sandusky and Mike McQueary were on a collision course for three decades. Paterno’s vanity and insecurity — the ingredients necessary to play deaf, dumb and blind to Sandusky’s heinous perversion — were on full display when he went after President Nixon, when Paterno first publicly exposed he cared too deeply what others thought of his team and its accomplishments.
“President Nixon knows more about college football than he does Watergate,” Paterno famously quipped.
President Nixon might retort that Joe Paterno knows more about Barry Switzer and Jackie Sherrill —coaches Paterno smugly accused of breaking NCAA rules —than Jerry Sandusky, a 30-year assistant.
Wild, unabashed salary dumps usually get lousy press (hello, Jeffrey Loria!), but Boston’s successful attempt at saddling the Dodgers’ with Carl Craword and Josh Beckett’s salaries (and the latter’s personality) with Adrian Gonzalez’ less insane mega-pact as the carrot is being hailed far and wide as a defining move for Boston GM Ben Cherrington. It’s also evidence the Dodgers have completed a dramatic 360 degree turn from the days of Frank McCourt (and wouldn’t they just love to pick up Jason Bay? HINT HINT), but let’s keep the spotlight on the frontrunner for 2013 Executive Of The Year. Of Cherrington, SBN’s Steve Goldman warns, “it is far easier to tear down a team than to build one, and now the onus is on Cherington to take his new, relatively blank slate and construct another contender. ”
Even with Rubby De La Rosa and Allen Webster coming over from Los Angeles, the team is not deep in potential top starters. This lack of pitching depth is what doomed the Red Sox to their historic fall-off last fall and, having gone uncorrected this winter, doomed them again this year. Whatever the turmoil in Boston’s front office this winter, and there was a lot, if they could have bolstered their pitching depth, they would have; it’s not so easy. No team would have pinned its hope on Daniel Bard moving to the rotation if not desperate to begin with.
Cherington did an amazing thing last week in freeing the Red Sox from onerous obligations left behind by his predecessor. He took advantage of a historic moment of willing credulity on the part of the Dodgers’ new owners, who seem willing to do anything to win back their fans. But starting over is merely a beginning. The pieces are all back at “Go.” We’ve seen what Cherington can subtract. Now, with the Epstein alibi as gone as Dizzy Akers, he must show Red Sox fans what he can add.
Buzz Bissinger’s emotional support of Lance Armstrong on Twitter Friday served two functions. For starters, who knew Newsweek was still in business? More importantly, Buzz generated anticipation for today’s cover story (“I Still Believe In Lance Armstrong”), in which the Pulitzer winner insists the Micheob pitchman face of Livestrong, “is one of the few heroes we have left in a country virtually bereft of them” (“if Armstrong used banned substances, he was leveling the playing field…he was still the one who overcame all odds”).
What point is being served here besides the USADA’s own desperation to prove to the public that it is cleaning up sports? It’s a slam job, and Armstrong is the victim of that slam. It has been that way for 13 years, an almost pathological desire by a select group of haters to bring him down—either out of jealousy or a determination to make a name for themselves. If he was the only one in cycling suspected of doping, then by all means tar and feather him. But he is not. Not even close. He is a target, the biggest target there is, the perfect symbol for the USADA to prove its existence.
“It’s a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes,” said Travis Tygart, chief executive of the USADA, “it’s yet another heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe, and honest competition.”
Save me the absurd self-righteousness.
Perhaps Travis Tygart, before trying to destroy Lance Armstrong for his own job security, should get his ass out of the chair in his office and try it himself.
That competitive cycling has been awash with PED use is hard to argue with, but when Bissinger declares, “so what?” if Armstrong was amongst the more prodigious users (and amongst the most skilled at covering it up), he implies it’s no big deal and the ends justify the means. Perhaps the latter would have a shred more credibility if he simply echoed Buzz’ sentiments. Something along the lines of, “I’m the cancer-survivor Superman. I’ve helped people. What the fuck have you done?”
Of course, that’s not what Armstrong has ever said. He’s never embraced Buzz’ level of cynicism (“professional cycling is a rotten sport like all professional sports are rotten (anybody who believes otherwise is a Pollyanna fool…it’s “not about the bike,” as the title of Armstrong’s bestselling biography states. It’s about winning by any means possible,”) because doing so would be professional, if not philanthropic suicide. It’s curious the way Armstrong’s shortcuts and dishonesty can be excused because of his survivor status and fundraising prowess. Had Barry Bonds overcome a terminal illness —- as opposed to say, simply being a jerk — would a respected national publication (or failing that, Newsweek) have commissioned a similar defense?