So I'm watching the Astros game - fourth straight after midnight start this week for me - and I heard this comment by the Milwaukee broadcasting team:
"You know, Andy Pettitte's a guy, just like Chris Capuano, who doesn't throw very hard..."
The comment continued, but what I noticed was this comparison of a 176-win, 4 time world series champ and a guy with 27 career wins. I've noticed this a lot while watching other teams' announcers. They compare another team's star to their mediocre product. It's as if someone said, "Pujols, just like Geoff Blum, seems to thrive when he's behind in the count." I don't care if Blum's a decent player. I don't care if he really does hit better when he's behind in the count. You don't compare Pujols to him. You can compare him to Pujols. But don't compare Pujols to him. He doesn't deserve it. Neither does Chris Capuano. He can be compared to other greats, but they can't be compared to him as if he's some sort of standard bearer.
This, in a way, is homerism. There seems to be quite a bit of homerism - that is, favoring your own team to the point that you appear stupid to a knowledgeable fan- in sports these days. It's not limited to regional or local media either - ESPN has apparently hired a whole slew of Yankees or Red Sox fans to write, talk about, or otherwise waste my time on info about 'the greatest rivalry in sports'. Bill Simmons, Jayson Stark, the list goes on. These guys don't apparently know that other teams exist.
(Just for the record, Pettitte was just compared to Rickie Weeks and his 440 career ABs, which is about 2/3 of a full season)
Simmons and Stark, among others, frequently act as if no other teams exist than the Red Sox and Yankees. ESPN constantly runs features about Ortiz, Jeter, Manny, or Damon's latest hairstyle instead of actually reporting significant news.
Currently, the ESPN rumor (unsubstantiated, of course) is that Clemens will definitely sign with the Red Sox or the Yankees. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen, but they're the only major media outlet that suggests that the Astros are out of the running.
To me, the Astros have to still be the favorite. They've fulfilled the three requirements Clemens asked for:
1. Competitor, with a reasonable chance to make the playoffs (2nd best record in baseball)
2. Offensive team that isn't going to get shutout in 9 of his starts (averaged 9.8 runs per game in last 5 wins)
3. Had a starter go down with injury (Backe may be out of the year)
They obviously offer the hometown benefits he's enjoyed the last few years, and I have to imagine that business-savvy Drayton McLane will match any salary because of the marketing opportunities/franchise value increase that Clemens brings. I have to believe that because no news has been made, Clemens is just playing the same game the Texans are playing with Reggie Bush - try to leverage his salary with interest in other teams (Clemens' interest in NY, Bos, and Texas)/players (Texans' interest in Mario Williams)
But I could be wrong. After all, I'm probably no better than any of these other homers...
20 April 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

3 comments:
Hmm. Consider this: Roger had one of the lowest ERA's in his career last year and how many wins did he get with the Astros? And what have the Astros done since then to maker sure they're a powerful offensive team? Almost nothing. In the meantime, have you seen the Yankees lineup? Don't you think Roger's just going for wins?
On the contrary, what the Astros did was the Tim Purpura speciality: trust the work he's done in the past and the quality of the players he has developed.
Although the one significant move that he made (P Dubs - Preston Wilson) has been slow to get started, the more significant move was to let his budding stars continue to develop. Ensberg, Berkman, Lane, and Taveras are all older, wiser, and producing better than last year. If you want more substantial proof, the Astros are the #3 NL team at total runs scored right now. The two above them are the Reds and the Rockies, whom everyone expects to score runs. You can't compare NL teams with AL teams run-wise because of the DH.
And if it's wins he's after, take a look in the standings....
I certainly can't argue with the numbers or the fact that Ensberg and Berkman are budding young stars (I honestly think the jury's still out on the other two...). Nevertheless, Clemens may have a bit of a bitter taste in his mouth after last year. Not that that should influence his opinion (after all, he did play for the NL Pennant winners), but it might. Or at least people's perception of the situation.
Post a Comment