Congratulations are in Order

Here at ATH, we have a policy of being as objective as possible. We do have our teams and we think we should be open about those teams, but the personal rooting should be left to others we think.

So, since Rook can't do it, let me do it for him. Congratulations on getting to see your team do something against the odds that I've never yet had the chance to enjoy!

What rule states a pitcher has to award a batter a free base?

I'm not aware of this rule, but Harold Reynolds and Dan Orsillo keep stating that Scott Kazmir had no choice but to bean Orlando Cabrera to start the game.

Now, I'm pretty sure this is just stupid old guy baseball crap, but I have trouble believing it. Is there a rule I'm missing?

Tim Kurkijan Loves Hockey

ESPN game one preview on the Dodgers/Cubs series, with Tim Kurkijan.

Host: Chicago's going with Ryan Dempster, why is he the right choice?

Tim Kurkijan: He is the perfect choice for a lot of reasons. He's a free-spirited guy, he's a hockey player, he skates with NHL hockey teams in the off-season, he's got a different look on life than most people I know, and he lives about four blocks from Wrigley Field. He walks to the ballpark every day, and on the way home he stops and talks to people. They all know his root, they all know who he is. If there's a cookout going, he might even stop in and have a hamburger. But most importantly, he's a good pitcher.

How to gain Tim Kurkijan's approval to start game one of the NLDS:

1. Be a free-spirited guy.
2. Play hockey.
3. Skate with NHL hockey teams in the off-season.
4. Have a different look on life than most people Tim Kurkijan knows.
5. Live close to Wrigley Field.
6. Walk to Wrigley Field.
7. Talk to people when you're walking.
8. Eat hamburgers at cookouts while you're walking.
9. Be a good pitcher.

Personally, I think Dempster is a good choice to start game one because of his 152 Adjusted ERA, his .642 OPP OPS, and his 57.5 VORP. But that's just me, Kurkijan's reasons are good too.

Why are media people always so easily surprised?

Tony Kornheiser (fish in a barrel, etc.) is on Monday Night Football talking about how surprising the Ravens would be tonight if they go to 3-0 with three division wins.

Now, see, if I head over to Football Outsiders I see their pre-season projections, and their system -- which I'm sure is more accurate than Tony Kornheiser's bunion -- projected. . .

What's this? The Baltimore Ravens to win the AFC North? My goodness! How shocking!

FO works closely with ESPN. This is a major publication with a well noted NFL projection system. They projected the Ravens to win the the division. Agree with that projection or not, if your job is to follow and comment on football, especially if you work for ESPN -- again, a partner of Football Outsiders -- then you have only two excuses for being surprised by the concept of the Ravens perhaps leading their division:

1) You are a brain-dead clueless idiot who doesn't pay any attention to anything about the NFL or any quality source for discussing the NFL, yet somehow you keep your job.

2) You are Tony Kornheiser.



Yeah, I fooled you. They're the same thing.

The Coolest Thing I Have Ever Seen

Ladies and gentlement, I give you: the A-11 Offense.



Is this not awesome? It's always bothered me that there's so much flexibility in football, but some teams choose to play every game in some basic formation with no originality. Every revolution in football starts in high school or with low tier college programs. I would be so happy if an evolution of this made it to the top levels of the game some day.

Seriously. I'm in awe of the genius of what I'm seeing. This, for me, is the best "yes!" moment I've had in sports since reading Moneyball.

Not ANOTHER one!

Just heard Jim Deshaies refer to Bill Bray as a "punter for the Cornhuskers."

Citing Sample Size = Esoteric

On today's PTI, Wilbon and Le Batard were discussing the White Sox/Twins series and Ozzie's comments about tonight's starting pitcher Javier Vazquez from Chicago Sun-Times:

Guillen's response, two days before he puts the ball in Vazquez's hand for the critical series opener against the Minnesota Twins: ''He hasn't been [a big-game pitcher], that's the bottom line.''

Presumably, Guillen is referring to his less than stellar '04 postseason with the Yankees (3 games, 11.1 IP, 25 baserunners, 4 home runs, 12:9 K:BB ratio, 9.53 ERA).

In light of this, Le Batard wonders whether Ozzie is making too much of a big deal about a small sample size. He also notes how other players with bad postseason reps (Kenny Rogers, the Manning bros.) debunked that with a good postseason. Wilbon dismisses that as being "esoteric".

I never knew that realizing that it's folly to make general statements about a couple of games is secret knowledge that few know.