by Gregg Pearlman
Had a dream recently. Now, before you skip a few paragraphs in a desperate search for something not related to my dreams, let me say that I know most people don't care about other people's dreams. Heck, for the most part, neither do I. And I know that you won't be drawn in any further by the fact that this dream doesn't involve a vat of flan and the Swedish Bikini Team. Still, I ask you to bear with me.
In this dream the EEEEEE! staff and I are in a conference room with the Giants broadcasters: Jon Miller, Lon Simmons, Mike Krukow, Ted Robinson -- everybody but Duane Kuiper, for some reason. (By the way, the staff consists of David Beck, Tom Austin (whose article -- and sidebars -- are in my hot little hands, and will probably be ready for public consumption next week), Richard Booroojian, and me. I haven't met Richard, though, so my subconscious had to make an educated guess at what he looks like. It guessed "white guy.")
The broadcasters are all very pleasant. I haven't figured out why yet -- that's for the therapists among you -- but Ted Robinson is an old, mostly bald man with white hair, but with Ted's voice. In any case, we're having a fun, spirited discussion about baseball, the media, and the Giants. I start to make a point... and Ted shouts, "Will you please stop interrupting?" in that high, excited voice he sports when something major happens, like a Brian Johnson homer that beats the Dodgers in the twelfth or something.
I spend the next several minutes feeling chastened and disinclined to offer any further input.
So, therapists, both lay and legitimate, I'm interested in your take on this. Hell, let's make it fun. Let's make it a contest:
What does it all mean?
Tell us in 100 words or less -- or more; it doesn't really matter -- and... um... win something! Like a mention in the next installment of EEEEEE! Something like that. Not actual money or anything -- get real!
So send your entries to Gregg at gregg@EEEEEEgp.com without delay! And let's have more than one entry, so I don't have to award the prize to the first guess that comes along!
"Krukow said, "Yeah: 'Wake up and pee, the world's on fire!'
Anybody who doesn't enjoy listening to Krukow just doesn't know fun.
Meanwhile, the Giants are losing 4-0 in the third inning, with Jose Valentin having just hit a three-run homer off of Mark Gardner. All four runs have scored with nobody out, and it all started with a leadoff hit by pitcher Jeff Juden, one of my least favorite former Giants. And now Stan Javier lost a fly ball in the sun. (He's in center today -- and yesterday -- because Darryl Hamilton's suffering from yet another foot injury.) And oh, joy, Marquis Grissom just homered. 6-0. The Giants clearly aren't allowed to win more than one game in a row. Julian Tavarez will come in pretty soon. Here in the third. Krukow is now pointing out that this is probably the earliest we've ever seen Tavarez, and with Russ Ortiz having been dispatched to Fresno, Tavarez is suddenly the long man. (By the way, Ortiz's ERA is 0.00, despite walking more than one batter per inning. However, he'd pitched in only four games, and he's in Fresno, supposedly, just to get some innings in. Replacing Ortiz on the roster is Jeff Ball, a first baseman who was hitting over .350 at Fresno with six homers.)
Juden, you may remember, was the winning pitcher when the Expos beat the Giants 19-3 last year. Juden did a lot of woofing about it, because apparently that's the kind of guy he is. Also, that was the day Dusty Baker accused the Expos of stealing his signs (which means, "Change your signs, then, oaf!") leading to Felipe Alou's incredulous yet appallingly silly riposte to the effect of how appalled he was that one minority manager could accuse another minority manager of such dishonesty in this, the fiftieth anniversary of Jackie Robinson's first major league season.
No, I'm not in a good mood right now, but thanks for asking.
Huh. And they say I'm wrapped in obscurity out here on the Left Coast.
"He could claim he only used four or five E's," says Jeff, "but I think Ravech has been secretly trolling the Giants newsgroup and stole this from Gregg."
Well, bear in mind that we've seen several messages in the newsgroup in the last few months from at least one person at ESPNet Sportszone....
"Someone get a sample of Ravech's typing skills," Jeff says. "I want to see if he's really the #1 Dodger Fan."
Eeeeeewwwwww. Let's hope not.
"The original source of 'EEEEEE!' is, I would think, from a Simpsons episode some three years ago, where Monty Burns triggered a trap door in front of his desk a couple of times, causing a hapless employee to fall through the floor into a bottomless pit, all the while screaming 'EEEEEEEEEeeeee' on his way down," guesses Seth. "I could be wrong, of course. But that's where I would've gotten it from."
He'd be wrong.
"It's a fine guess," Woody says, "but my conversations with Gregg suggested the lament predated The Simpsons. My understanding was it came about when Gregg and his college roommate were watching the Giants do something typically horrific on TV. At the very moment of acute Giants retardatia, a rainbow crawled through the window, up Gregg's leg, and started biting him on the inside of his butt. The resulting shock and pain caused Gregg to emit his now (in)famous scream, which he's tended to attribute more to on-field mishaps than posterior blindsides by toothy predators (for which I am sure we were all full of grate). So it's really all about converging factors of chance, and has nothing to do with cartoons of any kind."
Well, Woody's warm, anyway, but what he's gotten hold of there is a classic bit from the appallingly offensive, tasteless, and fun South Park. "Actually, if you think about it, watching the Giants back in those days was very much all about converging factors of chance, most of which were equally as painful as that toothy predator," says Richard.
Especially because these were the days when Dave and I were joking that the Giants might do something really moronic, like, I dunno, trade Bob Knepper for, gosh, Enos Cabell, or something equally unlikely and foolish. (By the way, my recollection is that we actually gave up a minor leaguer in that deal, too: Chris Bourjos. We sent two warm bodies for Enos Cabell.)
In any case, if you'd like to know where the expression "EEEEEE!" comes from (at least in the context of this website), please see Why 'EEEEEE!'?." For the record, I'm almost certain that it all started with EEEEEE! Contributing Editor David Beck.
Two quick words to Mr. Juden: bite me.
And Jeff Kent just hit a ground-rule double to right -- Jeromy Burnitz lost the ball in the sun, missed it, and watched it bounce gaily over the fence -- and J.T. Snow, the homerless J.T. Snow -- is now the tying run at the plate.
Tying run on base, sorry -- Jater just walked. (We EEEEEE! Insiders are no longer completely satisfied with merely calling Snow "Jate." We now have to call him "Jater from Decatur," despite the fact that he might never have been anywhere near Decatur.)
Now Javier has hit into a 4-6 force, bringing up Rich Aurilia. And Javier steals second on the first pitch, putting the tying runs in scoring position. With Rich Rodriguez warming up in the bullpen, here comes the 2-2 pitch to Aurilia: foul ball. Another foul ball. Fly ball, deep left field... caught. EEEEEE!
"Was there a vote? Recount! The Giants demand a recount!" says Schulman (early last week). "The Brewers (12-5) have been partying down in the Senior Circuit, and the Giants couldn't do anything to stop the noise as Milwaukee swept them over the weekend at County Stadium.
Make them go away. Bud Selig? Avaunt and quit my sight.
Schulman recounts a play wherein, "With one out in the seventh, Brewers left fielder Darrin Jackson picked up Stan Javier's ground single and nailed Barry Bonds trying to score from second, killing a promising Giants rally.
Bonds wasn't just out. He was OUT. By light-years. Now, he seems to get nailed at the plate quite a bit, relatively speaking, and a lot of that is in spring training, when he's not going all out... so I wondered just how fast he was motoring on this one, because it looked very scorable.
Actually, the outfielders really put on a show in that series. According to Schulman, "In the eighth, Giants center fielder Darryl Hamilton caught Marquis Grissom's fly ball to medium center and doubled up Jeff Cirillo, who tried to tag up and score."
This was one hell of a play -- or, as Jeff says, "Not pretty, but certainly effective. Hambone lost a lot of style points for flopping onto the ground on his follow-through."
"Alex Diaz takes the cake for that," says Carlos. "When the Giants beat the Padres 13-7, he made the same kind of shallow center-field catch. As he threw the ball, he practically somersaulted when he threw home. He got Myers (the catcher) out at the plate. It looked like a Stupid Pet Trick, but I loved it because he put so much into it. It saved Poole's bacon, that's for sure. That was in the fifth inning, when the Pads went up 7-4, so getting that out meant something at that point.
"Another thing I noticed in the 13-7 win was Poole. His expression really looks like barely contained terror. He has the anti-game face. I don't mind as long as he has a good year, but if I didn't know better, I would think he was going to throw up. I am actually sympathetic because I identify with him more that way. It's like he's as scared of giving up a run as I am of him giving up a run.'
What Carlos is describing is something that, in 1990, my wife -- who basically avoids baseball with a passion -- termed "the Atlee look." The first person she pinned that label on was Steve Bedrosian, who had the look big-time that year.
"Okay," says Carlos, "now I have my benchmark. When and/or if Estes starts to wear Poole's game face, I will officially write him off. As long as only Poole wears Atlee's look, I will consider the 'Spirit of Hammaker' duly contained."
Oh, I'll always have fond memories of Atlee. Not mostly fond memories, though.
"Vintage Atlee will always be the one before the [1983] All-Star Break."
A beautiful sight. The pre-Break Atlee is still one of my favorite pitchers to watch (except that I haven't watched him since '83...).
For guys who just "look right" on that mound, Krukow's still number one to me. He looked like a pitcher. (I was going to say something about "pitcher perfect form," but even I would want to throw up at that one.)
Grant says, I'd liken Poole and his nervous expressions on the mound to a wet, shivering chihuau... chiuhuah... chuic... beagle. The big, buggin' eyes, the look of abject terror... you nailed it right on the head, [Carlos].
"And, still with the dog analogy, I feel sorry for him, but I sure don't want the damn thing shaking off in my house," Grant says.
Duane Kuiper: He hits it high! He hits it deep!"I guess my question is, haven't there been a lot of promising-looking balls that have been knocked down this year, or is my point of view just that of sour grapes?"Me (jumping off of the couch, scaring my roommates): Gauuuhffffrrr!
Duane Kuiper: And the wind knocks it down, making it a routine play for Mike Matheny. [The catcher. -- GP]
Me: (sound of hair being pulled)
[And those nose hairs hurt! -- GP]
Ted Robinson: And Angel Hernandez has ruled Jacob Cruz out too, making it a double play to end the inning! Amazing, seeing as Jacob is with the Fresno team! And that's your Giants Replay!
"The most important one was probably the one in the bottom of the eighth against Kevin Brown that would have given the Giants the lead," says Carlos. "During the Brewers series, all the announcers were saying that the wind was blowing in from left. It was as if the wind from the 'Stick followed them to Milwaukee. I checked the line scores, and they usually said the wind was blowing out to left, but I am guessing that that was probably just a gametime check.
"What freaked me out was if the Giants were facing a 'Stick wind, why did they keep trying to hit the ball to left? When the elements are against you, is it worse to go the other way or is it worse to adapt to the conditions, which may take you out of your game. I don't really know. Mays said he adapted his swing to the 'Stick, but maybe this is a Mays thing that mere mortal players can't easily do.
"A few games ago Bill Mueller said something to the effect that he won't adapt to an umpire's strike zone because it would get him away from what makes him a successful hitter. If Mueller says it, I respect it, but does it also apply to the playing conditions?
"I'm getting sick of the wind. It's just a cop-out excuse. Dem's da breaks, kid. I wish they had an electronic thingy that tracked the arc of a fly ball the way they track the movement of a pitched ball on TV. That way we could see the difference between a fly-ball out and a wind-affected out or home run."
Well, the wind didn't just knock down Marvin Benard's home run to straightaway center field. Marvin Benard! And now it's 6-5.
But since we're talking about the Giants, every fly ball they hit that doesn't go out has by definition been knocked down by the wind.
But I think the real question is, just what is the sound of hair being pulled?
Jeff C. says, "Mind recording that for me one time? In all my years of watching 'Merrie Melodies' cartoons, I don't think I've heard that one. I wonder how they'd reproduce that one for the soundtrack."
I think it's either "Yink!" or "Snxx!" Individual hairs being pulled out -- such as in the joke about the guy who has to share a bed with his best friend and his wife, only the wife wants to get naked with the friend, and the friend (who would otherwise like to comply) is reluctant to wake up the husband, but the wife says "Oh, he can sleep through anything. Don't believe me? Pull a hair out of his butt." And he does, but the husband still continues to sleep, but after the friend does this three times -- yanks the hair out and attends to the wife -- the husband says, "Look, I don't mind you having sex with my wife, but stop using my ass as a scoreboard" -- make a high-pitched "Ding!" sound.
Since you asked. And not that I would ever tell such a joke.
"Man," says Tom A. "I thought I'd seen all the 'Merrie Melodies' cartoons. Guess I missed that one."
It had to do with Elmer Fudd running for office. Something about an "ewection." I can't remember the details.
"Probably a good thing," says Tom. "Just now catching my breath from laughing." (It's actually an old David Beck joke, from an early "Weekend Update"-style comedy sketch on tape -- something about gubernatorial candidate Elmer Fudd on his wedding night.)
I mean, I understand that it's not necessarily easy to pitch out on a hitter's count, but does the pitchout on a pitcher's count make a lot of sense to you?
"If the pitcher is Estes, who is having control problems, it makes no sense," says Grant. "If the pitcher is Gardner, who has all-right control, it makes a bit more sense. If the pitcher is Maddux, it's almost excusable."
Okay. I can almost see it.
"I agree that there don't seem to be too many runners going on pitcher's counts. Hamilton should only run if the count is 4-2 or something."
Maybe 4-1.
"On that note, if Hamilton can't steal, what is the advantage of him leading off over Mueller? Mueller can't steal just as well as Hamilton, but has a higher OBP.
"When Aurilia gets a single with one out, and the pitcher bunts him over, I'd much rather have Mueller try to knock him in. This scenario seems to happen a lot."
Yup. Especially given the fact that the shortstops are hitting these days.
"I'd hit Mueller leadoff, Aurilia second, and throw Hamilton in the eighth spot. Anyone else agree?"
They'd never drop Hamilton to eighth. They'd never drop him below second. He's making too much money. (Of course, this last statement is probably true regardless.)
Speaking of strategy and stuff, in the same series, Rey Sanchez got a big two-run single... to end the inning. I've noticed this year and last year that this seems to happen a lot with the Giants, especially with two outs. A guy will get a run-scoring hit and then attempt to take the extra base, only to wind up in a rundown or being nailed at the next base. (Just now, as Ted Robinson was saying, "And the throw is cut off," I was thinking, "And the throw goes to second and Sanchez is... out." Well, I was close -- but not happy to be more or less right.)
In any case, is this just some sort of weirdo coaching philosophy, or does this happen about as often with other teams and I'm just too wrapped up in the Giants to notice?
"Seems to happen with Jeff Kent a lot," says Daniel. Bonds too. "I think it's a combination of two things: 1) they try to squeeze out as much as they can 2) they assume that the fielder will throw the ball home."
The first part I can understand. As for the second part, well, they sure seem to get fooled a lot.
"It seems to happen more with the Giants. But that's not necessarily a bad thing as it shows that they are playing with heart, will, and the desire to win. They are never complacent. So it's not really a bad thing."
"Hamilton nailed Derek Bell of the Astros earlier this season in the home opener, which got Tavarez out of the inning, so it's happened to them too," says Carlos.
Oh, yeah, I know; it just -- again, maybe because I'm a Giants fan -- seems to happen more to the Giants than their opponents.
"Tactically, with the pitcher coming up, maybe he should have stayed with a single, since it gets the pitcher out of the way for the next inning. But I think of it as just pushing it. They need to push it right now to get a win."
You might say my feelings are a tad mixed on this.
"In this case, it may have definitely worked out for the best as there was a good chance that Aurilia would have been thrown out at home," says Clayton. "The rundown could almost be viewed as a sacrifice, giving up an out to ensure that the run scores."
Ah. Hadn't thought of this as a common strategy. If you're right, though, it's most likely a damn smart move. I mean, maybe defenses will pretty much concede the run if they think they can nail a trail runner. Look at that play a while back in which Barry Bonds scored because Todd Stottlemyre cut off a throw to the plate in a vain attempt to tag J.T. Snow rounding first base. (Had he let the throw go through, Bond almost certainly would've been out.)
"If the play at the plate looks to be at all close," says Clayton, "I think this tactic makes lots of sense."
"Hmmm," says Carlos. "I never thought of this. Jon Miller said it was rundown between first and second. At first I thought it had been a bang-bang play at second, but a rundown implies that he may have 'baited' the outfielder and given Aurilia time to scamper home. Cool. Sanchez helping Aurilia: Whoda thunk? I wish we could ask Sanchez if that was the tactic on the play."
"According to way I was coached," says Jeff C., "if there are two outs and a runner on second and you are the batter and get a single to the outfield you always try to take the extra base for two reasons (assuming the outfielder isn't just tossing the ball back to the infield after conceding the run): (a) If the throw goes to the plate and that runner is safe, you are now in scoring position, and (b) If the throw is cut off in an attempt to nail you at second, the runner still scores.
"Ideally, you'd want there to be some miscommunication between the catcher and the cutoff man, so that he stops the throw when there would've otherwise been a play at the plate. Of course, if he then chucks the ball into the outfield in an attempt to nail you at second, that's an added bonus.
"It's a lot more common than you might think."
Well, this all makes sense, but with the Giants, it seems to be happening more than my comfort level normally allows....
"In 1993 STATS did a study on this (it was Rob Neyer's idea)," says Chris. "Basically, during the 1992 season, with a man on second, there were 4,021 singles to the outfield. Then they asked how often the man taking second was safe or out while the runner scored. The batter attempted to advance to second 433 times (10.8%) with the run scoring. He was safe at second 290 times and out 143 times (67% success).
"It is a good move."
Yeah -- it sounds like it should be. Maybe more teams are playing for the trail runner now (especially against the Giants)....
"The team that ran the most was the Royals, and had just 32 instances (23-9). And they tried on 22.6% of their [outfield singles in this situation].
"Most turf teams did the best (Royals, Cardinals (19-1), Phillies (13-1), Expos (13-3), Pirates (14-4). The NL had 73% success rate to 62% for the AL."
On a somewhat related note, Jack says, "Is it me, or does it seem like the Giants end up settling for sacrifice flies too much? Sure, a sac fly is good situational hitting, but it seems that there have been at least 10 times this year when the Giants have had the makings of a big inning going with one out, only to score that one run from on the sac fly. Obviously, a lot of times in the situation I'm describing, there is a runner on third, sometimes also a man on second, or even the bases loaded. The batter hits a sac fly, the run scores, and the next batter hits a weak ground ball to end the inning. leaving the Giants with just the one run. It happened tonight with the first run. Bases loaded, one out. Hamilton hit the sac fly, and then Mueller was retired. As it turned out, they went on to score five more runs and really cruised to a win. To summarize this, sac flies are great in certain situations, but the Giants seem to waste a ton of opportunities to put up 'crooked numbers,' while settling for the sac flies."
I'm not sure what to make of this, except that they seemed to put up a ton of sacrifice flies last year, early in the season.
"I'm not sure what to make of it either," says Tom A. "The question in my mind is, with a runner on third and no outs, does a batter go up there thinking 'sac fly'? My guess would be a more general 'get the ball in the air.' This is not, normally, a good hitting strategy (far better to try to hit a hard grounder up the middle), but with a man on third, the batter thinks 'if I get it in the air (to the outfield), I either get an extra-base hit or a sac fly. No lose.'
"The point being that a sac fly is not something a manager can influence much, unlike a sac bunt. It's pretty much up to the batter. And it's not that bad a strategy, unless trying for a fly ball completely ruins your hitting stroke."
"According to a STATS study," says Chris, 250-foot fly balls are no more common (in fact, less common, if I remember correctly) with a runner on third and less than two outs. That is to say, a batter does not appear to be able to intentionally hit a sac fly. I've seen better hitters do this (contact hitters like Tony Gwynn and Gregg Jefferies) but they pop up, or just don't get the distance. They do it by trying to hit a pitch higher in the strike zone (or above it)."
"Since so far the Giants have shown an almost epic inability to get a hit in any situation involving a runner on third and less than two out (or even with two outs), it seems to me that about the only alternative to a sac fly is a strikeout," says Richard. "In that case, give me the sacrifice fly."
And you should know that Rich Aurilia just lost another two-out home run to the Candlestick winds. EEEEEE!
"Kevin Brown's gone, but his effects linger on," says Tim I.
That says it all. Brown messes with their minds.
"All four of [those losses] had pitching performances good enough to win, though EstesÍ performance was a bit on the weak side. (Once again, I'm starting to wonder if he's Hammakerizing.) Five runs in four games. All starting with Kevin Brown. Maybe he still beats the Giants even when he's not on the mound."
"I think I identified the Kryptonite for Kevin Brown's Superman-like performances against the Giants," says Jeff C.: "Joe West. Brown got the heave-ho from [a recent] game against the Cubs for bumping West after getting called out on strikes while batting in the fourth inning. Brown had already given up single runs in each of the first three innings and was evidently very unhappy with the way West was calling balls and strikes. Bruce Bochy ended up getting tossed shortly thereafter.
"Even Dave Stewart, the new Padres pitching coach, ripped into West after the game: 'I thought it was terrible. Kevin Brown had good stuff and the umpire just wasn't paying attention to anything. If they fine me, so be it.'"
"Here's hoping that the crew of Joe West, Jeff Kellogg, Kerwin Danley, and Jim Quick, get to do the next Giants-Padres series in which Brown pitches. Heh."
As Tom C. points out, "It's hard to get a win from inside the clubhouse."
This leads us neatly into another bitch-fest about the umpires. Tom Haudricourt of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says, "When the Milwaukee Brewers switched from the American League to the National League, they were told to expect a wider strike zone from the umpires. Early results lend some credence to that generalization, but one thing hasn't changed.
"Each umpire still has his own interpretation of the strike zone, no matter which league he works in."
And this is a surprise... how?
"'I've noticed the strike zone has been more liberal, but I don't think it's been as liberal as we were led to believe on a day-to-day basis,' said Brewers general manager Sal Bando.
"The Brewers' pitchers and hitters quickly learned they must adjust on a daily basis, depending on which umpire is working the plate, as was the case in the AL. That's why you have seen numerous called third strikes -- including three Brewers hitters in the first inning Tuesday in Montreal, with Greg Bonin behind the plate."
Surprise!
"'I think we're still adjusting to it,' Bando said. 'It doesn't mean the called third strikes are wrong; we just aren't used to these umpires yet.'"
Naw, Cap'n Sal, they're probably wrong.
"'We don't know all the umpires yet and their individual strike zones.'"
Here's where the umps would jump in and say that there's no such thing as an umpire's "individual" strike zone.
"'It changes from umpire to umpire in both leagues. It's not so much the National League strike zone vs. the American League strike zone.'
"In the current edition of USA Today's Baseball Weekly, umpires in both leagues were rated according to a random survey of 100 veteran players during spring training. Umpires were ranked high or low based on the consistency of their strike zones as well as on-field temperament.
"Among the lowest-rated NL umps was Milwaukee native Bruce Froemming, who ranks in seniority (27 years) behind only Harry Wendlestedt (32). The anonymous critique was: "'Very quick temper. Always seems to be (ticked) off about something.'"
"See, I think these assessments are valid, and frankly, I don't see why the league doesn't demand them. Doesn't everybody deserve performance reviews?
"That assessment surprised Brewers manager Phil Garner, who said, 'When Bruce wants to be, he's among the very best umpires in the league.'"
This statement speaks volumes right there.
"Other low-rated NL umps included Bob Davidson (temperament) [Competence. -- GP], Eric Gregg (strike zone) [Competence. (When Jon Perlman pitched here, I always wanted a recording of Hank saying something like, "He went around, says first-base umpire Eric Gregg. Perlman winds, and delivers....") -- GP], Joe West (temperament) and Charlie Williams (strike zone). [Competence and competence. -- GP]
"Rated at the top were Jerry Crawford, Randy Marsh, Ed Montague, Frank Pulli and Ed Rapuano."
What? No Angel Hernandez near the bottom? That guy's goofy.
"AL umpire Durwood Merrill, whose strike zone is open to interpretation, recently came out with a ghost-written book titled, 'You're Out, and You're Ugly, Too.' In it, Merrill takes several pokes at players, including a handful of Texas Rangers, an odd thing to do considering his active status."
I certainly thought so. And isn't he the one who's most vociferous about "we only call the rulebook strike zone"?
"Several years ago, Toronto catcher Ernie Whitt took some shots at AL umpire Joe Brinkman in a tell-all book, prompting a long-running feud between Brinkman and the Blue Jays."
Brinkman is the same man whose own competence was majorly called into question when he started umping home plate, like, from way in back of the catcher.
"What can players do to an umpire who rips them in print?"
<UNTOUCHABLES THEME>
"You know the answer. Absolutely nothing."
Thank you.
</UNTOUCHABLES THEME>
And now both benches have been warned.
Sheesh.
The good news is that Benard ended up drawing a walk, and now Mueller, batting righty against reliever Mike "Wayne's World" Myers, just singled, bringing up Bonds.
Two on, two out. First pitch: ball one. And now Bonds fouls it back, 1-1. And a fake toward second. And Myers almost hits Bonds with a curve for 2-1. Krukow is talking about how Bonds wants a hanging curve, and the pitch is... popped up. Foul. Playable. Jesse Levis, the catcher, has it. Inning over. EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
"A familiar face was on the mound for about half of this 50-minute session: ex-Giant and current broadcaster Mike Krukow."
I saw Kruk in an old-timer's game in about 1990. He threw one pitch, the guy popped it up, and Kruk ran off the mound. It was painful to watch, because obviously he was in some discomfort. The weird part is, in this game between Giants from the '50s and '60s and Giants from the '70s and '80s, only Krukow wore a road uniform.
Roderick continues: "'It's Pittsburgh -- there's nothing to do here,' said Krukow, who pitched for the Giants from 1983-89 and had not thrown to a major-league hitter since he retired after the '89 season. 'I was just throwing strikes.'"
Wow. I'm amazed it had been that long.
"This is so cool," says Carlos. "I mean, I can tell how much he wants to be out there when he is in the booth. It would be cool to hear him relate his 'direct' observations in BP to the game at hand."
Sometimes I think it's all he can do not to call the Giants "we."
Mark Gardner threw the Giants' first complete game, beating the Pirates 6-3 on Tuesday. According to Nick Peters of the Sacramento Bee, Gene Lamont, the manager of the Pirates, said, "He probably reminds me more of Maddux than anybody. He'll throw 89 (mph), then 85 (mph), and he'll throw strikes at will.'"
At the time, I said "Uh-oh. Earnest Praising." So now you know why Gardner got hammered today. Thanks, Gene. Bastard!
In that game, Bonds hit a "400-foot homer to dead center off Jon Lieber (0-3), triggering a three-run inning punctuated by Sanchez's two-run single. Bonds, not convinced his slump was history despite extra batting practice and a long homer, said: 'I was 1 for 5 -- I'd rather have three cheap singles than a homer.'"
I'd prefer three homers to a cheap single.
Henry Schulman says, "When Bonds was asked to dissect his homer, the Giants' first in a week, he playfully refused.
"'I sucked, dude. Gardy got two hits and I had one,' he said. 'That's terrible. You know things are going bad when the pitcher out-hits you.'
"Nevertheless, Bonds' second hit in 19 career at-bats against Pirates starter Jon Lieber was a welcome sight for his teammates and ignited a three-run rally."
What I found interesting was Ted Robinson's comment that Bonds said he figured to get healthy because he'd always hit Lieber well... and then was stunned to find out that this wasn't quite true....
Somebody somewhere is now thinking, "See? Statistics are crap!"
Schulman, by the way, has been in rare form these days. On the Giants beat for the Chronicle, the improvement in quality has been amazing. In his article the next day he says, "Sanchez's single epitomized everything the Giants couldn't do in those four losses, when they scored about as often as Barney Fife did."
"BAHAHAHAHA! (in my best imitation of Pat Morita's 'Arnold' from Happy Days," says Jeff. "It's no wonder Henry's articles are the only ones I typically read."
While the Giants were busy stinking up the joint on the field, the story is that they were busy fighting off the field. The two participants: Danny Darwin and Barry Bonds. And you just know there are some folks out there saying that this is final, clinching proof that the Giants need to trade Bonds.
Joe Roderick quotes Turner Ward of the Pirates as saying, "They were on the ground." Well, maybe they were cuddling.
"Seems that Darwin took umbrage with the way Bonds played a bloop hit into left field, which led to a Pittsburgh run," says Jeff.
I also took umbrage.
Bonds seems to have been making some seriously arthritic plays lately, both in the field and on the bases, which makes me wonder if his back's worse than we've been told. He did it again today -- played a low line drive into a double -- originally ruled a two-base error.
"The bad back is certainly a different way to look at Bonds' play of late," says Dan L. "Whatever it is, he is not, by any means, playing at 100%. It makes me think of what Bonds said of Shawon Dunston when he played for the Giants: 'He plays so recklessly out there and gets hurt so much that he ends up being bad for the team.' Barry seems to think that by playing safe and conservative ball, he can stay in the lineup day-in and day-out, which he definitely does. Now if he could only look at the way Dunston plays (when in the lineup) and find some sort of happy medium."
I don't know if it's that he's not going all out -- or, if so, if it's because maybe he's favoring an injured part, or because, well, he's not going all out.
"I heard the call of the play in question on the radio," says Seth, "and they seemed to describe Bonds as getting caught in no-man's land between being able to dive for the ball and catch it on the fly, or field it cleanly on a hop. Upon seeing the replay on TV (from a near useless, very distant camera position), it sure didn't look like Bonds knew what to do on that play. The ball kicked off him, almost directly to Alex Diaz in center."
Maybe he's just not getting enough sleep....
"So Darwin apparently started screaming at Bonds for his lackadaisical-looking play in the field (oh, and striking out on three straight pitches with the bases loaded couldn't have endeared him much to Darwin, either)."
I too remember being somewhat annoyed.
"I'm not sure if they physically went at each other. No other details were forthcoming because none of the parties involved would discuss it with the press. I'm sure things like that happen every now and again in every team's clubhouse or on every team's charter flights, but still.
"Looks like our Giants' vaunted 'team chemistry' is being put to a severe test these days. All in all, today's game was worthy of the long, loud enunciation of a certain vowel."
Some consonants, too.
"This was an awful game," says Carlos. "It felt like the worst of the season. "When Bonds and Kent failed to come through in the top of the inning, I could feel the game go out of our hands. It was like the Giants just collapsed in the bottom half. Kent promptly makes an error to add to his bad day, and then Bonds makes a miscue later on in the inning. First they blank on offense, then on defense. Brutal. I get depressed just thinking about it.
"Later on there were glimmers of comeback hope, but it was like the whole world was against them.
"Were all the Pirate games like this last year? Were the Giants under remote Pirate mind control? I remember the weekend when the Pirates swept the Giants. To start that awful weekend, Greg Gagne of the Bums cleared the bases with a double in the ninth in Philly. When the Dogs came from behind to win it, I had an awful feeling in the pit of my stomach. And now Piazza does the same in Milwaukee while the Padres come back in 14. Brutal, brutal day.
"We're doomed, Doomed, DOOOMED! <SLAP>... uhh... sorry about that. Lost myself for a moment. I just have to keep thinking that I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."
But let's forget about that, because Johnson has just struck out. Long, repeated vowel.
"After the game, Darwin, 42, didn't appear bruised and denied the confrontation ever happened. Bonds, 33, dressed and exited without facing the media.
"'There are a lot of veteran guys who won't take (stuff) from Barry, and Danny's one of them,' said one player.
"Another player said Darwin confronted Bonds because he didn't believe Bonds was trying as hard as the other eight Giants on the field.
"Second baseman Jeff Kent, the only player to talk on the record, said, 'Sometimes this happens when you're losing and frustrated because you can't score runs. Guys show emotions, and it's good. I've been involved in things like this in my career and other players have, too. I don't think anyone will be Mr. Nice Guy throughout a career, and that's good.
"'I don't think it's good to be a pu- - -. [I'm guessing that means "purple people eater." -- GP] It's good to stand up for what you believe and feel. I'm man enough to do it, and if you're man enough to do it, sometimes heads will hook up. Situations happen on all teams where winning is serious.'"
In any case, I suspect there's a lot of gleeful hand-rubbing in the rodent's nest that serves as an office for a certain initialed columnist....
"B.E. Smizik?" guesses Grant. "Low L. Cohn?"
Those would be among them, perhaps.
"But I know the answer because I can hear the gleeful hand-rubbing from here."
"There's a lot of talk about the Bonds-Darwin thing," says Tim I. "I really think it's a good sign that these guys still care. Let's face it: the Giants hitting has positively sucked raw sewage since Kevin Brown silenced a previously hot Giants attack last Wednesday."
Remember what happened to the little halfback in the movie "M*A*S*H"? Next time: that's Kevin Brown.
"Bonds? He'd better be mad and frustrated. His performance (and other hitters, to be fair to Bonds unlike most writers) has been rotten with runners in scoring position this year; in fact, since the Brown debacle last week Giants hitters have been worse than positively putrid in getting the hits with runners in scoring position. Frustrated? Mad? Irritable and easily agitated? You bet; it happens to me in mere slow-pitch beer league softball when I pop up with the bases loaded. Why should these guys, money notwithstanding, be any different? And their stakes are much higher!"
Agreed. Complacency should be stamped on like that little thing that comes out of the Red Lectroid's throat in Buckaroo Banzai.
"So, of course, watch for the media to call Bonds a troublemaker and a disruptive force."
It's already starting. There's quotes from an unnamed player (named Jeff Kent, I'm guessing) saying something about how veteran players won't take any crap from Bonds, and Darwin's one of them.
"I'd prefer to think that his competitive fires are reaching the surface. Nothing gives an entire team a bad attitude like a prolonged hitting slump and losing streak."
I dare say that nothing gives a newsgroup a bad attitude like a prolonged hitting slump and a losing streak. (Though that would certainly be way more true of 1996 than now, when we're actually pretty mild about it....)
"Darwin? He lost the Kevin Brown game despite a great performance, giving up one run in what, seven innings of work? I'd be pretty upset about that too, even if Giant bats could be excused for not hitting in that one game, considering that they were facing the man who is Kryptonite to the Giants. But when it happened again yesterday, including defensive gaffes (whether real or perceived), you bet he should be mad. The Giants have wasted more good pitching in one week than I can honestly ever remember. (Well, mostly good pitching. Except for one man: Estes.)"
"I personally think this 'kinder, gentler' Barry sucks," says J.E. "I prefer the surly, no-autograph-signin', no-interview-givin', no-mercy-for-opposin'-pitchers Barry Bonds. Who is this guy? Probably getting his butt kicked by my boy Dr. Death. Did somebody put Mark Lemke into Barry's body? (That's the regular season version of Mark Lemke, not the postseason model). Bring back the old Barry, please."
Like an industrial-strength, top-o'-the-line Electrolux.
"Manager Dusty Baker will consider tinkering with his lineup when the Giants begin a five-game homestand against Milwaukee and Pittsburgh, whom they struggled so mightily against the past six games," says Roderick.
This is kind of a concern, because (a) Darryl Hamilton is probably the closest thing to "hot" right now (except that his foot has kept him out of action for four of the last five games), and ergo they're not likely to drop him down in the order, and (b) what next? Brent Mayne hitting cleanup?
By the way, Bill Mueller has just lined his third base hit of the day, a double, after a couple of deep, caught shots by Brent Mayne and Marvin Benard, and up comes Barry Bonds as the tying run. Though Bonds hasn't done a damn thing lately (except for the grand slam), I'd walk him, because Jeff Kent has been horrific.
Ball one to Bonds. Fly ball to left. Fair ball. Mueller scores, Bonds has a double, and it's 7-6. Ha! Earnest ragging! Woo-hoo!
However, up comes Kent. Strike one. Ball one. Kent's the guy who doubled off the top of the center-field wall in Milwaukee, but there's no hope. Fastball, called strike two on the inside. EEEEEE! Criminy! Jeez! Start freaking hitting!
Foul ball, still 1-2. Inside corner, strike three called.
Vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel vowel!
And it's my own damn fault, because though I was indeed earnestly ragging on Kent above, I realized just at the end of my tirade that that's what I was doing, which immediately nullified the effect.
Damn those Baseball Gods. Damn 'em. Creeps.
But back to the subject at hand. According to Roderick, Turner Ward has denied seeing the fight between Bonds and Darwin, probably because Dusty Baker started calling him names via the media. "I don't know how that got in the paper," Ward said. "I didn't see a thing. I was in the clubhouse getting loose. One of the other players told me about it."
I love outright denials like this.
"Darwin, the starting pitcher in Wednesday's game, arrived the next day with a Band-Aid wrap on his left wrist and an abrasion on his right arm," says Roderick. "Bonds had a small cut above his left eye."
Cuddling, I tell you.
"It's not the first time the two have had differences. When Bonds was with the Pirates and Darwin with Houston in 1990, Darwin intentionally walked Bonds, who laughed at the pitcher on the way to first. Darwin shouted back at Bonds."
"No laughing!"
Sorry. Probably only makes sense if you're familiar with the Star Trek episode "Charlie X."
"'I thought it was a terrible call,' said Snow, who wound up 1-for-4 and is 2-for-22 over five games. 'The guy didn't come down, so he knows he's wrong.'"
Maybe Krizmanich is a former umpire, then.
"'J.T. hits the ball to the corner, the left fielder made a good play just to get there, and then they call an error,' manager Dusty Baker said. 'It adds to the frustration. J.T.'s struggling already.'"
I figure this is just Krizmanich's way of making his mark. Maybe he's sick of all the attention the umpires are getting....
"Gee, sounds like a regular softball game," says Chris: 'Did you give me a hit on that?' Plbbt. Hit it where nobody gets to it, and you get a hit."
Well, I agree with that, and with this:
"I haven't seen the play, and maybe it should have been scored a hit, but crying about it is weak. Why does the scorer care if it is a hit or an error? It isn't news to very many people."
Why should the players care that much? I understand why they do... but why should they?
Henry chimes in: "I won't get into why Snow should care, but I will say this: I rarely stand up in the press box and scream, but this call made me do it.... one of the worst calls I've ever seen by a scorer, and I used to be one for five years so I know a little of what I speak.
"The most troubling part of this was the scorer's rationale for calling it an error. He said even though Martin had to run a mile to get the ball, it did tick off his glove, so it has to be an error. That's an incredible comment from an official scorer who, if he read his rulebook once in a while, would know that whether the ball touches the fielder's glove or not is absolutely not a criteria in deciding between a hit and an error.
"The only criterion in charging an error is whether the fielder should have made the play using 'ordinary effort.' When I was a scorer, I used this criterion: If a fielder misses a ball on a play that would have brought the fans to their feet, it's obviously a hit. Served me pretty well."
Chris says, "My wife pointed out that [Snow and other players get] paid based on [their] 'standard' production: batting average, hits, etc. It takes food of his children's' plates."
Be that as it may, I am unable to conjure up a mental image of the children of a veteran major league baseball player starving.
(Oh, and Mike Matheny just homered, so it's 7-5 Brewers in the eighth.)
"The phrase, 'it did tick off his glove, so it has to be an error,' immediately tells me that [Krizmanich] doesn't know how to score. Just as Henry points out, not touching the ball doesn't make it not an error."
Krizmanich's philosophy lends itself well to high-scoring Little League no-hitters....
"You should check out the scorer for the Boston Red Sox," says Chris. "The Sox make tons more errors at home as on the road. It's pretty obscene: a scorer that screws the home team."
Somehow that almost makes sense with the Red Sox and the local press, if only because of Ted Williams thirty million years ago. I suppose, realistically, that I could better understand such a mindset in New York or Philadelphia.
"Okay, I understand it was one series, and that he was devastating down the stretch in 1997, so he can have his moments of clutch greatness.
"Some have said that there are other ways to judge clutch performance other than batting average or even OPS with RISP. Okay, what are they? I hope that these other methods prove Bonds to be better than I think."
"I'm going to plead laziness," says Jonathan, "but essentially we looked through last year and of a number of possible clutch definitions, Bonds did very well in all but one or two. Among the possibles are: late innings, close; RISP; two outs, RISP; vs. LA; September; and there were others. In addition, he doesn't have a lifelong pattern of being weak in whichever one it was; it was just 1997."
"Again, I'm as big a Giants fan as you'll find," says Andy, "and I love having Barry in left field, but I simply do not have confidence when he comes to the plate late in the game with runners on. Honestly speaking, do you?"
"It's just expectations playing tricks on you," says Jonathan. "When Sanchez gets out in the ninth with runners on, it's immediately forgotten; if he gets a single, it's a terrific surprise. When Bonds gets a single, it's slightly disappointing; when he gets out -- as he tends to do, what, about 55% of the time overall -- it's a letdown."
Here's Javier. Low, ball one. Foul ball, 1-1. Now it's 2-1. And now... the damn phone rings! Criminy! Jeez! I'm trying to listen to the game, here. But Javier has just homered. Yes. Unbelievable. We're tied at seven.
Aurilia just flied out to fairly deep right field, and now Charlie Hayes is up to try and win it. Strike one called. Hayes, says Ted Robinson, is 2-for-6 lifetime against Jones, with a home run. Hayes takes a ball. And another. Krukow says, "He'll be sitting on the change-up." And here's the 2-1: Hayes swings, and... wow! He did it! Absolutely amazing. He got the change and hit it out. Giants win 8-7, and this has to be a good thing. Has to.
The Giants now have six pinch hits, the fourth to win a game.
And you know what I really enjoy about this kind of game? Simply the memory of Tjames, the Giants newsgroup's genuinely admired, well-liked Dodger fan, having e-mailed me last year to say that he really enjoyed my running account of a tense ballgame that the Giants ended up losing. He loved knowing what had happened and how frustrated I, a Giants fan, must've been at the time.
My response in this situation is to face Tjames (or pretend I'm facing him, wherever he is), stick my thumbs in my ears, stick out my tongue, and wiggle my fingers.
Woo-hoo!
"No matter how much talent you are given, you don't deserve to be called a pro when you think that hustle is a four-letter word. That is unforgivable but not as unforgivable as the pathetic writers who fail to point it out. Bonds is a jealous, insecure, immature brat who will never be a team player, unless someone has the backbone to stand up and tell him."
The part that made me laugh out loud is the very idea that the local writers suck up to this guy. I'd be thrilled to present pages and pages of evidence to the contrary, but I'm too lazy to do it. If you want to see it, check out previous installments of EEEEEE!, in which such this stuff is discussed in detail, or feel free to flip through my Baseball Prospectus website article titled "The Sun Glinted Off His Jewelry As He Homered to Win the Game." If the media, even the local media, is kissing Bonds' ass, they're hiding it well.
Clearly the writer of this letter -- whose name can be rearranged to form "R.E. Graswich," if you add some letters and take out others.... -- is someone who simply hates Bonds. Like guys such as Graswich and Bob Smizik, he (or she) fails to exemplify just what it is that's so hateful, preferring instead to speak in generalities, such as Bonds "fail(ing) his team" and "blatant self-serving style of play."
"What's wrong? He is tired of playing. That's all it is. He wants a different career. I wish he had one."
This is at least a more interesting, less spittle-flecked letter than the first, though this writer's last sentence shows his true colors, too. I mean, we've all had the same feelings -- "Uh-oh, Bonds is up. Rally over." -- but we also know that this guy is Barry Bonds. The man's a monster, even in a bad year.
Evidently Bonds read those letters, though, because he drove in five runs today with that grand slam and a clutch double in the eighth.
I find this interesting, because on virtually the day Bob Smizik's rip-job appeared -- the one discussing how much Bonds' teammates hate him -- Keown wrote a piece stating that Bonds was making a concerted effort to get along, and the results were paying off. See, that's when the team was winning. Nowadays, they're struggling around .500... so Bonds must be a shmuck again.
"The reason nothing will change," says Keown, "is that Bonds doesn't see the need to change. Maybe this is the source of his athletic greatness, or maybe just his arrogance. He admits he doesn't always go all out, and he says if he did, he wouldn't be in the lineup 158 times a season.
"Fine. But if you want to know why people such as Darwin get a little irritated, take the events of Thursday's ninth inning in Pittsburgh.
"With the Giants trailing 7-0, Bonds led off with a walk. On the first pitch, he attempted to steal second base. The ball was fouled off by Jeff Kent, and before the next pitch Bonds was almost picked off.
"Now, there's only one reason to be running in that situation, and it's summed up in one word: Numbers. It's a cheap stolen base, a chance to pad the stats, and it doesn't look good when Bonds and his team aren't playing well.
"If you're a teammate, here's what you see: He's not going to run out a ground ball and risk pulling a hamstring, but he's got no problem with taking off for a meaningless steal at the end of a hopeless game.
"But that's Barry. You take the package as its presented."
Second, What Keown had to say was interesting, if bitter. I believe that virtually any other player in the game, upon trying to steal in that situation, would be praised as "trying to make something happen." I mean, probably the Pirates were very relaxed on defense and might not even have tried to throw him out. Yes, he's almost picked off later -- but only because he's made the Pirates aware of his presence.
Sure, maybe he is trying to pad his stats -- but it's not like he's anywhere near a season milestone right now, so that sounds kind of silly. Are the Bonds-haters next going to tell us that all of Rickey Henderson's 130 steals in 1982 meant something?
Keown has a key statement: that Bonds' "cheap" steal attempt "doesn't look good when Bonds and his team aren't playing well." So... it looks okay when they are? How very double standard of Keown.
But his conclusion is very interesting: Bonds won't run out the grounder, but will go after the cheap steal. I've heard Bonds say in interviews that he feels there's no point running out a routine grounder when he knows that the opposing fielder is a steady defensive player. Now, I understand why he says this, but I don't buy it, for the simple reason that everybody makes errors, and he could be costing his team a base, or a run, for every booted grounder that he doesn't run out. As for the cheap steal, who's to say he wasn't trying to light a fire under his teammates?
I'm not saying Keown is wrong. I think he has a point, in fact. But what he says sounds laced with emotion, rather than objective observation. I guess you should draw your own conclusions.
First off, Sarah's site is one of those showcased by the Giants' own website -- more on that later. Second, well, my opinion has improved drastically over the last year plus. Coming in, I pretty much believed what I read, namely that the dude was a terrible righthanded hitter (which he pretty much still is), that his power and walks aren't really enough for a first baseman, that his batting average is his "strength," and it's not very high at that. I thought, "Well, he looks slick at first base, but all these people are saying that he doesn't have any range, and he's not half as good as his defensive reputation." In other words, when I read, over and over that Snow was the worst first baseman in the major leagues, I believed it.
But last year I was legitimately impressed with him. He still has some weaknesses that bug me -- hitting against lefties is the big one, but also he has this way -- well, he did last year -- of striking out looking with the bases loaded. It happened all the time.
My overall opinion is that I actually like the guy now, and I certainly pull for him. He's fun to watch, and if he's lacking anything on defense, I sure don't see it. I figure there are still some way better first basemen out there, but I'm satisfied. I'll be a lot more satisfied if he gets untracked and starts hitting....
His most recent ejection came on that play at the plate against St. Louis, when Tom Lampkin missed him by a foot and he was called out anyway, supposedly for throwing his helmet. The one last year came on a strike-three pitch that was, literally, a good eight inches outside. It was simply the worst strike call ever (until the NLCS, with Eric Gregg behind the plate). The umpire who threw him out, I'm pretty sure, was Greg Bonin.
As for why he was ejected, I believe that the same thing is true in each case: the umpire knew he'd blown the call, and got Snow out of there as fast as possible.
"I realized that while I sit watching [Friday's] game. With one eye I watch the Giants and with the other I type on the PowerBook, looking for inspiration.
"Anyway, I got to thinking about what already seems to be a big difference between the '97 Giants and the '98 Giants.
"Jeromy Burnitz (the Sanchez-robber from last weekend) hits a three-run homer in the fifth to give the Brew Crew a 6-4 lead.
"Last year, I would have thought 'Who cares?' The Giants would get some good bullpen work and the team would get clutch hits, perhaps with two outs and runners in scoring position, and come back. The confidence was totally there.
"This year it just feels like the game is over. I can't explain it."
I dunno; "they're the Giants -- it's their job"?
As soon as the Brewers picked up two runs just after the Giants scored three, I thought, "Uh-oh. Long night." And then Dusty stays with Hershiser, who absolutely doesn't have it, and lets him walk, like, eleventeen, before finally deigning to get him. It's like he just had to leave Orel in to get his five innings.
Vowels!
By the way, it looks as though the Giants got massively screwed by the umpires in a crucial situation. Again. I find myself wishing in vain that they'd shown the replay on the scoreboard to show up the umpires in a big way... but hell, they never even shown the replay on the telecast.
I was away from the TV when the play in question took place, though I had my walkman on. It sounded as though, with Aurilia at first and nobody out, Hamilton hit a line drive toward third. Kerwin Danley, the third-base umpire, ruled no catch. Jeff Cirillo then threw wide to first, putting two on with nobody out. Then Jeff Kellogg, the second-base umpire, overruled the third-base umpire's call. He said it was a catch, and Aurilia, who had to run because of Danley's call, was doubled off.
Maybe the worst part was Dusty Baker not arguing hard enough to get tossed.
But you know something? I dare you to tell me that if it had been the Brewers (or any other Giants opponent) at bat, that call would still have been changed. Go on. I dare you.
"One of the guys at work told me about the play after he heard it on the radio," says Jeff C. "When he mentioned Danley and Kellogg, I realized that's the crew (along with Quick and West) that I had mentioned as the 'key to beating Kevin Brown' West tossed Brown out of a game against the Cubs. I now see I erred in my judgment -- serves me right for depending on an umpire for anything other than on diet tips for becoming a sumo wrestler.
"Y'know, pretty soon the 'Umpires Who Give the Giants the Shaft' List will be full. This crew can now be added to the Schrieber-Montague-Demuth-Reliford and Bonin-Hernandez-Hohn-Marsh crews. Any chance for an umpire strike in the near future? I'd take scab crews over some of these guys."
I received an e-mail from Gary Frenkel, the Site Producer for the San Francisco Giants' Virtual Dugout, saying, "We hope you don't mind but the Giants Virtual Dugout (official team site) has chosen your site to be featured in an article on Giants Fan Sites. We hope that some extra traffic comes your way and that you don't mind that we linked to your site and profiled your work."
Like I'd mind. Hey, I'm delighted. If you'd like to see it, just click here.
I told Gary that I'd never had much hope that "Giants insiders" would enjoy EEEEEE! very much, but it truly is a labor of love, and an awful lot of fun to do. I really enjoy seeing words like "terrific," and I got a laugh out of "Brevity is not the site's strong suit," because, well, it isn't. I feel lucky to have lots of space in which to put these articles -- it's nice to know that you don't have to write toward a word count.
(And it's a big honor to me that people have contacted me and asked to write for the site, especially knowing that they're not going to get paid....)
By the way, the Giants aren't highlighting just my site. As Richard points out, "Newsgroup regular Edith Kelly's site is also highlighted on page 2 of that section (EEEEEE! is on page 3)." So I apologize -- and offer my congratulations -- to Edith, as well as Sarah Johnson (for her J.T. Snow site), for my failure to mention their sites, and the others mentioned, when letting the newsgroup know about EEEEEE!
"Way to go!" says Steven R. "It's about time they noticed, don't ya think?"
I've always had this weirdo fantasy that they'd always noticed... and considered it subversive... and used their vast influence to make sure nobody'd hire me ever again....
Dave P. says, "Nice. I especially like the 'self-promoted 'mastermind' part."
That's how they described me. Of course, the whole "mastermind" thing is very tongue-in-cheek, but the "self-promoted" part cracked me up because basically the only "promotion" I do is to let people on the Giants newsgroup know when the site has been updated.
"Well, this has to be about as good a thing as you could have ever hoped for," says Richard. "After all, they understood the whole point of the site, and even approved.
"Plus, my name is on the screen capture and I don't even have to feel guilty about it. (Amazing how current this is, by the way.)"
I'm pretty stoked about it, and I was very pleased that they also specifically mentioned Richard's "I'm a Giants Fan -- That's My Job."
"All in all, a better and more accurate review than this pessimistic Giants fan expected," says Tom A.
This one, too.
"Although: 'self-promoted mastermind'? Gregg, have you been idly fingering $1 bills again? Sun glinting off your jewelry, maybe?"
Or glistening, bikini-clad skin?
"Brevity is not its strong point. Well, okay. But it doesn't try to be. And why does everyone call us cynical? we're just bruised idealists!"
Bruises... multiple compound fractures... the line: he's so fine, doo-lang, doo-lang.
"But overall, long-deserved recognition from The Giants. Well done, and hopefully the first step toward other good things."
Thank you, sir.
Dodger fan Michael P. tells me, via my father, that he's "Glad that your son is finding something unproductive and futile to fill his time. Certainly watching and following the Giants is that."
C'mon. I don't need the Giants in order to be unproductive and futile. I don't even need baseball for that.
"Oh, I almost forgot that they are ahead of the Dodgers, so it's a winning season for the fans," says Michael. "The season is young, however, and the Giants are sure to generate much greater misery than they have already."
That part is a given.
"Good to hear from you," says Michael. "Tell Gregg to get a life."
Uh-huh. This from a man whose team plays in The Land Of Unnecessary Plastic Surgery, where everybody's gorgeous (provided you don't look closely enough to see the surgically precise scars), where the fans only stay for the middle four innings.... Oh, I'm just teasing Michael back -- I'm not getting all twisted and bitter. Besides, is it my fault he's so deeply, desperately misled?
Actually, Tjames, who, again, is one of my favorite people who writes regularly in the Giants newsgroup, is a Dodger fan. He can't help being wrong, either. I guess it's in the blood.
Copyright ©1998 by Gregg Pearlman
Last updated 4/27/98 Gregg Pearlman, gregg@EEEEEEgp.com