Bored

Ya that was not a move to win the game. I couldn't believe Rivera wasn't in or at least kept Farnsworth in. Hey but I'm happy Joe felt so generous to avoid an extra inning rain delay and give the A's the win.

All weekend I had to hear how the A's Opening Night game against the Yankees was going to be a rainout. It rained all day here in the Bay Area and then suddenly tonight it clears up a bit. So I was happy at first that I wouldn't have to stay up until one in the morning tonight to watch the entire game but that changed pretty quick. Barry Zito was chosen as the Opening Night starter even though everyone knows the ace of the staff is Rich Harden. I think manager Ken Macha fell into the manager trap of letting the "veteran" get the start. Zito has a knack for getting into 3-2 counts way too often and against a patient team like the Yankees that will get you killed and they have killed him in recent years. Zito's line tonight: 1 1/3 IP, 4 H, 7 ER, 4 BB, 3 K. Woof. It's 11-1 Yankees in the 5th inning as I type this so safe to say it's not the hometown heroes night. In my aborted preview of the A's I had talked about Zito likely leaving after this season and might as well go briefly into that now. Now preface of course my thoughts aren't scewed simply because Zito pitched like Russ Ortiz tonight. I can pretty much predict the media outcry when Zito leaves for a big money deal to a big market team after this season but it will all be moot. He simply isn't worth the money he is going to get as starting pitchers are the most overpriced position in baseball right now. Just take a look at A.J. Burnett. Very talented but very injury prone and has yet to have that breakout season where he emerges as a top of the line starter yet he signed a 5-year, $55 million deal. Her certainly benefitted from a weak crop of free agent starting pitchers but it also shows how painfully overvalued starting pitching is. Zito has had a better career to this point than Burnett, has zero injury history (with his easy delivery he may never have arm problems), and is even slightly younger than Burnett. Barring a disasterous season he'll almost certainly parlay a contract that is at least worth as much as Brunett's and maybe even a a million or two more a year. Can anyone legitimately say Barry Zito is worth possibly $12-14 million a year? Now the fact that you can pencil him in for 220+ innings a year at above average production does certainly make him more valuable than maybe his peripheral numbers would indicate. But really that type of money should only go to the elite pitchers which Zito is by no means. The A's also have three good, young starting pitchers on their staff that they have under their control thru the end of the decade and money like that would be much better spent on a position player (or two). Now 13-1, Yankees still batting in the 5th. It better be a rain free night with Harden pitching tommorrow or mother nature can kiss my ass. At least Frank Thomas homering in his first at bat with the A's didn't make this night a total loss. -Brief Final Four thought, the "Greatest Tournament Ever" ended with a big thud. This was the first time since 1976 that the Final Four didn't have a game decied by single digits when Indiana finished off their undefeated championship run. And wow is that Noah kid from Florida is good...and wow is he one ugly mother fucker.

Somebody had to look it up: This is the first time since 1976 that the Final Four didn't have a game decided by single digits. Back then there were four games as there was a 3rd place game.

BIG HURT HOMERS IN HIS FIRST A'S AT BAT!!!! Ya it's basically a lost night but that was awesome.

After raining most of the day it has cleared up Oakland. It could still rain tommorrow and Wednesday night too but looks like shouldn't too much trouble getting through tonight's game. Edit: Okay now I wish there had been a rainout. Now watch there will be a rainout tommorrow with Harden pitching, who should have started tonight.

By PM for LaParkaMarka:

With the 6th pick in the 2006 NFL Draft, the San Francisco 49ers select... Michael Huff, Defensive Back, from the University of Texas Strengths: Very athletic with excellent speed...A playmaker and ballhawk in the secondary who has a nose for the ball...Really has a knack for taking interceptions to the house...Versatile and has experience at both safety and cornerback...Moves well and shows terrific range...Very reliable tackler...Smart player with tremendous instincts...Comes from a program with a strong history of developing pro DB's. Weaknesses: May be a bit of a 'tweener who doesn't fit in at either safety or corner at the pro level...Will gamble at times in an effort to come away with a turnover...Needs to work on and refine his technique...Needs to get stronger...Was shuffled around throughout his career and was never able to concentrate on just one position. Notes: Thorpe Award winner...Brother (Marcus King) is a safety at Missouri...When it comes to making a big play in the secondary you won't find many who have done it as well as this guy at the college level the past few years...His pro position is still up in the air but with his physical tools it certainly give teams a lot of options. LaParkaMarka told me to make his pick for him if he's not around but I get off work in a little over an hour and he's not around then I'll make it.

Baseball Tonight A.L. MVP picks: John Kruk: Paul Konerko Harold Reynolds: Bobby Crosby Oof.

In one of his recent entries kkk talked about his favorite looking baseball cards. This got me be remembering one of my favorite baseball card collecting habits from my childhood, buying those store brand baseball sets. Stores like K-Mart and Toys 'R' Us would have their baseball cards, typically produced by Topps, that would feature star players or rookies. The sets were cheap and the cards were all glossy which was still a very unique feature back in the late 80's. The first such set I remember buying was the 1987 Topps Toys 'R' Us Rookies set. It was a set of 33 cards featuring the rookies from the 1986 season. I took terrible care of the cards and now I don't even remember where they are but I do still remember those black boarded cards. I couldn't find individual pictures of the cards but I did find a site that showed that displays the entire set. Here are the links: 1. Andy Allanson, 2. Paul Assenmacher, 3. Scott Bailes, 4. Barry Bonds, 5. Jose Canseco, 6. John Cerutti, 7. Will Clark, 8. Kal Daniels, 9. Jim Deshaies OMG Bonds and Canseco's cards were together, it was a sign!!! 10. Mark Eichhorn, 11. Ed Hearn, 12. Pete Incaviglia, 13. Bo Jackson, 14. Wally Joyner, 15. Charlie Kerfeld, 16. Eric King, 17. John Kruk, 18. Barry Larkin See a relatively thin John Kruk. 19. Mike LaValliere, 20. Greg Mathews, 21. Kevin Mitchell, 22. Dan Plesac, 23. Bruce Ruffin, 24. Ruben Sierra, 25. Cory Snyder, 26. Kurt Stillwell, 27. Dale Sveum 28. Danny Tartabull, 29. Andres Thomas, 30. Robby Thompson, 31. Jim Traber, 32. Mitch Williams, 33. Todd Worrell As you see 1986 produced a pretty impressive crop of rookies and some several infamous names as well. I had been thinking of trying to do a Reward Redo that wasn't an MVP vote but every other award in baseball only allows three players to be voted on a ballot. So I figured I'd do a Top 10 list of the best rookie season from 1986. In my first entry about my very first game I mentioned that Wally Joyner was robbed by Jose Canseco in the '86 ROY voting and I'll put that claim to the test. They were the only two to receive first place votes on the A.L. side with Mark Eichhorn and Cory Snyder receiving some secondary support. In the N.L. the award was won by Todd Worrell who had already become nationally known as he had been a late season call up in '85 and made the Cardinals postseason roster. He became a household name due to being involved in the infamous blown call by Don Denkinger in Game 6 of the World Series that would eventually cost the Cardinals the series. Worrell was a near unanimous choice as Kevin Mitchell was the only player to a receive a first place vote. So who was the best rookie of 1986? #10 147 ERA+, 2.59 K/BB, 1.21 WHIP, 23.1 VORP, 13 Win Shares #9 .272/.299/.500, 62 RC, 115 OPS+, .276 EQA, 24.6 VORP, 13 Win Shares #8 .287/.343/.444, 62 RC, 121 OPS+, .284 EQA, 22.1 VORP, 14 Win Shares #7 .277/.344/.466, 53 RC, 125 OPS+, .290 EQA, 21.6 VORP, 14 Win Shares #6 .250/.320/.463, 80 RC, 109 OPS+, .277 EQA, 24.6 VORP, 16 Win Shares #5 175 ERA+, 1.78 K/BB, 1.23 WHIP, 26.5 VORP, 19 Win Shares #4 .240/.318/.457, 86 RC, 115 OPS+, .286 EQA, 30.2 VORP, 21 Win Shares #3 .270/.347/.489, 87 RC, 124 OPS+, .290 EQA, 35.4 VORP, 15 Win Shares #2 .290/.348/.457, 95 RC, 119 OPS+, .292 EQA, 41.1 VORP, 21 Win Shares #1 246 ERA+, 3.69 K/BB, 0.96 WHIP, 66.4 VORP, 21 Win Shares Canadian Greats? He was born in San Jose. Okay I was right that Jose Canseco robbed someone but it was actually Mark Eichhorn. Yes a middle reliever was the top rookie of 1986. He had actually made his MLB debut back in 1982 but didn't get another shot in the majors until four years later. He didn't make a start but pitched in 157 innings (five innings short of qualifying for the ERA title), striking out 166, and posting a 1.72 ERA in what would be by far his best year. One more thing here's the career Win Shares rankings for the 33 players in that 1987 Topps Toys 'R' Us Rookies set. Ya big shock who's #1. 1. Barry Bonds 661 2. Barry Larkin 347 3. Will Clark 331 4. Jose Canseco 272 5. Wally Joyner 253 6. Ruben Sierra 222 7. Danny Tartabull 188 8. Kevin Mitchell 178 9. John Kruk 156 10. Robby Thompson 155 11. Kal Daniels 112 12. Pete Incaviglia 107 13. Dan Plesac 106 14. Todd Worrell 105 15. Mike LaValliere 95 16. Paul Assenmacher 86 17. Cory Snyder 85 18. Mark Eichhorn 83 19. Bruce Ruffin 76 20. Mitch Williams 75 21. Kurt Stillwell 73 22. Bo Jackson 72 23. Jim Deshaies 68 24. Dale Sveum 55 25. Eric King 50 26. John Cerutti 45 27. Andy Allanson 27 28. Scott Bailes 26 29. Andres Thomas 23 30. Greg Mathews 22 31. Charlie Kerfeld 15 32. Jim Traber 11 33. Ed Hearn 5

The upper deck will be opened for the playoffs if they make it. Actually they'll have to untarp everything come August when the Raiders play their first preseason game. Rain is in the forecast for both Monday and Tuesday which creates a big problem. It is the Yankees only trip to Oakland all year and typically there is an off day the first week of the season but the A's don't have one this year and have to travel to Seattle immediately following Wednesday night's game (A night game on a getaway day?) so they have no chance for a make up date. So warning to Yankee fans both Monday and Tuesday's game might go well into the morning EST hours as they will probably play as long as they have to to get official games in.

Well she is way behind Alyssa Milano in banging starting pitchers. Pavano, Zito, Penny...no one goes deeper than Milano.

Supply and demand, limit the supply in hopes of increasing the demand for season tickets. Why do you think the trend for these newer stadiums is to go to smaller capacities? Even the Cardinals, who have no problem selling season tickets, have gone to a smaller capacity with their new stadium. The A's, like all teams, have discount ticket nights so those who can't afford regular prices will have their chances. Besides baseball tickets are still cheaper than football and basketball tickets. So far it has partially worked as season ticket sales are up although how much of that is due to people buying them so they don't get shutout from other games or those who bought them due to a very positive offseason for the team is another question.

Since one of the bigger opening series is the A's/Yankees in Oakland and that there is always plenty of Yankee discussion on the forum I figured I'd mention something in advance before Monday's game. For those that don't know the A's have decided to tarp off their upper deck for the entire season. Just to avoid the "why is the upper deck tarped off?" questions come Monday. The idea is to increase season ticket sales by limiting the availability for fans to walk up right before a game and buy tickets. The A's have led the Majors in walk up attendance on a regular basis because they can fit 55,000 in the Coliseum and they have a low season ticket base. Also they do this so they know in advance how many vendors/ticket takers/etc they need for each game as there has been a handful of games in the past for the A's where they would for example sell 15,000 presale and then end up with a 20,000 walk up crowd. In the end the ownership is trying to maxmize revenues and who could blame them? Of course some of the natives are royally pissed off and making a much bigger deal of it than necessary, although I would agree it seems counter productive to do it for all games especially Opening Night when they could easily clear 50,000 against the Yankees. Not sure if people who can't get tickets to the Yankees series will suddenly turn around buy tickets to see the Royals.

For his sake I hope Kendall doesn't have a pilot's license.

Depends on who you ask. Everyone pretty much likes his attitude and personality but his lack of production at the plate and his inability to throw out baserunners last season was pretty glaring. Some absolutely hate him due his poor season and want back up Adam Melhuse to be the starter but he's isn't very good and is even older than Kendall. They do definently need to give him more days off this year as even though he played poorly he still lead all catchers in games played. It's tough to rely on a guy in his 30's to be catching 150 games ever year. I'm just afraid he may have hit the catcher career wall last season. But on the brightside this year he probably won't be any worse than he was last year but I'm not sure how much better he will be, if at all.

There's an ongoing debate about the baseball Most Valuable Player voting: Should it go to the best player in baseball or should it go to the best player on a winning team? I used to be very much on the side of it should be the best player on a winnig team but I've backed off that, although today I still don't think a player on a last place team shouldn't be winning the MVP but don't believe that a player on a losing or middle of the road team should be automatically discarded from consideration. Whatever side of the debate you are on everyone can agree one of the most bizarre MVP winners was Andre Dawson in 1987. The main reason Dawson won most likely was because he lead the league in homeruns and rbi which is always to grab the attention of the voters. But what was odd about was that Dawson played on a last place team in the Cubs. Now at 76-85 I suppose the Cubs were a "good" last place team but they were never in serious contention in the very tough N.L. East which featured three teams with 90+ wins that year. Also when you looked at Dawson's numbers beyond the homeruns and rbi they weren't that impressive. He hit .287 with a .328 OBP and despite his 49 homeruns who only finsihed 6th in SLG in a year full of great offensive performances. There were several of great candidates on some of the leagues top teams (Cardinals, Giants, Mets, Expos) yet a player on a last place team wins it who's numbers did not blow away the competition. Here's the actual order of finish for the 1987 N.L. MVP: 1) Dawson 2) Ozzie Smith 3) Jack Clark 4) Tim Wallach 5) Will Clark 6) Darryl Strawberry 7) Tim Raines 8) Tony Gwynn 9) Eric Davis 10) Howard Johnson 11) Dale Murphy 12) Vince Coleman 13) Juan Samuel 14) Mike Schmidt 15) Pedro Guerrero 16) Steve Bedrosian 17) Milt Thompson 18t) Bill Doran 18t) Terry Pendleton So I've decided to redo the voting and give my own Top 10 for that year (note used '88 cards since they'd be '87 photos). #10 .308/.371/.580, 113 RC, 153 OPS+, .311 EQA, 49.5 VORP, 25 Win Shares #9 .293/.388/.548, 112 RC, 142 OPS+, .313 EQA, 58.1 VORP, 26 Win Shares #8 .338/.416/.539, 123 RC, 155 OPS+, .331 EQA, 69.5 VORP, 28 Win Shares #7 .295/.417/.580, 136 RC, 156 OPS+, .328 EQA, 73.0 VORP, 29 Win Shares #6 .303/.392/.383, 90 RC, 105 OPS+, .288 EQA, 59.1 VORP, 33 Win Shares #5 .370/.447/.511, 135 RC, 158 OPS+, .341 EQA, 90.8 VORP, 29 Win Shares #4 .284/.398/.583, 122 RC, 162 OPS+, .332 EQA, 69.4 VORP, 30 Win Shares #3 .293/.399/.593, 112 RC, 155 OPS+, .330 EQA, 78.7 VORP, 30 Win Shares #2 .286/.459/.597, 115 RC, 176 OPS+, .353 EQA, 65.2 VORP, 33 Win Shares #1 .330/.429/.526, 119 RC, 149 OPS+, .333 EQA, 78.7 VORP, 34 Win Shares As you see Dawson doesn't even crack the Top 10. If Raines played anywhere less but Montreal he probably gets more consideration although even in this year he didn't finish higher than his teammate Tim Wallach. Dawson of course played in Montreal originally and had signed as a free agent with the Cubs before the '87 season. It's highly unlikely he would have won the award in '87 with his numbers playing Montreal. Raines truly was one of great, underappreciated players of the 80's.

Thanks for the compliment. To be honest when doing these redos I haven't given any real consideration to the position of the player and possibly I should. Thing about 1987 it was such a monster year for offense I just feel even with the high OBP Smith's defense can't make up for how his offensive numbers are dwarfed by the competition. The highest I could see putting him is 3rd.

In a recent entry on Leelee's Blog, she mocked my MVP redo's by bringing up her favoriter player's, Alex Rodriguez, 2003 MVP win. Hey I thought it was funny. But then treble, our resident Toronto Blue Jay fan, made this post: Well obviously I have to settle this heated debate. Given that it was less than three years ago, many probably remember the MVP debate from that year. A-Rod won the A.L. MVP despite playing on a Ragners team that lost 91 games. Obviously not his fault but as I talked about in the Award Redo: 1987 N.L. MVP entry it is very rare for a player on a last place team to win the MVP and many don't feel a player on a last place team deserves consideration for the MVP. The year before A-Rod lost out to the A's Miguel Tejada with the main reason being that Tejada was on a first place team and A-Rod was on a last place team. 2003 was the ideal year for a player on a last place team to win the award as there was no clear favorite. It is obvious by just looking at the results as ten different players would receive first place votes: A-Rod, Delgado, Jorge Posada, Shannon Stewart, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Nomar Garciaparra, Vernon Wells, Tejada, and Jason Giambi. Delgado did play on a winning team but not a first place team in Toronto. In a year when there is no clear favorite also some undeserving players get serious consideration. Most obvious was Shannon Stewart who received a groundswell of support late in the season after helping the Twins win the A.L. Central and was deservedly mocked by the stat geeks. Stewart finished the year with fewer Win Shares than A's closer Keith Foulke and I've already gone over before how hard it is for a closer to match the value of an everyday player. Another player who received way too much support was David Ortiz who only played in 128 games yet received four first place votes. His 15 Win Shares were by far the fewest of any player who received an MVP vote. The A-Rod vs. Delgado debate of course was discussed on the TSM boards back in 2003 and this will be my second voting on the award. In this thread posters voted on all the MLB awards from 2003. As you'll see I was very anti-last place and anti A-Rod at the time although I've relented on my stance against players on last place teams winning the award since. Here was my ballot I posted on September 28, 2003: I was very much drinking the Miguel Tejda Kool-Aid at the time as in retrospect he really didn't deserve any consideration. So time to redo the real ballot and my ballot, but will I change my first place vote? Actual Results 1) Alex Rodriguez 2) Carlos Delgado 3) Jorge Posda 4) Shannon Stewart 5) David Ortiz 6) Manny Ramirez 7) Nomar Garciaparra 8) Vernon Wells 9) Carlos Beltran 10) Bret Boone 11) Miguel Tejada 12) Bill Mueller 13) Jason Giambi 14) Garret Anderson 15t) Keith Foulke 15t) Frank Thomas 17) Eric Chavez 18t) Carlos Lee 18t) Magglio Ordonez 20) Alfonso Soriano 21) Derek Jeter 22) Pedro Martinez 23) Ichiro Suzuki 24t) Aubrey Huff 24t) Esteban Loaiza 24t) Jason Varitek 27) Mariano Rivera #10 .307/.389/.522, 106 RC, 126 OPS+, .310 EQA, 64.1 VORP, 28 Win Shares #9 .267/.390/.562, 117 RC, 149 OPS+, .317 EQA, 66.5 VORP, 23 Win Shares #8 .290/.338/.525, 117 RC, 128 OPS+, .297 EQA, 69.9 VORP, 27 Win Shares #7 .317/.359/.550, 133 RC, 131 OPS+, .303 EQA, 71.0 VORP, 26 Win Shares #6 .281/.405/.518, 99 RC, 146 OPS+, .319 EQA, 61.5 VORP, 28 Win Shares #5 .250/.412/.527, 112 RC, 151 OPS+, .326 EQA, 63.5 VORP, 28 Win Shares #4 .294/.366/.535, 121 RC, 138 OPS+, .312 EQA, 75.9 VORP, 30 Win Shares #3 .325/.427/.587, 141 RC, 160 OPS+, .339 EQA, 77.9 VORP, 28 Win Shares #2 .298/.396/.600, 141 RC, 148 OPS+, .324 EQA, 96.3 VORP, 32 Win Shares #1 .302/.426/.593, 140 RC, 160 OPS+, .338 EQA, 83.3 VORP, 32 Win Shares Ya stick it A-Rod, you're not CLUTCH~! And god damn do baseball cards suck now or what? Anyways this was an incredibly close call and I could have flipped a coin but I gave the nod to Delgado. There's a serious case for Manny as well.

The thread title is a parody of the typical comments after the first couple of rounds of every NCAA Tournament. Every single year there are big upsets and "mid-majors" getting past the first weekend and every year it seems to come as a big shock to CBS and ESPN's analysts, or they pretend to be shocked at least. I guess we can chalk this up to the typical short attention span of networks and the people who watch. Really the biggest surprise maybe that no #10 seed made it to the Sweet 16 for the first time in ten years but not that CBS or ESPN would notice. Here's a look back at the "surprises" of the NCAA Tournament in just the last five years and I'll work backwards just to show how quickly people forget how "crazy and wild" past tournaments have been. 2005 -A #14, #13, #12, and a #11 seed win first round games. -#12 seed Wisconsin-Milwaukee advances to the Sweet 16. -#5 seed Michigan State advances to the Final Four. 2004 -Two #12 seeds win first round games. -Two #1 seeds are elminated in the second round. -A #8 and #7 seed make it to the Elite Eight. 2003 -A #13, #12, and a #11 seed win first round games. -#12 seed Butler advances to the Sweet 16. -#7 seed Michigan State advances to the Elite Eight. 2002 -Three #12 seeds win first round games. -#11 seed Southern Illinois advances to the Sweet 16. -#12 seed Missouri advances to the Elite Eight. -#5 seed Indiana advances to the title game. 2001 -#15 seed Hampton wins in the first round. -#12 seed Gonzaga advances to the Sweet 16. -#11 seed Temple advnces to the Elite Eight. So you get the point. This year is really no different from any other. If George Mason reaches the Final Four then we can talk about this being a surprising tournament. -Speaking of upsets as mentioned in a prior entry I picked Bradley to make it the Sweet 16. I've been near perfect in that Oakland Region as only missed the Alabama/Marquette game. Of course every other upset pick failed miserably and this was probably one of my worst years ever picking the tournament but I prefer just to brag about picking Bradley. Oh and hey did you notice the game? It was Brad/Pitt in the little scorebox. Get it? Brad Pitt! Didn't take them long to drive that into the ground. -Enough with the gratuitos shots of the coaches wives at the end of games. Does this really bring more viewers in? Is there some sort of extra drama I'm supposed to feel because the coaches' wife is praying? It got really out of hand at the end of the UCLA/Alabama game as literally every five seconds they were cutting to one of the wives. -One final thing, March Madness On Demand was simply the greatest thing ever. Kudos to CBS and NCAA for agreeing to do this for free when they certainly could have charged a subcription fee for it and made a killing on people wanting to watch games while they are at work. It allowed me to not watch the Cal game (although I tuned in for the final minute to watch N.C. State win, woo hoo!) and for that I will always be grateful.

I said: Okay maybe this is the greatest tournament ever. Unbelievable.

How appros, is it that GMU would likely play 'Nova next week. And if they hold on they'd be winning it on Georgetown's home floor.

No. No. No. Okay it is official...fuck UConn. They don't deserve this.

Well this would trump Villanova beating Georgetown in the '85 title game.

You know if someone came out with a baseball card set that was just regular cardboard cards, no glossy cards, no special incerts, no series 1 & 2, and priced under a buck a pack I'd seriously consider collecting it just for the hell of it.

I don't care about Spring Training but I was happy to see that the A's had a televised game today. Although of course not locally televised but on WGN against the Cubs as the A's don't have a single true Spring Training game televised. So figures one chance I get see them play and they have been no hit thru nine, game is scoreless so not an official no hitter yet for the Cubs. In other news, Frank Thomas might make his A's debut tommorrow.