During Saturday’s NY Yankees-Oakland Athletics game, a 4-3 loss, announcers Michael Kay and Paul O’Neill wondered aloud why Yanks manager Joe Girardi removed pitcher A.J. Burnett in the sixth inning after he had loaded the bases with two outs. After all, they bantered, Burnett is your number two pitcher. Why wouldn’t you let him work his way out of the trouble he himself created?
What Yankee team have they been watching this year (or last year, for that matter)? Burnett might be their second highest paid starter, but he has not shown he is their number two pitcher when on the mound. If the playoffs were to begin today, Burnett would be my fourth starter, behind C.C. Sabathia, Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon. (Burnett’s record and steadiness last year were so suspect he didn’t even pitch in the playoffs.)
This year Burnett is 8-8 with a 4.21 ERA.; Garcia is 8-7 with a 3.21 ERA; Colon 7-6 with a 3.29. Clearly the team has a better chance of winning when a pitcher gives up fewer runs per nine innings. I’d even pitch Ivan Nova over Burnett. Though currently in the minor leagues, Nova posted an 8-4 record and a 4.12 ERA before being sent down to accommodate Phil Hughes’ return from the disabled list.
More on Number 2: Yankee fans griped earlier this week on sports radio about Derek Jeter’s lack of pressure hitting. They demanded his demotion from the lead-off or number two spot in the batting order, citing his failure in the Tampa Bay series to repeatedly knock in runs in critical situations.
It’s true, Jeter is not the same clutch hitter of his youth. Compared to other lead-off hitters in baseball, he’s smack-dab in the middle when you look at batting average, runs batted in, runs scored and on-base percentage. Hardly any crazed Yankee fan can accept mediocrity.
But let’s not forget that baseball is a nine-man game. In two out of the last four contests, one run losses to Tampa Bay and Oakland, Jeter had three important late inning hits his teammates failed to convert into runs. Against the Rays he doubled into left center field but was stranded. Against the A’s he twice got into scoring position, first by doubling in the 7th inning and then by singling, stealing second and tagging up to third in the 9th. Jeter’s value has always been as a table setter. The Yankee captain, who wears #2 on his uniform, did his job, but baseball is a quirky game. The Yanks who scored 17 runs Friday night barely mustered 3 on Saturday afternoon. All too often, individual accomplishments are wasted by the inefficiency of your teammates. In today’s game, Jeter knocked in an important seventh run in the bottom of the eighth.
Bottom line: Over the long haul, Jeter remains a positive force high up in the batting order, whether first or second.
Bases Loaded: I finally heard an announcer give the record of a pitcher facing the bases loaded. In today’s Yanks-A’s game, Michael Kay noted batters hit .250 against Mariano Rivera in such situations, as the incomparable reliever tried to close out his 25th save of the season against the stubborn Athletics. Josh Willingham promptly singled to left to narrow the Yankee lead to 7-5. Mo and the Yanks escaped with a victory despite the next batter’s scalding line drive because it fortuitously went directly to Mark Teixeira who stepped on first to double-up Willingham for a game-ending double play. It was Rivera’s 15th consecutive year with at least 25 saves.
Hacker-Gate Update: It’s not baseball-related, but I couldn’t wait to post this. Last week I commented how Hacker-Gate had similarities to Watergate (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2011/07/murdoch-most-vile.html). Maybe I was stretching a little, but the comparison continues to be bizarrely appropriate.
Word came Friday about the firing of another Murdoch editor because of the hacking scandal. If you haven’t heard or read about it, you might not believe your eyes. His name—Matt Nixson!!! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/matt-nixson-news-of-the-world-the-sun)
Don’t you just love the way the British spell their names? Hacker-Gate's Andrew Coulson vs. Watergate's Chuck Colson. Matt Nixson vs. Richard Nixon. Is there a Deane waiting in the wings?
Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Murdoch. Show all posts
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Some Not So Random Thoughts
Here’s a headline of a press release you wouldn’t want to send out if you ran a company:
“Ski Helmets Recalled by Swix Sport USA Due to Head Injury Hazard.”
Though the release stated there were no reported incidents or injuries, it clearly was not the best PR for a company that sells $99 helmets.
Every day scores of press releases come through my email account via PR Newswire for Journalists. I scan the headlines to see if any are unusual or otherwise worthy of further investigation. Here’s one from earlier this week that piqued my interest:
“Do You Know Your Vagina? Summer's Eve® Challenges Women Nationwide to ‘ID the V(TM)’”
Now, I was quite taken by the frankness of this message, so I clicked on the link, only to get the following note: “There seems to be a problem displaying the page you requested.”
Now that really piqued my interest. Okay, someone had the good sense to filter out potentially offensive messages. But I was still curious, so I googled Summer’s Eve and discovered the feminine hygiene company has embarked on an advertising campaign that is raising hackles. I’m not going to weigh in on this controversy, but as a public service, here’s a link to a story with links to the three ads in question. You be the judge: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/summers-eve-talking-vagina-ads-arent-racist-says-agency-133588 ((if the ads don't load, go directly to the company's Web site, http://summerseve.com).
The outside thermometer registered 100.2 degrees at 2:18 this afternoon (100.9 at 3:06). I know all of you are devout conservationists who willingly heed the call to raise your air conditioner thermostats to conserve energy. But if you have any feelings for me at all, you’d ignore those responsible impulses and power up the a/c. You see, years ago my parents gave me some Con Ed stock. So go ahead, cool down. It’ll do me good. It might even make you a little more comfortable as well.
I am all for full disclosure, but sometimes intelligent discretion is more appropriate. Case in point: In the June 26 Sunday NY Times Magazine (yes, I am woefully behind in my reading), the editors chose to include survey results for the following question from their Facebook page—"What’s your most memorable Disney-related experience?”
A rather ordinary poll. What fascinated me was the response level and the decision by The Times to print the data. Just 246 people chose to participate in the survey (107 had a positive Disney experience, 91 had a negative one and 48 “commented with an unrelated response”).
What could have possessed The Times to print such paltry feedback results? Rather than show interest, it shows disinterest or apathy bordering on disdain. Sometimes, it’s better not to print results when your sample size is so embarrassingly small and, worse, statistically not representative of the public at large.
Here’s another editorial decision that confounded me: A cartoon in the current issue of The Jewish Week shows two hackers “as the progressive media presents them.” One hacker above the title “Murdoch’s Media” is portrayed as a frowning devil. The other, a smiling angel, is described as “The WikiLeaks Guy.”
Really, people, are we so blind we can’t see the difference between a journalistic abomination and a self-righteous organization?
WikiLeaks is no angel, but its purpose is to expose evil and wrongdoing by governments and businesses. Its goal is transparency, so that the public can make informed decisions about foreign and domestic policies and corporate actions. Murdoch’s Media, on the other hand, hacked private accounts for salacious purposes. Are any national and international interests advanced by knowing the private messages of a murdered girl? Or the musings of Hugh Grant or other celebrities?
Sign of The Times: From one of my professional Internet business networks, here’s an inquiry to sum up the state of our economy—”Can anyone recommend a good debt collection agency?”
“Ski Helmets Recalled by Swix Sport USA Due to Head Injury Hazard.”
Though the release stated there were no reported incidents or injuries, it clearly was not the best PR for a company that sells $99 helmets.
Every day scores of press releases come through my email account via PR Newswire for Journalists. I scan the headlines to see if any are unusual or otherwise worthy of further investigation. Here’s one from earlier this week that piqued my interest:
“Do You Know Your Vagina? Summer's Eve® Challenges Women Nationwide to ‘ID the V(TM)’”
Now, I was quite taken by the frankness of this message, so I clicked on the link, only to get the following note: “There seems to be a problem displaying the page you requested.”
Now that really piqued my interest. Okay, someone had the good sense to filter out potentially offensive messages. But I was still curious, so I googled Summer’s Eve and discovered the feminine hygiene company has embarked on an advertising campaign that is raising hackles. I’m not going to weigh in on this controversy, but as a public service, here’s a link to a story with links to the three ads in question. You be the judge: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/summers-eve-talking-vagina-ads-arent-racist-says-agency-133588 ((if the ads don't load, go directly to the company's Web site, http://summerseve.com).
The outside thermometer registered 100.2 degrees at 2:18 this afternoon (100.9 at 3:06). I know all of you are devout conservationists who willingly heed the call to raise your air conditioner thermostats to conserve energy. But if you have any feelings for me at all, you’d ignore those responsible impulses and power up the a/c. You see, years ago my parents gave me some Con Ed stock. So go ahead, cool down. It’ll do me good. It might even make you a little more comfortable as well.
I am all for full disclosure, but sometimes intelligent discretion is more appropriate. Case in point: In the June 26 Sunday NY Times Magazine (yes, I am woefully behind in my reading), the editors chose to include survey results for the following question from their Facebook page—"What’s your most memorable Disney-related experience?”
A rather ordinary poll. What fascinated me was the response level and the decision by The Times to print the data. Just 246 people chose to participate in the survey (107 had a positive Disney experience, 91 had a negative one and 48 “commented with an unrelated response”).
What could have possessed The Times to print such paltry feedback results? Rather than show interest, it shows disinterest or apathy bordering on disdain. Sometimes, it’s better not to print results when your sample size is so embarrassingly small and, worse, statistically not representative of the public at large.
Here’s another editorial decision that confounded me: A cartoon in the current issue of The Jewish Week shows two hackers “as the progressive media presents them.” One hacker above the title “Murdoch’s Media” is portrayed as a frowning devil. The other, a smiling angel, is described as “The WikiLeaks Guy.”
Really, people, are we so blind we can’t see the difference between a journalistic abomination and a self-righteous organization?
WikiLeaks is no angel, but its purpose is to expose evil and wrongdoing by governments and businesses. Its goal is transparency, so that the public can make informed decisions about foreign and domestic policies and corporate actions. Murdoch’s Media, on the other hand, hacked private accounts for salacious purposes. Are any national and international interests advanced by knowing the private messages of a murdered girl? Or the musings of Hugh Grant or other celebrities?
Sign of The Times: From one of my professional Internet business networks, here’s an inquiry to sum up the state of our economy—”Can anyone recommend a good debt collection agency?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
