A Little Henry Schulman

In yesterday's Chronicle, Henry Schulman had this to say, in reference to Tim Lincecum's remark, "I think last year was a good springboard for this season to jump off of."

Schulman's response: Those who stand on that springboard understand the jump is healthier if the pool is full.

Good stuff Harry.


Kevin Marquez

Jack Clark...former SF Giant and STL Cardinal

Lately Will Leitch has been hitting the bullseye in his articles. And if they're about baseball there is a good chance I'll be sharing them with the readers of the Cha Cha Bowl blog.

In the 2/01/10 issue of Sporting News, Will's World had this to digest.

...I can only think about what it means to be 12 years old through the prison of how I felt when I was 12. It's different now. It's the same way my father didn't understand how I could play Nintendo when I was 12, the same way his father didn't understand how he could watch so much television, the same way his father didn't understand that newfangled radio. Everything is different and complaining about how Things Aren't the Way They Used to Be is a grand American tradition.

Which brings me to Jack Clark. In 1985, St. Louis' first baseman hit 22 home runs, which at the time seemed like the most home runs a Cardinal could possibly hit. Clark wasn't my favorite Cardinal-those were Ozzie Smith and Willie McGee, of course- but he was superhuman. Clarks stats have aged well. His walk rate and on-base percentage weren't appreciated at the time, but in a Moneyball age, we see he probably was better than we remember.

Clark blasted new St. Louis Cardinals' hitting coach, Mark McGwire, saying, "Just seeing him in uniform makes me want to throw up." As for other players who have admitted to steroids use: "They should all be in the Hall of Shame. ...They're all creeps. All these guys have been liars."

Jack Clark became the guy at the breakfast table, reading the newspaper, banging his fist, "What the heck's going on with this world?!"

You never see active players say any of this. They don't look to the past because they live in the present. It's not until their careers are over that they realize what they've lost, what they didn't appreciate, what others accomplished that they didn't. But this is precisely what fans do. Fans watch sports, in part, because they imagine how they'd do things differently if it were they playing.

Up until the last comment about fans imagining they were playing I was in total agreement of and couldn't have said it better. But as a fan I never thought of how it would be if I were in the majors. I realized early in life that I wasn't as talented as these players and just figured everything they did was to make them the best player they could be. That's why when I see a bitter Jack Clark statement about how the steroid era was filled with liars I don't think he understands.

Sure, he may not have "cheated" but you mean to tell me he didn't do anything to try and get an edge over his opponents? To what degree you cheat is not what is important. It's that you felt the need to do whatever it took to make you better. And if it made you better you would be paid accordingly. If the cost meant years of life, that would be something to seriously consider even though we all know nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.

I watch sports to see the best players participate. And I hope that one day those players put it all together for the team I root for most, the San Francisco Giants. I hope to one day see the Giants win a World Series title.

Kevin Marquez

Talking Baseball

Tim Lincecum was signed to a 2-year contract, the pitchers and catchers are getting closer to reporting to Spring Training, at their top flight Scottsdale facility so I figure it's time to talk a little baseball.

Occasionally I'll read a survey or see an article on a player and an interesting tidbit is found within its contents. In the January 18th Sporting News was a survey on the newly retired, sure-to-be Hall-of-Famer, Randy Johnson.

Toughest thing about Johnson: His stuff, size or demeanor?
"His stuff, because you-and he- didn't know where it was going to go sometimes." -Mark Whiten

Which current pitcher compares to Johnson in his heyday?
"Not many 6-10 ugly lefties out there."

A February 1st article was a question and answer and the question was, What does it matter if you strike out, fly out or ground out? An out is an out. Am I out of my mind?

Answer: You can actually tax a pitcher more by making him throw more pitches to strike a batter out instead of rolling over the first fastball down and away at the knees.

It used to be the pitcher who started the game finished the game. And the thinking was to make your opponent earn their outs. It was an embarrasment to most players when they approached or surpassed 100 whiffs in a season. That is no more. Nowadays an out is an out because of the almighty pitch count.

Everything revolves around the pitch count. When teams are at-bat they are schooled to not be so aggressive and swing at the first pitch. Even if the pitcher has a history of getting the first pitch strike? One might ask. YES, even if it's likely to be the best pitch you are likely to see. That's absurd.

Don't give a hitter instructions to do something that might be exactly what the pitcher is hoping he'll do. Let the batter utilize his strengths against what he has ascertained to be the pitcher's weaknesses and see who wins the batter.

A strikeout is an out, like any other. But don't you think the more a batter strikes out the more that game within the game starts to get inside his head. And he begins to guess wrong and a good catcher will detect this in the batter's body language and instruct his pitcher to do whatever it takes to thoroughly confuse the hitter to where he's not going to be a factor. If the pitcher and catcher do a good enough job it could put the hitter in a slump.

Good hitters don't let the game within the game get to them. But as Yogi Berra once said, 'Ninety percent of the game is half mental.' A lot of what happens is between the ears of the player.

Kevin Marquez

Let's Look at Roster Changes Within the NL West

In the National League Western Division there are the Los Angeles Dodgers, Colorado Rockies, San Francisco Giants, Arizona Diamondbacks and San Diego Padres.

Arizona worked on bulking up their pitching staff with the additions of Aaron Heilman, Bob Howry (remember him Giants' fans?), Edwin Jackson, and Billy Buckner. All right-handers.

They acquired a solid second-baseman in Kelly Johnson and former Pirate first-sacker, Adam LaRoche.

Colorado signed Miguel Olivo, a catcher. Re-signed Jason Giambi and utility infielder formerly with the Baltimore Orioles, Melvin Mora.

San Diego signed pitcher Jon Garland and catcher Yorvit Torrealba. If you recall, they ended the season as one of the hottest in an already good division. They have a lot of young talent that kicked some butt in September. So we shall see if those players improve without all of the growing pains.

Los Angeles Dodgers have Ramon and Russ Ortiz as non-roster invitees. Also on that list are: Justin Knoedler (former Giant farmhand), Doug Mientkiewicz and Brian Giles. Giles really tailed off last season but he's well-respected and the Dodgers are smart to give him a looksee.

The re-signed Vicente Padilla and Brad Ausmus. Signed Jamey Carroll (INF) and Reed Johnson (OF). Not bad for a team that won the division last season.

Last but certainly not least, YOUR San Francisco Giants.
We know about Mark DeRosa, a versatile player with some pop in his bat and Aubrey Huff, a good low-ball hitter who is said to be suspect with the glove. Nate Schierholtz will have an opportunity to win the right field job and replace last year's almost automatic out, but solid defender, Randy Winn.

Is Dan Runzler the real deal? The lefty who came up late last season and did remarkably well. Does Ryan Rohlinger give reason to replace Edgar Renteria. I realize the Giants will have to do some juggling of infielders but this is a game of who is hot and who is not. Who is not will be riding some pine and they have versatility in Pablo Sandoval (1B-3B-C), Juan Uribe (3B-SS-2B) and the aforementioned Mark DeRosa (OF-2B).

They added Guillermo Mota, Todd Wellemeyer,B.Y. Kim as non-roster invitees to help bolster their solid bullpen.

My buddy Rich will be attending Spring Training's first week and I hope he can add some insights as well as photos of his trip to see the 2010 San Francisco Giants.

Kevin Marquez

Congrats to Jon Miller

I heard on this morning's (Brian) Murph and (Paulie) Mac show (5am-9am, KNBR; Mon-Fri) an interview with Jon Miller who took time away from his "Colombian cruise" to speak about receiving the Ford C. Frick Award and being inducted into the Baseball broadcaster's Hall of Fame.

He will join both Russ Hodges and Lon Simmons, two voices Miller said got him interested in the craft of play-by-play for baseball games.

I am currently reading a book on the Beatles by Tim Riley and his description of how the Beatles put together their songs rings so perfectly true to me it was as if I went back in time and recalled the emotions I shared with the lyrics and styles of each and every Beatle tune.

That's the way Jon Miller must have felt when he was able to meet those who first made him interested in broadcasting. And then to get a congrats from non other than Willie Mays himself, the player who made baseball such a great game to listen to (on the radio) or want to go out and see in person.

Murph recalled the time he interviewed Jon Miller when baseball was trying to figure out ways to speed the game up and he asked Miller what Miller would do about "speeding up the game" and Miller's response was , 'What could be better than watching a three-hour baseball game?'

Miller then went on to say that one of his most precious memories was the time there was a rainout and the Giants had to play back-to-back doubleheaders on Saturday and Sunday one week. Heaven on Earth!

When you listen to Jon Miller broadcast a game you can tell it's the only thing on his mind. He's not multi-tasking, he's concentrating on how to deliver the game in a most listenable fashion with an occasional anecdote to keep some levity in the air, because after all it is only a game. But it's a game he is passionate about and he will do everything in his power to make the listening audience feel as if they were there in-person. You can almost taste the peanuts and hot dogs when Miller gets on a roll with the intricacies of the game and almost always wraps up his strategy with a humorous one-liner.

Congratulations to Jon Miller.

Now if only we can get enough of those voters who realized that Jon Miller belongs in the Hall of Fame to listen to tapes of Bill King so he too will get his due, because the former voice of the Warriors and Raiders is most definitely worthy of the same honor bestowed on Jon Miller.

Kevin Marquez

Whole Lotta Cheating Going On

I am certainly in no position to judge if Mark McGwire was sincere in his acknowledgment that he used performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) because in times like these I give the person the benefit of the doubt.

McGwire, while talking to Bob Costas (on the Major League Baseball network), didn't think the PEDs were why he achieved the home run totals he collected. He wasn't thinking that because he used the PEDs to allow his body to heal faster which made it possible for him to return to the lineup and continue to add to his totals that there was any relationship whatsoever. That it gave him a chance to get some at-bats he otherwise would not have gotten and when you hit a home run in (let's say) every 7 or8 at-bats your totals do have a tendency to increase at a most impressive rate. And as we all witnessed, they most certainly did.

McGwire thought his hard work and physical gifts made it so he didn't need the assistance PEDs would provide. He wasn't thinking that by playing more he would get a chance at more at-bats therefore increasing his offensive contribution. McGwire felt like he had the hand-eye coordination and ability to hit a baseball before he took the steroids and that his taking PEDs was only to heal his injury. In his mind he wasn't cheating, he was doing what was necessary to build his body back up so he could play some more AND that was the approach he was sticking to.

I truly believe he felt like this was acceptable since major league baseball did not monitor what players were using to help their healing process. In fact, within MLB, it wasn't illegal to use PEDs. And, to a degree, when the powers that be turned their heads away from the inevitable "cheating" it created the epidemic that was baseball for that period (also known as the Steroid Era).

Jose "Canary" Canseco will float around and offer his opinions on the subject every time one of the big boys of the game has something to say. Just as when or if Barry Bonds has his say, Jose "Canary" will be right there with his comments because of his book he feels it's his obligation.

And in McGwire's apology, did you get the feeling his former manager (at both Oakland and St. Louis) Tony LaRussa sort of came up with something the public would have to accept because Tony wasn't going to admit he had no clue about what was going on. Tony was going to come off like the best goombah this side of the military serviceman who took a bullet for his foxhole buddy. (According to an article in the NY Times, McGwire and his associates put a lot of thought into how they were going to handle this since Mark decided he wanted to be a batting instructor for LaRussa's Cardinals this upcoming 2010 season.)

You know what Mark McGwire's sniffle fest said to me. It said that rules are meant to be broken.

Lies and alibies. It's kind of funny how some people come off so disingenuous and yet they think it's best for everyone. They spent so much time rehearsing what it was they thought the listening public wanted to hear that when it was all said and done you, the listener, feels cheated.

A whole lot of cheating going on. Both on the field and when it comes time to admitting you weren't playing by the rules, even if those rules weren't etched in stone. Only women can get away with playing by whatever rules they so desire and that's because enough men need the poontang that they don't care about those things that might get in the way of them getting it (poontang).

And so, once again, rules are something not everyone needs to follow. This is and always will be a world of Haves and Have Nots. It's a matter of choice not obligation. If you can get got without following a rule then go get it. But if you are under observation and do not have the leeway to stray mindlessly then you had better follow the rule for if you do not it will do you in.





Kevin Marquez

The Win is NOT Dead

In the November 30, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated was an article entitled Geek Chorus that had a picture of the long-haired Tim Lincecum inside of a time machine type contraption.

In the article the writer (Joe Posnanski) says, and I quote: Lincecum proves that other numbers better assess a pitcher's value and so the win is dead.

But in actuality it takes a whole team to get a "win." The pitcher does his job simply by keeping his team in the game. And when his team is scoring 1 or 2 runs (every time a particular pitcher is on the mound, i.e., Matt Cain as well as the aforementioned Lincecum) it makes the pitcher's efforts that much more impressive.

In cases when you lose 2-1 or 1-0, too much emphasis is put on the loss. Because you cannot win unless your team scores runs AND if you are a starter you must complete at least 5 innings.

Wins will always be important because that is what it takes to get your team into the post-season and if you win -at the right time- it captures the World Series title.

How about the statistic of how the team fares even if the starter wasn't the one who was credited with the win?

Or the blown save?

Putting things in the proper perspective you can see that the win is NOT dead but it can be a little overrated.

Kevin J. Marquez