Odd Man Rush

I find all the New Year’s hoopla to be a bunch of bunk.  It’s just another day, right?  So usually I skip the resolutions and just take it as an excuse to get together with people and watch crappy bands on TV.  This year, though, I think I’ll resolve to update this thing more often.  I kind of quit because I felt like I was monopolizing the blog that was supposed to be a collaboration, but I’m done feeling guilty about that.  The other collaborators can feel free to contribute, of course, but be prepared to see regular updates here.  Let’s start with this post: the top DFW sports stories of 2008. 

20. Schellas Hyndman takes over head coaching job for FC Dallas.

Everybody knows that when you do a list like this, you don’t really put the 20th most important story here, you do the one that you wanted to write about but didn’t make the list.  Hyndman’s hiring didn’t exactly inspire conversation around Dallas-area water coolers, but it is important for FC Dallas.  The long-time SMU coach was a mid-season hire, so he get a good chance to implement his potent offense, but look for it next year.  Word is that this hiring may be what keeps Kenny Cooper from jetting for the EPL, and if that’s the truth, he’s already worth the money.

19. Avery Johnson out, Rick Carlisle in.

Avery was certainly the scapegoat for the Maverick’s recent struggles, but Carlisle may be exactly what the Mavs need to turn it around.  He’s been Don Nelson-esque in being able to get more out of less.  Under him, J.J. Barea has found his role and the Mavericks have played well against the teams they’re supposed to beat, which is more than they could say in the spring.

18. The Grand Prairie AirHogs reach the AAIPB Finals in their Inaugural Season.

This summer the expansion AirHogs got some local press by playing .604 baseball and getting hot in the playoffs, eventually losing 3 games to 1 in the finals.  Perhaps more important was the fact that they actually took some attendance away from the Texas Rangers, leading Tom Hicks to state that high gas prices, not the team’s struggles or the town’s new team, were taking away from attendance.  Meanwhile, the AirHogs are busy sending their players to major league farm systems.  Will a team with such high roster turnover be able to gain some staying power in the Metroplex?  2009 will tell.

17. Team leaders for the Cowboys, Rangers, and Stars all injured at critical times.

Team: Cowboys

Who: Tony Romo breaks the pinky on his throwing hand.

When: Right in the middle of the season, when the Cowboys faced winnable games against the Rams and the Bucs and an important statement game against the Giants.  They managed to only beat Tampa Bay.

Team: Rangers

Who: Ian Kinsler has season-ending sports hernia surgery.

When: In August, when it was probably too late anyway, but Kinsler’s departure killed any and all hopes.  He was having an MVP-type season (when he stopped playing, his numbers were better than eventual winner Dustin Pedroia) and was a clubhouse leader.  In 2009, Kinsler will need to play more than 130 games (his career high) if the Rangers are going to have a prayer.

Team: Stars

Who: Brenden Morrow tore his ACL, all but ending his season.

When: November 20, right in the middle of their start-of-the-season slump.  The Stars went 0-for-22 on power plays following the injury.

16. TCU goes 11-2, wins Poinsettia Bowl.

The Horned Frogs have been on the fringe of FBS greatness for some time now, and 2008 was another step in the right direction for this program.  Despite losing to Oklahoma early in the season, TCU expected to make a BCS bowl before they were knocked off by Utah in Salt Lake City.  However, they bounced back to beat previously undefeated Boise State in a comeback win in the Poinsettia Bowl.

15. The Romo-Witten-Owens drama distracts the Cowboys in December.

The he-said, he-said drama about who Romo likes to throw the ball to more was a bit of a head-scratcher.  Sure, T.O. has been involved in this kind of stuff before, but what was with all the anonymous sources and meetings?  Supposedly Owens rounded up the receivers to go to talk to Jason Garrett, and supposedly Owens and Witten got into a shoving match in the locker room.  All of a sudden, none of it actually happened and it was all Ed Werder’s fault.  What really happened here?  Let’s start with what we know: the Cowboys underperformed.  All the other love triangle stuff was just extracurricular.

14. Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban accused of insider trading.

I’ve never really understood insider trading: who decides what information is okay to trade on and what isn’t?  All I know is my high school government teacher used to get worked up about white collar crime being treated as no big deal.  The Securities and Exchange Commission decided this was a big deal, and now they’re after Cuban.  Mark posted a strongly worded denial on his blog, but the allegations doomed his attempt to acquire the Cubs, meaning it’s only the Mavericks who might have to deal with any potential fallout this thing might bring in the future.

13. The Stars start the ‘08-’09 season in the basement.

The NHL is ridiculous with their standings: why award points for an overtime loss anymore?  In any case, that means that almost nobody finishes below .500; last year only 7 of the 30 teams did so.  That should give you some perspective to just how bad the start of the season was for the Stars.  They started an abysmal 6-10-4 and just narrowly climbed above .500 for the end of 2008, now standing at 16-15-5.  Much of the blame for the horrible start can be attributed to Marty Turco, who began the season dead last in GAA and Save Percentage.  He has since turned it around, probably due to the fact that he is now actually being coached.

12. Adam Jones is reinstated – twice.

Roger Goodell reinstated Adam Jones largely because Jerry Jones promised he would behave as a Cowboy.  Despite not being able to live up to his promise, Jerry got his wish when Adam was reinstated a second time after getting into a scuffle with his bodyguard.  Jerry then got karma served to him when Adam was an instrumental part in the Cowboys’ end of season embarassment, commiting a personal foul and a fumble.

11. Sean Avery joins the Stars, then shows everybody why he’s the NHL’s Most Hated Man.

Sean Avery played 23 games for the Stars and wasn’t nearly as good at backing up his talk as Les Jackson and Brett Hull apparently thought.  He scored 3 goals during that time, then managed to draw a whole lot of attention to the Stars (and losing teams never need more negative press) by making disparaging remarks about Dion Phaneuf and his girlfriend.  Shortly after his 6-game suspension was served, the Stars announced he would not be returning to the team.  Maybe the infatuation that Dallas teams seem to have with negative personalities is starting to wane now.  One can only hope.

10-1 are coming tomorrow.  Happy new year!

I want to state for the record that as I start writing this, I have no idea how it will end.  I cheer for Texas; perhaps things will end up in my favor, but maybe not.

You’ve heard by now that the Big 12 South has quite the conundrum.  Three teams are 11-1, and only one can play in the title game.  How to decide?  The BCS will make that decision, and I’m with most people that say the conference should handle this situation in-house.  Here’s what they should look at to make a determination:

1. Head-to-head record and point spread

This is relatively simple.  Each one of the three has beaten one of the other two and lost to the other.  (Is this beginning to sound like one of those logic puzzles?)  A breakdown of each team:

Texas: beat Oklahoma on a neutral field by 10.  Lost to Tech on the road by 6.  Total differential: + 4.

Oklahoma: beat Tech at home by 44.  Lost to Texas on a neutral field by 10.  Total differential: + 34.

Tech: beat Texas at home by 6.  Lost to Oklahoma on the road by 44.  Total differential: – 38.

The winner: Oklahoma, with a caveat.  Texas’ win came on a neutral field, so this is closer than it seems.  In my mind, Tech is eliminated for getting blown out.  No team should be in a national championship game (and this situation seems to choose a de facto representative for the Big 12) if they have lost by, say, 21 points or more.  For the sake of argument, let’s see how they stack up from here on out.

2. Comparison of games vs. a common opponent

There are four teams that all three of these schools played: Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Texas A&M.  Here’s how they fared:

Texas: beat Baylor at home by 24.  Beat Kansas on the road by 28.  Beat Oklahoma State at home by 4.  Beat Texas A&M at home by 40.

Oklahoma: beat Baylor on the road by 32.  Beat Kansas at home by 14.  Beat Oklahoma State on the road by 20.  Beat Texas A&M on the road by 38.

Tech: beat Baylor at home by 7.  Beat Kansas on the road by 42.  Beat Oklahoma State at home by 36.  Beat Texas A&M on the road by 18.  

This one comes out fairly even for all teams involved, although I think Oklahoma gets the edge because their closest game was still double digits.  

3. Non-conference schedule

Each team had a cupcake non-conference schedule.  The best team any of the teams played was Arkansas, and they turned out to have a losing record.  As long as the BCS continues to reward crappy scheduling by coaches, they will continue to play non-important games at the beginning of the season.  Ugh.

4. Each team’s offense/defense

Texas: Highest score: 56.  Lowest score: 28.  Highest score allowed: 35, by Oklahoma. Lowest score allowed: 7.

Oklahoma: Highest score: 66.  Lowest score: 35, twice; once versus Texas.  Highest score allowed: 45, by Texas.  Lowest score allowed: 2.  Scored 58+ points in each of the last 5 games.

Tech: Highest score: 63.  Lowest score: 21, versus Oklahoma.  Highest score allowed: 65, by Oklahoma.  Lowest score allowed: 7.

Again, Oklahoma is very impressive, while Texas holds an advantage over Tech.

Conclusion: Oklahoma should get the nod for the Big 12 Championship game.  A lot of Texas supporters (myself included) have touted the neutral field situation as a significant advantage, but I think this gets blown out of proportion.  This is a 3-team tie, but since Tech is the weaker of the three choices, a lot of arguments turn into a Texas vs. Oklahoma discussion.  Yes, Texas settled that one on the field, but the reason they’re tied is that Texas lost to a team they should have beaten and Oklahoma blew them out.  In a perfect system, Texas and Oklahoma would play each other once again to determine the conference champion, but I am convinced that a perfect system will never exist in college football.  In this case, Oklahoma is the better team on paper, and in college football, that’s good enough.

I know that the 2008-09 NHL season is very young, but if the playoffs started today, the Dallas Stars would have an early vacation.  How can this be happening?  The Stars were expected to improve on last year, when they made it to the Western Conference Finals and gave the Red Wings a better series than any team from the East could ever have done.  Instead, they’re 3-4-2 and lagging behind teams like the Blackhawks, the Predators, and the Flames.  What’s worse are the statistics that lie behind this horrid start.  4.22 goals allowed per game is terrible for any team, and it’s even more dire for the Stars, which are supposed to be a defense-first team.  Sure, Zubov is out, but he was out for the stretch run last year.  Ditto for defensive-minded forward Jere Lehtinen.  Boucher is not 100%, but has he ever been?  You can chalk it up to laziness, or lack of cohesiveness, or perhaps just a bad start for Marty #%^@-ing Turco.  Fine.  I was all for that, until I read Mike Heika’s article in the Dallas Morning News on Sunday.

The takeaway from the article is this: the organization realizes that there’s a problem with the defense, and they’re working to fix it.  Practice is focused on defense, the co-GMs are looking at possible personnel moves, etc.  But one important fact was mentioned and glossed over.  I’ll quote it for you here.  See if you react the way I do.

"The long-time Stars goaltending coach [Andy Moog] had been scarcely seen the past two seasons – in part because of additional player development responsibilities he had picked up within the organization, and also because Marty Turco was focusing on coaching himself. But the fact that the Stars have the worst goals against average (4.17) and save percentage (.840) in the league means this is a good time for Moog to take time with the net-minders."  [Link to the article]

Wait, what?  Marty Turco has been coaching himself?!?  Look, he’s not exactly the drunken Ed Belfour, talking to his goalposts and what-not, but professional athletes, particularly crazy ones like Turco, do not need to be coaching themselves.  I don’t know if this is common practice in the NHL, but frankly I don’t care.  It doesn’t need to be if it is.  Every major sport has coaches for every position.  Football has O-Line, D-Line, Linebacker, Quarterback, Receiver, and Running Back coaches, and I’m probably missing some.  Baseball has hitting and pitching coaches, and they are considered invaluable.  The Dallas Mavericks, the team that shares a building with the Stars, have a Free Throw Coach.  Granted, the Mavs are the only team in the league to employ such a person, but they consistently are among the league leaders in free throw percentage.  Tiger Woods has a swing coach and a caddy (and probably a short game coach, too.  Phil Mickelson has one.) that he relies upon to play golf at the level that he does.  He doesn’t coach himself.  The very idea is ridiculous.  

Here’s the point: Dallas Stars management should stop giving their goaltending coach so many extra assignments so that he isn’t their goaltending coach anymore.  I have been directing my anger and frustration about this slow start at Marty Turco, but it seems like the buck needs to stop with whomever decided it was a good idea to let players flop around on the ice with no guidance.

The Mariners lost to the Twins today and were eliminated from contention for the AL West title, becoming the first major league team to be eliminated this year.  The Mariners are still mathematically eligible in the Wild Card race, but their elimination number is 3, making it likely that they will be completely eliminated before September even starts.  Not very good for a team with such high hopes.  Call it a minor victory, but at least it’s not the Rangers getting ousted first this year. 

Okay, so it’s a bad and obvious joke, but one that needed to be told.  Let’s take this in two steps:

1 – The Rangers traded away Eddie Guardado.  Fine with me.  There was talk that he might be the closer next year, but let’s be honest, Eddie is not a long-term solution.  Getting rid of him forces the organization to deal with the problem, rather than simply using a stop-gap.  JD is getting good at signing older free agents (Guardado is 37), showcasing them, than trading them to a contender for a prospect or two.  Which leads us to…

2 – The Twins sent over right-handed pitcher Mark Hamburger.  The stats, from baseball-reference.com:

• 21 years old, 6’4", 210 lbs (according to media reports, baseball-reference.com seems to have an old number)
• Just finished his 2nd season of Class A Rookie ball.
• 35 G, 51.2 IP, 3-3, 13 SV, 3.31 ERA, 1.24 WHIP, 52 K (just over 9 K/9!), 17 BB
• Named this year’s Closer of the Year in the Appalachian League, also named to the postseason All-Star squad.
• In his last 11 appearances, dating back to July 28, gave up no walks and struck out 10.
• Features a fastball, slider, curve, and change-up.  Says his fastball is his "out pitch" and has "decent movement."  A Rangers scout reportedly clocked the fastball at 96 recently.
  
• T.R. Sullivan calls him a "decent prospect."  Well then.
• An interview with Hamburger, from a Twins perspective, from this last offseason.
  

"While the background music changes in Arlington, the story is forever the same. The 2008 Rangers lead the majors in runs and slugging percentage, but they’re loitering around .500 because of a pitching staff that ranks last in the big leagues with a 5.45 ERA. Sound familiar?"

See, Jon Daniels, Jerry Crasnick gets it!  Why can’t you get it? 

Link to the article.

The MLS All Star Game is tonight.  I’ll bet you didn’t know that.  Not a huge surprise.  I’d advise you to flip over and watch it, but I’m not sure I want to expose you to the many flaws that embody soccer in the United States.  You see, the MLS All Star Game smacks of desperation.  Allow me to enumerate the ways that this event is flawed.

1. The Match

The MLS big-wigs want to insult your intelligence.  They want you to believe that this league is just as good as those leagues across the pond that get all of the attention, those bastards.  That’s why they have the All Star Team (that’s right, it’s singular) play one of those vaunted teams.  The fact that it’s 2-1 at the half and our boys are leading is supposed to encourage you that, yes, the MLS is inhabited by a bunch of superstars.  What they don’t want you to know is that this team they’re playing (this year, it’s West Ham United) is actually in its preseason.  Early in its preseason.   This is easily the game’s biggest flaw and also a Catch-22 for MLS executives.  No matter what the result, the MLS comes out looking bad.  Another way to say that is that they are exposed.  If MLS wins, it doesn’t matter because they’re supposed to win.  If they lose, it’s absolutely terrible, because these guys are All-Stars.  The problem is, this set-up is the only way anybody pays attention to the match at all.  If they did it in the traditional manner (West vs. East), the vast majority of fans wouldn’t know who to cheer for.  At least those of us who care about soccer in the US can rally behind a single team.  Let’s not even mention that the MLS probably doesn’t have enough talent to make two teams that could be legitimately considered All-Stars.  In fact, let’s just move on.

2. The Telecast

The MLS thinks it’s doing itself a favor by getting its matches onto ESPN.  I think they’re shooting themselves in the foot, mainly because nobody at the four-lettered network has any respect for the game.  Hockey has a chance at making a legitimate comeback because there are anchors like Linda Cohn and John Buccigross that (thankfully) force the sports world to pay attention.  Soccer doesn’t have anybody like that at ESPN.  Soccer topics on opinion shows like PTI, Around the Horn, and others are openly mocked.  The telecast suffers as a result.  ESPN thinks they’re adding credibility by putting broadcasters like Eric Wynalda in the booth, but in reality it hurts more than helps.  Wynalda is an MLS fanboy who has spent the last 45 minutes in my living rooms ooh-ing and ah-ing over the MLS roster as if I’m going to suddenly agree with him that yes, the MLS is by far the best thing that has ever happened to soccer.  Additionally, they’ve got this Norm Chad-type who does weird and unnecessary segments at odd times during the match, further sucking credibility away from the entire sport.  If MLS execs had any pride, or any other options, they would stay away from ESPN.  Herein lies the problem, once more: they have no choice.  It’s either get in bed with a network that doesn’t respect them, or don’t be seen or heard.    

3. The MLS Itself

Answer me this: How is the MLS different from other, better leagues?  Don’t say that it sucks more, because that’s not what I’m getting at.  Sure, it’s a lot younger than those other leagues, so it’s got less history.  Players don’t want to stay in the league, often using it as a stepping stone to more money, fame, and by the way, better teammates.  But here’s what I’m getting at: the MLS has done nothing to distinguish itself.  Sure, it’s nice that soccer is an international game that is played the same way everywhere, but if that’s the case, why do we have all of these leagues?  Surely geography isn’t – or maybe it shouldn’t be – the only answer.  Frankly, the way the MLS so badly wants to be a European league is embarrasing.  I live in Dallas, so I cheer for FC Dallas, but FC?  Really?  How is that American?  We don’t even have an official mascot anymore.   So what can be done?  Like before, there’s a Catch-22 involved.

For years, soccer leagues in America came and went.  Nobody really believed that any of them were here to stay.  The great Lamar Hunt, among others, brought us the first soccer league in a long time with any staying power, which is a good thing, despite all of my complaints in this post.  Evidence of MLS’ potential can be found in the relative financial success of the existing teams, especially in regards to building soccer-specific stadiums.  Things are looking up, but not in a Chicago Cubs "We haven’t won in 100 years but now we have a legitimate shot" kind of way.  No, it’s more of a Texas Rangers "We were supposed to have a crappy team but it’s actually a bit better than mediocre so let’s try to shovel it down all of the fans’ throats" kind of success.  Texas Rangers fans know exactly what I’m talking about.  Every July that we end up around .500, it seems like management throws the plan out the window and decides to go for it, despite the fact that we’re 10.5 games out with 60 to play.  In the same way, the MLS seems content to say "We got Beckham, come see us play!" and do nothing about the problems, whether real or perceived, that Americans have with the game.  I don’t want to suggest specific solutions here, mostly because the game would end up looking a lot like the recently folded Major Indoor Soccer League, but the MLS needs to do something.  Right now they have bigger Penis Envy than Texas A&M, and on top of that, they’re unwilling to listen to what Americans want from the game.  Innovative ways to increase scoring is a start (Maybe take some cues from the [gasp] NHL?).  After that we can worry about team names and other roadblocks to American fanship. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I love the game of soccer.  I really believe that it is a beautiful game, simple and complicated at the same time.  I want so badly for the MLS to pull through and convert the haters, but it has some serious problems if it continues to refuse to distinguish itself from our neighbors across the pond.   The All-Star game, which tries so hard to hide the MLS’ problems, ends up exposing them, and that’s not going to gain many fans.

Some of you may remember this conversation taking place with some conviction.

Many have undertaken to define Sport more thoroughly. At first, my enterprise was the same. I set forth by making a list of every Sport I though was a sport and every Sport I didn’t think was a sport. As I went along I realized I couldn’t really figure out why I was ruling certain sports out. That’s when I looked up Sport in good ol’ Webster’s, and realized that the word is flawed if it is used the way I use it. This is the definition: (1) physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in.

As one may see this didn’t help for clearing things up. So I set out to find a better word and this is what I came up with: when I say sport I really mean contest.

Entry Word: contest
Function: noun
1 an earnest effort for superiority or victory over another
2 a competitive encounter between individuals or groups carried on for amusement, exercise, or in pursuit of a prize

3 a physical dispute between opposing individuals or groups

I am particularly concerned with definition numbers 2 and 3, because I think together they capture the definition of sport as I use it. When I made this distinction the lines between what is sport and what is not became clearer. So for me sport is no longer sport simply; it is now contest. So if sport is contest, then what is sport and what is not? It is easier to define theses parameters by taking the whole and trimming off the things that don’t qualify, thus building a set of qualifiers for what is a sport.

Does the “sport” require competition between individuals or groups?

This question trims off “sports” in which an individual competes against a course or some apparatus. Now some would argue that gymnasts and golfers do compete against each other, but they only compete against each other based on an individual performance against the course or apparatus. This also rules out events which are scored by judges based on presentation, such as figure skating, or freestyle skating or biking.

Does the “sport” require physical competition?

If one defines physical loosely then no sport is trimmed away by this qualifier, but as you might have guessed I define it strictly. A sport must have, as a friend of mine once said, hustle. I think that nicely defines the physicality of sport, but I will define further. Strength is the ability to exert force, and power is the ability to exert force quickly. Power is 90% of the physicality of sport, the other half is precision. Power is nothing without precision. Now think of these holistically in an individual and set a minimum, then you have what I think of as the physicality of sport. Moreover, concerning physical equipment, it is important for sport to have a certain ratio of individual physicality. I say that the majority of physical exertion needs to be done by the competitor over his/her equipment, thus NASCAR and horse racing are ruled out, while bicycle racing is not. So now we can also trim Poker, Billiards, Scrabble, and the spelling bee. I felt like I had to name everything I’ve seen on ESPN.

Now, these qualifiers are preliminary and meant to be conversational. Please add to me what I lack. Tell me what I haven’t considered.

 

This week’s rankings are a collaboration between Robert and Scott.  Last week’s ranks are in parentheses.

1. Cubs, 57-38 (6)
2. Angels, 57-38 (2)
3. Red Sox, 57-40 (4)
4. Rays, 55-39 (1)
5. White Sox, 54-40 (3)
6. Twins, 53-42 (5)
7. Cardinals, 53-43 (7)
8. Mets, 51-44 (20)
9. Brewers, 52-43 (11)
10. Phillies, 52-44 (13)
11. Rangers, 50-46 (10)
12. Marlins, 50-45 (12)
13. Athletics, 51-44 (8)
14. Yankees, 50-45 (10)
15. Tigers, 47-47 (9)
16. Blue Jays, 47-48 (15)
17. Dodgers, 46-49 (24)
18. Reds, 46-50 (22)
19. Diamondbacks, 47-48 (16)
20. Braves, 45-50 (21)
21. Astros, 44-51 (18)
22. Orioles, 45-48 (17)
23. Pirates, 44-50 (23)
24. Royals, 43-53 (19)
25. Indians, 41-53 (25)
26. Giants, 40-55 (26)
27. Rockies, 39-57 (30)
28. Padres, 37-58 (28)
29. Mariners, 37-58 (29)
30. Nationals, 36-60 (27)

    According to the latest news we could be seeing Video Review influencing MLB umpires’ decision making as early as this year’s Fall Classic. I figure now is the time to weigh in on this touchy topic.

    On allowing video review to influence or reverse an umpire’s call, I’ll quote Roy Munson (when asked what the Bible says about not forgiving people) to state my case, "It’s against it." That’s right I’m against it, and I’ll tell you why.

    Firstly, that’s right firstly; the slippery slope keeps me from taking the first step. I understand that, for now, the MLB wishes to limit replay to the scope of deciding whether or not a batted ball is a homerun when the initial call on the field is suspect. Maybe I’m a pessimist but I see grim days in our future. Sure today it’s, "is it a homer or not?" but tomorrow it’s a small laser emitter in the ball and an infrared projected strike zone. Now I say this with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, but you have to ask yourself where it will end. I mean, take tennis for example: that sport is about half a step away from doing away with human calls all together. As of right now the sport has a challenge system, but the technology is so good it can make every In/Out call with perfection.

    B, this seems to me to be a lot like the institution of the DH. Since the game has become so offensively driven, double entendre intended, those that manage said game don’t want in falters in the Homerun smash-fest that it has become. The DH changed the strategy of the game. Some, including myself, would say it removed a healthy dose of the strategy of the game completely. I think the same of replay. Baseball has always been a game of close calls and finding something deep down that allows one to overcome the adversity of calls going the other way. Remove the chance of a call going the wrong way and I believe you take some of the drama of the game with it.

    Three, and most important to me, the institution of replay removes the innately human aspect of the game. Maybe this is close to me because I spent some time umpiring, but I think that baseball has always and should always be a sport officiated by humans. No other sport creates the same relationship between participant and officiator, and that is at the core of what makes the game great; from a pitcher establishing a Plate Umpire’s strike zone to the Second base Umpire being right on top of that gun down throw. A human should in my mind always be there to make the call, be it a good one or a bad one. Some times the calls will be close, and a good umpire will make few mistakes and learn from the ones he does make. A good baseball player will relish the chance to overcome the adversity of a call that didn’t go his way.

    All in all I think this road leads somewhere I don’t want to see this sport I love travel, but in the end I just write about it. 

RKW