Baseball
Saturday, April 01, 2006
MLB.TV Leaves Me Confused
Baseball’s a great game to focus on, or simply leave on in the background. Some like to work to music, as do I, but I like to have a game on in the background as well (when I can).
So I purchased a season pass from MLB.TV. My first complaint - right off the bat - the only subscriptions I could find, a monthly ($14.95) or season-long ($79.95) pass, are both automatic renewal subscriptions. They’re good about making it clear, but it’d be a hell of a lot nicer if that was an option.
So I start clicking around and test out a few streams. They look pretty nice. It looks like they’re using Windows Media version 9 and have a good 350k/sec feed (after initially buffering, I haven’t had it stutter again). I can use it in FireFox, which is nice too. CNN tells me I don’t have Windows Media 9, glad to see that’s not on my end. Hopefully the picture quality will continue once the season starts. I’m sure there’s less traffic on these preseason games. There’s a simple linescore next to the video. MLB.com has some nice gamecasts (they call it MLB Gameday, like the video game), why not have a miniversion of that next to the video, so I can easily go through stats from that game? I realize there could be some syncing issues, but if the data is available let’s get some in there, I don’t want to have to open yet another window (that might have to go over the video).
I decided to test out a radio feed and I see that’s a completely separate package. Another $14.95 for the season of radio. I thought perhaps they’d throw that into season TV passes, and if not, maybe there’d be a combo package option, even if it’s just a few bucks off.
Some might wonder why I’d want radio feeds since I already get the TV feed. The answer is just one of connection strength. If my connection goes to crap the radio stream has a much better chance of coming in clearly. I’m assuming it’s much less k/sec, if someone out there can let me know, that’d be great.
What they do have is a package called All Access. You get both TV and radio plus condensed games and searchable video. MLB.com advertises it as “The Best of Both Worlds”. The price is $99.95 - both worlds plus $5. I didn’t find this package until after my purchase, and I would have gotten it, because despite the fact that it’s not the best deal, I’m still after all access, I’m still after convenience. I’ll call support and see if they’re good about switching my plan. My recommendation is to list this on the page you land on after clicking the link titled “subscribe to live TV” on MLB.com’s home page. I’d think their most complete package would be listed everywhere.
Something else I’m completely confused about: local blackouts. What’s the point? Any feed I watched, I still saw commericals - is this really to protect local cable company (or sattelite company) subscriptions? Do they think they’re going to lose customers because I’m buying the MLB.TV package instead of basic cable (plus the sports network, if necessary)? What’s really ridiculous is there’s no override. You could purchase the highest possible cable package plus MLB Extra Innings (out of area games on TV) and it wouldn’t make a difference.
I still feel like they’re pushing this as some form of TV-alternative instead of something that could complement it. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s just looking for a way to grab a game on the go or watch an at-bat when the TV is already being used. The Extra Innings package is currently $159 for the season. Why not have some real All-Access package, even if it’s just tacking on current online prices, where I could get MLB Extra Innings and the internet features and then give me access to local games online? Then they know no one’s “losing” my money and I’m finally getting closer to real all access.
MLB is coming out with mobile features soon. I’m curious as to how that will be priced and if it’ll be packaged with anything else.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Re-Established Importance
Headlining every sports site at some point today has been a story about Barry Bonds and steroids:
Juicy Details - ESPN
Book details slugger’s steroid use - Sportsline
Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger’s steroid use - CNNSI, as well as CNN.com
Carrying the AP story:
Book alleges extensive steroid use by Bonds - Fox Sports
Book details Barry Bonds’ doping program - TSN
Report: Bonds began using steroids, vast array of other drugs, in 1998 - Yahoo! Sports
Book gives dope on Bonds - Sportsnet
This will no doubt be the biggest story in the sports world for some time to come.
Is this shocking? If the story about Bonds is all true, or even partially true, not at all.
The story itself comes from an excerpt from “Game of Shadows,” which appears in the March 13 issue of Sports Illustrated. “Game of Shadows” is a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, who have been following Bonds and the steroid scandal since day one.
What stands out to me is that Sports Illustrated has its name splattered across every major sports site in North America. This issue will sell, the book will sell. SI didn’t do this reporting, Fainaru-Wada and Williams did for their book, but SI will be printing some details first. SI will get attention, some attention it definitely needs in this web/mobile phone/ESPN sports world.
Will this just be a flash in sales for SI, or can SI leverage this situation into something more?
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Who Invented the Modern Baseball Bat?
David Pinto over at Baseball Musings gave me a pointer to this Jim Caple article about baseball bats.
Caple ordered replicas of bats originally made for Honus Wagner, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth.
This part caught my eye:
There are two main things you notice when you pick up these bats. One, they’re big. The Ruth and Shoeless Joe bats are 36 inches long and weigh 38-40 ounces, depending on whose scale you trust. Next, with the exception of the Ruth bat, the handles are much thicker than modern bats. Scott Spiezio measured the Shoeless Joe bat against his own and found that Jackson’s handle was almost as thick as his is at the trademark. There are Hickory Farms beef sticks that are thinner. The Cobb and Wagner bats also have almost no knobs.
I was thinking none of the bats other than Ruth’s would have a knob. Multiple times I’ve heard Ruth is credited for inventing the modern bat - with a knob on the end.
Ruth played from 1914-1935. Shoeless Joe played from 1908-1920.
That’s a decent overlap for Jackson using a bat that Ruth supposedly brought to the scene, but some Google image seaching let me find this picture:
”Joe Showing Us How To Lay One Down”, dated 1912, from this page: Pictures of Shoeless Joe Jackson
That website even sells a replica of “Black Betsy”, Shoeless Joe’s bat. Louisville Slugger made three of them for Jackson back in 1915 according to the site, although Ruth’s career had started by then.
However - if there are early picture of Jackson with all his bats having knobs on them - why is Ruth given credit for making the modern bat? Was it also a skinnier handle?
I love reading about Ruth, I’m a fan like many others, just looking for some clarification here.
Continue reading "Who Invented the Modern Baseball Bat?"
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Tommy Hates the Phillie Phanatic
Seriously, he really does. Too bad his players didn’t.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Hating the Red Sox
Everyone already hates the Yankees, I know that being a Yankees fan. David Schoenfield hates the Yankees too, but he’s starting to hate the Red Sox as well. Schoenfeld lists his 86 reasons for hating the Sox on ESPN.com’s Page 2.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
It Only Took Two
One game, one complaint and it took all of two batters to happen. ESPN2 is airing the opening game of the baseball season, Red Sox at Yankees, which I’m sure you’ve heard about 1000 times by now. Well, Edgar Renteria is the second batter of the game, and he takes a pitch. ESPN whips out their nifty K-Zone to show us the location of a pitch Renteria didn’t swing at (to make him 1-2). The audience then proceeds to miss the strikeout pitch.
ESPN did not make the same mistake when the next batter, Manny Ramirez, struck out as well.
Update: Tino Martinez comes in to play first base for Jason Giambi. In his first inning of action he makes a great play to end the inning. The Tino-loving Bronx crowd goes nuts. Instead of being treated to a replay (and all I’m asking for is one), we get to see Sam Ryan introducing Fat Joe for ESPN’s new “Soundcheck” segment. Yipee. We don’t see a replay when they come back from commercial either. Go
MTV
ESPN.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
1UP Baseball Preview
1UP takes a look at this year’s baseball games:
EA’s MVP Baseball 2005, Take-Two’s Major League Baseball 2K5, and Sony’s MLB 2006
Sony’s game is PS2-only, while the other two are available for Xbox, and only MVP on GameCube. Pennant Chase Baseball will also be coming out for GameCube, but there’s no solid release date right now. Mario Baseball is a baseball alternative for GameCube.
For another baseball game round-up, check out GameSpot.
I’ll be picking up MVP or 2K5 for Xbox, hitting up Xbox Live hard. Just have to co-ordinate with friends to make sure we all pick up the same one. Drop me a line if you’ve played any of them and have a suggestion.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Jason Giambi, Meet Rock and Hard Place
Jason Giambi has one place to go to avoid heavy criticism all year long: the top.
If he’s not on the top of his game, Oakland A’s MVP-type numbers, all he’s going to hear are steroids jabs, and if he’s actually playing first at Yankee Stadium, it’ll be chants of “Tino, Tino…”
I was never a fan of the Yankees not re-signing Tino Martinez and paying a ton to bring in Giambi, but even I have to say: let’s give him some time.
We can argue all we want about how taking steroids is cheating and that Giambi is in a large circle of previous steroid users in baseball who deserve a lot of the condemnation they get, but Giambi is obviously in the group of people who have had steroids affect more than just their baseball game. While there’s been no research done, I think it’s pretty safe to say taking steroids has not helped Giambi stay healthy. He’s now another year older, and recovering from some pretty serious health issues last year. Expectations cannot be high. Without his grand jury testimony, he’d be just another “steroids suspect”, and we’d be focusing on his healthy. Now, people are just saying “he can’t do it without the ‘roids”, and while that may be a fair statement, it’s not too fair to look at someone who’s turning 34, coming off of injury and illness, and expect him to reproduce career years at 29-30.
I happen to think if he’s given a shot, he may be able to put together a decent season. .290s, 30HRs. Not worth his salary, but not bad numbers.
Dayn Perry at Fox Sports thinks Giambi will be something in between the old and new.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Have Fun With That Yap
CNNSI is carrying an AP story about an interview Pedro Martinez did with the Boston Herald. To sum up what they’ve titled “Burning Bridges”, Martinez criticizes Red Sox management, specifically calls General Manager Theo Epstein “arrogant”, says he’s better than Curt Schilling and he said he’d like the Mets to sign Jason Varitek and move Mike Piazza somewhere else.
Here’s the Boston Herald article: Pedro pitches his side—Ace explains move to NY Mets
This is going to be fun because if/when the Mets are a losing team again Pedro is going to start to run his mouth, and he won’t be treated any nicer in Queens than he is in the Bronx.
One has to wonder: where’s all the “he won’t be the same in the National League” junk we heard when Clemens went to the Astros? I realize, of course, Martinez has pitched in the NL before, but he’s been plunking more batters for the Red Sox. Since 1998, when Martinez went Boston, only two players have hit more batters. Tim Wakefield and Kerry Wood have each hit 78 batters, 1 more than Martinez (Clemens has 36 in the same time frame if you’re curious). But one thing Wakefield and Wood, and even Clemens, have in common - they all have more walks and wild pitches than Martinez. That and you just watch him throughout the year and it’s not hard to tell - he hits more batters on purpose. Now, I’m not judging that as a good or a bad thing. Some think you should never, ever purposely hit a guy; others call it old school depending on the situation. You can say Martinez throws at someone at the appropriate time - but that’s not the point here - it’s simply that Clemens, having less than half of hit batters as Martinez since Martinez as been in the AL, was given heat that he wouldn’t pitch the same way in the NL - where is that for Martinez? IMO, Clemens didn’t change his approach at all, and I don’t think Martinez will either, I’m just pointing out one of the differences in media reactions about each pitcher changing leagues.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Finally “Rivals”?
For a long time the national media was calling New York-Boston a great “rivalry”, but seeing the word “rival” only meant you were probably living in Boston or at least outside of New York. The Red Sox were not rivals - they were fodder.
Tonight the Red Sox finally beat the Yankees in a game that probably meant one thousand times more to the city of Boston than New York (and each team’s players as well if you were watching). While each franchise’s history will probably never be close to equal in terms of success, even a century from now, the Red Sox have finally stepped up and beat the Yankees when it mattered, something they haven’t done in a long, long time.
The Curse is not broken yet. They still have a World Series to go against either the Cards or the Stros, with St Louis probably being the tougher team on paper, but Houston having the more compelling storyline with Roger Clemens coming back to Boston to pitch against them in the World Series. If the Sox don’t win the World Series Boston fans will probably still be elated from the Yankees win, but that will fade quickly and the Curse will still be spoken of.
Either way, congrats to the Boston Red Sox.