Phil Mickelson's 59 1/2

There are certain accomplishments in sports -- a no-hitter in baseball, a perfect game in baseball, a 300-game in bowling, a golden set in tennis, a 250-yard rushing game in the NFL, a four-homer day, a 59 in golf -- that are cool because fans will remember them. They are called "historic" but I don't think of them exactly that way. A historic moment in sports, to me, is a moment that is singular and important and essentially unrepeatable: Bill Mazeroski's homer … Joe Montana's drive against the Bengals … Michael Jordan's shot against Utah … Kirk Gibson's homer … Mike Eruzione's goal … Pete Sampras' winning his U.S. Open quarterfinal despite vomiting on the court … Michael Phelps' eighth gold medal …

… those were moments when the circumstances and performance all came together on exactly the right stage, and something happened that will never happen again in the same way. That to me makes history.

These other moments are amazing and fabulous but I think of them more as memorable than historic. There have been 23 perfect games in baseball history. There have been 22 televised perfect games in bowling. There have been 12 rushing days of 250 plus yards -- and can you name the only NFL running back to rush for 250 yards twice in a career?*

WaxVac

You can debate, of course, what is the single most disgusting feature of the WaxVac (Gentle and Effective Ear Cleaning!) but it seems to me that the name is as good a place to start as any. As every info-commercial enthusiast knows, unless there's a specific reason for it -- say you want to the product to sound dangerous as in "Ginzu Knife!" -- products are supposed to have cute and endearing names that seem to be begging for exclamation points. Snuggie! Pajama Jeans! Wraptastic! Tiddy Bear! Forever Comfy! ShamWow!

And, if not cute, the names must have an info-commercial code word in them. Examples might include: Magic … Insta … Fast … Miracle … Chop … Hot.

But "WaxVac" -- as in "earwax" and "vacuum cleaner" -- has none of the above. And more to the point: Those two words just don't belong together. They are two words that, if they ran into each other on the ice, would drop the gloves and start punching each other. I'm just not much for putting internal body features with every day appliances. Intestinal Blender. Nasal Toaster. Saliva Disposal.

The Yankees and A-Rod

Over time, it seems, everyone has become somewhat immune to the huge dollars spent in sports. Sure, people may gripe about it -- do gripe about it all the time -- but the numbers themselves are somewhat surreal. They are just cartoon bags filled with money.

For instance, when we talk about Josh Hamilton's 5-year, $125 million deal with the Angels, we might think about it as being a ridiculous deal or a serious overpay or we might think about it being the deal that could make the Angels World Series contenders. But I would say that while we certainly know how much $125 million is, we don't really think about it that way. We don't think about what it could buy you in Washington lobbying or what extraordinary lengths people would go to to make -- or save -- that kind of money.

It's just: Josh Hamilton -- $25 million per year -- wow, that's a lot of money -- is he worth it?

Hall of Fame Leftovers

So, I thought I would do a round-up of The BBWAA Project and see what -- if anything -- we learned. For this, I will not use WAR or any other statistic. I will only use the Baseball Reference EloRater -- which involves fans rating the best (and not so good) baseball players in history. The rating is done in a fascinating way: The EloRater shows you two players -- I just did it, and it gave me Bill Swift and Javier Vazquez, then Johnny Damon and Javy Lopez -- and simply asks you which player was better (I chose Vazquez and Damon).

There's then a fairly complicated formula to create the player rating. It's a very cool system. Like everything else, there are biases and contradictions. Also, it's a moving target -- people keep ranking players on EloRater so the rankings keep changing (I started this about a week ago, so I'm actually using several different versions of the EloRater here. Sorry about that). But the point is not that the system is perfect but that it gives us a quick glance at the players and their approximate value.

So here are a few things we've learned:

Curveballs

I began watching "Trouble With the Curve" in my hotel room the other day with these three certainties:

1. I love baseball.

2. Clint Eastwood made "Unforgiven," which is one of my 10 favorite movies.

3. I love Amy Adams.

I came out of "Trouble with the Curve" facing only one certainty:

1. Justin Timberlake was, by far, my favorite character. Justin Bleepin' Timberlake.

In other words, "Trouble with the Curve" was a very confusing movie experience.

The Lost Belichick Interview

You might have heard that after New England's 28-13 loss to Baltimore in the AFC Championship Game on Sunday, Bill Belichick refused to come out for the post game interview with CBS. Instead, he sent out Devin McCourty. CBS' Shannon Sharpe ripped Belichick for the snub, which was fine and fair.

The sad part is that America missed out on the post game interview, which I believe -- based on Bill's previous interviews -- would have gone more or less like so:

Steve Tasker: "Bill, obviously that was a tough loss."

Bill Belichick: "True, Steve. But it is so important to remember that to fall from a great height, you must first climb to that great height. I believe it was Steinbeck who wrote that it's so much darker when a light goes out than it would have been if it had never shone."

Tasker: That was "The Winter of Our Discontent" wasn't it?

Belichick: Yes. I find that Steinbeck comforts me in times like these. He had a deep understanding for losing. Also, now I think of the words of Anais Nin, whose journals I keep close for moments like these. I believe she said that we put off dying by living and risking and losing ...

Tasker: Well, to be precise, I believe she said, "I postpone death by living, by suffering, by error, by risking, by giving, by losing."

Belichick: Yes, that's the wording.

Tasker: "Dreams are necessary to life." She said that too.

Belichick: True words, Steve. Very true words.

Tasker: What would you say to Ray Lewis right now?

Belichick: I think instead of C.S. Lewis who said, "We cannot understand. The best is perhaps what we understand least."

Tasker: Thank you Bill for your time and wisdom.

Belichick: Of course Steve. And please tell Shannon Sharpe to $&#^&% #$&#*&.

The BBWAA Project: Starting pitcher

OK, we're down to the final position on the BBWAA Project -- starting pitchers. It's a good thing I've had this project to do because it's been an extremely quiet couple of weeks in sports.

Here's the review:

Introduction … First Base roundup … Second Base roundup … Shortstop roundup … Third base roundup … Left field roundup … Center field roundup … Right field roundup … Catcher roundup … Relief pitcher roundup.

Now, the toughest position of them all …

RIP Stan the Man

Here are a few thoughts on the great Stan Musial. 

And here is one of my favorite stories about Stan The Man.

The Earl of Baltimore

Weaver on umpires: "Some have said that I can accept inadequacies in my players but not in umpires. That completely misses the point. I can't tolerate anyone's mistake."

-- Earl Weaver in "Weaver on Strategy" (with Terry Pluto).

 

---

 

In all the years I have known the marvelous umpire Steve Palermo, I have never once heard him say Earl Weaver's name. He would talk about Weaver quite often but always called him "that little …" The ellipses represented any number of charming adjectives. Well, you know -- Earl Weaver was one of the great managers the game has ever known, and he was also quite nasty to umpires. Nasty but brilliant. Palermo always concedes the brilliant part.

The BBWAA Project: Relief Pitchers

OK, we've almost made it to the end of the BBWAA Project. We've gone all around the field ...
Previously on The BBWAA Project:

Introduction … First Base roundup … Second Base roundup … Shortstop roundup … Third base roundup … Left field roundup … Center field roundup … Right field roundup … Catcher roundup.

Now, it's just relief pitchers and starting pitchers. We'll start with the relievers because that's a pretty short list.

The BBWAA Report: Catcher

Previously on The BBWAA Project:

Introduction

First Base roundup

Second Base roundup

Shortstop roundup

Third base roundup

Left field roundup

Center field roundup

Right field roundup

And finally, we reach catcher ...

The BBWAA Project: Right Field

Previously on The BBWAA Project:

Introduction

First Base roundup

Second Base roundup

Shortstop roundup

Third base roundup

Left field roundup

Center field roundup

And on to the position of Clemente and Aaron ...

The BBWAA project: Center Field

Previously on The BBWAA Project:

Introduction

First Base roundup

Second Base roundup

Shortstop roundup

Third base roundup

Left field roundup

And now … the position with the highest standard in the Hall of Fame ...

The BBWAA Project: Left Field

Previously on The BBWAA Project:

Introduction

In the introduction, there's an explanation of the project and also why I'm using Baseball Reference's Wins Above Replacement (WAR) as the guiding statistic. It is basically because it is the easiest statistic to use for various reasons. It's a good statistic, I think, but has many problems with it, and I'm aware of that. For instance, Baseball Reference WAR doesn't credit Craig Biggio with being as good a player as, say, Fangraphs Wins Above Replacement. But the point of this is NOT to get a precise view of how good a player is but instead to get a general idea of the BBWAA's standards and how this year's candidates matched up.

First Base roundup

Second Base roundup

Shortstop roundup

Third base roundup

And now we move on to what I think might be the weirdest, wildest, most controversial, most inconsistent and most thrilling BBWAA position of them all …

The Greatest Comeback Ever

So my buddy Mel Stewart sent me an email tonight -- he said that Jason Lezak retired.

Jason Lezak.

Jason Lezak?

Mel's email: "Lezak anchored the 4x100 relay in Beijing …"

OHHHHH. Jason Lezak. The name might only sound vaguely familiar, but the race … unforgettable. It remains one of the most amazing things I've ever seen, one of the most amazing things any one of us has ever seen. You didn't have to be a swim fan. You didn't have to know anything about swimming. You didn't even have to be a sports fan. This was  Beijing, when Michael Phelps was trying for eight gold medals, Lezak was indeed anchoring his 4x100 relay.

And France was basically a full body length ahead of the U.S. when Lezak hit the water. This was daunting enough. But it just so happened that the Frenchman who was a full body length ahead was Alain Bernard, who happened to be the world record holder in the 100-meter freestyle. So, basically, the race was over.

Only … it wasn't over at all. It was, instead, just beginning.

Watch the whole amazing thing … or fast forward to about 3:00 and watch the optical illusion and listen as disbelieving announcers come to understand just what they are seeing.



You can read a lot more about Lezak's retirement on Mel's fabulous swim site, SwimSwam.

The BBWAA Project: Third Base

Previously on The BBWAA Project:

Introduction
First Base roundup
Second Base roundup
Shortstop roundup
And now …

The BBWAA Project: Shortstop

Here is a little introduction to The BBWAA Project, if you are interested.

And here is the First Base roundup and Second Base roundup.

Now, we're talking shortstops.

The BBWAA Project: Second base

Here is a little introduction to The BBWAA Project, if you are interested.

And here is the First Base roundup.

Three Commercials

A few really pointless thoughts about three television commercials we are all seeing again and again during the NFL playoffs:

The BBWAA Project: First Base

So, here's what I'm doing: I'm looking at the the players voted into the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA position-by-position in order to figure out what the Baseball Writers' standard has been through the years. I'm basically using two statistics to try and quantify their choices:

1. Baseball Reference Wins Above Replacement (WAR) -- This is to measure career value. Obviously, many people have their issues with WAR -- and many of their criticisms are fair -- but my point is I just wanted a consistent standard. It could have been Fangraphs WAR, Win Shares, Baseball Prospectus VORP, OPS+/ERA+ … but I think WAR is sensible enough, plus it is the easiest stat to search.
2. Baseball Reference WAR/7 -- This is the players' Top 7 WAR seasons added together -- this is to measure how good a player was at his peak.
   For fun, I also use Baseball Reference's MLB EloRater to show where the fans rank the players all-time.

Obviously, I am not nearly the first to measure players by these two statistics -- a special nod to Jay Jaffe for his excellent JAWS measurement and his Hall of Fame writing.

The BBWAA Project

So, I've been doing this kind of fun Hall of Fame project -- well, it's fun if you're a complete nut job. Fortunately, I am that complete nut job. I started to think about something the other day: There really ARE two different Baseball Halls of Fame.

Just a few days ago, I wrote about how I really wished the Hall of Fame had this "inner circle," you know, this Hall of Fame within a Hall of Fame, that separates the Willie Mayses and Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons and Walter Johnsons from the Jesse Haines and High Pockets Kellys and Tom Yawkeys and Candy Cummings and others you either didn't know were in the Hall of Fame or didn't care.

Then, one morning I woke up and thought: It's already true. There are two Hall of Fames. There is:

1. The BBWAA Hall of Fame.
2. The other Hall of Fame.

Live Chat at 2 p.m.

We're talking Baseball Hall of Fame live at 2 p.m. over Sports On Earth. We'll probably open the doors around 1 p.m. for early questions and comments.

Come and join, won't ya? 

Richard Ben Cramer

If you take a quick spin around the Internet today, you can read a bit about an amazing man and writer named Richard Ben Cramer, who died Monday. You can read about his kindness to a good young baseball writer. You can read how his writing affected a similarly wonderful writer named Tom Junod. You can read Alex Belth's homage which contain only a few of Alex's words and, fittingly, many more of Richard's. You can also read a lovely appreciation of the man from one of the last and few to interview him.

I knew Richard -- not well, but he was a very important person in my life. He was a hero who became a mentor and a mentor who became a friend. I will not go into details because I don't think he would want that. It's just fair to say that I will remember his kindness for the rest of my life.

I do, though, want to talk for a moment about his writing. Unlike most writers, my first true encounter with Richard's writing was not his seminal Esquire piece on Ted Williams or his unmatched narrative about a presidential election or his Pulitzer Prize winning international reporting for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Richard Ben Cramer celebrating his Pultizer Prize in 1979 (AP)

Percentages and the Hall

One of the fascinating things to watch in this year's Hall of Fame balloting will, of course, be the percentages of some of the dominant players who will not get elected because of PED suspicions. We know -- absolutely know -- that Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (and Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa) will not get elected this year. I still expect no one to get in … but we KNOW they won't get in.

What percentage of the vote will they get? And what does that percentage mean?

History, obviously, can only tell us so much when it comes to players linked to PEDs. There has never been a player as good as Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens who did not make it into the Hall of Fame more or less as soon as possible  (not even Shoeless Joe Jackson or Pete Rose). So, I'm not sure any historical comparison is valid. If Bonds and Clemens were to each get 45.2% of the vote* -- which is their percentage on Baseball Think Factory's essential Hall of Fame collecting gizmo -- is that really comparable to Gary Carter (who got 42.3% on first ballot) or Andre Dawson (who got 45.1%)? No. I don't think it is. But we're working with what we have.

*I do have a prediction about Clemens and Bonds -- though it isn't about how high their percentages might go. I predict they will get EXACTLY the same number of votes. I've thought about this a lot of different ways … I believe every person who votes for one will vote for the other, and everyone who doesn't vote for one will vote for neither.

So, what I'm doing here is breaking down the Hall of Fame percentages through the years. I'm starting in 1966 because that's the year when the Hall of Fame voting process really began to look more or less like it does now. I'll go into that at some length in my NEXT absurd Hall of Fame post.

Just remember, we're looking at players' first year on the Hall of Fame ballot, their percentage and what happened to those players.

RIP Richard Ben Cramer

Here is perhaps he best paragraph ever written about an American athlete.

From "What Do You Think of Ted Williams Now?" Esquire Magazine, June 1986

"It was forty-five years ago, when achievements with a bat first brought him to the nation's notice, that Ted Williams began work on his defense. He wanted fame, and wanted it with a pure, hot eagerness that would have been embarrassing in a smaller man. But he could not stand celebrity. This is a bitch of a line to draw in America's dust."

RIP Richard Ben Cramer (June 12, 1950 -- January 7, 2013), a writing hero and someone I was lucky enough to call a friend.

The Topps Numbering System

So, now until Wednesday at 2 p.m., I'm probably going to write lots and lots of Hall of Fame things. The big one -- the final ballot -- will appear on Sports On Earth on Monday. But here, I've got a whole bunch of smaller Hall of Fame thoughts, observations, questions, suggestions … I was going to put it into one giant Hall of Fame post, but even for this blog it seemed a bit unwieldy. So, instead, you get it in smaller (but not necessarily small) portions.

We'll begin with: The Topps Numbering System.

Best Comment Ever

It was so called by Brilliant Reader Pete. I must concur. Roman numerals? Check. Wrestlemania? Check. It has everything a great comment should.

 

MDCCCLXXVIII Words

I rarely disagree with my most excellent Sports On Earth colleague Emma Span, Mariano maven, master of mustaches, woman who really knows what is the trouble with the curve. To be honest, I don't think I've ever disagreed with her. She might disagree with me a lot, and I couldn't blame her, but on my end I pretty much think she's always right, and I am NOT just saying that because she's one of my editors and could conceivably do terrible things to my stories such as not read them and leave the countless mistakes in there.

But, I have to say on this, Emma is WRONG. I mean it in capital letters. WRONG.

Utterly, completely WRONG.

@emmaspan: Launching a rebellion to force the Super Bowl to stop using roman numerals. If you're not with me you're against me.

@JPosnanski: Oh, Emma, I'm against you. I am so against you. Consider me Enemy I.