King Kaufman

Playoff predictions

Our writer bravely looks at the games ahead and calls 'em as he sees 'em (while crossing his fingers).

  • more
    • All Share Services

When the season began, I made my predictions about how it would end up. I wrote, cleverly, I thought, that making predictions about baseball is a foolish sport, because the season is so long and the game so unpredictable.

I thought this would protect me from the usual avalanche of e-mails informing me that I am an idiot, which it did not do.

But I actually did pretty well, as did, I think, most prognosticators. Except for the fact that the Seattle Mariners went absolutely bananas, winning 116 games to tie the major league record — though they played 10 more games than the team whose record they tied — the American League went about the way most people thought it would, with the Yankees winning the East and the Indians the Central, and the A’s and Mariners qualifying for the playoffs from the West, though most of us thought the A’s would repeat as division champs.

In the National League, the Braves, as expected, won the East, the Cardinals and Astros tied for the Central — most people picked one or the other — and the Diamondbacks won the West, which was probably the biggest surprise, though Arizona had its preseason supporters, as did Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Nobody thought the Minnesota Twins and Philadelphia Phillies would still be threatening in their divisions in September, and if you say you did you’re a liar. I picked the Cincinnati Reds to win the National League Wild Card, and they lost 96 times and missed the playoffs by a mere 27 games. Dang.

In my defense, though, I admitted at the time that it was a dumb pick and I was just making it for the hell of it.

And I picked the Cardinals and A’s as league champs. That may or may not happen, but as the season ended, they were the two hottest teams. Don’t write me: I’m not saying I’m not an idiot, necessarily. Just that I have my moments.

So: What a year. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs. Rickey Henderson broke the career record for runs scored and collected his 3,000th hit. Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn said classy goodbyes after long, classy, Hall of Fame careers. Albert Pujols and Ichiro Suzuki had rookie years like hardly anybody has ever had a rookie year before. The Twins and the Phillies and, briefly, the Mets put together surprising runs. Sammy Sosa did his thing and the Cubs actually stayed alive into late September. Roger Clemens was 20-1 at one point.

And the Red Sox executed a nosedive that would have made the Red Baron proud. There’s something comforting in that. It’s like the arrival of an old friend: The leaves are changing and the Sox are in the dumper — it must be autumn.

And yet for all of that, baseball was not great in 2001. It cannot be great again until the Wild Card is discarded. As long as the best second-place team makes the playoffs, we cannot have a great pennant race, because a great pennant race requires that the loser be eliminated. (It also requires two top teams, which is why the National League East race between the mediocre Braves and Phillies, neither of whom were good enough to be the Wild Card, was so pale.)

The Cardinals and the Astros played for the N.L. Central Division title Sunday. They were the two best teams in the league this year, so Sunday should have been like a playoff game, but the atmosphere was decidedly unelectric. “This was a game for seeding,” said Cardinals manager Tony La Russa after his team lost. “It’s not life or death. It was life or a better life.”

Life or death is what makes baseball great. Death to the Wild Card.

The playoffs start Tuesday. Time for more predictions.

Cleveland Indians vs. Seattle Mariners

Schedule

There are always crazy anomalies like this in baseball, but the Mariners, one of the greatest teams of all time, performed just about the greatest pratfall in baseball history this year — against the Indians. The M’s were cruising to an easy win, leading 12-0 after three innings and 14-2 at the seventh-inning stretch in Cleveland on Aug. 5, but the Indians scored three in the seventh, four in the eighth, five in the ninth and one in the 11th to win 15-14.

The Indians had been reeling at the time, losing three in a row and six of their last seven, and that spectacular, nationally televised win has been cited by some pundits as turning their season around, although in fact they lost three of their next four games, and overall weren’t noticeably better after Aug. 5 (29-23, .558) than they had been up to that point (62-48, .564).

Still, it’s a hell of a win to look back on and gain confidence from, and the Indians, led by Juan Gonzalez, Jim Thome and Roberto Alomar, can score a lot of runs. They scored more than everybody in the league this year — except Seattle.

There’s some bad blood between these teams, stemming not only from the huge comeback but also from a bench-clearing incident on Aug. 25 that arose from Cleveland’s Omar Vizquel demanding that Seattle pitcher Arthur Rhodes remove his sparkly diamond earings. That, and their powerful offenses, should make this one entertaining. But the M’s are too much. They simply have no weaknesses, except maybe on the left side of the infield, where third baseman David Bell is mediocre and shortstop Carlos Guillen, who isn’t great anyway, has tuberculosis. Still, that’s nitpicking. There’s no reason to think the Mariners won’t sweep, but we’ll throw the underdogs a bone.

Prediction: Mariners in four.

Oakland A’s vs. New York Yankees

Schedule

Well, what do you do with the Yankees? I mean, they looked so bad going into the playoffs last year. They almost threw away a huge lead in the American League East and limped into the postseason with only 87 wins, practically none of them after Labor Day. They barely squeezed past the young, scrappy A’s in the first round … and then calmly went 8-3 against the Mariners and Mets for their third straight championship.

This year, the Yankees look vulnerable again. They’re old and they’re hurting. Pitchers Mariano Rivera, Ramiro Mendoza, Andy Pettitte and Orlando Hernandez and outfielders Chuck Knoblauch, Paul O’Neill and David Justice have all been aching and/or slumping in the last few weeks.

On the other hand, the Yankees say those guys are all feeling better, and they did win 95 games this year, and they’re still the Yankees. They’ll send Clemens out in the all-important Game 1, and New York went 27-6 when the Rocket started, including a 20-game win streak at one point, though that had as much to do with run support as with Clemens’ pitching, which was good but not spectacular. Mike Mussina actually had a better season.

On yet another hand, just in case you have three: The A’s are the hottest team in baseball. You may have missed it, but while the Mariners were winning 116 games, the A’s were winning 102, making them the second best team in the majors, by a lot. The Yanks were next, seven games behind. Since July 2, the A’s are 64-18. That’s seven games better than the Mariners (57-25) over a three-month stretch. Maybe the Mariners coasted a little, but the Athletics are just on fire. They won 29 of their last 33, for crying out loud. That sounds like a college football record.

The A’s top three starters — Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson and Barry Zito — are very good, though maybe not quite as good as the Yankees’ Clemens, Pettitte and Mussina, and New York’s bullpen is better. But the A’s have a huge offense — they averaged well over six runs a game after Sept. 1. They’re still young, and they’re hungry, having come so close to beating the Yankees last year. And there’s the feeling that with star first baseman Jason Giambi likely to leave via free agency, it’s this year or never. After the Yankees swept a three-game series from the then-struggling A’s at Yankee Stadium in April, the A’s haven’t lost a game to them, sweeping a pair of three-game series in Oakland.

Prediction: You can go broke betting on the Yankees to lose when they have money on the table themselves, but I think the A’s are too hot, and they know they can beat the champs. Besides, I picked the A’s to win the whole thing before the season started, so I guess I should at least stick with ‘em in the first round. A’s in five.

Atlanta Braves vs. Houston Astros

Schedule

This is one series where the home field advantage doesn’t mean much. The Astros have it, but they might wish they didn’t. They had the best road record in the league (49-32), while the Braves had a worse home record than any other team that’s ever been to the postseason (40-41).

So, who do you like? The Braves? Sure, they won their 10th straight division title, but they’re not a very good team. They only won 88 games, same as the Chicago Cubs, and their offense was anemic even before they lost catcher Javier Lopez to a sprained ankle. Ace Greg Maddux hasn’t won since Aug. 22, going 0-4 with a 3.95 ERA — not awful, but not Madduxian — in his last seven starts, six of which were Braves losses. Plus, there’s the Braves’ history of postseason futility. Their nine previous division championships have resulted in one World Series title, though they’ve been better than you remember in the playoffs, winning five of six divisional series and five of eight League Championship Series.

So how about the Astros? Well, they’ve never won a playoff series, and they finished the season by losing nine of their last 12, nearly coughing up the Central Division crown, which they salvaged by beating the Cardinals Sunday. They’ve lost starter Pedro Astacio for the year to injury, and Roy Oswalt, their impressive (14-3, 2.73 ERA) rookie, has a strained groin. The Astros are hoping, hoping, hoping he’ll be able to pitch in this series.

The Astros lineup is formidable, but their two big stars have been postseason flops. In 11 games, leadoff man Craig Biggio is 5-for-42 (.119) with a homer and six RBIs, and slugger Jeff Bagwell is 5-for-39 (.128) with four homers and seven RBIs. Moises Alou had a great World Series in ’97 for Florida, but otherwise he’s done nothing in postseason either.

But give the Astros credit for winning when they had to this weekend. They went to St. Louis and beat the red-hot Cardinals, the National League’s best home team, two out of three. It says here that Houston will finally get a chance to celebrate in the postseason.

Prediction: Astros in five.

St. Louis Cardinals vs. Arizona Diamondbacks

Schedule

You’ve heard the famous rhyme describing the Boston Braves’ starting rotation of the late 1940s? It went: Spahn and Sain and pray for rain. With the Diamondbacks, it’s Johnson and Schilling, then take a drilling.

When Randy Johnson or Curt Schilling starts, the Diamondbacks are 52-18, a .743 winning percentage, which is a little better than the Mariners. When anybody else starts, the Western Division champs are 40-52, a .435 winning percentage, which is a little better than the Expos. The way to beat them in a short series is to beat Johnson or Schilling once, then run the table against their other guys. Easier said than done.

There is hope for the Cardinals, though. They faced Johnson twice this year — both in an 11-day stretch in April — and beat him both times, roughing up the giant fireballer for 12 runs in 13 and 2/3 innings. Schilling they managed to miss altogether, though lifetime the right-hander is only 5-7 with a 4.21 ERA against St. Louis. Last year the Cardinals beat him twice. Johnson is 4-6 with a 3.62 ERA lifetime against the Cards.

St. Louis is also blistering hot, or was before the Houston series over the weekend. Except for a 10-game win streak in May, the Redbirds didn’t get going until mid-August, when they won another 10 in a row to launch a 36-14 stretch run. They won 20 of their last 26. The first five guys in their order — Fernando Viña, Placido Polanco, J.D. Drew, Albert Pujols and Jim Edmonds — all hit over .300, and all of them but Polanco finished strong.

The Cardinals’ starting pitching is solid, as is their bullpen, though there’s no traditional closer. They do it by committee. History says that having one guy with a ton of saves is a good predictor of postseason success, but I don’t believe there’s a causal relationship there.

La Russa, the Cardinals manager, specializes in the pitching change that leaves fans scratching their heads — and calling for him to pack his bags, despite his success — and the latest is his Game 1 starter. He’s picked Matt Morris to pitch the opener against Arizona. On the surface, Morris makes sense. He’s a 22-game winner. But he’s had two seasons: 15-2, 1.62 ERA at home, 7-6, 5.15 away. Why not set the rotation so that he pitches in St. Louis?

Aside from their pitching duo, the Diamondbacks aren’t much to look at. They do have Luis Gonzalez, and mercy me, what a year he had (.325, 57 homers, 142 RBIs), but beyond that, they’re pretty ordinary, though they catch the ball well.

I’ve been underestimating the Diamondbacks for three years now, and I’ve mostly been wrong. They won the division in ’99 and again this year without any help from me. So, why change now. Besides, the Cardinals have the hot hand, and they were my preseason pick. Say what you will about my predictions. I’m loyal to them.

Prediction: Cardinals in five.

In the next round I’m picking the Mariners over the A’s in a humdinger, and the Cardinals over the Astros, whose pitching injuries will be too much. My new World Series prediction is Mariners over Cardinals in a walk.

But I reserve the right to start over after my first-round picks get clocked.

And before we crown the Mariners champions, we should consider this. One hundred sixteen wins do not guarantee anything. Here’s Ken Rosenthal writing in the Sporting News about the Mariners: “You don’t win 116 games by accident. You don’t win 116 with a team that can’t win a short series. You don’t win 116 games and then collapse.”

Well, that’s right, except that it’s not true. Yes, the Mariners are the dominant team in baseball this year, and yes, they have to be considered the heavy favorite to win the World Series. Pundits who say otherwise are just trying to avoid the boring prospect of picking the obvious favorite, or hoping to have something to crow about if the upset winner they predict actually comes through — see your humble servant’s confident peg of the Cincinnati Reds as the N.L. Wild Card this year.

But the fact is, you do win 116 games and then collapse. In fact, every single team that has ever won 116 games has collapsed. That’s a group that includes one member, the 1906 Chicago Cubs, an astounding team, a club that went 116-36, better than three wins every four games. Projected out to a 162-game season, their .763 winning percentage would have meant 124 wins — they’d have blown out the Mariners by eight games!

These were the Cubs of Tinker to Evers to Chance, and more importantly, of Mordecai “Three Fingers” Brown, Jack Pfiester and Ed Reulbach, who I daresay would match up nicely with Freddy Garcia, Jamie Moyer and Aaron Sele, no disrespect intended to that trio of Mariners, who combined to go 53-17. The Cubs’ big three went 65-18. Not that you had a much better chance against their other three starters, Carl Lundgren, Jack Taylor and midseason pickup Orval Overall, who went a combined 41-12, and who I mention because I try to get Orval Overall into at least one story a year.

So what did the Cubs do? They went to the World Series against the crosstown rival White Sox, who had won the American League by winning 93 games, 25 fewer than the Cubs. They were dead last in the league in hitting, though fourth (out of eight) in scoring, and were second best in the league in runs allowed. In short, the Southsiders didn’t have a chance against the mighty, unbeatable, 116-win Cubs.

So who won the Series that year? You can look it up. I’ll give you a hint: It wasn’t the Cubs.

And while you’re at it, look up the 1954 Series, which featured the Indians, who had won 111 games. They didn’t win either. To be fair, the 114-win 1998 Yankees, the only other team to ever win more than 111, did win the World Series.

Seattle manager Lou Piniella put it best on Aug. 5, after his team blew that 12-run lead in Cleveland: “You never know about baseball, that’s for sure.”

The Year in Sanity: Jim Joyce

His blown call cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game. But from the moment he realized his mistake, he was golden

  • more
    • All Share Services

The Year in Sanity: Jim Joyce** CORRECTS PERFECT GAME TO WEDNESDAY, NOT TUESDAY ** Home plate umpire Jim Joyce calls a strike during the first inning of a baseball game between the Detroit Tigers and Cleveland Indians in Detroit Thursday, June 3, 2010. Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga lost his bid for a perfect game with two outs in the ninth inning on a disputed call at first base by Joyce on Wednesday night. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)(Credit: Paul Sancya)

Armando Galarraga was a journeyman Detroit Tigers right-hander who shocked the baseball world on June 2 by throwing a perfect game against the Cleveland Indians. Except, of course, the game wasn’t perfect, because with two outs in the ninth inning umpire Jim Joyce called Jason Donald of the Indians safe at first base when Donald clearly should have been called out to end the game.

Galarraga responded with a you’ve got to be kidding me smile for the ages, then retired one more batter for a one-hit shutout. He later said he hadn’t argued because he was in shock.

But it was Joyce’s response that turned this terrible tale into one that’s almost heart-warming. Not as heart-warming as a journeyman pitcher tossing a perfect game, mind you, but pretty toasty.

Having asked to see the video replay after the game, an emotional Joyce spoke to reporters: “It was the biggest call of my career and I kicked it. I just cost that kid a perfect game,” he said. “I missed it from here to that wall. I had a great angle, and I missed the call.” He also asked to speak to Galarraga, apologized to him and hugged him. Offered the next day off by his superiors, Joyce declined, saying he was ready to face what he assumed would be a hostile reaction from the Detroit crowd.

This eminently reasonable, grown-up reaction stood out because baseball umpires are ordinarily cloistered. They have what amounts to lifetime tenure. They don’t face reporters, rarely admit mistakes publicly and are not held accountable for their actions in any way that’s visible to the players or public. Don’t like that call? Replays showed the ump got it wrong? Tough.

Galarraga said he’d forgiven the umpire, and Joyce’s response to his error has been widely praised beyond baseball. He’s become a go-to example of how to handle mistakes in politics, religion and — especially because his straight-forward behavior came in the midst of BP’s oil-spill debaclebusiness.

Less than two weeks after the blown call, ESPN surveyed major league players for their opinions about umpires. Their overwhelming choice as the best in the business: Jim Joyce.

Continue Reading Close

Why I’m against baseball’s instant replay

The technology won't necessarily rob the game of heart, but it definitely won't fix what's wrong

  • more
    • All Share Services

Why I'm against baseball's instant replayThe Major League Baseball instant replay display is shown in the umpires room before the National League baseball game between the Philadelphia Phillies and Chicago Cubs in Chicago, Illinois August 28, 2008. REUTERS/Steve Green/Pool (UNITED STATES)(Credit: Reuters)

For the third straight baseball postseason, umpires have been making critical, high-profile mistakes in game after game, and there’s a growing drumbeat among media and fans that Major League Baseball has to do something about it. And not just any something, but one specific something: instant replay.

The entire conversation about umpiring has been predicated on the assumption that the only solution to the problem is a technological one, which is fascinating — and maybe just a little troubling — because everyone in the conversation knows two things: There are acres of room for improvement that has nothing to do with technology, and the technology itself is far from perfect.

We know from other sports, especially NFL football, that video replay is hardly perfect. Putting aside the unnecessarily long delays that accompany video replay in the NFL, it’s a simple fact about video that it does not always provide conclusive evidence of what happened. Camera angles can be as deceptive as the naked eye.

And more important, the NFL’s replay system is a laboratory of unintended consequences. Introduced for the same reason many people want to introduce replay to baseball — to put an end to egregious officiating mistakes — it has become the lord of officials. It has changed the way officials call games. Refs now err on the side of the reviewable call, or make no call at all so replay can be possible. They have changed the way they call fumbles and completions. Watch an old NFL game from before replay and you’ll be struck at the difference in officiating and rules interpretation.

People will argue over the specifics of those last two paragraphs, but there’s no one familiar with replay who doesn’t know that replay is far from perfect, that despite — I would say because of — replay being entrenched in the NFL for years, officiating is still such a problem that a huge number of fans can convince themselves that a recent Super Bowl was fixed by the refs.

Yet the only anti-replay argument that ever sees the light of day is the Luddite one: Instant replay would rob baseball, that most human of games, of an essential human element.

That’s a valid argument, but it’s a religious one. No one is ever going to be argued off of it, and if you don’t buy it, you’re not going to be talked into it.

But it’s interesting that the argument against it goes like this: Instant replay might not be perfect, but it’s better than what we have now, so we should use it. That argument ignores a vital question. Is instant replay better than some other solution?

If you’ve been around as long as most of the people who are in the most public part of this argument — media figures and baseball officials — technology has been a series of miracles in your life. You can carry a supercomputer in your pocket that connects you to anywhere in the world all the time? Are you kidding? I’m not even 50 and I remember when it was a big deal that someone could leave you a taped message when they called your house — the only place you could have a phone — and you weren’t there.

Got a problem? Technology can probably fix it, and if not, just wait a little. It’s coming. Marvelous times.

But I think we sometimes forget that technology isn’t the only fix, and it isn’t always the best one, and not just for squishy reasons having to do with idealizing human error. Human error is a bad thing, and technology is often fantastic at doing away with it. But it can also do away with some good human things, like judgment and holistic problem solving.

Think about law enforcement for a moment — and sports officiating is essentially law enforcement. Which is more effective at fighting crime, an elaborate system of video surveillance or a program of job training, substance abuse education and treatment, community investment and so on? Or if that’s too liberal-sounding for you, focus in tighter. If you’re a parent, which is more effective at getting your kids to behave like solid citizens, spy cams around the house or engaged, loving parenting?

If you wanted to design a system that would result in poor umpiring, you would design Major League Baseball’s system. It’s positively medieval. Umpires essentially have lifetime tenure. They are sequestered from the media and answer only to a review system that is as secretive as it is pointless, since it hardly ever results in umpires losing their jobs. Instant replay won’t change that lack of accountability.

“We never know why or when they are fined, or reprimanded or held accountable,” Oakland A’s pitcher Brad Ziegler told ESPN’s Amy K. Nelson last week. “Any time a player is punished, suspended or sent down to the minors, the public knows about it. It would be a lot easier to communicate with umpires if everyone was held to similar standards. Our statistics as players are a lot more quantifiable than the umpires’.”

I am something of a Luddite when it comes to instant replay, not because I’m anti-technology — I have a long-distance line to New York in my pocket, and the call is free? Score! — but because I think baseball has been smart about being slow to change over the last century-plus. Replay would suddenly, irreversibly alter a game that has a pretty good history of solving its problems without radical, game-altering solutions.

I don’t believe baseball should absolutely avoid instant replay because instant replay is evil. I believe it should try to tackle the organizational problems that are leading to the poor umpiring rather than slap an electronic band-aid on them.

Nelson’s ESPN story is about a planned winter meeting between the grumbling players association, baseball officials and the umpires. Nelson describes such a meeting as “rare,” which is a problem right there. Shouldn’t the three parties involved in this major issue for Major League Baseball talk to each other more than rarely?

It’s a good step. I’m not too hopeful it’s going to lead to a new era of transparency and reform. No one from the umpires or Major League Baseball would comment for the story.

Continue Reading Close

Hard times? TV can be your lottery ticket

If you can get your sob story on the tube, you're gold. But what about the other millions of desperate Americans?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Hard times? TV can be your lottery ticketA food line at the Community Kitchen in Harlem

A tweet from NBC reporter Ann Curry:

Ok, here’s a smile: update on our doc on recession/poverty. I love America

http://bit.ly/btt50h

Here’s the text you get when you “share” the video report Curry’s tweeting about:

Overwhelming response to Dateline’s poverty report

A development to the story we brought you about struggling families in Ohio who have been pushed over the edge by this recession. ††There’s been a response from people wanting to help.

http://bit.ly/btt50h

So it’s that old TV thing. NBC does a story on “Dateline” about families struggling through the recession in rural Ohio, and letters and donations and job offers come pouring in from all over the country.

The retired Air Force vet has “job offers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona, Iowa.” Someone sent him $5,000. A woman reads through tears from a letter she’s received: “In a couple of weeks I will be able to send you some money to help with expenses. I hope this letter raises your spirits and that you know I really do care. Most of all, you have a friend in me. You are going to be OK, and so are your children. I will be thinking of you, sweetie, and praying that lots of other people send you much-needed money.”

She says, “It’s really hard to believe that someone you’ve never met could actually care that much.”  

The food pantry lady has gotten 500 phone calls and donations from Texas, California, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine and Canada. She says, “I just can’t even describe how good it feels to know that there are so many people out there that really do care.”

This is absolutely par for the course, it’s what happens every single time there is a sob story on the TV, but here’s the thing: People don’t care. They just respond to what’s on television.

There are folks right down the street in Texas, California, Florida and Iowa who need food and basic supplies. There are good, capable people, some of them retired military, right down the street in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona and Iowa who are looking for work. And, after NBC’s report, those people still need the basics and are still looking for work. And those people who sent the heartfelt letters and the donations and the job offers likely never moved a muscle for those people down the street.

A guy who drove to the food pantry with a Hefty bag of donations tells the food pantry lady, “Cincinnati Ohio’s thinkin’ of ya,” and she gives him a big hug. Really, guy who drove 170 miles to Lottridge to find someone to give your Hefty bag of stuff to? Because where were you and the rest of Cincinnati before NBC aired its report?

Curry, who is among the best in the business and whom I don’t mean to beat up on, gets “a smile” out of this, as she should. She did a good piece about people who are struggling, her viewers responded in overwhelming fashion and the people she reported about are deeply moved by their good fortune.

If you focus in tightly enough, it really is a wonderful thing. That a relatively tiny group of people in Ohio actually did get a lot of help they weren’t going to get without that TV report. It was like a little miracle, and you’d have to have a hard heart indeed not to be touched by the young mom reading the letter or the hardworking food pantry lady who is suddenly able to provide so much more help to so many more people. I love America too.

But back your view out to the larger picture and what you see is something much more depressing.

Obviously, the people who sent money and goods and job offers had both the means and willingness to help their neighbors in need, but instead they helped some people they saw on TV. Now, I suppose it’s possible that every one of them, from the donor of $5,000 to the Hefty bag guy from Cincinnati to the job offerers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona and Iowa, is doing just as much for lots of other people closer to home and not on the TV.

I would just be willing to bet a lot that they aren’t.

What Curry’s story suggests is that the generosity of the American people can solve the problems of a lot of folks who need help — as long as they can get on TV. Getting on TV is a lottery ticket, and the depressing part of it is that if you’re in trouble, your chances of getting on TV are about the same as your chances of winning the lottery.

What about all the desperate people who didn’t have a TV network drop out of the sky into their local food pantry? How do we turn their story into “a smile”? Because there are clearly people out there willing to help. There just isn’t enough TV to go around.

Continue Reading Close

Worst! Calls! Ever!

Slide show: Umpire Jim Joyce's error ruined Armando Galarraga's perfect game. How does it stack up against history?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Worst! Calls! Ever!Dallas Stars Brett Hull (22) raises his arms after scoring the game winning goal on Buffalo Sabres goalie Dominik Hasek in the third overtime of Game 6 to win the Stanley Cup Finals in Buffalo, NY, Sunday, June 20, 1999. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)(Credit: Associated Press)

Umpire Jim Joyce’s blown call Wednesday night, which cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game, is already the stuff of legend. Was it the worst blown call in history?

It was the worst blown call in Jim Joyce’s history, that’s for sure. And surely the worst in Galarraga’s until-now ordinary baseball career. Because it merely affected a line in a record book — Galarraga would have been the 21st pitcher in MLB history to throw a perfect game, dating to 1880 — it lacks the historical heft of the greatest officiating mistakes.

View the slide show

Remembering Ernie Harwell

To know the longtime voice of the Detroit Tigers, through the radio or in person, was to love him

  • more
    • All Share Services

Remembering Ernie HarwellFILE - In this Oct. 3, 1993, photo, Detroit Tigers broadcaster Ernie Harwell pauses during a break in the action in the Tigers' baseball game against the New York Yankees at Yankee Stadium in New York. The Tigers say Harwell has died. He was 92. (AP Photo/Paul Hurschmann, File)(Credit: AP)

The best three days I ever spent on the clock were the three days I spent in Detroit with Ernie Harwell, the longtime voice of the Detroit Tigers, in 2002, his last year in the broadcast booth.

Harwell died Tuesday at 92, eight months after announcing that he had terminal cancer that he would not treat. John Lowe of the Detroit Free Press, in what will surely be the definitive obituary, quotes Harwell at the time: “I’m ready to face what comes. Whether it’s a long time or a short time is all right with me because it’s up to my Lord and savior.”

I grew up not listening to Ernie Harwell but to the man who replaced him in the Brooklyn Dodgers booth in 1950, Vin Scully. I hadn’t come to know Harwell until 1999, when baseball broadcasts were still streamed online for free and Harwell had returned to the radio side after five years on TV. Like generations of Michiganders, I quickly fell for his warmth, his charm, his knowledge of the game, his old-timey broadcast voice.

When he announced that 2002 would be his last season, I wanted to write about him, so I got in touch with him through the Tigers, asking if I could come to Detroit for a few days, hang out with him, shadow him. A day or so later there was a voicemail message. That incredible voice was right on my phone! I saved it for as long as I could. I wish I still had it:

“King, this is Ernie Harwell from Detroit. I don’t know that there’s much to write about me, but sure, come on up.”

I had planned to write about a fundamental shift in the way people follow baseball, about how Harwell was one of the last of the old radio men who were identified with a team as much as any player, often more than any player. Now, with most games on TV, far more games on national TV, larger squads of announcers and the Internet providing more baseball information than any one person could ever absorb, fans weren’t dependent on that one broadcaster to serve as the conduit to their team.

Yes. Well, it seemed interesting in my head. A little of that stuff made it into the piece, but after about 10 minutes with Ernie Harwell, I knew that my story couldn’t be about anything but Ernie Harwell.

It’s hard to talk about what kind of guy Ernie Harwell was without sounding like you’re talking about a guy on the night of the day he died. But it was just as hard when he was still alive. I spent three days with him, and he was unfailingly kind, generous, cheerful, energetic, positive and humble. And not just with me. At 84 years of age, he was tireless, making sure as he roamed the ballpark — which he did a lot — that every fan who wanted a moment with him — and there were many — got the moment he or she wanted.

I talked to a lot of people about Ernie Harwell that summer, and in the eight years since then I’ve talked to more people about him and I’ve heard and read many things said about him, and I’ve never heard a hint that the man I came to know in those three days wasn’t the genuine article. It may be that there has never been an unkind word said about Ernie Harwell.

Jon Miller, the ESPN and San Francisco Giants announcer, was hurrying across a field when I sidled up to him asking if I could talk to him for a minute. He kept walking as he asked what I wanted to talk about. “Ernie Harwell,” I said, and he stopped on a dime. All of a sudden, I had his attention and he grew animated as he told stories about Ernie.

Mike Shannon, the longtime St. Louis Cardinals broadcaster, was pressed for time just before a game one day but he told me to sit in the press box and wait for him. Minutes before the first pitch, he leaned out the door of his radio booth. “Where’s the guy who wanted to talk about Ernie Harwell?”

Ty Cobb liked Ernie Harwell, for crying out loud. Ty Cobb didn’t like anybody.

“He’s so generous with his time,” I wrote back then, “that a reporter in town for three days to research a story on him confesses on the third day that he’s just about run out of questions to ask.” That reporter was me, of course. We were sitting in an empty broadcast booth in the Comerica Park press box when I told him that. He looked out at the field for a few seconds, then started throwing out some suggestions, things I might want to ask about.

It sounds silly to say, but after spending time with Ernie I told myself that I would try to be a better person, more generous, more cheerful, more optimistic, more kind. More like Ernie Harwell. I failed miserably at this, of course, but I’ve returned to that thought fairly often over the years, and I like to think I’ve moved just a tiny bit in an Ernie-like direction.

Here’s the story I wrote about Ernie. I think I worked harder on it than on anything I’ve ever written. I did things I never do. I made outlines, wrote things on index cards and arranged and re-arranged them.

I swung for the fences, wanting to do justice to the living legend and the time I’d had with him. I used a flamboyant structure, organizing the piece around Ernie’s call of a single game, weaving his epic story between snippets of a thoroughly ordinary contest between two lousy teams, the Tigers and the Kansas City Royals.

I’m not sure it worked. But you don’t get to hang out with the greats that often, and it’s less often that you end up liking them. I wasn’t going to write just another piece about Ernie Harwell in his last year.

A few days after it ran he sent me an e-mail thanking me for the piece. “Best thing that’s ever been written about me,” he wrote. I’m sure he said that to every single person who ever wrote a story about him. And here’s the thing: I’m sure he meant it every time.

Continue Reading Close

Page 1 of 111 in King Kaufman