Miguel Tejada facts

So for some reason, I thought it would be funny to do a "Miguel Tejada" facts that is like the incomparable Matt Wieters Facts, but instead of great feats of baseball prowess and inhuman strength, they would be amazing ways to screw over a team.

A quick disclaimer: I don't have anything against Miggi and I certainly don't blame him for the 2-11 start to the season, I just think this is an opportunity to be somewhat funny. (Or at least I try.)

So here are some early attempts. Please feel free to add more to the comments.

Fact #1: Miguel Tejada once led off an inning by grounding into a double play.

Fact #2: Miguel Tejada has actually grounded into a quadruple play. The Orioles had to start their next turn at bat with one out.

Fact #3: Miguel Tejada's allegedly tainted vitamin B12 shots are just a placebo. While researchers have noted a placebo effect, that effect is a positive steroids test.

Fact #4: Coaches measure Miguel Tejada's speed from home to first base using a sundial. Unless it's a routine pop-up. Then they use orbits of Haley's Comet.

Fact #5: The only time Miguel Tejada hits Eutaw Street is when he's getting a sandwich at Boog's.

Fact #6: In 2007, Miguel Tejada was within 1,500 games of Cal Ripken's consecutive games played streak. After having his streak snapped just 1,480 games shy of the record, Tejada has set out to beat Cal's other incredible record: 350 GIDPs. That's not even remotely funny, just depressingly accurate.

Terrible, right? I'll try harder next time.
 

Pre-playoff GTalk conversation...

Abram Fox: word is that Ovechkin and Backstrom are hurt, Ovechkin is definitely in on Thursday and Backstrom is questionable
so, that is bad

me: I will quote Aqua Teen Hunger Force
from the epic "Foreigner Belt" episode

Abram: haha
love that episode

me:
"WHO SET THIS TO 'HEAD GAMES'!??!?!"

WaPo piece on Langway's daughter doesn't sit right

My brother sent me an e-mail today with a link to Mark Giannotto's Washington Post article on Rod Langway's estranged daughter. I skimmed it when it came out last week, but once my brother asked for my opinion I decided to read the whole thing.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a Capitals fan since the Langway days. But I'm also a journalism professor so I would hope my fan status isn't completely shading my views here.

My issue with the article isn't really that it paints Rod Langway in a bad light, it's that there's no real story there to begin with. Well, maybe there is, but Giannotto doesn't find it. The "how" and "why" of the story are afterthoughts so it ends up just being venting space for a 16-year-old girl.

This, to me, was the whole story:

Langway and his wife, Teresa, say they have tried numerous times to bridge the gap between Hannah and her father, but that Sasscer refused to let Teresa be around Hannah, a stipulation Langway would not agree to.

"It hurt Rod and I couldn't even show him how much it hurt me," Teresa Langway said. "It's just a tragedy for Hannah. Everybody would have welcomed Hannah. We all would have loved her. We waited for years and years."

The Sasscers dispute this assertion. Sasscer said she is willing to allow Teresa to meet Hannah without her being present.

And? Expand on that. Is there some bitter tension there? Does Sasscer say "That's ridiculous I've invited Rod and Teresa to dinner numerous times?" What was Sasscer's reaction to Teresa Langway's "we all would have loved her" statement? We'll never know.

Those three short paragraphs are the entire "why" and "how," and they were buried on page three of a five page piece.

I'd be fine with the article if its focus was the conflict between Langway and mother Sasscer, even though it'd be a bit smutty. I'd also be fine if it was a personal profile of the girl or a story of her perseverance despite her family situation, but they glossed over both of those things, too. So really, what's the article about? Langway has an estranged daughter and she hates him. That's it. Is that really deserving of being in The Washington Post?
 

When you think of it that way...

I was reading this Bill Simmons column on the "purest" era of baseball, and while his thoughts were arbitrary, somewhat conflicting and based on little of anything that would make sense to any real baseball fan, it got me thinking.

Maybe the whole idea of purity in baseball is moot. Maybe we don't want purity in baseball.

Part of what makes baseball so great is the ridiculousness of the players. Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden almost ruining their careers with over-the-top partying, Graig Nettles "juicing" his bat with 6 superballs, Jason Grimsley crawling through an air vent to the umpires locker to swap out Albert Belle's confiscated corked bat. That kind of stuff is awesome.

It's like a bad episode of Salute Your Shorts over and over again. Except with everyone making millions of dollars and occasionally taking a break from off-the-wall camper antics to play a baseball game.

(See more crazy ways to cheat here.)

You can't tell me that every time a bat splits down the middle like it was struck by lightning that you don't honestly hope to see cork inside it.

And given the history of cheating that's surrounded the national pastime, maybe we shouldn't be in such shock and awe that the most recent generation of players has pumped themselves full of more steroids than farm cattle. Is that really any worse than swinging by the Dollar Tree, stocking up on rubber bouncy balls and stuffing them in your Louisville Slugger? It's certainly not as FUNNY, but when that's the precedent maybe it's only natural that the players have veered closer and closer to a look that's straight out of WWE. After all, weren't the rainbow metallic Ric Flair and Hulkamaniac stickers in the 25-cent vending machine right next to the Super Balls?
 

Hershey Bears pull my all-time hockey pet peeve

In last night's Game 5 of the Calder Cup Finals, the Hershey Bears lost 3-2 to the Manitoba Moose. The Bears still hold a 3-2 series lead, but they'll have to win one of two in Winnipeg if they are going to hoist their 10th Calder Cup.

The thing about this game that really irks me is the way the score got to 3-2.

The Moose led 2-1 late in the game, and the Bears pulled goalie Michal Neuvirth with about a minute and a half left to play. Manitoba scored almost immediately, making it 3-1 with 1:21 left. Game over. That's it. You've just shortened the game by 81 seconds.

Bears defenseman John Carlson added a goal with 31 seconds left to make it 3-2, but it was meaningless at that point.

This situation is the perfect example of why I am so against pulling the goalie -- or at least pulling the goalie until it's truly a last ditch effort.

I'm not saying Carlson's goal ties it if they don't pull Neuvirth, because there's no telling how the events really would have unfolded if the Moose don't score that 3rd goal. In all likelihood, it would have just ended 2-1 instead of 3-2. But you give yourself a much better chance of tying the score if you don't allow the game to basically be cut 81 seconds short.

Down one goal late in the game, time was the Bears' most precious resource, and they gave a bunch of it away.

I get that pulling the goalie gives you the best chance to score a goal, but it also gives the other team a FAR better chance to score and all but end the game. Given the odds that the other team pots one in your yawning net, pulling the goalie should really be a last resort. With 1:30 left in a one-goal game, is it really last resort time yet? There's plenty of time to generate a few good chances 5-on-5 in that span.

I wish some NHL coach would just say, "You know what? I'm never going to pull the goalie for the extra attacker." Just to see how his team's comebacks in the final 90 seconds stack up against other teams.

I'd be willing to bet he'd fare better than teams that pull the goalie all the time, because for every game a team ties with their goalie pulled, there are probably at least five where they get scored on with 30+ seconds left on the clock, killing any comeback hopes.

The cons just outweigh the pros when it comes to pulling the goalie when down one goal.

Now why won't anyone believe me?