J.D. Drew

Editor's Note : We swear ... this is not a Bill Simmons Watchdog Blog.

Between 2004-2006, J.D. Drew offered up .282/.403/.487/.890 in 600 at-bats with men on base. He hit 24 home-runs, walked 126 times and k'd 126 times in those situations, driving in 187 runs. With the bases empty, Drew was a better hitter (.303/.426/.572/.998), but he remained a productive hitter with runners on. To put that .890 ops in context, last season, only 9 NL and 15 MLB outfielders logged an ops that high; Drew, of course, was one of them. Overall, fewer than 40 MLB players were that productive.

Between 2004-2006, Drew was a harder out with men on and two-out. His numbers ... .297/.437/.518/.955. In those 222 at-bats, he hit 10 home-runs, walked 53 times, and k'd 37. Clearly, the man's good.

Well, unless stats lie. In The *cough* Boston Sports Guy's latest running diary - this time on Matsuzaka's first Sox start - Simmons, who appears to pride himself on the truthiness of his claims, writes this of a two-out, runners-on Drew at-bat,

11:19 -- You're not gonna believe this, but J.D. Drew took a called third strike to end the inning.

(Note: Dodgers, Braves and Cardinals fans everywhere are nodding and saying, "Yup ... been there, done that.")

Go figure.

peace love gap,
Johnny Hatchett

Strange A.M.

This morning, before I even took my morning tea, I discovered the following :

• The third-best shortstop in NY might be building a mansion in my humble hometown.
• CelticsBlog.com linked my previous post on Mr. Bill Simmons, sending me more readers than I've had in the previous four months combined. Quite generous.

As I wrote my previous post on the Sports Guy, I looked up - then left out from that entry - a stat that "proves" that the Celtics are (slightly) more competitive than their record indicates. The Celtics are "only" the 6th worst team in the NBA when ranked by point differential. In other words, though they have the second worst record in the league, day-to-day, they are more competitive than five other teams in the league.

Nope, the Celtics aren't even mediocre, but they're not that historically bad ... & Simmons' plan for Celtic-success - go out screaming or swinging - would have only made some close, tough losses less close.

peace love gap
Johnny Hatchett

Jemele Hill raises & drops issue..

Red Sox spring training - all sorts of non-events, like Julio Lugo being bananas about Boston - keeps the news on Tom Brady's person life on, as they say, the back burner. (It's actually the way-back burner, not making the top headline on the Patriot's page @ Boston.com.)

Discussing the "baby-mama drama" that Brady &, earlier, Matt Leinart have gotten themself into, Jemele Hill wonders, & then proceeds to ignore her wonderment,

So, what's going on here? Does ESPN The Magazine need to do a Where's (White) Daddy cover story? [In 1998, Sports Illustrated had a cover story about athletes having babies out of wedlock and that feature focused predominantly on black athletes.] Do white NFL quarterbacks now represent the new at-risk baby-daddy population?

What I'm wondering about is how Bill Simmons is going to spin the news. One of Simmons' (many) running joke comes at the expense of N.B.A. players. Less than a week ago, Page 2's Alpha Male wrote one of the things we "know" about the N.B.A. All-Star Game's setting is that it will inspire

2. Every ovulating groupie within a 12-hour vicinity will be making the weekend drive to Vegas to hopefully get impregnated by an NBA player -- a list that includes every hooker, stripper and jock-sniffing female between 16 and 40 from Vegas, Reno, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Phoenix and every city and town in the Los Angeles area. To its credit, the NBA is recommending that all players wear two condoms at once, even during the day and when they're sleeping.

(Don't try this at home : medical professionals urge you not to wear two condoms at once.)

There's not much that I want to say about The Sports Guys' comments. Simmons likes to repeat himself &, in this case, I'm not sure why this repetition is amusing or pleasurable. I'll just leave it at that. (To be clear : I'm not requesting that Leinart & Brady get their "images" pan-fried by the media as relentessly as the average N.B.A. player about whom Simmons jokes. I just kind of wish everyone had Brady's access to a teflon-image.)

By the way, on this evening's P.T.I., Michael Wilbon said that the news on Brady wouldn't hurt his "Golden Boy" image, because it's 2007 & this kinda of thing is fine. Apparently, Wilbon doesn't read Simmons' writing on N.B.A. players.

peace love gap,
Johnny Hatchett

Johnny Hatchett makes up for lost time.

Editor's Note: Johnny Hatchett is making up for lost time. He'll be back soon.

The inspiration for this blog came from myriad writers employed by THE network (ESPN). I visit THE network's site compulsively; frequently, I read articles in which I have no interest & check NBA & NFL boxscores before any significant statistics accumulate. Tuning into the site keeps me from tuning into my life, it's true. Keeps me from being mindful of my situation - &, though I've liked that, I'm trying to return myself to something resembling mindfulness. Part of that mindfulness involves me slowing my web use, checking it for motivations & all that.

As I've become aware of THE network's role in / effect on my living brain, I've simultaneously become aware of the nasty dialogues & sub-texts circulating in our sports KINGDOM. This catching-up is a blunted, power-reflexive blotter of the assumptions, stereotypes, & code-words in my mindful attention. These are why I'm writing now, in our recent past, and why I'll write again.

Editor's note: Sometimes Johnny Hatchett gets upset @ writers & bloggers who don't work for ESPN.com. He strives to be an equal opportunity critic.

1) Page 2's alpha-male reads The Bell Curve every night before falling asleep in his Sports Guy Mansion.

Bill Simmons might not be a racist, but he sure says things that sound racist. In his NFL Preview, The Sports Guy questions the intellectual capabilities of four men - Art Shell, Herm Edwards, Aaron Brooks, & Offensive Rookie of the Year, Vince Young. All four men are African-American. One of these men is coaching an AFC playoff team. Another made a miracle playoff run. The other two are Raiders &, white or black, that ain't good.

I'm not familiar enough with any of these men - nor their NFL coaching & playing capabilities - to evaluate their performances. Apparently, Bill Simmons is &, according to this Boston-educated writer, these men are dumb, possibly / probably too dumb to be coaching & playing professional football. Hmm.

Simmons concludes his NFL Preview entirely unaware of his critiques of NFL intelligence & four African-American men's lack of it ... entirely oblivious to the history of African-American athletes, African-Americans in general, and claims about intelligence. "Intelligence" - and it deserves those quotations, because it's never really clear what anyone means by that word - has served as a social gate-keeper, restricting African-American's access to jobs, both in & out of professional sports. Simmons' mindless discussion of these men's intelligence is regrettable; he speaks glibly of them & their minds ... with no critical discussion of what "mathematical skills" an NFL coach actually needs or why an NFL quarterback needs to score high on a pre-draft standardized test.


2) T.O. tried to kill a little piece of me too

I have no link because the link is gone, but on 9.27.2006, THE network.COM called Terrell Owen's suicide attempt a "bizzare twist" and provided a link to the "lowpoints" of the man's career. (At the time, T.O. had not told us that no suicide attempt occured.) Yes, the man says some stupid things &, in so much as THE network & others like it allow him to be a distraction, he's a distraction. &, yes, he started dropping passes after his overdose. But what's so funny about peace, love, and deceny? With its distasteful (disgusting!) choice of words, THE network showed its hand.
...
...
(Wait.)
(Wait.)
(Prepare for some kind of obvious statement.)
T.O. the bad teammate, T.O. the bad, bad human is as much a production of THE network's need for spectacle as he is a production of his on-the-field antics & off-the-field-miscues. On a day when he mingled with real mortality, showed some serious softness in that six-pack armor, we had nothing but spectacular cynicism.

&, after the suicide chatter settled, T.O. met us with spectacular cynicism of his own.

:: more proof that THE network does not get it ::

::Chucky K's reasonable take on T.O. ::

3) I know what Albert Pujols should do with his mouth

In September & October, Albert Pujols said some things that didn't sound so nice. He called out the scout who urged the Cardinals to draft him. Then he dissed two winners - Tom Glavine & Ryan Howard. So what did we say back to Albert?

Albert Pujols should keep his mouth shut.

Pujols should shut the hell up.

Take your championship ring and shut up.

Bad enough that, in one case, the man was taken out of context. Worse that a bunch of moralists who have jobs & hobbies & audiences because many of us value exposure to opinions, even when those opinions wreak havoc on the neurons that constitute our better judgement, want only silence & quality at-bats from the man who should be the National League's reigning, two-time Most Valuable Player.

I'll disagree with a professional athlete when I want to. Chances are, these guys views and my personal ones don't align. But to tell one of these men to just "shut up" is to reduce him to the spectacle of his bodily performance & to deny him the capacities of his mind. It is, I believe, to commit (symbolic) violence against another human.

So ... ahem ... fuck off.

4) Michael Irvin on the latent benefits of American slavery.

You know what the man said.

I figured that Irvin would be fired. So did pretty much everyone else. But he wasn't. Double standard? Maybe. But what I wish THE network would have done, instead of admonishing Irvin & doing...well, nothing really, is given us an hour long (or more!) television seminar on how & how being African-American & being white biologically does or doesn't produce athletes. A lot of important people - Joe Paterno & Fisher DeBerry among them - believe in the biological superiority of the African-American athlete. This generalization - which is often coupled with a generalization about African-American intelligence - has a significant history & it's one worth telling & exposing. Let's open ourselves up to an intelligent and informed debate, rather than allowing it to remain an unspeakable theory in the back of so many coaches, athletes, analysts, and fans minds.

5)The Brawl.

Everything's been said. Read Michael Wilbon's article & try to forget that he suggests that the NBA Commish should run the sport to satisfy white people who avoid public areas where African-American men gather.

Sincerely,
Johnny Hatchett

an unconfession to Jemele Hill (ESPN)

Editor's Note: Jemele Hill is a Page 2 columnist at ESPN.com. Her first article appeared on that site on 14 November 2006.

Dear Jemele Hill,

My brother jumped the gun. Immediately after reading your first article @ ESPN.com's Page 2, he emailed you, practically bubbling over with his suspicions - though he took that bubbly feeling to be something more certain - that THE sports network had hired you to fill Jason Whitlock's massive, African-American void.

You wrote my brother back, saying, he tells me, that you were hired to write. And you are no network's tool.

He stills maintains that you are.

Less than two months have passed since Page 2 published your first article. Since then, I've argued with my brother about your role at ESPN.com, been underwhelmed by your followup piece, and, more recently, provoked by your brief manifesto on sports, race, and violence.

Now, I write to you about something else. Not the sports you cover & I follow, but to express my sadness that you - in your debut article for ESPN.com - had to account for your views because of the color of your skin. In that article, you wrote,

"You want to know what kind of black person am I? Am I one of those? Yes, I discuss race openly, honestly and, hopefully, intelligently. Do I play the race card? Depends on what else is on the card table.">

Make no mistake, my sadness is not because you do not believe enough in my "colorblindness" to avoid having to, wanting to, & needing to write about your black skin. Rather, it is that you, an African-American woman, and never your white colleagues, have to communicate the relationship between personal views and race.

Now & then, I try to fill that white void, by imagining the article Bill Simmons, the Page 2 alpha-male, might have written if white people, &, especially, white men, had to confess, like you did, to the role of our white skin in our white lives, the role of our white lives in the reproduction of our white racism, & the effect of our white eyes (leading to white brains) in our sport fandom.

But I don't know what the man would say, because we - white people, white men, white writers - are rarely asked to ante up and show our hand
when someone plays the race card.

So that's what I intend to do in this here blog, write on white, write on men, write on white men & the things they say & the things I think.

Sincerely,
my first unconfession, undone,
Johnny Hatchett