Bowling Philosophy-January 2011

PPBA Tour-Reconnecting with a Lost Friend

by Thomas Scherrer

"When you come swimming into view/and I'm hanging on your words like I always used to do."
-"The Background", Third Eye Blind

In some respects, this is an obsession.  Like all obsessions, it is a gift as well a curse.  A gift for giving you purpose and pleasure in a sometimes sick and cynical world; a curse for giving you the blind passion to follow it even to its inevitable death.  These are the opening words to how I start chronicling the 2011 bowling calendar year-a mixed bag of emotions.  Seemingly, bowling has given its hardcore fans the feeling of being an on again-off again lover: the emotions and the dirty talk in private is great and keeps you hooked, but they are also crazy and insane, whether it be your wandering or lying eyes or you keep waiting for it to mature and grow up or maybe you have had enough of the lies and the BS and the late nights out with no phone call.  You're done...you say you're done...you tell your friend you are moving on....you have to get on with you life.  Then suddenly, that same lover comes back with the following: they say they have cleaned themselves up, modified their expectations, stopped being jealous or crazy or just plain immature and are looking to settle down and they want you to be a part of it.  They also start off with a bang: they show you their commitment with a key to their apartment or their car and they want you to trust them.  The highs won't be as high, they claim but the lows won't be as low.

You are not done.

The Tournament of Champions is that key, the PBA is that lover, and the quarter-million dollar check to the winner is their "I've still got it" moment to show you that all is not lost.  This high will be far greater and more rewarding.  Glad I turned bowling into a Carrie Bradshaw column.

Come Saturday afternoon, a bowler's life will truly change when they hoist the PBA's marquee trophy and its largest payout to a winner ever and the main question that will be on the minds of everyone is whether or not this change in the lover is something you will see once a year or is it a once-in-a-lifetime moment?  A flash in the pan?  One more notch to look out and say Damn, there's gotta be something better out there.  Truth be told, is there anything better?  Can this year's Tournament of Champions truly save bowling's erratic and often maligned past from becoming an footnote to its obituary?  Hard to tell.  There are some facts that need to be presented about this week's epic major bowling event: a) There is a million dollar prize fund for the TOC; b) The winner will might make more money in one week than they have in their entire careers bowling and c) After this event, bowling will either go back to the same song and dance or make the turn towards respectability.

The PBA has made it clear by their motives (not necessarily by their words) that they have put all their eggs in a basket with the TOC and in some respects, you cannot blame them.  The recent events of the TOC in the last few years has given PBA fans the truly good and grand that bowling has to offer: clutch bowling, dramatic comebacks, dramatic collapses, dramatic failures, glorious drama, and of course with Kelly Kulick-history.  The hope is that all of the past TOC moments come to fruition with more money on the line plus the coverage of ABC returning to man the the televised finals after a 14 year hiatus, which makes for the casual fan to stand up and say Wow, maybe bowling is making a return for the better.  Let's go take our kids out to the lanes tonight and have some fun.  Again, hope and faith are only so strong of words.  I have belief that this will work out, but how do I truly know?  The truth is that we won't know until much further down the line whether this one week could save bowling.  Too many insiders have already said the simple and obscene: They sold the soul of the TOC to make this happen.  What they mean is having all types of PBA winners (pro, regional, senior, and women's series) be eligible to participate.  My answer to that-as a passionate caretaker of the sport-is to say so what??  Let's not be so cynical and obtuse about all of this for a moment and just savor what we are going to see on Saturday afternoon in Las Vegas.  We are going to see a bowler become a changed man for life.  The lottery ticket the PBA hopes will pay off for many years to come.  Believe in it.  Trust in it.  Have faith in it.  If not for the PBA, then maybe for yourself.

 

Sports in General

A HOFfman?
by Thomas Scherrer

I come before you a torn fan of baseball.  I torn and tortured fan of a game I love so much. So much, that I still envision my life surrounding standing on a major league field and toeing the rubber against Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter, with the dream of striking out a Hall of Fame hitter on a nasty circle change or maybe getting him looking at a backdoor 12-to-6 breaking ball.  I also envision stepping up to the plate trying to drive in a clutch two out hit against Roy Halliday, Tim Lincecum, or Josh Beckett (again, I would say all are Hall of Fame caliber, pending disaster).  Perhaps 9th inning, down a run, runners on 2nd and 3rd with two out and I've got to find a way to scratch out a hit against Mariano Rivera, the future Hall of Fame closer and greatest closer of all time.  

Notice that I didn't mention getting that huge hit in the 9th off of Trevor Hoffman.

And this is where I am torn.  I sit here a fan of the great American game uncertain that in 5 years, will Trevor Hoffman be inducted into Cooperstown into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Why write about this?  Two reasons: 1) In recent days, I watched the Baseball Writers Association of America induct Roberto Alomar (easily deserving) and Bert Blyleven (openly debatable, however I don't know why he wasn't in sooner) and not induct Mark McGwire (steroids or no steroids, you remember how great it was to watch the chase and so do those writers, who mostly made their careers off of the Summer of '98, so they are hypocrites), Rafael Palmiero (ditto double-standard), and Jeff Bagwell (an atrocity of the highest regard considering everything I just mentioned by writers for their justification of keeping the previous players mentioned out of the Hall of Fame) despite their prolific, if not tainted numbers given the era they played in.  I am in a state of complete confusion by the men who vote for Baseball Hall of Fame in that they seem to be claiming their supremacy as caretakers of the game of baseball, yet look the other way while moral debates are at place for the candidacy of each Hall of Fame player (yes, I mentioned each and every one of them), and 2) my girlfriend heard Trevor Hoffman's retirement and the subsequent Hall of Fame chatter for Hoffman, and heard my subtle groan and said, "I wanna see what have to say about it".  Green light and go.

First of all, I want to say this about Trevor Hoffman.  In an era where players are suspiciously and morally corrupt, Hoffman has maintained a distinguished career, filled with class, humility, and respect from his fellow peers and yes, baseball writers.  His numbers truly speak for themselves and in baseball, tangible statistics help us distinguish the elite players more so than any other team sport.  These are the simple facts when it comes to Hoffman's career:

1. Of all closer with 350+ saves, Hoffman trails only Rivera in save % (89% to 88.8%).
2. His career WHIP and K/9 inn. is better than that of the previous career saves leader, Lee Smith (Hoffman: 9.4 K/9 inn, 1.07 WHIP; Smith: 8.7 K/9 inn, 1.27 WHIP).
3. Of course his career saves (601).
4. 40 Save Seasons: 9, including two separate 40+ save seasons for 4 consecutive years.
5. Three-year peak (1998-2000): 70.2 innings, 45.3 saves, 0.93 WHIP, 2.21 ERA

All of those tangible numbers reflect Hoffman's career for longevity and certain enshrinement into Cooperstown in 5 years.  However, I am here to say stop it, stop this right now folks.  If you think for one moment that these numbers translate into a first ballot Hall of Fame baseball player, especially in this era, then I really have no idea what to make of supposedly, the greatest Hall of Fame in sports.

I'll qualify this first and foremost by saying that I am a real hard grader for who a Hall of Fame player should be.  Anyone who read my Chris Barnes article (April 2010) as to whether or not Barnes was first ballot HOF worthy got some praise and some criticism, most privately from someone who I trust in bowling circles, who read it and said to me, "If you think Barnes isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer, you need to either open your eyes or stop bowling".  In related news, this comment was not made to me by a left handed bowler (Quick Note: Barnes has openly and nationally on television spewed vitriol toward southpaws with stupid comments such as, "...3 pins left on the lane every shot". And no, that did not at all help push myself away from Barnes being a first ballot Hall of Fame bowler-I try to stick to facts, thank you).  Digressing back to Hoffman, it is clear that numbers suggest he is a Hall of Fame player.  Now I ask you the most important intangible questions surrounding Hoffman's baseball career:

1. Intangible #1: Postseason career.  In 1998, we look no further to our argument.  The Padres were going up against the 114-win Yankees in the World Series and there was some logical debate as to who was the better closer, Rivera or Hoffman?  We forget that Rivera wore goat horns in the '97 Divisional Series against Cleveland and that Hoffman was coming off a 53-save season and was a legitimate shut-down force late in games.  However, look back at Hoffman's 1996 Postseason for some extra background info.  Two appearances, no saves, one loss, 1.2 innings pitched, 10.80 ERA.  Now let's flash forward to the '98 Series...yes, Game 3...yes, Scott Brosius
2. Intangible #2: Dominance.  Certainly, any comparison to Rivera is rather dumb considering that you can make the argument that Rivera might be the greatest pitcher of this generation (yes, you can excuse me while I go run across the Mass Pike in my Mets apparel), closer or starter but was Hoffman even the best closer in his own league???  Billy Wagner's stats don't nearly compare in terms of saves-601 to 422 in favor of Hoffman-but Wagner's ability to totally humiliate hitters was evident in his K/9 inn (11.88), WHIP (1.00), and ERA (2.31) in relation to Hoffman (9.4, 1.06, and 2.87, respectively).  This isn't lefty bias as well for Wagner, his postseason numbers are equally horrific or worse (1-1, 3 saves, 1.97 WHIP, and 10.03 ERA).  Is that Hall of Fame worthy for Daddy Wags?  No, and I still feel that Wagner at his peak was better and more dominant than Hoffman was.  
3. Intangible #3: Star Factor: I remember this topic coming up when Mike Mussina finally notched his 20 win season and in his final season, to bring his win total to 270 which is 33rd best in MLB history.  Was Moose a Hall of Famer?  Well, he could be but my gosh, I don't ever remember turning on the television and saying I've gotta turn on the Orioles/Yankees game, Mussina is pitching.  I said it for Pedro, Schlling, Beckett, Clemens, and they'll be Hall of Famers (Clemens should be, and I just ducked the avalanche in Worcester) .  I'm saying it currently for Halliday, Cliff Lee, Lincecum, Hernandez, Johan, and Lester.  I also tune in to see Rivera and Papelbon and Brian Wilson close games out.  I didn't keep the TV on to see Mussina pitch or Jamie Moyer or to see John Franco close games, but I have a dirty secret: I did stop to see Hoffman close a game...which for some reason was a big game and a big blown save was sure to follow.
4. Intangible #4: Roided Up.  This goes back to the NYT list and the 100+ players on that list.  Until I know who is actually on that list (and now with leaks, it should be everyone-either no one or everyone so you might as well let the whole list out and let everyone decide the player's merit), how can I truly be objective when it comes to any ballplayer?  If I had a vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame-don't worry, I still have time to get one-I couldn't decide how to fairly judge a ballplayer.  That kills me.  Best and most personal case for me is Mike Piazza.  His stats as a catcher in this or any generation are truly remarkable.  From an offensive standpoint, he is the greatest catcher ever, a truly exciting player to watch and see, had tremendously clutch moments (not as many though as most would want), and was a guy I'd watch play every night.  But...his numbers came in the Age of Enlarged Heads, he had some freaky injuries during his career, and again...we just don't know if Piazza was clean.  I can hope that he is as his body did fail him into his late 30's and he was not the same force.  As for Hoffman, again I don't know for sure.  He pitched in a high stress position for over a decade with little or no drop-off, pitching effectively well into his 40's and maintaining his velocity for a majority of it.  Eyebrows raised?  Question marks?  You hate to say yes, but everyone who played in this era is judged to be guilty until proven innocent.
5. Intangible #5: The Question.  I was always told when it came to whether or not a player was Hall of Fame bound, the question was always put as Do you have to think about it?  It makes perfect sense in reality.  This IS the Baseball Hall of Fame, right?  The elite of the elite Hall of Fame?  Anyone who you have to question certainly isn't Hall of Fame worthy.  And that is where the beginning of my article was going.  I am torn.  Therefore, if I am torn then I am certainly not voting a person in.  Suppose I ignore the steroid issue totally and I take every player in today's game and said who is a Hall of Famer, without thinking at all, I'd say Pujols, Jeter, A-Rod, Manny (suspect I know, but the most dangerous right handed hitter I've ever seen), Rivera, Beckett, Halliday, Ichiro, Thome and that is about it.  Players like Andy, Wagner, Ortiz, Helton, Moyer, Chipper, Johan, Berkman, Texieria, Posada, and Damon you have to think about and Miggy Cabrera, Hamilton, Lee, Sabbathia, Howard, Mauer, Lincecum, Hernandez, Wright, and Cano are a few of the players that are too young to consider at this point.  The point is that there are a lot of players that if their careers ended today, you'd have to debate on whether or not they'd be HOFers and that to me is not good enough.

Does all of this mean that Trevor Hoffman isn't worthy of HOF consideration?  Of course it isn't.  Chances are that in 5 years, when the debate reaches its full apex, Hoffman will be voted in to the elite of the elite.  Jayson Stark thinks so, Buster Olney thinks so, Tim Kurkjian thinks so, but I don't think so.  I don't have a vote and they do.  Maybe that is a good thing for the time being.