In reality, draft not meant for TV
They're players you've never seen and barely know. Baseball is better off keeping its draft off the air.
In case you missed the NBA lottery two weeks ago -- and for your sake, I certainly hope you did -- there were these strange few moments when the TV cameras focused on all the team representatives sitting at their cubicles. They all looked they were on the Hollywood Squares. I kept expecting to hear someone say, "I'll take George Gund to block.''
(And I'm not sure whether the Cleveland Cavaliers won the first pick in the draft or a fur coat from Dicker and Dicker of Beverly Hills.)
Disturbing images like those are why I like the baseball draft the way it is. They're why I want the baseball draft to stay the way it is: Simple. Old-fashioned. And non-televised.
My respected colleague and good friend Jayson Stark argues that baseball should promote itself better by televising its draft like the NFL and NBA. But no matter what he and others might envision, the baseball draft is never going to be the NBA or the NFL draft. It can't be.
Fans get excited over the NFL and NBA drafts for two reasons. One, they are already familiar with the players, having seen almost all of them compete for their favorite teams for several years at the collegiate level (or in the case of LeBron James, at the high school level). We've seen them in the Final Four. We've seen them in the Rose Bowl. We've seen them at the Heisman Trophy ceremony. We've worn their replica jerseys. We know them almost as well as Mel Kiper Jr. does.
Secondly, we know these players will be helping our local teams the very next season. We know that we will see them make a significant impact within the same calendar year. We know we'll be lining up for their bobblehead dolls within a couple months.
That simply isn't the case with baseball. No one other than Baseball America' subscribers could pick these guys out of a lineup even if provided with dental records, fingerprints, retina scans, gait recognition technology, baby pictures and caller ID. And even the few fans who recognize the players realize they won't see them play in a city larger than Scranton for years to come. Half the first-rounders won't reach the majors for several years and the others will never reach it.
Look, it would be one thing if televising the draft means we could watch Billy Beane spontaneously combust because his scouting director picked a high school pitcher in the second round. But that isn't what we're going to see. We're just going to see teams picking players we've never seen and studio analysts critiquing players they've never seen, either.
People can talk all they want about just televising the first round for the fans who want to see it. That may be how it would start but trust me, before long we would be staring at the assembled scouting directors sitting uncomfortably on an artificial set and hearing Bud Selig tell Brian Sabean, "Circle gets the square.''
Here's what will happen if baseball starts televising its draft. We'll see some very good high school players wearing some very bad suits. We'll see teams feeling more pressure to rush players to the majors because of the additional attention paid to the draft. And when the ratings turn out to be lower than Phil Donahue's, we'll read columnists moan about the game's supposed declining popularity.
Who needs that?
Face it. No matter how people try, the baseball draft can't be what the NBA and the NFL drafts are. Nor should it even try.
Do we have to put everything on TV just because we can? Do we have to "market'' everything just because there's a window open on the programming schedule? Does everything in sports have to be overpackaged, overpriced and overhyped beyond all recognition and importance?
And most of all, do we really need to provide an opportunity for Bobby V. to look smug for an entire weekend?
While I don't pretend to understand all the nuances of television -- heck, I don't even understand the rules to "American Idol'' -- I do know one thing. The last thing we need is yet another forum to excessively hype players who have yet to accomplish a thing in pro sports.
I don't need to see the draft. I can wait until the kid plays in the majors before I need to hear how good he is.
Boxscore line of the week
Some days it just doesn't pay to get out of bed and on the field. Ask Minnesota's Kenny Rogers. He took the mound Sunday against Seattle and allowed hits to the first seven batters he faced.
 | |
| Austin |
But at least Reed could say that some of those hits were bloopers and seeing-eye singles. Not so for Cincinnati's Jeff Austin. Starting against Atlanta last Wednesday, Austin allowed back-to-back-to-back home runs to the first three batters he faced, the second pitcher in major-league history to do so. His line:
.2 IP, 4 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 1 BB, 0 K, 4 HR
It was the second start in a row Austin failed to get out of the first inning, allowing 10 runs, seven hits, four walks and retiring only two batters in those two games.
Lies, damn lies and statistics
Since the Yankees last played at Wrigley Field during the 1938 World Series, the Friendly Confines have played host to four World Series games while Yankee Stadium has played host to 74. ... When Roger Clemens won his first game in 1984, his opponent last Sunday, Jeremy Bonderman, was 1 year old, and his opponent this Saturday, Kerry Wood, was 6. ... The Blue Jays are 25-11 since the World Health Organization issued its SARS warning for the city of Toronto, improving their record from 7-15. ... The White Sox are holding their annual sleepover at Comiskey Park this weekend while the Giants are holding a sleepover at their park June 25. The cost for the Sox sleepover is $250 and the Giants is $300. Sounds expensive? At the prompting of great baseball fan Linda Vessa, I compared it to the price of a room at SkyDome hotel overlooking the field during the Pirates series. The rack rate for such a room runs from $253 to $410, which includes a bed, a private bathroom and a TV.
From left field
Sure, everyone is looking forward to the Yankees-Cubs series at Wrigley Field this weekend, but the real highlight to the start of interleague play is the Tigers-Padres series that opens tonight in San Diego. The two teams enter the series with a combined record of 31-81 and a .277 winning percentage. While it will be tough for either to break the 1962 Mets record for most losses in a season, they stand a chance to crack the 10 lowest losing percentages of all time.
Who will wind up with the worst record at the season's end? Our money is on San Diego, because the Padres play a high proportion of its games against the NL West while the Tigers play in the AL Central.
While we wait to find out, here are the lowest winning percentages in modern major-league history:
Year Team Record Pct. 1916 Athletics 36-117 .235 1935 Braves 38-115 .248 1962 Mets 40-120 .250 1904 Senators 38-113 .251 1952 Pirates 42-112 .273 1909 Senators 42-110 .276 1942 Phillies 42-109 .278 1932 Red Sox 43-111 .279 1939 Browns 43-111 .279 1941 Phillies 43-111 .279 1928 Phillies 43-109 .283
Jim Caple is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
- Rumors: Miguel Cabrera on the trading block
- Keith Law: The top 50 free agents
- Olney: Miguel Cabrera market
- KEG: Early 2010 look-aheads
