Why does baseball, as played by the Yankees on YES, remain such a closely guarded secret, a national security issue? Why is the baseline between home and first so often restricted, as if it’s Area 51 of UFO intrigue.
Why can’t certain on-field, in-game things be shown, addressed and discussed — let alone mentioned? We’re big boys and girls. We can handle it.
John Flaherty by now should have established himself as a valued speaker of Yankees baseball. He is pleasant, modest, eager to share and, as ex-MLB catchers often demonstrate as broadcasters, alert to what’s going on — from the dugouts, to the field, to the bullpens.
But his candor — and what’s more important to intelligent audiences? — seems lost to selectivity.
Tuesday vs. the Mariners during the second inning in cold, windy Yankee Stadium, Alfonso Soriano popped to shortstop Willie Bloomquist, who had to do the hokey-pokey to deal with that wind.
“Fly balls tonight are going to be an adventure,” Flaherty said.
OK, then why not tell us whether Soriano, who often doesn’t bother to run to first, bothered to run to first? On YES, the last time we saw Soriano, he barely had left the box, having demonstrated no sense of urgency or recognition of the windy conditions.
In the sixth, the weather no less severe, Soriano again hit an infield pop up and again initially appeared to have no interest in running. After catcher Mike Zunino staggered about before making the catch — in fair territory — we again were provided no word or recorded view as to whether Soriano bothered to run.
Flaherty, I well recall, ran everything out. And for good reason: That’s how winning baseball is played.
Also, Tuesday on YES, we learned something new about Robinson Cano.
In the top of the first, after Cano ran harder to first against the Yankees than he ever did as a Yankee — “He smelled a hit” on a chopper between the mound and first, Flaherty explained — Michael Kay said of Cano, “He got so much abuse for not running to first when he was here.”
Really? I can’t recall that. The harshest criticism was the infrequent and very mild noting that Cano might’ve run a tad harder on that there play. Cano’s standard stylish minimalism mostly was ignored — or rationalized and excused.
But baseball fans saw it — couldn’t miss it — all season and every season, and recognized YES’ announcers engaged in a feckless, foolish cover-up. Or is it that YES’ experts genuinely felt that reaching first before the ball does is unimportant, and turning doubles into singles, and triples into doubles is nit-picking.
Cano “got so much abuse”? From whom? He earned plenty, received none.
Thursday, after Cano hustled to first to beat a double play and earn an RBI, Flaherty said Cano “was criticized a lot in his Yankee days for not hustling down the line.”
No he wasn’t. That’s revisionist nonsense. In fact, given scores of opportunities to do so, Flaherty rarely mentioned it.
Only after last season and only after Cano had scorned the Yankees was the secret declassified.
Scrutiny of private chats would sully many
Another thing about this Donald Sterling calamity:
How many among the morally outraged media, politicians, pro athletes and even late night TV hosts who drew laughs burying Sterling in their monologues could withstand having their private conversations recorded then publicly disseminated?
How many could survive such a thing or would come out of it looking better — or even the same — as before?
How many big-shots who demand the media “respect my privacy” have stood up to say that while Sterling’s a repugnant bigot and doddering old fool, “catching” him in such a manner seems downright un-American, unfair?
And when did “TMZ” get clearance to act like an extension of the FBI or the KGB? Or was TMZ — which specializes in ambushing the prominent, ex-prominent and hopeful prominent — just doing its part to protect America from within, a branch of Homeland Security?
But the ends justify the means. Now that Sterling, who in an instant became Public Enemy No. 1, was caught then quickly and publicly executed, we and our loved ones can feel that much safer.
Maybe shorter is better
Russell Wilson, the 5-foot-11 QB, last season led the Seahawks to the NFL championship, including a pounding of the Broncos in the Super Bowl.
Yet, with so many football experts stuck for something to say pre-NFL Draft, it’s now suggested that Johnny Manziel, at around 6-foot, may be too short to succeed in the NFL.
Does it strike any of these experts that both Wilson and Manziel have succeeded because of their height and not in spite of it? If each had been 6-4, they would be completely different and likely far less versatile and creative QBs!
♦ When Seattle’s Robinson Cano batted in the top of the first inning Tuesday at Yankee Stadium, Yankees radio voice John Sterling claimed to be flabbergasted to hear booing. He said he couldn’t understand it. Really, John, no clue at all?
♦ Happy 83rd birthday Tuesday to Willie Mays — and doubly so from Hackensack’s Joe DePierro, who soon will be 82. Heck, Joe’s such a Mays fan he made sure there are two “24s” in his phone number!
♦ Any stat any time: After Philadelphia’s Wayne Simmonds scored his Game 6 hat trick against the Rangers, MSG’s Sam Rosen dutifully noted “the last time a Flyer had a hat trick against the Rangers in the playoffs, Eric Lindros in the Conference finals in 1997.” What a coincidence. 1997 was the last time the teams played each other in the playoffs.
♦ As for Larry Johnson’s suggestion to create a blacks-only owned and operated pro basketball league, first question: Would team-owner Larry Johnson, the player, see what kind of deal he could make for himself in the multi-racial league?
♦ With Mariners-Yankees and Mets-Phillies played in miserable weather Tuesday, the Yanks and Phils announced a combined attendance of 65,673, which, given what was seen on TV, was off by roughly 50,000.
♦ Jon Kruk — who spends a lot of time speaking of hollow, superficial nonsense as ESPN’s latest “Sunday Night Baseball” analyst — is on the precipice of becoming ESPN’s latest bad idea.
♦ At this point, shouldn’t the talk be less about how much money Carmelo Anthony will accept to remain a Knick, and more on how he plans to play if he remains a Knick? Does he need more or less money to shoot less and pass more?