The Legend of Mark "the bird" Fydrich

I'm late here in my memorial, but when I was a kid one of the most exciting things to talk about was Mark "The Bird" Fidrich. Here was a guy that really got Tiger fans excited in 1976

And, believe it or not, he still is talked about as one of the most exciting players in the history of the game, even though he was basically a one year wonder.

Here are some of his feets:

• He talked to the ball on the mound, exciting baseball fans and non-baseball fans alike.


• His birdlike antics where he would bend over and smooth out the mound gave him the knick name "the bird" because he looked like Big Bird on Sesame Street.


• He was welcomed to the 1976 spring training as a non-roster invitee.


• He wont 19 games in 1976 (3rd best in AL)


• He started for the 1976 American League All Star Team.


• AL Rookie of the Year Award


• Tiger of the Year award from the Detroit baseball writers


• Tigers Rookie of the Year award from the Detroit Sports Broadcasters Association


• MLB leader in ERA (2.34)


• AL leader in complete games (24)


• Finished 2nd in AL Cy Young Award voting


• Finished 11th in AL MVP Award voting


• He had 4 shutouts his rookie year

His career basically was ended in spring training 1977 when he tore the cartilage in his knee in a fluke accident where he tripped over a drain in the outfield. While his career essentially ended at that moment, his legacy lives on.

Rest in piece "the bird." The sportsworld will never forget you.

Judging MLB and the steroid era

With the Major League Baseball All Star Break fresh on our minds, I thought I would take time today to discuss the state of baseball.

When asked by Mike Greenberg of ESPN's Mike and Mike in the Morning about the current state of baseball, George Will said he thinks the fans are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for.

Will said that the rewards of success in sports is so high now, that there is an increased temptation to cheat in order to become the best. The bad thing is, the game did not face this challenge until it was forced to.

Considering this, and considering that most of the athletes who used drugs will never come to justice, there is no way we can take away homeruns from these players. This is especially true considering you cannot erase homeruns without also changing pitching stats.

Thus, we cannot put an asterisk in the record books.

So, what baseball is forced to do now because of its inaction in the 1990s, is hope that fans continue to go to the game, and that they judge the records in light of the facts at hand. Will said he thinks baseball fans are smart enough to know who the real record holders are.

Will said that the fans know who the real homerun champs are. They know Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron didn't take any performance enhancing drugs. They know that the evidence points towards Barry Bonds as "probably" taking drugs.

It doesn't take a jury to be guilty in the court of public opinion.

Greenberg said the problem here as he sees it is, in 50 years, is that people may not remember Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron because they are not listed at the top of the home run charts -- Bonds is.

Now, back in 1919 there was the Blacksox scandal where several members of the Whitesox were involved in a gambling scan to blow the world series. Back then, there was an investigation and all players involved were kicked out of the game of baseball.

The punishment here was very controversial, but, according to baseball management at that time, this is what was needed to save the integrity of the game.

But the game was a lot different back then.

And it's not like Bonds was ever found guilty of anything, and he certainly wasn't punished by the game. It is for that reason that I would have to say that I share the same worry that Greenberg has.

In 1919, a baseball scandal was handled swiftly, and the punishment was severe. The Steroid scandal was not handled in a timely manner, and the result was that many baseball records are now held by cheaters.

Personally, I don't think that fans really care one way or another. Baseball attendance was up during the steroid era, and it was even higher last year when the scandal was out in the open. The fans want to see homeruns. The fans want to see lots of offense.

In fact, steroids made the game of baseball more fun. The Blacksox scandal made baseball less fun, especially if you were a Whitesox fan.

Plus there is this argument as Jose Canseco wrote in his book, "Juiced,": steroids don't do an athlete any good unless he has talent first. If you can't hit the ball, you won't get any benefit from steroids. But if you can hit the ball, steroids helps you stay healthy longer, and it makes you stronger.

Now that the game is clean (or supposed to be), attendance is down this year in baseball, along with the homerun totals. And, with the declining home run totals, baseball attendance has diminished too (but not by a significant margin).

I remember being a fan of baseball in the 1980s when 20 homeruns was a lot, and 30 was a ton, and 40 usually won the homerun title. I believe, that unless someone invents an undetectable performance enhancing drug, that baseball will be simplified as it was in the 1980s and before.

Will said that the crooks will continue to try to make performance enhancing drugs that will not be detected, and the good guys will continue trying to invent and discover methods of testing. He said this will be the battle behind the games from this point on.

In 1919, baseball would not have survived if people thought the games were rigged. In the 1990s, baseball was thriving in the steroid era. So, baseball turned a blind eye.

This leaves Major League Baseball with two unanswered questions:

1. Will a simplified game of baseball played by clean athletes be able to complete with other sports in our era?


2. How will future generations rate the heroes of the steroid era?

The answer will be known only by future generations. Still, I don't' think most people are will judge the game poorly because I think most people don't care either way.

I think if you asked around, most baseball fans would like to see the likes of Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons when they visit the Hall of Fame.

And that, my friends, is my baseball thought of the day.

My ideas to make the All Star Game better

There is a lot of debate about the All Star game counting. I'm sitting here at work listening to the Detroit Tigers broadcast, and the announcers are talking about how they both agree that the All Star Game should just be an exhibition, and it should not count.

I couldn't disagree more. I watched that game the other night. It was a great game. And I can honestly tell you that I would not have even bothered watching that game if it didn't mean something.

The first All Star Game was held at Comiskey Park in Chicago in 1933. The reason they had this game was so that the fans would have a chance to see all the stars of the day all in one spot. Back then, when they didn't have TV, fans never saw the players unless they went to the game.

Today, however, with TV, every baseball fan can see any baseball player no matter where in the world he is playing. So, the need to see all the stars in one place is diminished. Therefore, the need to play an All Star game is trivial.

So, why not have something to play for. Why not give All Star Game snubs a reason to play the game. And give slackers like A-Rod a reason to stay for the whole game (he left the game on Tuesday night early).

The game on Tuesday lasted 15 innings, and did not end until 1:25 a.m. That poses a problem. It poses a problem not just because of the length of the game, but because most managers want to play all the players, but at the same time they are playing to win.

K-Rod was pitching in the 9th, and he was pitching well. But, just in case the American League won the game in the bottom of the 9th, the AL manager decided to put Mariano Rivera in to the game to make sure the home town crowd had a chance to see a hometown hero.

The Tiger broadcasters say it's unfair to count the game, because the starters that are voted in are not playing at the end of the game. They also say that most players only pitch 1-2 innings, and most batters don't play long either.

Plus, the managers don't want to wear out players either.

Currently, there is a rule that a catcher can re-enter the game if he is needed. The idea here was that there always has to be a catcher. I think there should be more rules like this.

So, here are some ideas to make the All Star Game better:

1. Invite reserve players to the game, with the idea that they will only be used if the game goes into extra innings.
2. Make a rule that no pitcher can go more than three innings. If he has not yet pitched three innings, he should be allowed to re-enter the game.
3. If there are no offensive players left on the bench, and a current player has played more than six innings, a reserve player will be allowed in the game.
4. Make the All Star Break 7 days long. This way no player can use the excuse, "I wanted to spend time with my family." They will have plenty of time before and after the game to do this.

I think that's all that's needed. A problem I see with this is that some players might not want to go the the game if all they are going to be is a reserve. However, some would be more than excited at the opportunity.

And, with World Series home field advantage at stake, most players "should" be more than willing to help out.

There has been some talk of getting rid of the rule, which has been around since the first All Star Game in 1933, that a minimum of one player from each team make the team. I think all fans would like to have one player to root for. I know I did when I was a kid, and still do. My son loved watching Carlos Guillen almost hit a homerun in the game.

We certainly don't want to fix the game to the point of ruining it.

We are ready for our Detroit Tigers to triumph

The Detroit Tiger Grapefruit league is going to get underway in one of baseball's best minor league parks in Lakeland, Florida this coming Wednesday against another stud team in the New York Mets.

I have to admit that I am pumped. I know this first game is not going to be on TV, nor will I be able to listen to it on the radio, but as soon as a game is on the air I'm going to be the first person sitting in front of the boob tube.

I wasn't really thrilled about the Tigers letting Andrew Miller go, because I think he's going to be the next Randy Johnson, but prospects do not win a World Series. And when Dave Dumbrowski had an opportunity to pick up a stud pitcher in Dontrelle Willis and stud third baseman Miguel Cabrera, I'm sure hands were shaking when he sealed the deal.

The New York Mets had a similar proposition, as they dealt some prospects for the greatest of the modern pitchers Johan Santana. It's never easy to risk the future of your club, but how could you pass up such a juicy deal when the World Series is so close.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this match up will be a preview of the 2008 World Series. That would be quite swell watching my favorite team ever romp on another New York team. At least, that would be the outcome I'd be hoping for.

We Tiger fans are pumped. I think we are especially pumped because we had to endure through an entire decade of deadbeat teams, and that 2003 team that fought for the worst record in baseball history makes the idea of an elite Detroit Tiger team even more tantalizing.

I'm looking forward to a GREEEAAAAT year.

20 black years of Major League Basball

Do fans really care about about steroids in major league baseball? All the stuff I've read lately states that attendance for the 2007 season was at a record high, a sure sign that few fans are truly upset about the steroid issue.

Personally, I think that all the players that used steroids should be men about it, confess, apologize vigorously, promise to campaign against steroids and tell kids how stupid they were for using them, and give up any awards they might have won while they were cheating.

That's what a real man would do.

It's disturbing that it's so obvious that a huge chunk of players used the dope, and only 2 or 3 have confessed to it. And I have utmost respect for those few good men. Nonetheless, even though they confessed, they should still hand over their awards like men.

Guys like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But in the court of public opinion they are both cowards, and so are the rest of the guys who cheated the sport and cheated their fans.

The commissioner, the players union, and the owners are not off the hook either. There may be a few who were naive to what was going on, but the majority turned a blind eye in the name of making a profit.

Some people say that these cheaters shouldn't be punished because there was no major league baseball rule banning the use of steroids. However, steroids were illegal in the United States during this time.

And that's exactly the reason Congress got involved; because there were laws on the books.

What about the statistics? Baseball is always said to be a game of statistics, and when many of these records were broken in the past 20 years by individuals who cheated, this further darkens the scar.

Personally, I'd like to see a huge asterisk next to all these statistics, including the records broken by people who didn't cheat. Sure that might sound harsh, but one of the greatest scars of all is the fact that a fan can't look at any player in the game right now and say without a doubt, "That guy never used steroids."

And what about the kids? How many kids used steroids because their hero's did? How many used steroids because it gave them the competitive edge?

In essence, the rotten apples spoiled the batch. I'd like to say it was a few, but I can't. Look at how bulky Albert Pujoles is. Did he use steroids at some point? Remember when Ken Griffey Jr. was hitting all those homers. Did he?

The truth is, most fans don't care about players using steroids, because the game sure was fun the past 20 years. But, in my opinion, it would have been just as fun without the cheaters.

The scars of this scandal will last forever, but the game will go on as it always has, because it's a great game. And attendance records will probably be set again this year, as it should.

Spending quality time with my kids

My son played catch with me on a daily basis last summer, and he’s damn good at it for his age. To be honest, he throws about as hard as I do, and playing with him was like playing with myself -- he was that good.

On most days he wouldn't let me go to work without playing catch at least 10 minutes. My daughter tried to get into the action too, and my son usually got mad. Sometimes I'd try to sneak out with my son, and KK's find her way outside with us. Many times JJ and I would end up tossing the ball to KK, and then she'd get bored and would find other things to do, like playing with the neighbor kids.

JJ loves to play catch with me, but he will rarely sit through a sporting event on TV. I say rarely: I should say never. But that's normal for a 9-year-old.

“Is the game you’re watching more important that playing catch with me,” JJ asked me one day during a Lions game, “because I’d really like to play catch.”

I said, “It’s not more important, but, to answer your question, I’m not going to play catch during the game.”

Stuff like this makes me feel like a bad dad.

My aunt M. told me that when she was a little girl her daddy was sleeping on the couch. She kissed him on the cheek and turned off the baseball game.

“Turn that game back on right now!” he bellowed. She did.

I feel I’m not much different than that, and grandpa was considered a good man. Then again, I wonder how many playgrounds or libraries grandpa took his kids too. I might have him there.

I try to spend equal time with both my kids. Sometimes I feel guilty because I spend too much time with one or the other. I take KK to the library every week and I hate it. I love the library, but I hate sitting in that little room while the librarian talks in her wee little voice to the kids. I’ve done it every week now for two years with KK. Did it with Jordan too.

Looking back on what I just wrote I have to wonder if I really am a bad dad because I don’t like to participate with her and sing along to the Hokey Pokey and the other songs. I mean: I did take her, you know. When the boy was her age, I took him too. How many dad’s would do that?

Now that I think about it, I probably spend more time with my kids than any dad in history; well, family history anyway. I have no memory of my dad taking me to the library. Heck, I have only a few memories of him playing catch with me and my brothers; and that was only because he obligated himself to coaching one summer.

That wasn’t a very good memory anyway. I mean, I thought it was cool when I was a kid to have my dad as coach, but now that I look back on it I wonder if it really was. I sucked as a baseball player when I was 10 and my dad probably new this, which is why he obligated me to play outfield.

I remember one time a ball came my way I ran away from it and, once it hit the ground, chased it to the fence. Upon picking it off the ground, I looked to the infield and had absolutely no idea what to do with it.

Did that make my dad a bad dad too. I suppose he could have put me in the infield and made me learn how to play, but that would have entailed spending time with me at home as well as on the practice field once a week.

But, then again, dad believed in letting us learn things for ourselves. Likewise, he didn’t want to give us special treatment, which meant placing someone else’s kid at the important positions and delegating his kid to the positions only a few balls are hit to.

But the question is: did this make him a bad dad? My opinion is no; he was not a bad dad. He was a dad who tried. He was also a dad who wanted to be fair, and, most important, he was a dad who worked for a living to support us kids.

There were times I never saw my dad except a few minutes at dinner and, maybe if I was lucky, right before bed where he would give us high fives and tuck us in at night. He worked at his business (the car lot) all day, and then, after dinner and after high fives, he would go work on his apartments.

Then again, I must have really sucked if my own dad put me in the outfield. If I asked him now he’d be modest and say he doesn’t remember. Or, more than likely, he might simply not remember.

My kids, on the other hand, have a dad who went to college and found a good job working at a hospital that requires only three 12 hour shifts per week. The rest of my time I get to spend at home, which provides my kids ample time with their dad.

So, while I spend more time with my kids than any dad in history, I don’t think I should feel guilty that I don’t enjoy every minute of it.

Then I was a kid I loved playing Nintendo, but last night I played an hour with my son a game on the Game Cube that I had no clue what I was doing. But, because I wanted to spend time with him, I suffered through it. Should I tell him I didn’t enjoy it? In a way, I guess I did my mumbling and grumbling about finishing in last place every time we raced the characters. Man, I was really irritated I couldn’t beat my seven-year-old son. In my day, I was master of any game, and now I couldn’t catch on to a silly racing game.

Now, not only am I a bad dad, I’m old and out of touch. Now I'm learning that intendo football and baseball and basketball games are as fun now as they used to be. The boy is interested in them. I hated all sports until I turned 12, and then I became rapt in baseball. Considering he’s got an IQ about 50 points higher than mine, he'll probably be beating me in no time.

“Dad,” he said one day in a condescending tone when I told him that one day he will love to sit and watch a baseball game with me, “I’m never going to be interested in baseball.” Here he looked at me as though I was a big dumb dad. “Why would I want to sit and watch a stupid game with you? How boring!”

Well, he's now interested in sports. I’ll just have to be patient and he'll be sitting with me eating peanuts during the games.