I Had To Turn It Off When

I have to admit that when I watch a football game, I despise all of the commercial interruptions. However, Thursday night while watching the Ravens-Falcons game on the NFL Network, I welcomed them. As far as I can tell, at least ,some of the people in some of the commercials took a breath once in a while when speaking. Unlike in the broadcast booth.

You see, it's never a good idea to put three men in a sports broadcasting booth in any sport, let alone football. And especially when two of those guys are Matt Millen and Joe Theismann. If any game made me want to put a gun to my head, it was this one. These two started off slowly while feeling each other out and then went mano a mano (or was that mouth-o a mouth-o) as to who could make the better point while stating the obvious.

Baltimore was moving the ball on its first drive when QB Joe Flacco was flushed out of the pocket and forced to throw the ball away. Millen swooped in like Larry King in a singles bar. He said, "Right there is what the Falcons have to do to have success. They have to put pressure on Joe Flacco." Putting pressure on the QB is a key to success? You don't say?

And later on in the game when the Falcons were inside the red zone, both Theismann and Millen would tell us that now was a good time "to look for Tony Gonzalez." So looking for a future Hall-of-Fame tight end down near the end zone is another key to success? Insightful, gentlemen. Very insightful.

For those of you keeping score at home, yes, one or the other -- and many times both -- had something to say after every play. Except the play that they should have said something. And that was when 9-year vet, Ed Reed, signaled for a fair catch on the first punt of the game from Atlanta at his own 6-yard line. Hmmm. Is it ever a good play to fair catch a punt at the 6? And, yet, our chatty duo fell silent. Hey, I guess it was early and they hadn't gotten warmed up yet. Oh, well. Little did we know what was in store for us the rest of the night.

Read more of Steve Scafa on the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

Taking their cue from cable news shows, in which there is a host and a "roundtable" or "panel" of folks, each with their own unique opinion on things, the broadcast booths in various sports now have a similar crowd of people. And that's unfortunate!

If you want to help lower the unemployment rate or if you think every former professional athlete brings something to the table, then you will have ten different analysts in a studio discussing a game as ESPN and the various other networks are famous for. Being in a studio is one thing but to put three guys in a football or baseball booth usually leads to folly and is totally unnecessary.

Invariably, one of the analysts feels the need to inject his expertise about something even if it's the most simple of plays. Maybe it's the feeling that they must earn their big paychecks so they offer something -- anything -- to the listening audience. Usually, talk follows after every pitch. "There you see Jeter going in the hole, backhanding it and then straightening up and throwing to first to get the speedy runner" is often the kind of commentary we get despite the fact that we just saw the play and can figure out what happened all by our lonesome. And let's not forget my personal favorite, the "pitch-by-pitch" replay. "Slider low," "Fastball for a strike,""Curve in the dirt," "Hanging slider for a home run." Is that what happened? Gee, thanks, fellas.

Apparently it hasn't dawned on the powers-that-be that the best baseball announcer is one that works solo, and has for many, many years. The Dodgers' Vin Scully can't be touched by the modern-day announcers and, yet, there is no attempt by them to emulate him. Incessant chatter in the booth before, during and after every pitch combined with the condescending notion that many folks out in the audience are watching their first baseball game seems to dominate today's broadcasts.

So why do I bring this up, you ask? In last Tuesday night's series opener between the Yankees and Phillies, YES announcer, Al Leiter, working with Paul O'Neill and Michael Kay, proved my point with some "I-gotta-say-something" silliness when the game was not even two innings old.

With no score in the game, a runner on first and one out, Phillies pitcher Roy Halladay walked Jorge Posada to put runners on first and second. Leiter told us that "It was only Halladay's 13th walk of the year." Now, does that sound like a pitcher who pitches "around" hitters? Kay did emphasize that the walk was on four pitches, three of which were close by the way, and Leiter took the bait as he went on to say, "It almost looked like he was pitching around him."

So one of the best pitchers in baseball pitches around people in the second inning, huh? And why would that be, Al? Is Halladay afraid of Posada hitting a 2-run homer to give the Yankees the lead in the bottom of the second? Does Halladay feel Brett Gardner is the weaker hitter so he rather pitch to him, even though he is the tougher batter to double up? Or could it have been that Halladay just missed his spots, albeit not by much, trying to get Posada to chase a ball outside? Nothing more, nothing less. Leiter never did tell us why he thought Halladay was pitching so carefully to Posada. Oh, well.

And when Gardner lined a base hit into the right-center gap that went all the way to the wall for a triple and two RBIs, do you still think that Halladay wanted to put an extra runner on base in that inning now, Al? Please.

Me, personally, I would have liked to ask Leiter -- former professional pitcher, that is -- if that's the way he pitched when he was playing? Al, were you that afraid of a batter in the bottom of the second inning that you pitched so far around him that you walked him putting yourself in a deeper hole? I'm pretty sure what Leiter's answer would have been when he was on the mound. Now, in the broadcast booth, hey, that's another story. It's say something -- anytime, all the time -- because the idiots watching won't know any better anyway.

Read more of Steve Scafa on the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

Further proof that Boomer Esiason is being dragged - willingly or unknowingly - into the gutter by his WFAN partner and Howard Stern-wannabe, Craig Carton, was evident this past week when Carton referenced an article about Pittsburgh QB Ben Roethlisberger in Sports Illustrated.

Carton said the article certainly made Roethlisberger seem like a "douche." Esiason then stated that he knew the Pittsburgh QB a little bit through interviews and other things football related and Roethlisberger was never a "douche" to him. Swell. I guess when you are running a morning radio show based on the "Morning Zoo" model, this is the type of banter you get.

Couldn't Esiason just as easily have said that Roethlisberger was never a "bad guy" or even an "idiot" with him? Nope, it seems Carton's influence is working its magic on Esiason. By the way, have you ever noticed that when a good kid hangs out with a bad kid, the good kid usually acts more like the bad one than the other way around. It appears that's what has taken place during this partnership. Besides, if Esiason really thought it was okay to speak like this, then why doesn't he use these words on TV during his NFL on CBS gig? After all, the NFL is full of "d-bags" like Roethlisberger, isn't it?

What is it about being on the radio that these hosts think it's okay to use these words but they wouldn't dare use them on TV? Is there a different group of people listening to the radio as opposed to watching TV? Are the radio listeners more tolerant than TV watchers? After all, doesn't this morning show take place during the time when parents are driving their kids/toddlers to school? And should you really be forced to turn off the radio in the morning when you are supposedly tuned in to a "sports"station?"

All right, I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to insert the fact that I'm not a prude. Far from it. As a matter of fact, I'll compare my "locker room" mouth to anybody out there but I do believe there is a time and place for it. And the public airwaves is NEVER the time or the place.

This is also the same mentality that brings down the whole show as a whole. On the day after legendary Tigers announcer Ernie Harwell died, ESPN's Mike and Mike were all over the story with plenty of memories, interviews, etc. How did the morning crew from the nation's No. 1 sports station remember Harwell?

Well, they interviewed the Times Square street vendor who reported the suspicious car filled with explosives to the police. They also interviewed MLB Network's Kevin Millar to talk about present-day baseball. And they had former Yankees shortstop Bucky Dent on as a guest too. Carton walked down memory lane with Dent. About Harwell? Nope. He asked Dent, after reminding Dent of Daryl Strawberry's admissions of sex during a game, if he had ever witnessed any Yankee "gettin' it on" during a game. As if Dent would have said yes and named names.

I know, I know, if I don't like the show, then just turn it off. Believe me, there are plenty of times that I do but does it have to be that way? Well, I guess nothing will change as long as they continue to get callers telling them "you guys are great" and "you have a great show." Until then, I will continue to monitor this "sports" station as I listen with finger planted firmly on the button ready to change the station at a moment's notice so my 5-year-old's virgin ears remain that way. Thanks for the extra work, fellas.

Read more of Steve Scafa at the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

Yep, it happens every day but takes on another dimension during the week before the Super Bowl. That's when WFAN's Mike Francesa invites an "A-list" of guests to appear on his radio show, many with plenty to say, and then proceeds to interrupt them at every turn. As a matter of fact, a DVD entitled "Interviewing Gone Wild" could be made out of Francesa's "transgressions" during his interviews.

Francesa, "The Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler" of sports talk radio, asked question after question and then proceeded to interrupt his guests time and time again. I found myself cursing and yelling in the car asking - begging - Francesa to shut the &#$? up so I can hear what his guests had to say. But all too often he not only spoke over his guests but he actually answered his own questions. Frustrating, to say the least.

Troy Aikman, Mike Westhoff, Mike Pereira, et al. all fell victim to Francesa's overbearing and overindulgent interviewing "style." Over the years, we've come to expect this from The Big Man, but it seems to get more annoying as time goes on. And don't forget that any attempt at constructive criticism to please stop interrupting his guests will be met with a "Don't tell me how to do run my show" attitude. Charming.

The funny thing is that I did enjoy the interviews, when the guest were allowed to get a couple of words in, that is. I enjoyed the spot with Hall-of-Fame QB, Troy Aikman, who, at the end of the chat, told us that he had partnered with Campbell's Soup to distribute a whole bunch of cans of soup to the less fortunate in the area. Very charitable, indeed.

However, as someone who just turned the magic 50 in December, and was put on a low sodium diet (1500 mg daily) to counteract periodic dizziness, I certainly can't overlook the 890 mg of sodium in a small can of chicken noodle soup! You mean to tell me that two cans of chicken noodle soup made by Campbell's would actually put me OVER my alloted amount of sodium for the day? Damn, thanks Troy.

I guess I could try the Less Sodium variety of chicken soup that Campbell's makes for those that are either watching their weight or are forced to watch what they eat for health reasons. Yep, that's what I'll do. The good folks at Campbell's have taken my personal condition into account and, rest assured, are looking out for me. The chicken soup with 25 percent less sodium in it checks in at a meager 660 mg of sodium. Now, that's more like it. There's probably no chance of my fingers or toes swelling up if I just limit myself to the low sodium version of the soup even though two small cans still put me perilously close to my limit for a day. Gee, thanks Campbell's. Love you too.

Next up to be interrupted, uh, interviewed by Francesa was the retiring VP of Officiating for the NFL, Mike Pereira. Seems like a nice enough guy, for sure. But ol' Mike was still trying to justify the overtime pass interference call in the Saints-Vikings NFC Championship Game. Even after Francesa said that he thought it was a bad call, he quickly acquiesced to Pereira after he said that all the tapes had shown that there was a tangling of the feet by the Vikings defender and the Saints receiver and since the defender was not playing the ball ... yada, yada, yada.

After going back to see if Pereira was correct (yes, I still have the game taped), there was a tangling of the feet by the players but the bottom line was New Orleans TE, Dave Thomas, fell backwards all by his lonesome trying to make a play on a high pass from QB Drew Brees. The question that Mike No. 1, Francesa, should have asked Mike No. 2, Pereira, was if there was, in fact, interference, how come the official closest to the play DID NOT call it. And how come one official, the one with the worst view of the play, some 20 yards away, was THE ONE to make the call? I'll be glad to look at the tape with Mr. Pereira one last time before he retires. I'm available.

And last but not least was Francesa's interview with the legendary host of "Face the Nation" a.k.a."Disgrace the Nation", Bob Schieffer. Francesa obviously held Schieffer up to a different standard than those dumb-ass present and former athletes he was interviewing because he was curiously quiet during much of this particular chit-chat.

During the interview, Schieffer acknowledged that the internet had changed how every news story was being reported these days. He told the listening audience that much of what he does these days, being a part of the mainstream media, is to knock down false reports that originate from the internet. After all, he said, "The internet is the only vehicle that has no editor."

Schieffer went on, "You turn on CBS, you pick up a major newspaper, you know that we have edited it. You know that we've gone to some trouble to find out if it's true or not before we publish it. Some of this stuff that pops up, you don't know where it came from or what it's based on."

That's funny because didn't Dan Rather work for CBS back in 2004? And wasn't he the one one, along with a CBS producer, that decided to run with a story that questioned Goerge Bush's Air National Guard service some two months or so before the 2004 Presidential Election? Yep, the documents regarding Bush's service - back in the 70s - were never authenticated but CBS ran with the story anyway. Oh well, I guess this was one false story that Scheiffer and the rest of the mainstream media failed to "knock down." Don't worry, Bob, you'll get 'em next time.

And so it went for Francesa and his bevy of guests during the week leading up to the Super Bowl. When The Big Man wasn't stepping on his guests' tongues, they actually did get a chance to say something. Some of what was said I disagreed with as was the case with Pereira. Some of what was said I thought was laughable, especially when Schieffer told us about CBS's truthfulness. And some of it was downright life-threatening, for this blogger, anyway, as Aikman's association with Campbell's soup is enough to put yours truly in the hospital, bejesus.

Read more of Steve Scafa at the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

Dear Mike,

Please forgive me. I was one of the people that was very much interested in the Tiger Woods story from the minute I heard about the crash. Why wouldn't I or many other fans of golf and/or Woods not be interested? Why wouldn't we be interested in the No. 1 athlete in the world being involved in a car crash?

After all, this is the person who is on our living room TV sets most of the week pitching some product or other and who is especially visible on our TVs on the weekends during the golf season. As a matter of fact, he is the reason why we tune in to those golf tournaments on the weekends. This is the person who we said was so cute watching him make those putts on the Mike Douglas Show. This is the person who we saw win amateur golf tournament after amateur golf tournament. He then burst onto the PGA scene and caught everybody's attention. I, along with many others, have been following him and admiring him ever since.

Ever since "The Crash," you have seemed more belligerent than ever to your callers for some strange reason. You keep telling your audience that even though you, yourself, are a Phil Mickelson guy and really never had any affection for Woods, you seem to be defending him at every turn as if you were his PR agent. Strange?

You were the first to lead the "Charge of the Who Cares Brigade." You wondered what the big fuss was all about. You said that Woods doesn't owe the media or his fans any explanation whatsoever. His sponsors were sticking by him and that's all that really mattered, peons, so get over it. Yep, everything was related to whether or not he was dropped by his sponsors.

It didn't matter that the crash happened at approximately 2:00 to 2:30 in the morning the day after Thanksgiving. It didn't matter that it appeared Woods refused to talk to the local police. It didn't matter that drugs or alcohol might have been involved. Hey, it's Tiger Woods, and he doesn't have to say anything to the media or you guys. Besides, he didn't lose any sponsors so it's a non-story.

Lately, you have been wondering where people have been getting their information and how come you haven't heard all of the buzz about what might be going on in Woods' life. You question every caller's speculation about what might have gone down in Florida on that fateful day. Your usual short fuse has been even shorter.

You have now said that maybe Woods "wasn't backing up at all but was actually returning to his house" when people call to say he might have been driving under the influence. You have asked exactly what was Woods' crime? After all, the fire hydrant that he hit was on his property. He had not yet gone onto a public street so it didn't matter if he was under the influence. Nobody knows exactly what went on so we shouldn't ask questions and we are not allowed to even hazard a guess, according to you.

Me, personally, I'm not a crime scene investigator, but I would say that the nature of the damage to the vehicle made it apparent that he was backing up rather than going forward. But that's just me. Also, I have never heard of a "private" fire hydrant so it might be safe to say that some town, village, city or state is responsible for the care and maintenance of that hydrant, and maybe he owes someone an explanation. But, again, that's just me. I do apologize, Mike, for being interested in this non-story.

When "Bimbo No. 1" came out, I guess I wasn't supposed to be shocked by that either, Mike, right? As far as I and the rest of the peons knew, he was a dedicated golfer and a dedicated husband and father. I had never heard anything to the contrary. A beautiful wife, two kids, private jet, etc. An affair? Nope, I'm not supposed to be shocked by that either, right? Hey, until he loses a sponsor, it's a non-story. Right, boss.

And when "Bimbos No. 2,3,4 and 5" came out? Hey, it was just a bunch of gals looking to make a buck. No story here. Nope. Nothing at all. Well, I'm sorry for still being interested, Mike, because I never thought Woods had time to even think about such things, given his busy schedule. Forgive me for not ever thinking that Woods was a walking erection with a pocketful of condoms. I know, I know, it didn't surprise you because you are savvy enough to know mostly all of these professional athletes have affairs. What's the big deal? No story here.

All I knew and all I ever heard was that he spent hours in the gym working out and hours on the range working on his golf swing. In between all that, he still had time to do clinics; open up schools for the less fortunate; build golf courses and promote products with his "good-guy" image. I never imagined that he had the time to not just have one-night stands, but affairs, with multiple women! Sorry, Mike, I was interested and quite surprised.

I'm sorry for being interested in his mother-in-law's hospitalization also, Mike. It's an event that even you now say has spiraled Woods' saga out of control. According to you, "He needs to do something or something needs to happen to get him off the back pages." Hmmm. I thought it was a non-story, Mike? Why does he now need to remove himself from the public eye? Did something happen that I'm not aware of? Why did you say that Tiger should play as much golf as he can to get away from all this? It was just a simple car crash and a simple payoff to one of his ladies? No big deal. At least none of his sponsors have dropped him, right?

And when a caller to your show mentioned that he heard that Ambien or Oxycotin might have been involved in the Woods affair, you played pharmacist and told us that there is a tremendous difference between the two. Ambien is just a sleeping pill while Oxycotin is a flat-out narcotic, you said. And when the caller said a "drug is a drug," you chastised him for not knowing what he was talking about.

So Ambien is just a sleeping pill, huh? Tell that to my sister's neighbor who lost her son due to an overdose ... of Ambien!

However, it seems that even you are starting to crack, Mike, as the stories just keep coming and coming. Even you, "The Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of Sports Talk," is starting to ask questions. Even you wondered how the "bimbo" eruptions hadn't surfaced sooner. Ya see, Mike, now you're getting it. You are starting to wonder a lot of things just like me and a lot of other people.

And well, well, well, what do we have here? It appears that I'm not the only one who is both interested in and stunned by what's going on in Woods' life at the present time. Public opinion polls show his favorable image dropping like a lead balloon. Gatorade, one of his sponsors, has coincidentally dropped him from its product line. The company issued a statement stating that they were dropping Woods' product line anyway and this is all a mere coincidence. Sure it is. And now it has been learned that all of his sponsors will pull his ads from prime-time TV. Some non-story, Mike.

I guess the dropping of a sponsor was all the proof that you needed to finally figure out that this was, indeed, a big story and will remain one for a long time - unless Woods comes clean. And that means more than writing a one-paragraph apology on his website. If you or anyone else thinks that all Woods has to do is tee off at his next tournament after being announced on the first tee and that will be the end of the story, you are sadly mistaken. This non-story story is a long way from being over.

But let's not have my feelings toward this story get in the way of my apology to you, Mike. After all, you are the one that's never wrong. You are the one that never apologizes to any caller that you are rude to. So let me be the man in the relationship and express my heartfelt apology to you for being interested in the Woods story from the start.

What I am most proud of when it comes to the Woods saga, Mike, is myself. I did not allow your boorish behavior toward your callers to sway me in the slightest. While you were cutting off your callers and shouting into the microphone things like, "Who cares?";"This is not going to hurt him";"What proof do you have? Were you there?"; "Drugs? Where did you hear that from?", I was steadfast in my position that it was a story. I was shocked and I was interested in finding out more.

And I never even entertained the idea that this was a family matter, as you suggested. After all, you can't be the world's No. 1 athlete and the world's No. 1 spokesperson inundating us with a "buy my product" smile every ten minutes on TV and then when things go wrong, tell us that it's personal and to mind our own business. That's not the way it works.

And please forgive me, Mike, for thinking that this man was not only the most dominant player in his sport but still found enough time to be a good husband and a good father. I admired him for that. I know it was silly of me to assume that because he had a second child with the same woman that everything was going fine in his family life also. Stupid me.

The next time you tell me that I shouldn't be a wee bit curious about the circumstances surrounding the world's highest paid athlete, Mike, I will be sure to not pay any attention to a story that you consider a non-story. I will certainly listen to you next time but, for now, please accept my apology for being interested in this one.

Sincerely,

Steve Scafa

Read more of Steve Scafa at the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

"Yeah, I was in some of the offensive meetings," the defensive specialist said. "It's French class. I will say this: It's a lot different, the verbiage and everything else. I wanted to recognize more of the calls and understand it. There's a system that I put in with our quarterbacks and with Mark in particular, just for him to understand what we need, what we can have and what we can't have. We'll see how it works. I believe it will work. He did an outstanding job today, doing some of the things we're asking him to do."

It's so nice of New York Jets head coach Rex Ryan to realize that his QB turning the ball over 3, 4 or 5 times a game is not good for his football team. Ryan is now going to take a more active role in the offense. Maybe he'll even yell at his rookie QB once in a while for making a stupid mistake. Maybe.

Overweight, balding and aging Jets fans who haven't tasted the Super Bowl since 1969 really don't want to hear how all these turnovers are actually good for Mark Sanchez because he will only "learn from his mistakes" and "he will get better with time." After 40 years of futility, the team's fans really don't want to hear how everything is going to get better next year.

After all, this was a team that was 8-3 last year before losing 4 out of their last 5 to go 9-7. The Jets seem to have built a "now" team except for one position - the most important one - and that's QB.

I ask you, if back-up QB, Kellen Clemens, couldn't find his way onto the field to spell Sanchez in any of these pitiful games that he was having, then what the hell is he doing on the team? Isn't it the role of the second-string QB to come into a game in case of injury but also to give a struggling starter a break and see if his team responds? Have you seen Clemens warming up on the sidelines once this year?

Is Ryan worried that by benching Sanchez he will bruise his ego? Well, that's too bad. He'll get over it. And to save one rookie's ego, you have the rest of the team go down with his sinking ship?

Ryan keeps saying that Sanchez is playing because "he gives us the best chance to win."Really? Does Ryan and the rest of the Jets organization think that Clemens would have turned the ball over as many times as this kid has? All I know is that after Sanchez threw his first of four interceptions in last week's game against the Patriots, my brother-in-law who is a long-suffering Jets fan, spoke for every New York fan out there when he said, "This kid is killing us."

Unfortunately, Ryan is the last one to know.

Read more of Steve Scafa at the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

Taking a look back at the MLB playoffs and the World Series, we see that the same topic that dominates the sports talk show circuit whenever the Yankees are involved dominated again this time around. No, it wasn't Joe Girardi's endless pitching moves nor was it Ryan Howard's 57 strikeouts. It wasn't even whether Alex Rodriguez would still be considered a choke artist for following up his great postseason with a skimpy World Series. Nope. The topic that every fan wanted to discuss was whether or not Tim McCarver and Joe Buck root against the New York Yankees.

Whenever a fan calls one of the aforementioned talk shows and gripes about the coverage, the calm, cool and collected host of the show acts as if we, the fans, hear what we want to hear; don't know what we are talking about; have potatoes in our ears; are considered crazy; and we are always asked to provide proof/evidence of McCarver and Buck's bias.

From this author's viewpoint, I did notice that the inflection in McCarver's voice was obvious when opposing teams made stupid mistakes against the Yankees. Now, did his voice reach a fever pitch because he was upset at the mistake itself or was it the fact that it was committed against the 'Evil Empire?' That is the $64,000 question. I have written on my blog about a couple of times where I thought McCarver showed his bias. Suffice is to say that I could have written about it a lot more.

Buck, I thought, was either very fair to the Yankees or just hid his disdain very well. For the most part, I thought he reached maximum excitement levels for both teams, not seeming to favor either one during his calls. However, we might have gotten a peek into Buck's soul when he described a play made by Mark Teixeira.

When Teixeira made a diving stop of a ground ball that led to a force out, Buck said,"That's what the Yankees bought over the offseason." He added,"They bought a guy who lead the American League in home runs and RBIs ..." Hmmm. Bought? Was this a Freudian slip or did Buck want it to sound just the way it did?

I submit that a Yankees announcer or an announcer that didn't have some kind of ill feeling towards them would have used the word "signed" or the term "signed as a free agent" in the offseason. Not only did Buck say the word 'bought' to begin with but he repeated it!

Ya see, the evidence is right there for the viewing audience to hear and see. The bias may not blatantly come flushing out of the TV, rather, it may come out more like a drip, slow and subtle. We don't even need Horatio Caine's overacting to help us solve this case. It's a shame we fans can't remain calm, cool and collected like our favorite sports talk show host who apparently neither sees no evil nor hears it.

The next time you're asked by one of these hosts to provide some 'evidence' for your beliefs, mention the above example and see what they say. Ask them how they would have handled the Teixeira/Yankees situation. If they don't hang up on you, I would love to hear their answer.

Read more of Steve Scafa at the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

During Game 1 of the ALCS on FOX, lead announcer Joe Buck said, "237 homers were hit in the new Yankee Stadium this year." He added, "87 of them were hit in the first 23 games. Most for any stadium in its first 23 games." What the significance of 23 games is, he didn't say. I guess there's a trivia question buried in that stat somewhere. Can't wait for my 5-year old boy to grow up. I will be sure to ask him, "Son, which stadium yielded the most home runs in its first 23 games?" It's the type of question that will probably have me adding an hour or two to his curfew, I'm sure. If he doesn't throw a punch at me first.

Must FOX continue to keep that annoying graphic in the right hand corner all game long? You know, the one with the FOX logo (of course) that tells us where the series stands: Yanks lead 2-1. Now, we all know that FOX loves its graphics more than Letterman loves interns but can't it put the logo on the left side of the screen right next to the scoreboard graphic the way TBS is doing it? Besides, exactly what fan is watching the game that doesn't already know how the series stands?

Speaking of graphics, isn't it about time that FOX stopped showing their "Fox Trax" strike zone on the TV screen. It has proven what we all knew before the technology was even invented and that is every umpire in every game is inconsistent when it comes to calling balls and strikes. I'm surprised the umpires -- who we've heard never liked the overhead camera angle because it showed how bad they were when it came to the corners of the plate -- are allowing this technology to undermine them.

Here's one man's vote to ban all post-game interviews by every network. FOX "analyst" Ken Rosenthal did his best Suzy Kolber imitation when he asked Alex Rodriguez after the second game of the ALCS, "Alex, the Yankees are now up 2-0 in this series. How good is your position?"Oy vey.

Read more of Steve Scafa at the original "I Had To Turn It Off When" blog.

What used to be few and far between has become all too common in the game of baseball today. We do not have the benefit of the information that the manager has, so to question a manager's decision during a game usually must be done with the idea that HE knows more than WE do. Usually we will find out why a manager did what he did after the game, and then -- and only then -- can we pass judgment on said manager's moves. However, the same can not be said for a player who does something crazy or flat-out stupid on the field to which there is NO explanation. To that end, I bring you Friday night's game between the Mets and the Diamondbacks.

With the scored tied at 2 in the eighth inning, Arizona's Gerardo Parra led off the inning with a base hit off Mets reliever, Pedro Feliciano. Exit Feliciano for fellow reliever, Sean Green. Green's second pitch to Justin Upton hit him. So now we have runners on first and second and no one out. Green continues to have trouble as he walks -- on four pitches, mind you -- slugging third baseman Mark Reynolds.

Next up for Arizona is catcher Miguel Montero, who did homer earlier in the game, and, apparently, was "feeling his oats" as he gave us a move that we see all too often in today's "brand" of baseball. The bases were now loaded for Montero, who took ball one from Green. So let's recap, shall we? Green entered the game and:

- hit Upton on his second pitch

- threw four straight balls to Reynolds to load the bases

- threw ball one to Montero

That's a hit batsman followed by 5 straight balls!!!!!!

What would you do if you were in this situation? What would any fairly smart ballplayer do in that same situation? A pitcher in trouble who can't find the strike zone with the bases loaded? Yep, no doubt you would take a strike, wouldn't you? Well, not Mr. Montero. Nope, still feeling the euphoria of his home run earlier in the game, Montero SWINGS at Green's second pitch and chops it to first where the Mets Daniel Murphy starts a 3-2-3 double play. Incredible!

Green, who couldn't find the plate that night with a guide dog, could not take advantage of the break as his VERY NEXT PITCH was a wild pitch. That made Montero's swing even that much more incredible -- and incredibly stupid! The winning run scored from third on the pitch in a 3-2 Diamondbacks victory.

This is how a team gets -- and stays -- 19 or so games out of first.

One of the dumbest moves I've ever seen. No doubt, I'll see it again.

Last week, YES announcer Kim Jones and WFAN's own, Adam "The Bull" Gerstenhaber, filled in for Joe Benigno and Evan Roberts to do "The Midday Show" on WFAN. The subject of the Yankees radio broadcasts came up. Jones, acknowledging her relationship with the "Dynamic Duo" of John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman, of course, liked them and liked their work. What a shock! Following every blown call by Sterling that we are treated to by the various talk show hosts, we are told, "Sure, John's getting old and, sure, he's missing a few calls here and there but he is entertaining, none the less." If Ringling Bros. entertained people like this over the years, they could hardly call their show the greatest on the block, let alone the earth.

Yep, the "talking parrots" who replay Sterling's mistakes the day after a game - and have a good laugh when doing so - are the same ones who refuse to criticize the lack of professionalism, let alone the flat-out missing of calls. I guess they find it entertaining when ...

... he figures everyone who is now tuned into the game has been listening from the first pitch on so, therefore, why bother to give the score. Sterling can literally go ten minutes or so without giving the score. Now, that's entertainment!

... he tells us that a ball "Has been caught. No. He dropped it!" Huh? How could a ball have been caught and, then, dropped? No, John, it was never caught in the first place but if you had waited a second longer, you would have seen that. Now, that's entertainment!

... he tells us that a "Ball is fair. No. They called it foul." Huh? The follow-up to this call is the fact that the ball was hit down the right field line where "the ball disappears from our view." So why wouldn't you just wait to see the umpire's call as opposed to making the call yourself only to then have to make it sound like the umpire overruled your initial call? Now, that's entertainment!

... he fails to tell us that Brett Gardner has come in to pinch-run for Mark Teixeira all the while wondering why the pitcher is paying so much attention to "Teixeira on first?" Now, that's entertainment!

But one of my favorite Sterling stories was a few years ago when erratic reliever, Kyle Farnsworth, was with the Yankees and they were playing the Florida Marlins. Sterling had documented Farnsworth's problems with his control and came to the stunning, and correct, conclusion that his problem was that he just walks too many batters.

While Sterling was pontificating, the Marlins got men on second and third with less than two outs. What does Sterling suggest that the Yankees do to the next Marlins hitter? Why, he suggested that the Yankees walk him, thereby, loading the bases to set up the double-play. That's right, load the bases intentionally for a pitcher that has a problem walking batters. Now, that's entertainment!

So what gives with David Wright's lack of home run power this year? In his first four full seasons with the Mets, Wright hit 27, 26, 30 and 33 homers. This year he is on pace to hit, well, 10 homers. We have heard all the excuses from the "talking parrots" on TV and radio. Citi Field is just a flat-out tough park to hit home runs; he is dropping his back shoulder and is not able to drive the ball; there is no protection in the line-up; he is tired; he is trying to do too much with all the injuries the Mets have suffered and he is not getting any pitches to hit are some of the excuses making the rounds. The only one I haven't heard yet is that he cut himself shaving and this has affected his swing in some way.

What usually accompanies a precipitous drop in a hitter's power is talk of possible PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) usage that has been stopped, but nobody - and I mean nobody - has even entertained the thought of this being the reason for Wright's power outage. We hear the same, tired excuses that don't seem to make sense. Citi Field? Visiting teams appear to have no problem hitting the ball over the fence at the new ballpark. Tired? Wright has played no less than 154 games in his four full-time seasons in which he averaged 29 dingers. Protection in the line-up? Well, last time I checked, Ryan Ludwick (12 HR, .242 avg 44 RBI) was "protecting" Albert Pujols and his 31 homers in the Cardinals line-up. Is he dropping his back shoulder? Perhaps. Isn't that what hitting coach, Howard Johnson, is supposed to be figuring out? Is he trying to do too much because the core of the Mets team is on the DL? Maybe, but only Wright knows that deep down.

That leaves us with my favorite excuse from the "talking parrots" and that is that he is NOT getting good pitches to hit. Can someone please explain to me how someone who was hitting in the neighborhood of .360 just a few short weeks ago and is now "down" to .325 is NOT getting pitches to hit? Analyst Rick Sutcliffe was doing his weekly spot on the Brandon Tierney show on ESPN Radio when he mentioned that people should focus more on the Mets pitching staff than Wright's hitting as the real culprit for the Mets nosedive. Naturally, he mentioned a few reasons why Wright might be struggling with his power. Not getting enough good pitches to hit was one of his excuses for Wright. Again, I ask how a player hitting .325 isn't getting enough good pitches to hit?

Now, I have absolutely no proof that Wright was ever on the "juice," ever thought about taking it or ever daydreamed about what it might do for him. And we all know that he, along with Derek Jeter, have two of the cleanest images around. But when all of the other excuses don't make any sense, shouldn't it at least be in the discussion?

Item # 1 - When the Mets were pounding out 14 hits against Todd Wellemeyer and the Cardinals on Monday night en route to their 6-4 victory, Mets analyst Ron Darling mentioned that perhaps this is the type of game that the team could use as a "springboard" to bigger and better things. Shouldn't we know by now that there is no such thing as momentum or a "springboard" to anything in baseball? Naturally, the Mets were 2-hit the next game by pitcher Joel Pineiro in a 2-0 loss.

Item # 2 - In the sixth inning of Wednesday's 11-0 rout of the Cardinals by the Mets, catcher Brian Schneider checked his swing on a pitch that was called a ball by the third base umpire. SNY cameras gave us ONE view of the play from the center field camera. That was it! Both Mets analysts, Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling, were quick to point out that Schneider DID NOT swing at the pitch even though we never saw a camera angle from overhead or third base which would have given us a better perspective of whether or not it was a swing. The boys made their emphatic call just from this one - and bad - camera angle. Schneider would go on to double home a couple of runs which suited the boys in the booth just fine.

In the ninth inning of Thursday's game against the Mets, St. Louis had runners on second and third with two outs trailing the Mets 3-2. Catcher Yadier Molina checked his swing on the first pitch he saw from Francisco Rodriguez. Naturally, Darling thought first base umpire Dale Scott missed the call even before he saw the replay. An overhead camera angle confirmed that Darling's initial belief that Molina swung was correct. Hmmm. Darling needed - and got - an overhead view by SNY of the swing by Molina to confirm the fact that, yes, he did go around but we got NO such camera angle from SNY on the Schneider checked swing? All we got were assurances from Darling and Hernandez. Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist but ...

Item # 3 - Recently, in a game against the Tampa Bay Rays, the Mets Ryan Church hit an 0-2 fastball right down the middle from Rays reliever J.P. Howell for a base hit and an RBI extending a Mets' lead to 5-3. Naturally, we were told by Mets analyst, Keith Hernandez, that it was "a good piece of hitting" by Church, and NOT a bad pitch by Howell. That's right ladies and gentlemen, all 0-2 base hits, no matter how bad the pitch, will always lead to credit being given to the hometown hitter. No blame will ever go to the opposing team's pitcher. Ain't gonna happen.

In the bottom of the 6th inning of Saturday night's Marlins-Yankees game, Florida was leading 1-0 with one out and Hanley Ramirez on first. First baseman Jorge Cantu hit a line drive to left field which Johnny Damon dropped. By the time center fielder Melky Cabrera retrieved the ball and threw it in, Ramirez scored from first base with the eventual winning run in a Marlins 2-1 victory. The line drive by Cantu was clearly an error by Damon but was originally scored a double and an RBI by the official scorer. That decision, thank goodness, was later changed to what it could only have been scored, an error. This play ignited a series of comical guesses/assumptions by the entire YES Network about why Damon dropped the ball. WARNING! Take two aspirin BEFORE reading this post.

When Damon first dropped the ball, lead announcer Michael Kay declared that Damon, "couldn't see the ball." Huh? How do you know, Mike? In a split second, an outfielder drops a ball and you assume it's because he couldn't see it? Wow. Unfortunately, analyst Paul O'Neill, who I happen to think is excellent, disappointed. During a replay, O'Neill said, "Damon got to a spot and I guarantee because of this lighting he kinda lost this ball." Ken Singleton finally added a little bit of sanity to the discussion as he added that "Only Johnny Damon knows if he lost the ball in the lights or not." That's right, Ken. Thank you.

A further discussion ensued about whether a dropped ball caused by the "lighting" should be scored a "team error." Cue laugh track. The funny thing is that replays from all angles showed that Damon didn't so much as squint let alone shield his eyes in any way. It was obvious to this observer that he DID NOT lose it in the lights. ( While this all went down, I was on the phone with my brother-in-law telling, uh, guaranteeing him that Damon would say that he did not lose it in the lights). What the boys in the booth couldn't get past was the fact that Damon barely laid a glove on the ball. Haven't they been watching professional baseball lately with all the dropped pop-ups?

The game might have ended but the YES Network was just getting started. Studio host Nancy Newman during the post game wrap-up with boys in the booth, naturally, brought up the subject of the lighting in the stadium. Of course, it had to have played a part in Damon's drop, right? Reporter Kim Jones in the locker room asked starter, and loser, A.J. Burnett, if he figured Damon lost the ball in the lights. Burnett, a former Marlin, assumed he did. After all, it's a tough stadium to play in because of the "lighting," isn't it? Whew! I'm tired. I wish someone would just ask Damon if he did, in fact, lose the ball in the lights.

Well, what do you know? Jones, finally makes her way over to Damon's locker and asks the $64,000 question. Damon's answer was an emphatic no! "No, I had a good read on the ball. I knew what the ball was doing. He kinda inside outed the ball and I knew the ball was going to center and I wound up missing it by a foot. It's totally unacceptable," said Damon. Jones then asked, "What about the fluttering in your eyes? Did that contribute?" Damon reiterated that he "saw that ball all the way. Missed it by a foot."

How could this be, Johnny? What about the lighting? How is it possible that a NEW YORK YANKEE just flat out dropped a fly ball? Never in the eyes of the YES team of announcers could this happen. As if we didn't already know why it's not a good idea to assume anything at anytime, these guys reminded us of that fact as they had NO business assuming anything until they had spoken to Damon. Besides, it's not as if Damon hasn't had trouble with fly balls before - Toronto last year, Boston this year - so what's the big surprise?

I told you to take two aspirin before reading this, didn't I?