Nick forwarded the above story to me yesterday. I read the headline and was shocked—SHOCKED. Joe Torre was trying to sabotage Andruw Jones! Then I read the article. Apparently, Torre was not, in fact, trying to derail his centerfielder. He was trying to get him “on track,” not “untracked.” After some anal bitching between Nick and myself, Nick turned up several more examples—it appeared that this word was being misused all over the world of sports journalism! (So why am I writing about it and not Nick? Nick said it was too anal, even for him. I have no such compunctions.) Behold:

“With Bedard back, McLaren can concentrate on getting the offense untracked.” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

“Ortiz, Sox can’t get untracked.” (Worcester Telegram)

“It won’t matter what the pitcher’s name is when Ortiz gets untracked.” (Hartford Courant)

“The hitters seemed to get untracked a bit in the past week, so perhaps it’s now Sabathia’s turn to get it all together against the Royals.” (MLB.com)

Is the American rail industry in such dire straits (note: not dire ’straights’) that we’ve lost our ability to use the simple railroad metaphor, “get back on track”? As with many misused turns of phrase (note: not ‘terms’ of phrase), there’s some confusion about what “untracked” actually means. These sportswriters, if they’re thinking at all, seem to be mishearing “on track,” thinking it’s “untracked,” and confusing being on a track with being “stuck in a rut.” Thus, to get “untracked,” to them, is a good thing. (For similar mistakes, see: “Play it by year;” “For all intensive purposes;” “A mute point;” “A tough road to hoe;” “Sewing his wild oaks;” and “Tow the line.” You play something by “ear.” You don’t have “intensive” purposes, but intents AND purposes. It’s a moot point, not a mute one. If you’re hoeing a road, no wonder it’s so tough—trying hoeing that “row” instead. Likewise, it’s a lot harder to sew wild oaks than sow wild oats. And if you’re towing the line, what’s the line and where are you taking it? You might be better off “toeing” it.) But as the Language Log notes, the only entry in the OED for “untracked” is “not furnished with a track or path” and “not tracked or traced.” But I don’t think these writers mean that once Big Papi eludes his trackers, he’ll start hitting again.

The worst part is, the editors of these publications are either unaware of the problem or, where the term appears in a headline, even perpetuating it. (Kudos to Bob Costas’ producer, who seems to have shouted a correction into his earpiece after he slipped up in this clip.)

You know, lives aren’t at stake here. This is sports journalism. Maybe to some folks, that excuses such sloppiness. But I say, if it’s not well-written, what’s the point? Sports writing is like the dessert of the journalistic meal. It’s just empty calories, so if it doesn’t taste good, why eat it?

Is John Smoltz the greatest pitcher of all time?

I only ask because that is apparently what Mr. Mark Bowman of mlb.com thinks. Or his editor. Or whoever it was that picked the headline for this article, entitled “Smoltz latest, greatest to reach 3,000 Ks.”

Do they even have editors over there? Because if whoever it was actually believes that John Smoltz is the greatest pitcher to ever reach 3,000 strikeouts, then they are the only one in the world who thinks that.

Even Smoltz’s own mother wouldn’t suggest that he is the greatest pitcher on this list:

Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Steve Carlton, Bert Blyleven, Tom Seaver, Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, Walter Johnson, Phil Niekro, Greg Maddux, Ferguson Jenkins, Bob Gibson, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz.

In fact, it may even be possible to argue that John Smoltz is actually the worst pitcher on that list, but he certainly isn’t the best one, because that is basically a list of the greatest pitchers of all time. So in no way whatsoever is Smoltz the “greatest” pitcher to join the list.

So what really is going on with that title? I think what has happened here is another example of how these people get so up to their neck in sports clichés that they forget that what they are writing is actually English words that actually mean things, and simply apply these catchphrases where ever they please, much the same way Jackson Pollock applied paint to canvas, although probably with even less forethought.

I’m sure the person who came up with that headline probably just thought it had a nice “ring” to it, without even considering that it was actually words which would be making the insane claim that Smoltz was the greatest pitcher on the list above. But still, my gods. Learn to speak English - it’s your own native language (I hope).

Also, the subtitle of that article is pretty funny too - “Veteran no longer walking in shadows of Maddux, Glavine.” Um, okaaaay. Greg Maddux: - 349 wins, 4 Cy Youngs, 2 20-win seasons, so good he can be caught with your eyes closed. Tom Glavine: 303 wins, 2 Cy Youngs, 5 20-win seasons, hot baseball wife.

John Smoltz? 210 wins, 1 20-win season, 1 Cy Young. I think it is fair to say he is still chilling pretty deep in the shade of Maddux and Glavine. I mean Glavine has ninety-three more wins than Smoltz does. Even if you give him back the three years he was a closer, was he really going to average 31 wins per season?

Also, everyone is talking like Smoltz is a surefire Hall of Famer now, and he probably is, but if Smoltz makes the Hall for getting 3,000 strikeouts, than Bert Blyleven, who is number 5 on the list above, needs to have been inducted several years ago.