Podcast: MLB’s weak explanation on baseballs; Pitt’s Kenny Pickett bulks up | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Podcast: MLB’s weak explanation on baseballs; Pitt’s Kenny Pickett bulks up

Tim Benz
Commissioner Rob Manfred is interviewed as the American League players warm-up for the MLB baseball All-Star Game, Tuesday, July 9, 2019, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

A lot happened during Major League Baseball’s All-Star week in Cleveland. Much of it had nothing to do with the game.  

Our Jerry DiPaola was on hand to cover all the angles. He’s back in Pittsburgh after the American League’s 4-3 win.

We discuss commissioner Rob Manfred’s double talk surrounding the manufacturing of the baseball. Nobody buys his simplistic explanation of “less drag,” do they? If that’s his story, he better support it with a lot more detail.

Then there is the revenue-sharing debate. How much resentment exists toward the Pirates and other low-revenue teams from the rest of baseball these days?

Jerry spoke with a lot of Cubs players about the Pirates and their upcoming series to reignite the schedule for the second half. They seem impressed and buy the notion that the Pirates could be a threat for a while.

Also, Jerry outlines the discussion in Cleveland over the Pirates’ growing reputation of working high and tight too much.

Then we mix in some Pitt football, too. Specifically, we look at Kenny Pickett. The Panthers quarterback is fresh back from the Manning Passing Academy. He served as a counselor there. Pickett shares some of the stories from his trip. And he explains the decision to bulk up a bit in the offseason.

LISTEN: Manfred’s weak explanation of baseballs; plus Kenny Pickett talk

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.