Sometimes a headline just jumps out at you, like the Bill Plashke article intriguingly headlined "Is USC ready for the Rose Bowl...or not?"
To go out on a limb here, this will either be another vacillating not-brave-enough-to-take-a-stand puff piece that does nothing more than fulfill the writer's word count or a brilliantly articulated exposition on USC's readiness for the big game. Want another brave professional-sportswriter style prediction from your friend Nils? USC will either win or lose the Rose Bowl. I guarantee it.
Enough of my predictions that aren't really predictions, see what Mr Plashke has written to deserve such a mincing headline:
If media day was any indication -- and it usually is -- there are two ways to look at how USC has handled The Week That Nobody Wanted.
1) The Trojans are loose enough to be dominant.
2) They are bored enough to be ambushed.
He stole my prediction! Dick!
How could he also know that the Trojans will either win or lose?! And, just showing how his professional shaolin sportswriter style easily defeats my blogger in the basement tiger style, he goes on to say that the reason that USC might win or lose is because they are either loose or bored.
It's a double whammy of deep insight.
One thing for certain is, Penn State is neither.
No wonder he gets paid the big bucks. After fearlessly saying that USC will either win or lose because they are either loose or bored, Plashke drop the bomb that Penn State is neither loose nor bored. I can't wait to find out whether this means they they can either win or lose the Rose Bowl or lose or win the Rose Bowl.
This is the type of analysis you can't get from just anybody.
It has been written here several times that USC doesn't want or need this game, so it would be disingenuous to criticize the Trojans' players if they are acting that way.
But if they are, they are setting themselves up to fall into a trap of mistaken identities.
If USC gets upset by Penn State, Plashke totally called it. And if USC wins, Plashke called that, too. And if you are confused as to why everything has a caveat, it's because USC has mistaken identities and it is impossible to tell which team will show up. Like, medically impossible. You shouldn't even joke about it either, it's a real mental disorder, okay. It's not Plashke's fault, it's the team he has to cover. Jeez.
Carroll ... told them to stop celebrating the Ohio State victory and concentrate on Oregon State, and how did that turn out?
Once or twice a year, it seems, this Trojans monster takes on a life of its own.
That's because USC has mistaken identities. In Corvallis, the Trojans thought that they were Cal State Dominguez Hills. It was weird.
No matter what their creator preaches, they hear only an inner voice that reminds them of their incredible skill. They interpret this to mean their immortality. A humbling loss usually follows.
Incredible skill -> living forever -> losing to Oregon State. Epic logic fail.
Could they be tuning out Carroll and hearing that voice now? Considering Carroll was the one who first referred to this repetitive Rose-Bowl-as-consolation-prize-business as "Groundhog Day," maybe they are getting the voices confused?
Incredible skill -> living forever -> losing to Oregon State -> Rose Bowl -> Pete Carroll's voice telling the Trojans they have incredible skill -> Confusion. Relatively logical, actually.
... "We look at Penn State like they're the No. 1 team in the country, like this is a national championship," safety Taylor Mays said.
Say what?
Mays smiled.
"Hey, Coach Carroll could get us pumped up to eat a hot dog," he said.
Better than choking on one.
At last Plashke is able to say something without equivocation. And I can hardly disagree.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
My Favorite Article of The Year
I held out until the final day of 2008. And now I can proudly say that it paid off because Ian Thomsen of SI.com wrote the best persuasive piece of the year.
This might have been the worst official decision I have ever seen at a major sporting event.
[OK.]
[A] new threshold was established here Tuesday when the Portland Trail Blazers accidentally put six men on the court against the Boston Celtics. The sixth man scored a basket. The referees acknowledged that he should not have been allowed on the floor. And then they permitted his basket to stand.
[Alright. Perhaps it is just me. But my first question at this point is "What is the rule regarding a scored basket with more than five players on the court?" Before I get too fired up about an officiating decision, I like to know what the actual RULE is that governs the situation in question. Seems like relevant information.]
This event is the harshest sign yet that NBA referees are frazzled. Not all of them, of course: I believe there are some officials who would have come to their senses and made the right call, regardless of how the particular rule may or may not be written.
[OR we could take this rules-be-damned(!) approach which includes the added convenience of not having to look stuff up.]
I write this in the early morning hours without knowing exactly how the rule is written regarding this particular infraction.
[Professional. Journalism.]
What I do know is that the rule in this case is irrelevant.
[That's pretty much the opposite of true, right?]
This is a black-and-white case of right and wrong, and I wonder if the referees got it so badly wrong because they have been mismanaged for so long a time that they can't begin to tell right from wrong anymore.
[You know what makes a case black-and-white? Rules!]
I wonder if they're so worried about looking over their shoulders that they can't see what is in front of them.
[??!??]
The first rule of basketball is that each team shall play with an equal number of players.
[Actually that is Rule No. 3.]
Anyone can make the mistake of failing to count the players; the issue lies in what these game officials did next while trying to satisfy their supervisors.
[This also assumes that counting that basket in the 2nd quarter somehow satisfied the referee's supervisors... which also seems like a rather unsubstantiated and arbitrary claim.]
Am I making too much of what might have been a simple error in judgment?
[YES. Sidenote: I quickly skimmed the 2008-09 NBA Rules (linked above) and could not find a rule that governs this exact situation. As such, the explanation given by one of the referee's (quoted in Thomsen's article) seems reasonable. The rule (no more than 5 players on the court) is not applied retroactively-- which strikes me as the same approach for nearly every rule (instant replay situations notwithstanding). The point, however, is that it took me all of one 4-second Google search to find the NBA rules, and another 20 or 30 seconds to perform a keyword search. Thomsen? Not so much. And this is his job.]
Or am I right to wonder whether the league has so convoluted its referees that they no longer feel empowered to distinguish right from wrong?
[I give up.]
Have a safe and enjoyable New Year's, all.
This might have been the worst official decision I have ever seen at a major sporting event.
[OK.]
[A] new threshold was established here Tuesday when the Portland Trail Blazers accidentally put six men on the court against the Boston Celtics. The sixth man scored a basket. The referees acknowledged that he should not have been allowed on the floor. And then they permitted his basket to stand.
[Alright. Perhaps it is just me. But my first question at this point is "What is the rule regarding a scored basket with more than five players on the court?" Before I get too fired up about an officiating decision, I like to know what the actual RULE is that governs the situation in question. Seems like relevant information.]
This event is the harshest sign yet that NBA referees are frazzled. Not all of them, of course: I believe there are some officials who would have come to their senses and made the right call, regardless of how the particular rule may or may not be written.
[OR we could take this rules-be-damned(!) approach which includes the added convenience of not having to look stuff up.]
I write this in the early morning hours without knowing exactly how the rule is written regarding this particular infraction.
[Professional. Journalism.]
What I do know is that the rule in this case is irrelevant.
[That's pretty much the opposite of true, right?]
This is a black-and-white case of right and wrong, and I wonder if the referees got it so badly wrong because they have been mismanaged for so long a time that they can't begin to tell right from wrong anymore.
[You know what makes a case black-and-white? Rules!]
I wonder if they're so worried about looking over their shoulders that they can't see what is in front of them.
[??!??]
The first rule of basketball is that each team shall play with an equal number of players.
[Actually that is Rule No. 3.]
Anyone can make the mistake of failing to count the players; the issue lies in what these game officials did next while trying to satisfy their supervisors.
[This also assumes that counting that basket in the 2nd quarter somehow satisfied the referee's supervisors... which also seems like a rather unsubstantiated and arbitrary claim.]
Am I making too much of what might have been a simple error in judgment?
[YES. Sidenote: I quickly skimmed the 2008-09 NBA Rules (linked above) and could not find a rule that governs this exact situation. As such, the explanation given by one of the referee's (quoted in Thomsen's article) seems reasonable. The rule (no more than 5 players on the court) is not applied retroactively-- which strikes me as the same approach for nearly every rule (instant replay situations notwithstanding). The point, however, is that it took me all of one 4-second Google search to find the NBA rules, and another 20 or 30 seconds to perform a keyword search. Thomsen? Not so much. And this is his job.]
Or am I right to wonder whether the league has so convoluted its referees that they no longer feel empowered to distinguish right from wrong?
[I give up.]
Have a safe and enjoyable New Year's, all.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Jason Whitlock: Vol. 7
I know, I know. We just did a Whitlock piece this morning. But for all of the fun we have with Whitlock, we also like to note when he happens to point out something worthwhile, like he did in his most recent article for FoxSports (amidst his usual nonsense).
As you know, I've defended Favre all season. I thought the Packers made a mistake letting him go (and they did). I desperately wanted Favre to have a big season in New York.
[VERY little chatter from prominent Favre-huggers in the sports media (other than the "will he retire?" nonsense). One Schrute Buck for Whitlock for taking his medicine.]
It didn't happen. He tossed 22 TDs and 22 INTs, and with the season on the line against the Dolphins and Chad Pennington, "White T.O." tossed three picks and one TD.
[BRUTAL performance.]
To make matters worse, we learned from Jay Glazer that Favre didn't enjoy playing for Eric Mangini because the Jets coach had the audacity to question Favre's decision-making in front of teammates.
[Bingo. Hardly a mention of this in any of the mainstream coverage. I heard that report after the game and thought, "Wow, prima dona much? Maybe I won't buy that pair of Wranglers after all."]
How dare Mangini hold Favre accountable for throwing stupid interceptions? Glazer's report came on the heels of Favre breaking news (or rationalizing a poor season) that his shoulder was dead.
[Wow. Am I becoming a Jason Whitlock fan??]
Belichick is likely to get a big laugh this offseason when some team overpays for Cassel during the free-agent season. Cassel is all smoke and mirrors. The Patriots won their last four games, beating Seattle, Oakland, Arizona and Buffalo. Cassel isn't very good.
[It's happening!]
The inevitable off-season Cassel "saga" will be my favorite pointless piece of the spring/summer. Would you want franchise tag a guy (paying him well over $10MM for next season to probably sit on the bench) or sign a guy to a big-money long-term deal who (with the privilege of throwing to Moss and Welker) compiled 3,693 yards (8th in the NFL), a 63.4 comp.% (11th in the NFL), 21 TDs (10th in the NFL) and 11 INTs (14th most in the NFL)?? Oh, and did I mention that he compiled those barely-above-league-average stats against the weakest schedule in the entire NFL this season?
As you know, I've defended Favre all season. I thought the Packers made a mistake letting him go (and they did). I desperately wanted Favre to have a big season in New York.
[VERY little chatter from prominent Favre-huggers in the sports media (other than the "will he retire?" nonsense). One Schrute Buck for Whitlock for taking his medicine.]
It didn't happen. He tossed 22 TDs and 22 INTs, and with the season on the line against the Dolphins and Chad Pennington, "White T.O." tossed three picks and one TD.
[BRUTAL performance.]
To make matters worse, we learned from Jay Glazer that Favre didn't enjoy playing for Eric Mangini because the Jets coach had the audacity to question Favre's decision-making in front of teammates.
[Bingo. Hardly a mention of this in any of the mainstream coverage. I heard that report after the game and thought, "Wow, prima dona much? Maybe I won't buy that pair of Wranglers after all."]
How dare Mangini hold Favre accountable for throwing stupid interceptions? Glazer's report came on the heels of Favre breaking news (or rationalizing a poor season) that his shoulder was dead.
[Wow. Am I becoming a Jason Whitlock fan??]
Belichick is likely to get a big laugh this offseason when some team overpays for Cassel during the free-agent season. Cassel is all smoke and mirrors. The Patriots won their last four games, beating Seattle, Oakland, Arizona and Buffalo. Cassel isn't very good.
[It's happening!]
The inevitable off-season Cassel "saga" will be my favorite pointless piece of the spring/summer. Would you want franchise tag a guy (paying him well over $10MM for next season to probably sit on the bench) or sign a guy to a big-money long-term deal who (with the privilege of throwing to Moss and Welker) compiled 3,693 yards (8th in the NFL), a 63.4 comp.% (11th in the NFL), 21 TDs (10th in the NFL) and 11 INTs (14th most in the NFL)?? Oh, and did I mention that he compiled those barely-above-league-average stats against the weakest schedule in the entire NFL this season?
Jason Whitlock: Vol. 6
We haven't checked in on Whitlock in a while. Let's see what he thought about last night's Alamo Bowl, which was won by Missouri.
I’m sorry to rain on the parade scheduled for Columbia today to celebrate the 10-4 Tigers. But I expected more.
[Awww.]
Northwestern proved Missouri is a fraud.
[Ouch.]
The Tigers’ over-the-top celebration let us know that they know they’ve been overrated and overhyped, benefactors of Bill Snyder, cupcake scheduling.
[OK. Disappointed in the season. I get it.]
What should we call the Missouri Tigers?
[Ummm, overrated and overhyped?]
I’m not sure.
[Oh, OK. I just thought that you said....]
On a night when the Tigers should’ve simply thrown the ball to Chase Coffman 20 times, Mizzou’s big tight end caught seven passes for 67 yards.
["Thrown to" and "passes caught" are two different things. Just ask TO.]
We might one day remember Coffman as the Michael Jordan of college football and Christensen as Dean Smith. Christensen might be the only man capable of holding Coffman to fewer than 10 receptions a game.
[I was thinking the exact same thing.]
I’m sorry to rain on the parade scheduled for Columbia today to celebrate the 10-4 Tigers. But I expected more.
[Awww.]
Northwestern proved Missouri is a fraud.
[Ouch.]
The Tigers’ over-the-top celebration let us know that they know they’ve been overrated and overhyped, benefactors of Bill Snyder, cupcake scheduling.
[OK. Disappointed in the season. I get it.]
What should we call the Missouri Tigers?
[Ummm, overrated and overhyped?]
I’m not sure.
[Oh, OK. I just thought that you said....]
On a night when the Tigers should’ve simply thrown the ball to Chase Coffman 20 times, Mizzou’s big tight end caught seven passes for 67 yards.
["Thrown to" and "passes caught" are two different things. Just ask TO.]
We might one day remember Coffman as the Michael Jordan of college football and Christensen as Dean Smith. Christensen might be the only man capable of holding Coffman to fewer than 10 receptions a game.
[I was thinking the exact same thing.]
Monday, December 29, 2008
OK, Yankees. I see your CC/AJ/Teixiera, and I raise you... an Andruw Jones!
I couldn't resist this hot lead from Buster Olney.
Andruw Jones, coming off a disastrous first season with the Los Angeles Dodgers, has been the subject of trade talks between L.A. and the New York Mets, according to sources.
[Awesome. (Unless you are a Met fan.)]
Jones, who turns 32 next spring, hit .158 with 76 strikeouts in 209 at-bats for the Dodgers in 2008 -- just two years after he mashed 41 homers and drove in 129 runs for the Braves.
[That was *only* two years ago?]
There is a perception within the industry that Jones, who played the first 12 years of his career in Atlanta, was just never comfortable with the Dodgers.
[A "perception?" What gave it away? I bet it was the 76 Ks in 209 ABs. Oh, and also, within this context, "comfortable" = "good at baseball."]
The Mets' intention, if they were to conclude a deal for Jones, would be to play the 10-time Gold Glove center fielder in right field, flanking Carlos Beltran.
[Shouldn't the Mets' intention be to run away from this proposed deal? Like, as far away as possible?]
New York also has been trying to move a player who has fallen out of favor -- second baseman Luis Castillo, who is coming off a poor season and is owed $18 million over the next three seasons. But it's unlikely that the Dodgers would have interest in Castillo, because they have a young second baseman in Blake DeWitt, and Castillo does not play a lot of different positions.
[Great scoop. I smell a blockbuster brewing....]
Andruw Jones, coming off a disastrous first season with the Los Angeles Dodgers, has been the subject of trade talks between L.A. and the New York Mets, according to sources.
[Awesome. (Unless you are a Met fan.)]
Jones, who turns 32 next spring, hit .158 with 76 strikeouts in 209 at-bats for the Dodgers in 2008 -- just two years after he mashed 41 homers and drove in 129 runs for the Braves.
[That was *only* two years ago?]
There is a perception within the industry that Jones, who played the first 12 years of his career in Atlanta, was just never comfortable with the Dodgers.
[A "perception?" What gave it away? I bet it was the 76 Ks in 209 ABs. Oh, and also, within this context, "comfortable" = "good at baseball."]
The Mets' intention, if they were to conclude a deal for Jones, would be to play the 10-time Gold Glove center fielder in right field, flanking Carlos Beltran.
[Shouldn't the Mets' intention be to run away from this proposed deal? Like, as far away as possible?]
New York also has been trying to move a player who has fallen out of favor -- second baseman Luis Castillo, who is coming off a poor season and is owed $18 million over the next three seasons. But it's unlikely that the Dodgers would have interest in Castillo, because they have a young second baseman in Blake DeWitt, and Castillo does not play a lot of different positions.
[Great scoop. I smell a blockbuster brewing....]
Peter King: Vol. 14
Week 17. Let's do this, Pete.
But this was a week for the ages. And lucky me -- I got to see it all in NBC's fifth-floor viewing room at 30 Rock, with nine high-def TVs enthralling the cast of our Football Night in America show.
[Wait a second. Is this King or Mack Brown?]
In Minnesota, Giants, up 19-17 with five seconds left, call a timeout to freeze Ryan Longwell ... Uh, it's Minneapolis. Gotta be a hearty lad here. Nineteen degrees outside ... No Vikes kicker will be frozen today.
[Umm, Pete knows that the Vikings play in a dome, right? It was 71 degrees inside the dome yesterday. "Gotta" be hearty, indeed.]
There are few things in this job I take more seriously than my National Football League MVP vote for the Associated Press.
[His League MVP vote is right behind his paragraph about "all things coffee" that he insists on including in his weekly column. Sorry, Peyton! Get in line!]
My criteria have never changed. The inclusion of the word "valuable'' differentiates this from a player of the year award.
[And the fact that they are separate awards.]
If I'm voting for Offensive Player of the Year, for example, I'm likely voting for the individual who had the best season of anyone on offense[.]
[Yep. Go ahead and re-read that one a few times. I'm not even going to include a joke. Classic.]
For MVP, I ask myself this question: Which player, removed from his team, would have the biggest impact on the team's record?
[Because that isn't a completely arbitrary exercise or anything.]
Matt Ryan? I love him, and I love his candidacy. I can't argue with a soul who'd name him MVP.
[I could. 17th in completion %. 13th in passing yards. 16th in TD passes. 14th in INTs. 11th in QB Rating.]
I have been leaning toward Manning for the past four or five weeks, because I've felt the Colts would have been well below .500 without him....
[Wasn't everyone saying the same thing about the Patriots when Brady went down in Week 1?]
The story of Manning's 11th season is a good story, one he hasn't told this season to anyone else in my business -- to the best of my knowledge.
[I like how people (not just King) think that saying "to the best of my knowledge" absolves them from neglecting to actually research the point they are attempting to make. It is akin to starting a sentence with the phrase "With all due respect," and then assuming that you have immunitiy from whatever critical or insulting comment follows subsequently.]
Now onto the MVP issue. My take is Manning was the keystone to this team starting 3-4 instead of being out of it at 1-6.
[Blah.]
In the final nine games, Manning's 9-0 record led all NFL quarterbacks, Manning's 72-percent accuracy led all NFL quarterbacks, and Manning's 17-to-3 touchdown-to-interception (plus-14) differential led all NFL quarterbacks.
[Finally. There is absolutely a case to be made for Peyton. And this is it. The "keystone" bit? Bag it, Pete.]
Sunday was one of the five worst days in the 49-year history of the Dallas Cowboys.... I came to this conclusion: The Cowboys are the Yankees, in so many ways.
[And by "so many ways," Pete means "I don't like either team."]
New York has spent more money than every other team in baseball for the past eight years and not won a World Series. Dallas has acquired the most famous talent in all of football since 1997 and not won a playoff game. Twelve years, and counting.
[Nice "apples and oragnes" logic fail here.
For Dallas: If x then not y (where y = winning a playoff game).
For the Yankees: If x then not z (where z = winning a World Series).
Because, actually, for the Yankees: If x then LOTS of y.
The Yankees have made the playoffs 13 of the past 14 seasons. Winning playoff games in all of those playoff appearances. Also, the temporal element makes the comparison misleading as well. If Pete were to take the Yankees back twelve years as well, he would stumble upon a few World Series Championships. Nice effort.]
I see the Yankees are interested in signing Warren Buffett, then Bill Gates. But that won't be enough for them. Then they're going to ink three Saudi princes to Triple-A contracts.
[Hilarious.]
But this was a week for the ages. And lucky me -- I got to see it all in NBC's fifth-floor viewing room at 30 Rock, with nine high-def TVs enthralling the cast of our Football Night in America show.
[Wait a second. Is this King or Mack Brown?]
In Minnesota, Giants, up 19-17 with five seconds left, call a timeout to freeze Ryan Longwell ... Uh, it's Minneapolis. Gotta be a hearty lad here. Nineteen degrees outside ... No Vikes kicker will be frozen today.
[Umm, Pete knows that the Vikings play in a dome, right? It was 71 degrees inside the dome yesterday. "Gotta" be hearty, indeed.]
There are few things in this job I take more seriously than my National Football League MVP vote for the Associated Press.
[His League MVP vote is right behind his paragraph about "all things coffee" that he insists on including in his weekly column. Sorry, Peyton! Get in line!]
My criteria have never changed. The inclusion of the word "valuable'' differentiates this from a player of the year award.
[And the fact that they are separate awards.]
If I'm voting for Offensive Player of the Year, for example, I'm likely voting for the individual who had the best season of anyone on offense[.]
[Yep. Go ahead and re-read that one a few times. I'm not even going to include a joke. Classic.]
For MVP, I ask myself this question: Which player, removed from his team, would have the biggest impact on the team's record?
[Because that isn't a completely arbitrary exercise or anything.]
Matt Ryan? I love him, and I love his candidacy. I can't argue with a soul who'd name him MVP.
[I could. 17th in completion %. 13th in passing yards. 16th in TD passes. 14th in INTs. 11th in QB Rating.]
I have been leaning toward Manning for the past four or five weeks, because I've felt the Colts would have been well below .500 without him....
[Wasn't everyone saying the same thing about the Patriots when Brady went down in Week 1?]
The story of Manning's 11th season is a good story, one he hasn't told this season to anyone else in my business -- to the best of my knowledge.
[I like how people (not just King) think that saying "to the best of my knowledge" absolves them from neglecting to actually research the point they are attempting to make. It is akin to starting a sentence with the phrase "With all due respect," and then assuming that you have immunitiy from whatever critical or insulting comment follows subsequently.]
Now onto the MVP issue. My take is Manning was the keystone to this team starting 3-4 instead of being out of it at 1-6.
[Blah.]
In the final nine games, Manning's 9-0 record led all NFL quarterbacks, Manning's 72-percent accuracy led all NFL quarterbacks, and Manning's 17-to-3 touchdown-to-interception (plus-14) differential led all NFL quarterbacks.
[Finally. There is absolutely a case to be made for Peyton. And this is it. The "keystone" bit? Bag it, Pete.]
Sunday was one of the five worst days in the 49-year history of the Dallas Cowboys.... I came to this conclusion: The Cowboys are the Yankees, in so many ways.
[And by "so many ways," Pete means "I don't like either team."]
New York has spent more money than every other team in baseball for the past eight years and not won a World Series. Dallas has acquired the most famous talent in all of football since 1997 and not won a playoff game. Twelve years, and counting.
[Nice "apples and oragnes" logic fail here.
For Dallas: If x then not y (where y = winning a playoff game).
For the Yankees: If x then not z (where z = winning a World Series).
Because, actually, for the Yankees: If x then LOTS of y.
The Yankees have made the playoffs 13 of the past 14 seasons. Winning playoff games in all of those playoff appearances. Also, the temporal element makes the comparison misleading as well. If Pete were to take the Yankees back twelve years as well, he would stumble upon a few World Series Championships. Nice effort.]
I see the Yankees are interested in signing Warren Buffett, then Bill Gates. But that won't be enough for them. Then they're going to ink three Saudi princes to Triple-A contracts.
[Hilarious.]
Friday, December 26, 2008
Actual Sports Journalism
It doesn't happen often here at The Theorem, but every once in a while we stumble upon a particularly intriguing piece of sports journalism. Here's one by Thayer Evans in the New York Times about the lurid and mildly-shocking details surrounding an elite college football recruiting battle.
The fight was over Jamarkus McFarland, a 6-foot-3, 290-pound defensive tackle from Lufkin High School who is considered the state’s best defensive prospect this year and one of the nation’s most promising players. He is also a top student and the president of his class.
[In other words, this kid sounds like an elite prospect AND a classy dude.]
Along the way, McFarland was wined and dined. He visited the house of the president of Oklahoma, where he was promised a spot in the prestigious President’s Leadership Class. He rode in a Hummer stretch limousine in Los Angeles. He attended parties, including one in Dallas, where he said there was free alcohol, drugs and young women taking off their clothes.
[Actually, that last part might have been redundant-- that is simply the weekly agenda for Oklahoma's prestigious President's Leadership Class.]
McFarland made four official visits during his recruitment — to Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana State and Southern California. He said he saw everything from flat-screen televisions in Texas Coach Mack Brown’s bathrooms to L.S.U.’s recruiting hostesses sitting on the laps of prospects.
[Uh oh. I don't think I like where this is headed....]
But the best summation of his experience might have come from a paper he wrote for his English class comparing Oklahoma and Texas. The paper, “Red River Rivals Recruit,” includes a description of a wild party hosted by Longhorns fans at an upscale hotel in Dallas after the Oklahoma-Texas game on Oct. 11.
[Sure as hell beats a book report on "Oliver Twist," right?]
“I will never forget the excitement amongst all participants,” McFarland wrote. “Alcohol was all you can drink, money was not an option. Girls were acting wild by taking off their tops, and pulling down their pants. Girls were also romancing each other. Some guys loved every minute of the freakiness some girls demonstrated. I have never attended a party of this magnitude.”
[Despite the unsavory scene described, I still, for whatever reason, find his diplomatic description humorous. A party of this "magnitude?" Ha, nice.]
He compared that with a house party hosted by a sorority at Oklahoma. “Drinks were plentiful, but not to the extent they were” at the Dallas party, he wrote. “Some people were tipsy, but in control of themselves.”
[Not "romancing each other."]
After Texas beat Baylor that weekend, McFarland and his mother ate dinner at Brown’s home. Flat-screen televisions were in every room, and there were two outside. “Whose house do you like better, Bob Stoops’s, Les Miles’s or mine?” Adams recalled Brown saying.
[I don't quite know how to put this.... I'm... kind of a big deal. People know me. I have many leather-bound books. And my apartment smells of rich mahogany.]
In mid-November, McFarland and his mother had their first extensive sit-down conversation about his future.... Yet he worried what an Oklahoma degree would mean for landing a job in Texas. He also thought that the Longhorns offered him the best education and that Austin had the most entertainment.
[None of the other schools had entertainment of that "magnitude."]
Adams presented her son with a list of pros and cons for Louisiana State, Oklahoma and Texas. One of her dislikes about Louisiana State was that a maid would clean her son’s dorm room weekly.
[Really?]
Texas made another visit to McFarland’s school, but again, they did not see Adams. After the visit, Adams received an e-mail message from Brown. “It is obvious that the recruiting has put a strain on your relationship,” the message said. “JaMac wants Texas, and Mom wants OU. We want you to still come to Texas, but we are going to slow our process down because you two need some time to get on the same page. We do not want players at Texas if everyone isn’t on the same page.” McFarland’s mother and grandmother were offended.
[I-- I'm friends with Merlin Olson, too. He comes over on occasion.]
On Dec. 17, Stoops and Shipp visited McFarland on behalf of Oklahoma.... While at McFarland’s house, Stoops offered to set the table for dinner and helped carry in ribs and potato salad. After a second serving of ribs and some peach cobbler, he sat on the couch with McFarland and his grandmother and watched the movie “Beauty Shop,” starring Queen Latifah and Alicia Silverstone.
[Alicia Silverstone was in "Beauty Shop?"]
Earlier this month, a former classmate called Adams and asked if she would coax her son into attending Texas. If so, a banker had promised the former classmate any type of loan.
[Random bankers are getting involved now??]
A week later, McFarland’s mind was made up. “I’m pretty glad it’s over,” he said by Thursday. “This is a good thing to have out of the way. Everyone’s satisfied.” Especially Oklahoma, which received a Texas-size Christmas gift.
[Stay classy, college athletics!]
The fight was over Jamarkus McFarland, a 6-foot-3, 290-pound defensive tackle from Lufkin High School who is considered the state’s best defensive prospect this year and one of the nation’s most promising players. He is also a top student and the president of his class.
[In other words, this kid sounds like an elite prospect AND a classy dude.]
Along the way, McFarland was wined and dined. He visited the house of the president of Oklahoma, where he was promised a spot in the prestigious President’s Leadership Class. He rode in a Hummer stretch limousine in Los Angeles. He attended parties, including one in Dallas, where he said there was free alcohol, drugs and young women taking off their clothes.
[Actually, that last part might have been redundant-- that is simply the weekly agenda for Oklahoma's prestigious President's Leadership Class.]
McFarland made four official visits during his recruitment — to Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana State and Southern California. He said he saw everything from flat-screen televisions in Texas Coach Mack Brown’s bathrooms to L.S.U.’s recruiting hostesses sitting on the laps of prospects.
[Uh oh. I don't think I like where this is headed....]
But the best summation of his experience might have come from a paper he wrote for his English class comparing Oklahoma and Texas. The paper, “Red River Rivals Recruit,” includes a description of a wild party hosted by Longhorns fans at an upscale hotel in Dallas after the Oklahoma-Texas game on Oct. 11.
[Sure as hell beats a book report on "Oliver Twist," right?]
“I will never forget the excitement amongst all participants,” McFarland wrote. “Alcohol was all you can drink, money was not an option. Girls were acting wild by taking off their tops, and pulling down their pants. Girls were also romancing each other. Some guys loved every minute of the freakiness some girls demonstrated. I have never attended a party of this magnitude.”
[Despite the unsavory scene described, I still, for whatever reason, find his diplomatic description humorous. A party of this "magnitude?" Ha, nice.]
He compared that with a house party hosted by a sorority at Oklahoma. “Drinks were plentiful, but not to the extent they were” at the Dallas party, he wrote. “Some people were tipsy, but in control of themselves.”
[Not "romancing each other."]
After Texas beat Baylor that weekend, McFarland and his mother ate dinner at Brown’s home. Flat-screen televisions were in every room, and there were two outside. “Whose house do you like better, Bob Stoops’s, Les Miles’s or mine?” Adams recalled Brown saying.
[I don't quite know how to put this.... I'm... kind of a big deal. People know me. I have many leather-bound books. And my apartment smells of rich mahogany.]
In mid-November, McFarland and his mother had their first extensive sit-down conversation about his future.... Yet he worried what an Oklahoma degree would mean for landing a job in Texas. He also thought that the Longhorns offered him the best education and that Austin had the most entertainment.
[None of the other schools had entertainment of that "magnitude."]
Adams presented her son with a list of pros and cons for Louisiana State, Oklahoma and Texas. One of her dislikes about Louisiana State was that a maid would clean her son’s dorm room weekly.
[Really?]
Texas made another visit to McFarland’s school, but again, they did not see Adams. After the visit, Adams received an e-mail message from Brown. “It is obvious that the recruiting has put a strain on your relationship,” the message said. “JaMac wants Texas, and Mom wants OU. We want you to still come to Texas, but we are going to slow our process down because you two need some time to get on the same page. We do not want players at Texas if everyone isn’t on the same page.” McFarland’s mother and grandmother were offended.
[I-- I'm friends with Merlin Olson, too. He comes over on occasion.]
On Dec. 17, Stoops and Shipp visited McFarland on behalf of Oklahoma.... While at McFarland’s house, Stoops offered to set the table for dinner and helped carry in ribs and potato salad. After a second serving of ribs and some peach cobbler, he sat on the couch with McFarland and his grandmother and watched the movie “Beauty Shop,” starring Queen Latifah and Alicia Silverstone.
[Alicia Silverstone was in "Beauty Shop?"]
Earlier this month, a former classmate called Adams and asked if she would coax her son into attending Texas. If so, a banker had promised the former classmate any type of loan.
[Random bankers are getting involved now??]
A week later, McFarland’s mind was made up. “I’m pretty glad it’s over,” he said by Thursday. “This is a good thing to have out of the way. Everyone’s satisfied.” Especially Oklahoma, which received a Texas-size Christmas gift.
[Stay classy, college athletics!]
Lake-Show Have More Want-to-win-ness than Celtics
Hope you all had a Merry Christmas. As I'm sure many of you saw, The Lakers did. But why? Well, for answers to tough questions like that I turn to the steady hand of professional journalists, such as Steve Dilbeck of the Daily News.
Despite the great run the Celtics were on, despite the glare of a nationally-televised Christmas Day game, this game was more important to the Lakers, and ultimately they played like it.
[Saying something = making it true.]
The Lakers thought they were improved because of last year's experience and the addition of a healthy Andrew Bynum and Trevor Ariza. But they needed evidence to believe it was enough to beat Boston.
[Needed evidence? I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with that concept.... Can't I just *say* something and make it so? For example,...]
Pau Gasol, again badly outplayed by Kevin Garnett most of the night, lit up.
[Yep. Making a few open jumpers in the final few minutes >>> Getting destroyed by KG for the previous 45 minutes.]
Here's another thought: Instead of pointing to an amorphous and arbitrary reason like "wanting it more" to explain the Lakers' win, let's try looking at something that's actually quantifiable. Here's a simple one: Kobe.
Yesterday's game (Laker win): 13-23, 27 points.
Game 1 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 9-26, 24 points.
Game 2 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 11-23, 30 points.
Game 3 '08 Finals (Laker win): 12-20, 36 points.
Game 4 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 6-19, 17 points.
Game 5 '08 Finals (Laker win): 8-21, 25 points.
Game 6 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 7-22, 22 points.
11/27/07 against Celtics (Laker loss): 9-21, 28 points.
12/30/07 against Celtics (Laker loss): 6-25, 22 points.
So, against this KG-RayRay-Pierce Celtic team, Kobe is shooting 35.3% from the field for 23.8 ppg when the Lakers lose, and Kobe is shooting 51.6% for 29.3 ppg when the Lakers win.
In the humble opinion of this idiot-with-an-internet-connection, in analyzing the factors that may directly impact the performance of the Lake-Show, "Kobe playing well" >>>> "Laker players gritting teeth really hard."
Despite the great run the Celtics were on, despite the glare of a nationally-televised Christmas Day game, this game was more important to the Lakers, and ultimately they played like it.
[Saying something = making it true.]
The Lakers thought they were improved because of last year's experience and the addition of a healthy Andrew Bynum and Trevor Ariza. But they needed evidence to believe it was enough to beat Boston.
[Needed evidence? I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with that concept.... Can't I just *say* something and make it so? For example,...]
Pau Gasol, again badly outplayed by Kevin Garnett most of the night, lit up.
[Yep. Making a few open jumpers in the final few minutes >>> Getting destroyed by KG for the previous 45 minutes.]
Here's another thought: Instead of pointing to an amorphous and arbitrary reason like "wanting it more" to explain the Lakers' win, let's try looking at something that's actually quantifiable. Here's a simple one: Kobe.
Yesterday's game (Laker win): 13-23, 27 points.
Game 1 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 9-26, 24 points.
Game 2 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 11-23, 30 points.
Game 3 '08 Finals (Laker win): 12-20, 36 points.
Game 4 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 6-19, 17 points.
Game 5 '08 Finals (Laker win): 8-21, 25 points.
Game 6 '08 Finals (Laker loss): 7-22, 22 points.
11/27/07 against Celtics (Laker loss): 9-21, 28 points.
12/30/07 against Celtics (Laker loss): 6-25, 22 points.
So, against this KG-RayRay-Pierce Celtic team, Kobe is shooting 35.3% from the field for 23.8 ppg when the Lakers lose, and Kobe is shooting 51.6% for 29.3 ppg when the Lakers win.
In the humble opinion of this idiot-with-an-internet-connection, in analyzing the factors that may directly impact the performance of the Lake-Show, "Kobe playing well" >>>> "Laker players gritting teeth really hard."
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Peter King: Vol. 13
A couple quick e-mail exchanges between Pete and his minions.
From Brian, of Baltimore: "Peter, I wanted to write in about Joe Paterno. As a Penn State alumni, I know I'm biased, but it seems contradictory to laud Mike Holmgren for his ability to impact player's lives, then in the next breath ignore Paterno's impact on his players. His players love playing for him, and kids come to Penn State to play for the legend. And 40 wins in 4 years isn't too shabby."
Pete:
Holmgren is 60. Paterno is 82, coming off health issues. He is one of the giants in the history of college football, and of coaching in general. But every man has to know when to say when, and every organization has to know when to say when. It's time to say when, and Paterno and Penn State didn't do it.
[Hey, Pete, you know what other numbers are telling? Their respective 2008 records.
Holmgren: 4-11
Paterno: 11-1
But yeah, knowing "when to say when" is a waaaay better means of determining when a coach should hang 'em up.]
From Harry Hix, of Stillwater, Okla.: "Enjoy your column and appreciated your comments on T.O. and Ed Werder. But, the comment, 'Sad day for journalism,' is based on a false assumption. That assumption is that ESPN is journalism. It's not and hasn't been for years. And that's sad."
Pete:
ESPN deserves that shot.
[So says the guy who coined the phrase "almost literally." Professional journalism.]
From Brian, of Baltimore: "Peter, I wanted to write in about Joe Paterno. As a Penn State alumni, I know I'm biased, but it seems contradictory to laud Mike Holmgren for his ability to impact player's lives, then in the next breath ignore Paterno's impact on his players. His players love playing for him, and kids come to Penn State to play for the legend. And 40 wins in 4 years isn't too shabby."
Pete:
Holmgren is 60. Paterno is 82, coming off health issues. He is one of the giants in the history of college football, and of coaching in general. But every man has to know when to say when, and every organization has to know when to say when. It's time to say when, and Paterno and Penn State didn't do it.
[Hey, Pete, you know what other numbers are telling? Their respective 2008 records.
Holmgren: 4-11
Paterno: 11-1
But yeah, knowing "when to say when" is a waaaay better means of determining when a coach should hang 'em up.]
From Harry Hix, of Stillwater, Okla.: "Enjoy your column and appreciated your comments on T.O. and Ed Werder. But, the comment, 'Sad day for journalism,' is based on a false assumption. That assumption is that ESPN is journalism. It's not and hasn't been for years. And that's sad."
Pete:
ESPN deserves that shot.
[So says the guy who coined the phrase "almost literally." Professional journalism.]
You KNEW this was coming....
On the heels of the Teixiera signing, the sports media took umbrage. Lots and lots of umbrage. The umbrage ranged from Mike Lupica's whining to Bob Ryan's bizarrely-written gibberish. But I think that Phil Sheridan's take is my favorite.
The New York Yankees represent the very worst of America.
[Obviously he's making an absurd overstatement just to draw in the reader.]
Overstatement? Consider the times.
[Wait. He was being serious. Oh.]
Cornerstone industries are faltering, taxpayers are being asked to bail out mismanaged financial institutions and their overpaid CEOs, and decent, hard-working men and women are being laid off or worrying that they could be next.
[And it's all because of the Yankees. I mean, the causal relationship is undeniable!]
Now consider the eight-year, $180 million contract the Yankees reportedly handed first baseman Mark Teixeira yesterday. Stack it on top of the $161 million deal signed by pitcher CC Sabathia and the (relatively) modest $82.5 million promised to A.J. Burnett and you have the most egregious display of financial irresponsibility in the history of sports.
[Calling something "irresponsible" doesn't actually MAKE it irresponsible. I am willing to bet that the Yankees operate under a business model that doesn't revolve around "getting distracted by shiny objects."]
If Major League Baseball had a commissioner - that is, an independent and strong-willed leader unafraid to do the right thing - the Teixeira and Sabathia deals would be nullified based on the commissioner's sweeping "best interest of the game" powers.
[Is that a serious suggestion? Is Sheridan for real? Two parties negotiate, which ultimately results in an agreement, and some random third party should come in and nullify the deal based on the "Because I said so" principle? Worst. Idea. Ever.]
What's wrong here is obvious.
[Spoiler alert: It's Phil Sheridan.]
Unlike the NFL, NBA and NHL, baseball has no salary cap.
[I know! C'mon, baseball. Why can't you be more like the NHL??]
In fairness, MLB did create a luxury tax system that punishes overspenders such as the Yankees and Red Sox and adds revenue to the coffers of teams such as Florida and Kansas City. Of course, that system also gives some of the small-market teams a disincentive to spend money to win. They can pocket their free money from New York and Boston and continue to flounder on the field.
[Doesn't this argument cut AGAINST Sheridan's thesis?]
The Yankees have proved for the last five years that buying the highest-priced players does not guarantee you a title.
[Again. Right?]
Baseball economics always have been bad for competitive balance, but this Yankees spree is the worst ever because of real-world economics.
[Care to elaborate?]
It just smells bad.
[Check. And. Mate.]
In case anyone other than me was interested in ACTUAL analysis of this signing, check out Keith Law's blog entry.
[See? That wasn't so hard now was it?]
The New York Yankees represent the very worst of America.
[Obviously he's making an absurd overstatement just to draw in the reader.]
Overstatement? Consider the times.
[Wait. He was being serious. Oh.]
Cornerstone industries are faltering, taxpayers are being asked to bail out mismanaged financial institutions and their overpaid CEOs, and decent, hard-working men and women are being laid off or worrying that they could be next.
[And it's all because of the Yankees. I mean, the causal relationship is undeniable!]
Now consider the eight-year, $180 million contract the Yankees reportedly handed first baseman Mark Teixeira yesterday. Stack it on top of the $161 million deal signed by pitcher CC Sabathia and the (relatively) modest $82.5 million promised to A.J. Burnett and you have the most egregious display of financial irresponsibility in the history of sports.
[Calling something "irresponsible" doesn't actually MAKE it irresponsible. I am willing to bet that the Yankees operate under a business model that doesn't revolve around "getting distracted by shiny objects."]
If Major League Baseball had a commissioner - that is, an independent and strong-willed leader unafraid to do the right thing - the Teixeira and Sabathia deals would be nullified based on the commissioner's sweeping "best interest of the game" powers.
[Is that a serious suggestion? Is Sheridan for real? Two parties negotiate, which ultimately results in an agreement, and some random third party should come in and nullify the deal based on the "Because I said so" principle? Worst. Idea. Ever.]
What's wrong here is obvious.
[Spoiler alert: It's Phil Sheridan.]
Unlike the NFL, NBA and NHL, baseball has no salary cap.
[I know! C'mon, baseball. Why can't you be more like the NHL??]
In fairness, MLB did create a luxury tax system that punishes overspenders such as the Yankees and Red Sox and adds revenue to the coffers of teams such as Florida and Kansas City. Of course, that system also gives some of the small-market teams a disincentive to spend money to win. They can pocket their free money from New York and Boston and continue to flounder on the field.
[Doesn't this argument cut AGAINST Sheridan's thesis?]
The Yankees have proved for the last five years that buying the highest-priced players does not guarantee you a title.
[Again. Right?]
Baseball economics always have been bad for competitive balance, but this Yankees spree is the worst ever because of real-world economics.
[Care to elaborate?]
It just smells bad.
[Check. And. Mate.]
In case anyone other than me was interested in ACTUAL analysis of this signing, check out Keith Law's blog entry.
[Teixiera is] probably the best defensive player relative to his position on the Yankees now, and could be one of only two or three who are above average depending on how the rest of the roster shakes out. He adds significant power to a lineup that had just two players slug over .500 this past year, and his .410 OBP in 2008 would have led the Yankees by 18 points.
Coupled with the loss of Jason Giambi, the signing of Teixeira means a net gain to the Yankees of four to five wins, considering both his bat and his defense. He also eliminates the need the Yankees had for a right-handed caddy for Giambi, since Teixeira is a true switch-hitter with power and patience from both sides of the plate.
[See? That wasn't so hard now was it?]
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Well-played, Rod Marinelli
Remember yesterday when we lampooned a bit of the Rob Parker article? Yeah, well apparently that whole thing has turned into a huge media "controversy."
Rob Parker, a columnist for the Detroit News who made some national headlines for asking Detroit Lions coach Rod Marinelli whether he wished his daughter had married "a better defensive coordinator," explained his position Monday in his newspaper column.
[This is what goes for national headlines nowadays?]
Parker has repeatedly questioned Marinelli about his defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, who also is Marinelli's son-in-law. On Sunday, after the Lions lost 42-7 to New Orleans, Parker asked: "On a light note, do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"
[That's offensive? Really? But I am just a sardonic nobody with internet access, what do I know? Let's see what professional journalist-types think:]
FOX television showed the question, prompting analyst Terry Bradshaw to say: "You're a disgrace to your profession, my friend. You're a total idiot."
[And if you were curious, yes, Bradshaw will do the entire pre-game show next weekend from atop his cross.]
Marinelli ignored the question during his news conference after Sunday's game. Monday, he blasted Parker. "Anytime you attack my daughter, I've got a problem with that ..." Marinelli said. "It was premeditated. I think there's something wrong with that." Did it cross the line? "Big-time," Marinelli said.
[I am REALLY hard-pressed to see how that is an "attack" on anyone. Lighten up, people.
That being said, I am pretty sure that Marinelli has actually crafted an ingenius plan of self-preservation.
Think about it. The Lions are one game away from becoming the worst team in the HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. That seems like reasonable grounds for termination, right? So if you are Marinelli, why not distract everyone from your team's utterly woeful season with a completely fabricated controversy with the evil media?!? Not bad, eh?]
Rob Parker, a columnist for the Detroit News who made some national headlines for asking Detroit Lions coach Rod Marinelli whether he wished his daughter had married "a better defensive coordinator," explained his position Monday in his newspaper column.
[This is what goes for national headlines nowadays?]
Parker has repeatedly questioned Marinelli about his defensive coordinator, Joe Barry, who also is Marinelli's son-in-law. On Sunday, after the Lions lost 42-7 to New Orleans, Parker asked: "On a light note, do you wish your daughter would have married a better defensive coordinator?"
[That's offensive? Really? But I am just a sardonic nobody with internet access, what do I know? Let's see what professional journalist-types think:]
FOX television showed the question, prompting analyst Terry Bradshaw to say: "You're a disgrace to your profession, my friend. You're a total idiot."
[And if you were curious, yes, Bradshaw will do the entire pre-game show next weekend from atop his cross.]
Marinelli ignored the question during his news conference after Sunday's game. Monday, he blasted Parker. "Anytime you attack my daughter, I've got a problem with that ..." Marinelli said. "It was premeditated. I think there's something wrong with that." Did it cross the line? "Big-time," Marinelli said.
[I am REALLY hard-pressed to see how that is an "attack" on anyone. Lighten up, people.
That being said, I am pretty sure that Marinelli has actually crafted an ingenius plan of self-preservation.
Think about it. The Lions are one game away from becoming the worst team in the HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL SPORTS. That seems like reasonable grounds for termination, right? So if you are Marinelli, why not distract everyone from your team's utterly woeful season with a completely fabricated controversy with the evil media?!? Not bad, eh?]
Monday, December 22, 2008
Let's All Blame the Broncos' Good Player
There is this concept in football – in all of team sports really – that the performance of all members of the team is critical to that team winning games. Individuals can have great games, seasons or careers on losing teams not because they aren’t awesome enough players (see Ernie Banks, Bert Blyleven, Kevin Garnett, etc and so on for examples of good players whose teams weren’t successful through no fault of their own) but because the others guys on their team aren’t awesome enough players. In many cases, the other plays on their team are just bad. Like, really bad.
Bernie Lincicome, I know that you understand this concept.
I know that you do.
You just don’t want to, and try to ignore it. And that makes me sad for you.
The Drive that wasn't. The Drives that weren't.
On the day that Jay Cutler became the greatest single-season passer in Broncos history, only two passes matter. Interception. Incomplete.
This is a classic logic fail. In addition to the stats showing that Jay Cutler has been awesome all season, in this last game he was 25 for 45 and 359 yards passing. I am pretty sure that for the Broncos, in their 30-23 loss to the Bills, more passes mattered than just the two that Bernie mentions. Because, well, without those earlier passes, the Broncos would not have scored the points that kept the game that close.
One pass ended a drive at the goal line, one pass ended a drive at the back of the end zone, one football nestling in the arms of a Buffalo linebacker and the other clattering beyond the hands of Broncos receiver Brandon Stokley.
Also, 25 passes were completed for 359 yards.
"(I) had my hands on the last one, I should have caught it . . . ," said Stokley. "That's the plays I've got to make."
And another pass should have been completed but the receiver screwed up.
Both of the above points are proof positive, of course, that Cutler really blew this one.
Not that the defense is not in line for its usual ridicule. They continue to tackle like passengers. Luggage gets harder wear.
The worst part, Bernie, is that you know better than to blame Cutler for this loss. You know that there are really sub-par players on the Broncos and are even able to point to who they are because you either quote them or tell me directly…but when it comes time to apportion the blame, you decide to go with the guy who is having a great season.
You hurt my heart.
Cutler has won games the Broncos should have lost and he has lost games the Broncos should have won.
I should have watched the Broncos more. Then not only would I have seen the awe-inspiring sight of a single man lining up alone on offense and defense against full NFL teams and beating them, but I would have seen how that lone man was also able to set the single-season passing record by throwing only to himself.
And that is where the real difficulty lies, if you think about it.
This was one of those he should have won.
By himself. Because that is how real men play football.
Cutler's 4,210 yards moved him past Jake Plummer for a season, and his 25 completions passed John Elway for most (351) in a season.
So, considering that Cutler is demonstrably playing well, perhaps there are other reasons that the Broncos didn’t win yesterday.
In fact, you may have mentioned it earlier in this very article…
To put this in perspective, recall the words of Mark Twain: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
To put this in perspective, there is logic, there is illogic and there is Bernie Lincicome.
Bernie Lincicome, I know that you understand this concept.
I know that you do.
You just don’t want to, and try to ignore it. And that makes me sad for you.
The Drive that wasn't. The Drives that weren't.
On the day that Jay Cutler became the greatest single-season passer in Broncos history, only two passes matter. Interception. Incomplete.
This is a classic logic fail. In addition to the stats showing that Jay Cutler has been awesome all season, in this last game he was 25 for 45 and 359 yards passing. I am pretty sure that for the Broncos, in their 30-23 loss to the Bills, more passes mattered than just the two that Bernie mentions. Because, well, without those earlier passes, the Broncos would not have scored the points that kept the game that close.
One pass ended a drive at the goal line, one pass ended a drive at the back of the end zone, one football nestling in the arms of a Buffalo linebacker and the other clattering beyond the hands of Broncos receiver Brandon Stokley.
Also, 25 passes were completed for 359 yards.
"(I) had my hands on the last one, I should have caught it . . . ," said Stokley. "That's the plays I've got to make."
And another pass should have been completed but the receiver screwed up.
Both of the above points are proof positive, of course, that Cutler really blew this one.
Not that the defense is not in line for its usual ridicule. They continue to tackle like passengers. Luggage gets harder wear.
The worst part, Bernie, is that you know better than to blame Cutler for this loss. You know that there are really sub-par players on the Broncos and are even able to point to who they are because you either quote them or tell me directly…but when it comes time to apportion the blame, you decide to go with the guy who is having a great season.
You hurt my heart.
Cutler has won games the Broncos should have lost and he has lost games the Broncos should have won.
I should have watched the Broncos more. Then not only would I have seen the awe-inspiring sight of a single man lining up alone on offense and defense against full NFL teams and beating them, but I would have seen how that lone man was also able to set the single-season passing record by throwing only to himself.
And that is where the real difficulty lies, if you think about it.
This was one of those he should have won.
By himself. Because that is how real men play football.
Cutler's 4,210 yards moved him past Jake Plummer for a season, and his 25 completions passed John Elway for most (351) in a season.
So, considering that Cutler is demonstrably playing well, perhaps there are other reasons that the Broncos didn’t win yesterday.
In fact, you may have mentioned it earlier in this very article…
To put this in perspective, recall the words of Mark Twain: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
To put this in perspective, there is logic, there is illogic and there is Bernie Lincicome.
Positive Reinforcement = Proof of Professional Journalism
I was set to call it a day until someone sent me this article. Rob Parker of the Detroit News, you're good enough, you're smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like you.
Rod Marinelli and I have a different relationship.
[(Cue wah pedal guitar riff)]
On the surface, you might think it's adversarial. He hates me and I hate him. In reality, it's one built on mutual respect.
[Parker and Marinelli are the Ron Burgunday and Wes Mantooth of the sports world.]
I respect what Marinelli is trying to accomplish as Lions coach....
[Really?]
During Sunday's postgame news conference... I attempted to lighten the moment in a tense situation and asked Marinelli if he wished his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator. Joe Barry, the Lions defensive coordinator, is Marinelli's son-in-law.
[Actually, that is kind of funny. I mean, what else do they have to talk about at a Lions post-game presser?]
Marinelli didn't flinch, he just ignored my attempt at humor and moved on.
[Mutual respect.]
Mutual respect.
[Exactly.]
Often, after some of the most intense line of questioning from me, Marinelli and I have walked off to the side and chatted.
[This article is now nothing more than the old "The Chris Farley Show" SNL skit. Hey, remember after that one press conference when you came up to me? That was awesome.]
Marinelli has gone out of his way several times to offer words of encouragement. A month or so ago, he called me on my cell phone and told me I was one of the best at asking questions and that I shouldn't change because I hit a bump in the road.
[Professional journalism: Because Rod Marinelli said so.]
Rod Marinelli and I have a different relationship.
[(Cue wah pedal guitar riff)]
On the surface, you might think it's adversarial. He hates me and I hate him. In reality, it's one built on mutual respect.
[Parker and Marinelli are the Ron Burgunday and Wes Mantooth of the sports world.]
I respect what Marinelli is trying to accomplish as Lions coach....
[Really?]
During Sunday's postgame news conference... I attempted to lighten the moment in a tense situation and asked Marinelli if he wished his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator. Joe Barry, the Lions defensive coordinator, is Marinelli's son-in-law.
[Actually, that is kind of funny. I mean, what else do they have to talk about at a Lions post-game presser?]
Marinelli didn't flinch, he just ignored my attempt at humor and moved on.
[Mutual respect.]
Mutual respect.
[Exactly.]
Often, after some of the most intense line of questioning from me, Marinelli and I have walked off to the side and chatted.
[This article is now nothing more than the old "The Chris Farley Show" SNL skit. Hey, remember after that one press conference when you came up to me? That was awesome.]
Marinelli has gone out of his way several times to offer words of encouragement. A month or so ago, he called me on my cell phone and told me I was one of the best at asking questions and that I shouldn't change because I hit a bump in the road.
[Professional journalism: Because Rod Marinelli said so.]
Jason Whitlock: Vol. 5
Busy day on The Theorem (now that Nils has emerged from his coma). Let's keep it going with another gem from one of our favorites.
I see Tommy Tuberville as the lone victim in the Gene Chizik-Turner Gill-Charles Barkley controversy surrounding Auburn football.
[I have to agree with Whitlock here. Tuberville had a great tenure at Auburn. The firing seemed pretty reactionary to one sub-par season.]
If his name was Tommy Obama and his father was an irresponsible Kenyan, there would be blood filling the streets of Alabama this week.
[Well, agreeing with Whitlock was fun while it lasted. I have no idea where he's going with this analogy. I'm pretty sure that Obama lost Alabama in resounding fashion. Although, maybe "Tommy" Obama isn't a metaphorical person, but is actually some dude that Whitlock knows, and who happens to be all the rage in Alabama.]
OK, now that I have your attention, buckle up.
[Yes....]
We're going to travel deep into the college football-black coaches maze.
[Deep? I thought there were only like five black coaches? Whatever, I am buckled. Let's do this.]
It's an important topic, an issue that should be addressed with a level of sophistication and honesty that a Hall of Fame basketball player and rabble-rouser can't muster.
[That's right. Sorry, Barkley, but such an important issue can only be sufficiently analyzed by a professional journalist with well thought-out and articulated theories on the subject.]
Turner Gill, the black head football coach at Buffalo, is one of the most promising coaches in the game. He has a chance to be a superstar. Auburn wasn't the right "fit" for Gill.
[Nailed it! Journalism and/or race-relations award, please!]
Unlike pro football, and pro and college basketball, you don't really land college football jobs with your resume.
[For example, did you know that Charlie Weis landed the ND job solely because he and then-AD Kevin White both loved Bon Jovi? Or that Joe Paterno just landed his 3-year extension because he correctly answered the "I'm thinking of a number between one and ten" question?]
Turner Gill is not ready for the BCS. He's had one winning season in three as a head coach. His signature victory — an upset of Ball State in the MAC championship — came on a night when his opponent gave the game away with turnovers.
[Obviously. Because Ball State is AWESOME. They committed those turnovers on purpose. That championship game was beneath them. Pshawww.]
There was no coaching masterpiece. Skin color and a 15-22 record don't qualify you to coach in the SEC.
[Seemed to do the trick for Gene Chizik, no?]
Let me repeat: Turner Gill has all the necessary ingredients to be a coaching star. He could be the black Urban Meyer if we allow Gill to develop.
[Huh?]
Urban Meyer introduced an offensive system (the spread), molded two mid-major programs (Bowling Green and Utah) into squads that routinely whipped BCS schools and then jumped to Florida and the SEC.
[That last sentence can be described as "highly exaggerated" if we are willing to be generous. Meyer introduced the spread? To whom?]
Whitlock spends the rest of the article slinging arrows at the Ball State administration. Non sequiturs. Professional journalism.
I see Tommy Tuberville as the lone victim in the Gene Chizik-Turner Gill-Charles Barkley controversy surrounding Auburn football.
[I have to agree with Whitlock here. Tuberville had a great tenure at Auburn. The firing seemed pretty reactionary to one sub-par season.]
If his name was Tommy Obama and his father was an irresponsible Kenyan, there would be blood filling the streets of Alabama this week.
[Well, agreeing with Whitlock was fun while it lasted. I have no idea where he's going with this analogy. I'm pretty sure that Obama lost Alabama in resounding fashion. Although, maybe "Tommy" Obama isn't a metaphorical person, but is actually some dude that Whitlock knows, and who happens to be all the rage in Alabama.]
OK, now that I have your attention, buckle up.
[Yes....]
We're going to travel deep into the college football-black coaches maze.
[Deep? I thought there were only like five black coaches? Whatever, I am buckled. Let's do this.]
It's an important topic, an issue that should be addressed with a level of sophistication and honesty that a Hall of Fame basketball player and rabble-rouser can't muster.
[That's right. Sorry, Barkley, but such an important issue can only be sufficiently analyzed by a professional journalist with well thought-out and articulated theories on the subject.]
Turner Gill, the black head football coach at Buffalo, is one of the most promising coaches in the game. He has a chance to be a superstar. Auburn wasn't the right "fit" for Gill.
[Nailed it! Journalism and/or race-relations award, please!]
Unlike pro football, and pro and college basketball, you don't really land college football jobs with your resume.
[For example, did you know that Charlie Weis landed the ND job solely because he and then-AD Kevin White both loved Bon Jovi? Or that Joe Paterno just landed his 3-year extension because he correctly answered the "I'm thinking of a number between one and ten" question?]
Turner Gill is not ready for the BCS. He's had one winning season in three as a head coach. His signature victory — an upset of Ball State in the MAC championship — came on a night when his opponent gave the game away with turnovers.
[Obviously. Because Ball State is AWESOME. They committed those turnovers on purpose. That championship game was beneath them. Pshawww.]
There was no coaching masterpiece. Skin color and a 15-22 record don't qualify you to coach in the SEC.
[Seemed to do the trick for Gene Chizik, no?]
Let me repeat: Turner Gill has all the necessary ingredients to be a coaching star. He could be the black Urban Meyer if we allow Gill to develop.
[Huh?]
Urban Meyer introduced an offensive system (the spread), molded two mid-major programs (Bowling Green and Utah) into squads that routinely whipped BCS schools and then jumped to Florida and the SEC.
[That last sentence can be described as "highly exaggerated" if we are willing to be generous. Meyer introduced the spread? To whom?]
Whitlock spends the rest of the article slinging arrows at the Ball State administration. Non sequiturs. Professional journalism.
There Already is a "Greg Oden of Blogging"
His name is....... Greg Oden.
Yep, Oden has his own blog.
And he posts entries just about as frequently as he posts decent box scores, so the analogy even works for him too. What's his blog like? Glad you asked.
Hey Nils, something tells me that you are now in the market for a new anology.
Yep, Oden has his own blog.
And he posts entries just about as frequently as he posts decent box scores, so the analogy even works for him too. What's his blog like? Glad you asked.
We are on a week long east coast road trip, as of now we are 3-0. We play Boston tomorrow and Toronto on sunday. Those are two really good teams, they will be really tough to win and being at there place. The road trip has been good so far besides basketball they are some really good cities that we have been too. In Detroit i got to see my mom so that was good. Then in New York i just like it, me and Steve Blake went out to dinner and i got to see some of the places that were on this weeks episode of Gossip Girl.
Hey Nils, something tells me that you are now in the market for a new anology.
The Greg Oden of Blogging
As a regular reader, if there were a regular reader, would know, I have been posting only sporadically, especially compared to the incomparably prolific Archie Leach. 1. That will change. 2. It was the impetus for a funny exchange between Archie and myself as we tried to determine which NBA player I was the blogging equivalent of.
I opened with Brian Scalabrine, positing that I was much-rumored but little seen.
Archie responded that Scalabrine actually plays and, based on recent record, I was the Stephon Marbury of blogging.
Knowing that I had some good posts coming and not wanting to be tainted by association with Starbury, I proposed that I was actually the Greg Oden of blogging – around enough to show glimpses of promise before disappearing for an interminable length of time because of physical ailments. Of course, in my case the physical ailments are recovering from hangovers. It’s just an analogy.
And the analogy just got better as I am at least as marketable as the big man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXbpB-rlung
I opened with Brian Scalabrine, positing that I was much-rumored but little seen.
Archie responded that Scalabrine actually plays and, based on recent record, I was the Stephon Marbury of blogging.
Knowing that I had some good posts coming and not wanting to be tainted by association with Starbury, I proposed that I was actually the Greg Oden of blogging – around enough to show glimpses of promise before disappearing for an interminable length of time because of physical ailments. Of course, in my case the physical ailments are recovering from hangovers. It’s just an analogy.
And the analogy just got better as I am at least as marketable as the big man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXbpB-rlung
Peter King: Vol. 12
A pretty exciting NFL weekend. I have high hopes for Pete this morning.
No wonder Tennessee wins every year. The Titans have the best defensive depth in recent NFL history.
[A couple of things wrong with this absurdly exaggerated couplet. One, while the Titans received impressive contributions from backup players yesterday, one game does not lend itself to a "best (anything) in recent NFL history" statement. One game. Settle down. And two, Tennessee wins every year? Really? Unless Pete is referring to Univ. of Tennessee women's basketball, I'm pretty sure he just made that up. Let's check:
2008: 13-2
2007: 10-6
2006: 8-8
2005: 4-12
2004: 5-11
I will skip the subsequent five pages that Pete wastes talking about coffee, Leon Washinton's eyes, Holmgren's last home game (until he starts coaching again in 2010), etc. I'm glad he didn't spend more than a sentence talking about that Giants-Panthers game. That game was pretty boring anyways.]
Penn State is insane.... Can anyone who bleeds Nittany blue honestly tell me Paterno has the energy to out-recruit coaches 40 years his junior for the best football players in the country?
[I know, right? Paterno has been piecing together embarrassing teams for years now. The dude can't get ANY talent. I mean, just look at the last few seasons:
2008: 11-1
2007: 9-4
2006: 9-4
2005: 11-1
If only Penn State were more like the Titans, who win *every* year.]
Drew Brees needs 402 yards to break Dan Marino's career record of 5,084 passing yards in a season.... Here's the interesting thing about that game: Sean Payton has that record in his hands, and in his play-calling. Almost literally.
[Almost. Literally.]
Good for Boston.... In this economy, should a baseball player be paid more than $20 million a year?
[John Henry needs every extra million that he can hang on to!]
Almost. Literally.
No wonder Tennessee wins every year. The Titans have the best defensive depth in recent NFL history.
[A couple of things wrong with this absurdly exaggerated couplet. One, while the Titans received impressive contributions from backup players yesterday, one game does not lend itself to a "best (anything) in recent NFL history" statement. One game. Settle down. And two, Tennessee wins every year? Really? Unless Pete is referring to Univ. of Tennessee women's basketball, I'm pretty sure he just made that up. Let's check:
2008: 13-2
2007: 10-6
2006: 8-8
2005: 4-12
2004: 5-11
I will skip the subsequent five pages that Pete wastes talking about coffee, Leon Washinton's eyes, Holmgren's last home game (until he starts coaching again in 2010), etc. I'm glad he didn't spend more than a sentence talking about that Giants-Panthers game. That game was pretty boring anyways.]
Penn State is insane.... Can anyone who bleeds Nittany blue honestly tell me Paterno has the energy to out-recruit coaches 40 years his junior for the best football players in the country?
[I know, right? Paterno has been piecing together embarrassing teams for years now. The dude can't get ANY talent. I mean, just look at the last few seasons:
2008: 11-1
2007: 9-4
2006: 9-4
2005: 11-1
If only Penn State were more like the Titans, who win *every* year.]
Drew Brees needs 402 yards to break Dan Marino's career record of 5,084 passing yards in a season.... Here's the interesting thing about that game: Sean Payton has that record in his hands, and in his play-calling. Almost literally.
[Almost. Literally.]
Good for Boston.... In this economy, should a baseball player be paid more than $20 million a year?
[John Henry needs every extra million that he can hang on to!]
Almost. Literally.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Judging Championship Potential with Ian Thomsen
Headlined “The Simplest Way I Can Tell To Judge Championship Potential,” you would be forgiven for assuming that this article by Ian Thomsen would include a heavy dose of number of actual games won tempered by a nod to strength of schedule and consideration of the team’s injury situation. You would be forgiven because, well, that way of judging championship potential actually makes sense.
Instead, we get this:
In honor of the extended holiday, here is an extended look at the simplest way I know to gauge NBA championship potential. Search the roster of any team for an MVP-level talent with the leadership and drive of Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon or (to cite the newest example) Kevin Garnett.
Tell the Minnesota Timberwolves that KG was all that was needed to be a championship contender. Or the Detroit Pistons that you need a singular MVP-level talent. Wait? What’s that? You reference the Pistons in your next sentence?
Well more than half of the NBA teams are absent this kind of star, which means you can essentially write them off as championship contenders (unless they are the Detroit Pistons of a few years ago, as you'll see below).
I can see that this method of evaluation is not going to be so simple after all.
In fact, if you bother to read the article because you are, like me, desperately interested in learning a simple way to determine championship contenders, you get a two-page list of awesome basketball players since the 80s and the following lessons:
2. Awesome players help teams win championships
1. You need luck to get those players on your team
1a. Coaches are less likely than players to earn an NBA championship ring because only one coach gets to win every year compared to a whole team of players
Not only simple, but totally useful for determining who might be in pole position to win this season!
Thank you Mr Thomsen for being totally uninformative in a most uninteresting way and still hitting your editor-mandated word count for the week. You, truly, are among the reasons that traditional media readership has fallen off a cliff.
Instead, we get this:
In honor of the extended holiday, here is an extended look at the simplest way I know to gauge NBA championship potential. Search the roster of any team for an MVP-level talent with the leadership and drive of Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon or (to cite the newest example) Kevin Garnett.
Tell the Minnesota Timberwolves that KG was all that was needed to be a championship contender. Or the Detroit Pistons that you need a singular MVP-level talent. Wait? What’s that? You reference the Pistons in your next sentence?
Well more than half of the NBA teams are absent this kind of star, which means you can essentially write them off as championship contenders (unless they are the Detroit Pistons of a few years ago, as you'll see below).
I can see that this method of evaluation is not going to be so simple after all.
In fact, if you bother to read the article because you are, like me, desperately interested in learning a simple way to determine championship contenders, you get a two-page list of awesome basketball players since the 80s and the following lessons:
2. Awesome players help teams win championships
1. You need luck to get those players on your team
1a. Coaches are less likely than players to earn an NBA championship ring because only one coach gets to win every year compared to a whole team of players
Not only simple, but totally useful for determining who might be in pole position to win this season!
Thank you Mr Thomsen for being totally uninformative in a most uninteresting way and still hitting your editor-mandated word count for the week. You, truly, are among the reasons that traditional media readership has fallen off a cliff.
Yankees: Hate-able Even Before Yesterday
I usually try to stay away from reading sub-par news outlets because if you think the writing by ‘the big boys’ is bad, it is many time worse as you go further down the totem pole.
Like this gem from Newsday writer Ken Davidoff.
Yankees president Randy Levine, on live television yesterday from the old Yankee Stadium, announced, "Today, we reaffirm the Steinbrenners' commitment to Yankees' fans."
For the rest of the world, of course, it meant just the opposite: Time to hate the Yankees again.
Except that it doesn’t, for two reasons:
1. It logically follows that a team owner, any team owner, who spends $243.5 million on players is emphatically reaffirming a commitment to the fans. What I would give for Carl Pohlad to spend like that (actually, glad you asked, it would include my born-again virginity, my luck Twins hat, visiting rights to my dog three days a week and a perpetual 10% tithe payable directly to the Minnesota Twins at 34 Kirby Puckett Way, Minneapolis, MN).
2. Hating the Yankees never went out of style. It never does. Seriously, it just doesn’t. It’s a classic. Like the little black dress, Charlie Brown’s Christmas and a college football national title game that nobody’s really happy with.
There existed, this past year, the tiniest window in which the Yankees made it difficult to loathe them. But they utilized the power left arm of CC Sabathia and the power right arm of A.J. Burnett to slam that window shut.
This is the first time in fourteen years that the Yankees missed the playoffs. Sorry if I am unable to feel the depths of sorrow for the abject failure as I am for, say, the Royals, Reds or Rangers.
And you know what, even in the 80s I still hated the Yankees…even when they are not a good baseball team they are still the richest and most successful sporting team ever in America. Also, their fans are New Yorkers and assorted other bandwagon hangers-on across the country.
The Yankees could play Al Qaeda and I will still be rooting against the Yankees.
So no, one bad season didn’t make it difficult to dislike the Yankees. If anything, it primed me for extra dislike when they inevitably waved their huge checkbook around to the best players in the Major Leagues.
Yankees bashing is back en vogue.
Again, unlike corduroy or hippie hair, it never went out of style.
Spending $243.5 million on two pitchers, at a time when our country is drowning financially, will create some bad will out there.
Though I may have been subtle in communicating this, the Yankees are not my favorite team. But it is hard to fault them for spending money since, you know, they make a lot of money and, you may have heard, they spent their money on good players who will help them win games and, research shows, winning attracts the fans that make teams profitable. So, like most people, and this might hit you like a striper wrapped in yesterday’s Post, I don’t care that they are spending a lot of money as long as they are NOT asking my elected representatives to steal money from me to give it to them and their business.
I may fervently hope that Sabathia and Burnett turn out like Tartabull and Johnson, but I am not angry that they spent their money to buy players. It’s called the free market.
Oh, and it’s what I wish the Twins would do, too.
Like this gem from Newsday writer Ken Davidoff.
Yankees president Randy Levine, on live television yesterday from the old Yankee Stadium, announced, "Today, we reaffirm the Steinbrenners' commitment to Yankees' fans."
For the rest of the world, of course, it meant just the opposite: Time to hate the Yankees again.
Except that it doesn’t, for two reasons:
1. It logically follows that a team owner, any team owner, who spends $243.5 million on players is emphatically reaffirming a commitment to the fans. What I would give for Carl Pohlad to spend like that (actually, glad you asked, it would include my born-again virginity, my luck Twins hat, visiting rights to my dog three days a week and a perpetual 10% tithe payable directly to the Minnesota Twins at 34 Kirby Puckett Way, Minneapolis, MN).
2. Hating the Yankees never went out of style. It never does. Seriously, it just doesn’t. It’s a classic. Like the little black dress, Charlie Brown’s Christmas and a college football national title game that nobody’s really happy with.
There existed, this past year, the tiniest window in which the Yankees made it difficult to loathe them. But they utilized the power left arm of CC Sabathia and the power right arm of A.J. Burnett to slam that window shut.
This is the first time in fourteen years that the Yankees missed the playoffs. Sorry if I am unable to feel the depths of sorrow for the abject failure as I am for, say, the Royals, Reds or Rangers.
And you know what, even in the 80s I still hated the Yankees…even when they are not a good baseball team they are still the richest and most successful sporting team ever in America. Also, their fans are New Yorkers and assorted other bandwagon hangers-on across the country.
The Yankees could play Al Qaeda and I will still be rooting against the Yankees.
So no, one bad season didn’t make it difficult to dislike the Yankees. If anything, it primed me for extra dislike when they inevitably waved their huge checkbook around to the best players in the Major Leagues.
Yankees bashing is back en vogue.
Again, unlike corduroy or hippie hair, it never went out of style.
Spending $243.5 million on two pitchers, at a time when our country is drowning financially, will create some bad will out there.
Though I may have been subtle in communicating this, the Yankees are not my favorite team. But it is hard to fault them for spending money since, you know, they make a lot of money and, you may have heard, they spent their money on good players who will help them win games and, research shows, winning attracts the fans that make teams profitable. So, like most people, and this might hit you like a striper wrapped in yesterday’s Post, I don’t care that they are spending a lot of money as long as they are NOT asking my elected representatives to steal money from me to give it to them and their business.
I may fervently hope that Sabathia and Burnett turn out like Tartabull and Johnson, but I am not angry that they spent their money to buy players. It’s called the free market.
Oh, and it’s what I wish the Twins would do, too.
Peyton Manning -- Next Up: Curing Cancer
I don't have a problem with IndyStar's Bob Kravitz and his high praise for Peyton Manning after last night's undeniably awesome performance. But he was approaching "gushing" territory, which made for a marginally humorous read.
Manning wasn't great Thursday night; he was sublime. He was as close to perfection as a quarterback can be....
[Peyton's new nickname? The Asymptote.]
Receivers caught balls, but too, balls caught receivers.
[It that how those mysterious K-Balls work?]
There was one ball thrown to Dallas Clark in the seam deep over the middle that was so perfect, so deftly thrown, Clark had no choice but to bring it in.
[Wrong. Peyton need look no further than his own brother to dispel this one. Remember this play two weeks ago?]
They have flaws, but they have something -- someone -- nobody else has: They have Manning, at long last, back at the top of his game. MVP, anybody?
[Hey, no argument here. I will vote for him every year until someone tops his United Way spoof. And, by the way, he'll kill a snitch. Not saying he has; not saying he hasn't....]
Manning wasn't great Thursday night; he was sublime. He was as close to perfection as a quarterback can be....
[Peyton's new nickname? The Asymptote.]
Receivers caught balls, but too, balls caught receivers.
[It that how those mysterious K-Balls work?]
There was one ball thrown to Dallas Clark in the seam deep over the middle that was so perfect, so deftly thrown, Clark had no choice but to bring it in.
[Wrong. Peyton need look no further than his own brother to dispel this one. Remember this play two weeks ago?]
They have flaws, but they have something -- someone -- nobody else has: They have Manning, at long last, back at the top of his game. MVP, anybody?
[Hey, no argument here. I will vote for him every year until someone tops his United Way spoof. And, by the way, he'll kill a snitch. Not saying he has; not saying he hasn't....]
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Quick Hits from the World of Sports
The world of sports is wide, which is a certifiable fact - ABC says so, or at least used to - and that makes it difficult to stay up on all the latest stories. Or at least what passes for stories. They're more like sports-themed filler, kind of like how those convenience store pies are filled with apple-like filler substance that kind of tastes like apple but mainly just takes up the space where you expect something to be.
Yep, these stories are like that.
Furcal spurns Braves, choose Dodgers and their $30 million offer.
"From our perspective, we reached an agreement Monday night," Braves general manager Frank Wren said. "They asked for a term sheet for us to sign on Tuesday morning, and we sent over the signed termed sheet. It was then that his agent [Paul Kinzer] informed us that [Kinzer's] partner had been in contact with the Dodgers.
While trying to decide whether to use a Federal bailout joke on the Braves (tortured, but had potential) or on the agent (spot on, but making fun of the avarice of agents is expected), I re-read the story. Yep, the Dodgers are giving a big contract to an over-30, injury-prone ballplayer whose OPS+ is just under the league average and whose OBP is .352.
Don't worry though, it's the Dodgers. They're usually good about who they give big contracts to.
Hansbrough sets UNC scoring mark
The 6-foot-9 senior needed nine points in the top-ranked Tar Heels' game against Evansville on Thursday night to pass Phil Ford for the record. He tied Ford on a jumper from the left wing with 14:05 left, then set the mark by banking in a turnaround shot with 7:41 left in the first half.
Duly noted and filed under "he's still going to be crap in the NBA." Next.
Sabathia says Yankees Best Place to Try to Win a Title
"I think this is the best place for me to try to win a championship," Sabathia said Thursday, on his way to the news conference where he was formally introduced, along with right-hander A.J. Burnett.
Forget about loser teams like the Phillies or the Red Sox. The Yankees are the team where winning championships is most likely. Of course, they are also the team most likely to give him a seven-year $161 million deal. But it's really about winning.
"Everybody had speculated about me staying in California. I had always talked about winning a championship, and you look at the Yankees, it's something they contend for" just about every year.
Judicious use of "just about" since, you know, last year was one of those years they weren't contending for a championship.
Sabathia was phoned twice during his negotiations by Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter -- recruiting calls -- and Jeter told him about how much fun it was playing in New York.
It's all fun and games until you're mercilessly booed beginning in the second for hanging a slider to Dustin Pedroia with men on base and you have to spend the next five days with the papers questioning if you're cut out for New York, yahoo radio talk show hosts saying that you'll never be a real Yankee and enraged callers to those radio shows threatening to put you in the foundation of whatever stadium has the remains of Jimmy Hoffa and Carl Pavano.
The day after he reached his agreement with the Yankees, he called Jeter, and the friends talked again about what it would be like to play together.
Jeter: "It will be better than Cleveland or Milwaukee."
Sabathia: "Gotta be honest, D, I need more than that."
Jeter: "You'll make $161 million dollars."
Sabathia: "Can't wait to play with you. Can you introduce me to Mariah?"
Yep, these stories are like that.
Furcal spurns Braves, choose Dodgers and their $30 million offer.
"From our perspective, we reached an agreement Monday night," Braves general manager Frank Wren said. "They asked for a term sheet for us to sign on Tuesday morning, and we sent over the signed termed sheet. It was then that his agent [Paul Kinzer] informed us that [Kinzer's] partner had been in contact with the Dodgers.
While trying to decide whether to use a Federal bailout joke on the Braves (tortured, but had potential) or on the agent (spot on, but making fun of the avarice of agents is expected), I re-read the story. Yep, the Dodgers are giving a big contract to an over-30, injury-prone ballplayer whose OPS+ is just under the league average and whose OBP is .352.
Don't worry though, it's the Dodgers. They're usually good about who they give big contracts to.
Hansbrough sets UNC scoring mark
The 6-foot-9 senior needed nine points in the top-ranked Tar Heels' game against Evansville on Thursday night to pass Phil Ford for the record. He tied Ford on a jumper from the left wing with 14:05 left, then set the mark by banking in a turnaround shot with 7:41 left in the first half.
Duly noted and filed under "he's still going to be crap in the NBA." Next.
Sabathia says Yankees Best Place to Try to Win a Title
"I think this is the best place for me to try to win a championship," Sabathia said Thursday, on his way to the news conference where he was formally introduced, along with right-hander A.J. Burnett.
Forget about loser teams like the Phillies or the Red Sox. The Yankees are the team where winning championships is most likely. Of course, they are also the team most likely to give him a seven-year $161 million deal. But it's really about winning.
"Everybody had speculated about me staying in California. I had always talked about winning a championship, and you look at the Yankees, it's something they contend for" just about every year.
Judicious use of "just about" since, you know, last year was one of those years they weren't contending for a championship.
Sabathia was phoned twice during his negotiations by Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter -- recruiting calls -- and Jeter told him about how much fun it was playing in New York.
It's all fun and games until you're mercilessly booed beginning in the second for hanging a slider to Dustin Pedroia with men on base and you have to spend the next five days with the papers questioning if you're cut out for New York, yahoo radio talk show hosts saying that you'll never be a real Yankee and enraged callers to those radio shows threatening to put you in the foundation of whatever stadium has the remains of Jimmy Hoffa and Carl Pavano.
The day after he reached his agreement with the Yankees, he called Jeter, and the friends talked again about what it would be like to play together.
Jeter: "It will be better than Cleveland or Milwaukee."
Sabathia: "Gotta be honest, D, I need more than that."
Jeter: "You'll make $161 million dollars."
Sabathia: "Can't wait to play with you. Can you introduce me to Mariah?"
Seth Davis and the Time-Space Continuum
Polls are obviously flawed, and to a certain extent (especially in basketball) utterly pointless. But if I were one of the voters, I would still attempt to fill out my poll with some semblance of rational thought. Seth Davis? Not so much.
As for Soham's question [Why Davis omitted Ohio State from his top 25], I don't mean to sound like your dad, but the simple answer is, "Because I said so."
[I'm pretty sure that's not love.... But keep going.]
As an AP voter, I tend to be more subjective early in the season and then let results dictate my ballot as time goes on.
[Because these so-called "games" that teams "play" in November and December, yeah, they don't actually count. I bet all of you at home thought they did, didn't you? Ha. Suckers.]
In the case of the Buckeyes, I see a team that could very well be good enough to win the Big Ten. However, I also see a team that lost three starters from a squad that failed to reach the NCAA tournament.
[2008-09 Buckeyes = Good. 2007-08 Buckeyes = Bad. Result = 2008-09 Buckeyes ranked as if they are bad. QED.]
Looking at some other teams on my ballot, why would I rank Villanova at No. 21? Because they were a Sweet 16 last year....
[Davis also thinks that "There Will Be Blood" will take home the "Best Picture" award at this year's Oscars.]
As for Soham's question [Why Davis omitted Ohio State from his top 25], I don't mean to sound like your dad, but the simple answer is, "Because I said so."
[I'm pretty sure that's not love.... But keep going.]
As an AP voter, I tend to be more subjective early in the season and then let results dictate my ballot as time goes on.
[Because these so-called "games" that teams "play" in November and December, yeah, they don't actually count. I bet all of you at home thought they did, didn't you? Ha. Suckers.]
In the case of the Buckeyes, I see a team that could very well be good enough to win the Big Ten. However, I also see a team that lost three starters from a squad that failed to reach the NCAA tournament.
[2008-09 Buckeyes = Good. 2007-08 Buckeyes = Bad. Result = 2008-09 Buckeyes ranked as if they are bad. QED.]
Looking at some other teams on my ballot, why would I rank Villanova at No. 21? Because they were a Sweet 16 last year....
[Davis also thinks that "There Will Be Blood" will take home the "Best Picture" award at this year's Oscars.]
CC = Good Guy = Yankee Championship
Here's an almost completely useless piece in the NY Times about what CC Sabathia *really* brings to the Yankees, courtesy of William Rhoden.
Which team made the best deal for itself on the pitching front? My vote goes to the Yankees.
[Agreed. With respect to PITCHING, Sabathia clearly has more value than K-Rod. He'll give you many more quality innings, he's a lefty pitching in Yankee Stadium, his stats don't look exactly the same as Scott Downs', etc. Rhoden has lots of good reasons to choose from here.]
While the Mets plugged an embarrassing hole in their bullpen, the Yankees plugged an even larger hole — a hole in their soul.
[Or he could go that route. To quote my Friend Who Knows Things, "Brutal."]
Sabathia represents a potential breath of fresh air in a stale, cliché-ridden Yankees clubhouse, one with little personality and even less passion, and no recent championships to compensate for those deficiencies.
[In fact, did you know that the Yankees won 114 games in 1998 largely because of Paul O'Neill's love-hate relationship with the dugout water coolers?]
In 2007, for example, Sabathia complained about the lack of African-American players in the majors. He even pointed a finger at Major League Baseball for not doing all that it could to increase the numbers.
[2009 World Series trophy, please!]
He said later: “I think Major League Baseball should do something about it. I don’t know exactly what they could be doing, but I know it’s not enough.”
[The Yankees clubhouse hasn't had this kind of problem-identification skills in years. Hope you enjoyed your brief stint atop the standings, Tampa!]
Finally a Yankee with an opinion.
[Ha, I know! No one associated with the Yankees EVER has opinions to share! Put your hand down, Hank! Not now!]
Gary Sheffield was the last great truth teller in the Yankees’ clubhouse.
[Great point. My favorite Sheffield "truth" was his proclamation that Jeter "ain't all the way black," and that Joe Torre treated black players differently from white players. I'm surprised that the Yanks didn't go undefeated that year.]
Before that, the passion was generated by the Paul O’Neill Yankees, who played with a verve that has been missing. It’s no coincidence that the championships have been missing as well.
[Two things: (1) Sheffield was definitely not on any of the championship teams; and (2) Why is O'Neill only ever credited for his "verve" as opposed to the fact that he was actually quite good at baseball. Career OPS+ of 120, one batting title, 5 all-star appearances, over 2,100 career hits. Dude could play. Pretty sure it was probably that fact, and not his temper tantrums, that helped the Yanks win titles.]
“That team can play, but something’s missing,” [Kevin Millar] said. “When you play against them and you look over there — other than they didn’t pitch very well — something was missing.” The something was chemistry.
[NO! No, it wasn't! It was pitching! He even just said that! OK, you know what? Forget it. Done.]
Which team made the best deal for itself on the pitching front? My vote goes to the Yankees.
[Agreed. With respect to PITCHING, Sabathia clearly has more value than K-Rod. He'll give you many more quality innings, he's a lefty pitching in Yankee Stadium, his stats don't look exactly the same as Scott Downs', etc. Rhoden has lots of good reasons to choose from here.]
While the Mets plugged an embarrassing hole in their bullpen, the Yankees plugged an even larger hole — a hole in their soul.
[Or he could go that route. To quote my Friend Who Knows Things, "Brutal."]
Sabathia represents a potential breath of fresh air in a stale, cliché-ridden Yankees clubhouse, one with little personality and even less passion, and no recent championships to compensate for those deficiencies.
[In fact, did you know that the Yankees won 114 games in 1998 largely because of Paul O'Neill's love-hate relationship with the dugout water coolers?]
In 2007, for example, Sabathia complained about the lack of African-American players in the majors. He even pointed a finger at Major League Baseball for not doing all that it could to increase the numbers.
[2009 World Series trophy, please!]
He said later: “I think Major League Baseball should do something about it. I don’t know exactly what they could be doing, but I know it’s not enough.”
[The Yankees clubhouse hasn't had this kind of problem-identification skills in years. Hope you enjoyed your brief stint atop the standings, Tampa!]
Finally a Yankee with an opinion.
[Ha, I know! No one associated with the Yankees EVER has opinions to share! Put your hand down, Hank! Not now!]
Gary Sheffield was the last great truth teller in the Yankees’ clubhouse.
[Great point. My favorite Sheffield "truth" was his proclamation that Jeter "ain't all the way black," and that Joe Torre treated black players differently from white players. I'm surprised that the Yanks didn't go undefeated that year.]
Before that, the passion was generated by the Paul O’Neill Yankees, who played with a verve that has been missing. It’s no coincidence that the championships have been missing as well.
[Two things: (1) Sheffield was definitely not on any of the championship teams; and (2) Why is O'Neill only ever credited for his "verve" as opposed to the fact that he was actually quite good at baseball. Career OPS+ of 120, one batting title, 5 all-star appearances, over 2,100 career hits. Dude could play. Pretty sure it was probably that fact, and not his temper tantrums, that helped the Yanks win titles.]
“That team can play, but something’s missing,” [Kevin Millar] said. “When you play against them and you look over there — other than they didn’t pitch very well — something was missing.” The something was chemistry.
[NO! No, it wasn't! It was pitching! He even just said that! OK, you know what? Forget it. Done.]
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
The Lake-Show is in trouble
Despite touting a robust 21-3 record, Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times thinks the Lakers are missing something. Something magical.
The Lakers have lost that spark.
[21-3]
What happened?
[They win a lot?]
I found Kobe. I found Fish. I found the schedule. I found the kids.
[OK?]
I also found a guy who thinks this is all poppycock.
[So did I! I think that guy might be on to something...]
Here's what I found. Kobe Bryant Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.
[Seriously! If Kobe had be "pushing" them, they would probably be 22-2 right now!]
This is a team whose pulse can be directly measured by Bryant's heart rate....
[I'm pretty sure that only KOBE'S pulse can be directly measure by Bryant's heart rate. But keep going.]
Derek Fisher's and Jordan Farmar's Defense Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.
[What's with all the pushing?]
The Schedule Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.
[Yeah, c'mon schedule! Get more difficult so the Lakers will lose a few games and I will look like a genius for writing this "Lakers lack a spark" article.]
Teams get lazy at home and tough on the road.
[Lakers home record: 14-1. Lakers road record: 7-2. Sooo lazy.]
The Lakers are a sultry, splendid 21-3. Now if they'd only act like it.
[I vote that Kobe be the first Laker to start acting "sultry."]
The Lakers have lost that spark.
[21-3]
What happened?
[They win a lot?]
I found Kobe. I found Fish. I found the schedule. I found the kids.
[OK?]
I also found a guy who thinks this is all poppycock.
[So did I! I think that guy might be on to something...]
Here's what I found. Kobe Bryant Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.
[Seriously! If Kobe had be "pushing" them, they would probably be 22-2 right now!]
This is a team whose pulse can be directly measured by Bryant's heart rate....
[I'm pretty sure that only KOBE'S pulse can be directly measure by Bryant's heart rate. But keep going.]
Derek Fisher's and Jordan Farmar's Defense Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.
[What's with all the pushing?]
The Schedule Hasn't Pushed Them Yet.
[Yeah, c'mon schedule! Get more difficult so the Lakers will lose a few games and I will look like a genius for writing this "Lakers lack a spark" article.]
Teams get lazy at home and tough on the road.
[Lakers home record: 14-1. Lakers road record: 7-2. Sooo lazy.]
The Lakers are a sultry, splendid 21-3. Now if they'd only act like it.
[I vote that Kobe be the first Laker to start acting "sultry."]
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Peter King: Vol. 11
Tell me that this isn't a weird exchange between Pete and one of his readers:
From Scott, of Providence: "I'm amazed at how little attention Matt Cassel's performace in the wake of his father's passing received on a national level. When Brett Favre had a similiar performance in Oakland, albeit on Monday night, the national media went nuts, he was this great warrior, etc. Yet, today, Cassel gets a small note in the middle of a webpage. Not that Cassel's performance needs to be the lead story for the day, but the disparity is ridiculous. Another great day in the National Favre League."
Pete:
Favre was a legendary quarterback when his tragedy happened, Cassel a first-year starter. Favre's father was a relatively known character; Big Irv coached him in high school and was around him for much of his pro life. Favre's father died 26 hours before the Packers took the field in Oakland, and there was some real question in coach Mike Sherman's mind if Favre would play in the game. In the Cassel case, the dad died six days before the game, Cassel flew to southern California to be with the family when it happened and returned to the team to practice, and we never saw Cassel struggling with the kind of emotion Favre struggled with either before or after the game.
[So to summarize, in order for the death of your father to garner sympathy from Pete and the sports media at large, the following conditions must be met:
- You have to be "legendary," preferably as a quarterback (as opposed to the "Wilt Chamberlain" sense of the word). One lonely MVP award will not cut it.
- Your father had to have had a folksy nickname.
- Your father had to have died within 26 hours of your next game.
- You have to struggle with some "kind of emotion" before AND after the game.]
Stay classy, Pete.
From Scott, of Providence: "I'm amazed at how little attention Matt Cassel's performace in the wake of his father's passing received on a national level. When Brett Favre had a similiar performance in Oakland, albeit on Monday night, the national media went nuts, he was this great warrior, etc. Yet, today, Cassel gets a small note in the middle of a webpage. Not that Cassel's performance needs to be the lead story for the day, but the disparity is ridiculous. Another great day in the National Favre League."
Pete:
Favre was a legendary quarterback when his tragedy happened, Cassel a first-year starter. Favre's father was a relatively known character; Big Irv coached him in high school and was around him for much of his pro life. Favre's father died 26 hours before the Packers took the field in Oakland, and there was some real question in coach Mike Sherman's mind if Favre would play in the game. In the Cassel case, the dad died six days before the game, Cassel flew to southern California to be with the family when it happened and returned to the team to practice, and we never saw Cassel struggling with the kind of emotion Favre struggled with either before or after the game.
[So to summarize, in order for the death of your father to garner sympathy from Pete and the sports media at large, the following conditions must be met:
- You have to be "legendary," preferably as a quarterback (as opposed to the "Wilt Chamberlain" sense of the word). One lonely MVP award will not cut it.
- Your father had to have had a folksy nickname.
- Your father had to have died within 26 hours of your next game.
- You have to struggle with some "kind of emotion" before AND after the game.]
Stay classy, Pete.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Peter King: Vol. 10
Busy weekend in the NFL. Let's check Pete's take.
Regarding the controversial replay decision in the Steelers-Ravens Game:
I saw Holmes catching the ball, and at the moment of the catch, the absolute moment, it appears the ball is piercing the plane by inches.
[OK, so the ball crossed the plane. Touchdown was the correct call.]
But is it a lock that the ball crossed the line?
[You kind of just said it did, soooooo yes.]
No.
[Why do I even bother?]
I see the likelihood of the ball breaking the plane. I do not see the certainty.
[Maybe it's just me, but how can you SEE a likelihood? Right?? Am I crazy??]
This is the continuing problem with the replay system. I think officials need to realize what "indisputable" means.
[Ring the Irony Bell!]
The excessive reverence for the Heisman Trophy by ESPN had me wretching up my pork chop Saturday night. Did Jesus win the Heisman?
[No. Tebow technically finished third.]
Did an exclusive interview with Marv Albert last night about his coffee habits. Turns out he likes three double-tall cappuccinos a day, and doesn't mind drinking them at room temperature.
[Professional journalism: Interviewing any random person about what kind of coffee they like to drink. Oh, and then claiming the scoop as an "exclusive."]
Brutal.
Regarding the controversial replay decision in the Steelers-Ravens Game:
I saw Holmes catching the ball, and at the moment of the catch, the absolute moment, it appears the ball is piercing the plane by inches.
[OK, so the ball crossed the plane. Touchdown was the correct call.]
But is it a lock that the ball crossed the line?
[You kind of just said it did, soooooo yes.]
No.
[Why do I even bother?]
I see the likelihood of the ball breaking the plane. I do not see the certainty.
[Maybe it's just me, but how can you SEE a likelihood? Right?? Am I crazy??]
This is the continuing problem with the replay system. I think officials need to realize what "indisputable" means.
[Ring the Irony Bell!]
The excessive reverence for the Heisman Trophy by ESPN had me wretching up my pork chop Saturday night. Did Jesus win the Heisman?
[No. Tebow technically finished third.]
Did an exclusive interview with Marv Albert last night about his coffee habits. Turns out he likes three double-tall cappuccinos a day, and doesn't mind drinking them at room temperature.
[Professional journalism: Interviewing any random person about what kind of coffee they like to drink. Oh, and then claiming the scoop as an "exclusive."]
Brutal.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Back in my day, we had to walk 8 miles in the snow for a loaf of bread!
I'm not sure how many more of these "CC and the Yankees are evil-- don't they know we are in a recession!" articles I can take. This one, by Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe, I like because it includes the classic yelling-at-kids-on-his-lawn tone, along with the irony that his beloved Red Sox are currently the front-runners to sign Mark Teixiera (who's seeking a $200 million contract).
The year was 1966.
[You know how the rest of this argument goes. Oh, the good ol' days when life was so much better because I could buy a ticket to a Celtics game for $3. Now, I was not alive in 1966, but I hardly think that I needed to be in order to confidently say that the "life was better back in the day" argument is wrong, and borders on insulting.
You know what else was happening in 1966? Race riots in San Fran, New York, Oakland, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. The poll tax had just been suspended. Laws banning interracial marriage had yet to be ruled unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Act was still two years from being signed into law. The first marital rape law was still TEN years away. Etc. Etc.
But yeah, being able to take in a Sox game with a dog and a beer for $5 balances things out.]
Yes, CC Sabathia is, by all accounts, a nice person and a worthy recipient of good fortune, but that much good fortune, and now? Do we have a right to be angry or repulsed?
[Here's the one thing people don't seem to bring up in these "professional athletes are evil greed-mongers" arguments. The people who own most of these professional sports franchises are the uber-wealthy. According to Forbes, the New York Yankees are worth $1.3 BILLION. Sportswriters and critics hardly ever seem to have a problem with the old white guys that own these teams amassing millions or even billions of dollars. But a kid who throws a ball for a living?? That's an atrocity!]
But the big southpaw is represented by the ham-handed Scott Boras, whose blind fidelity to his baseball clients sometimes leads him to make indefensibly arrogant and infuriating statements. Get back to me if you can unearth any Boras comment this week acknowledging the frightening economic times we live in. All he ever talks about is how much revenue there is in baseball and how deserving his clients are. He doesn't understand that sometimes we don't need to hear that.
[Here's another one you hear a lot. I'm not really sure why people expect Boras to do or say things that would actively make him bad at his job. He works for his CLIENTS. Not some dude in Southie who is wicked pissed about the economy.]
I'm not sure this will affect your opinion of CC Sabathia's $161 million, but I thought it was a good opportunity to vent.
[Professional Journalism: A "good opportunity to vent."]
The year was 1966.
[You know how the rest of this argument goes. Oh, the good ol' days when life was so much better because I could buy a ticket to a Celtics game for $3. Now, I was not alive in 1966, but I hardly think that I needed to be in order to confidently say that the "life was better back in the day" argument is wrong, and borders on insulting.
You know what else was happening in 1966? Race riots in San Fran, New York, Oakland, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. The poll tax had just been suspended. Laws banning interracial marriage had yet to be ruled unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Act was still two years from being signed into law. The first marital rape law was still TEN years away. Etc. Etc.
But yeah, being able to take in a Sox game with a dog and a beer for $5 balances things out.]
Yes, CC Sabathia is, by all accounts, a nice person and a worthy recipient of good fortune, but that much good fortune, and now? Do we have a right to be angry or repulsed?
[Here's the one thing people don't seem to bring up in these "professional athletes are evil greed-mongers" arguments. The people who own most of these professional sports franchises are the uber-wealthy. According to Forbes, the New York Yankees are worth $1.3 BILLION. Sportswriters and critics hardly ever seem to have a problem with the old white guys that own these teams amassing millions or even billions of dollars. But a kid who throws a ball for a living?? That's an atrocity!]
But the big southpaw is represented by the ham-handed Scott Boras, whose blind fidelity to his baseball clients sometimes leads him to make indefensibly arrogant and infuriating statements. Get back to me if you can unearth any Boras comment this week acknowledging the frightening economic times we live in. All he ever talks about is how much revenue there is in baseball and how deserving his clients are. He doesn't understand that sometimes we don't need to hear that.
[Here's another one you hear a lot. I'm not really sure why people expect Boras to do or say things that would actively make him bad at his job. He works for his CLIENTS. Not some dude in Southie who is wicked pissed about the economy.]
I'm not sure this will affect your opinion of CC Sabathia's $161 million, but I thought it was a good opportunity to vent.
[Professional Journalism: A "good opportunity to vent."]
Thursday, December 11, 2008
CC Pity Party
Here's a melodramatic piece by Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune. Life is SO unfair!
If you didn't like the CC Sabathia era in Milwaukee, you must not own a snowmobile or have ever taken a date to the Mars Cheese Castle.
[Whatever.]
For the rest of us, right thinkers all, it was a beautiful period in baseball history, a time-stands-still interlude when David stood on even footing with Goliath. But now back to regular programming …
[Boo hoo hoo.]
While Sabathia was happy in Milwaukee, going 11-2 in 17 starts, how could he tell future generations of tall, heavy-set Sabathias that grandpa had left $50 million or more on the table to stay in Wisconsin? He's just a man, after all, and all men can be money-whipped.
[I know! What an idiot! Taking an extra $50 million. Seriously, who would do that? In a related story, Phil Rogers took a 50% pay cut to write this article.
Also, "going 11-2 in 17 starts" has very little to do with "Sabathia was happy in Milwaukee." But let's just assume that he was because he pitched well. Well, that and his proximity to the Mars Cheese Castle.]
If you didn't like the CC Sabathia era in Milwaukee, you must not own a snowmobile or have ever taken a date to the Mars Cheese Castle.
[Whatever.]
For the rest of us, right thinkers all, it was a beautiful period in baseball history, a time-stands-still interlude when David stood on even footing with Goliath. But now back to regular programming …
[Boo hoo hoo.]
While Sabathia was happy in Milwaukee, going 11-2 in 17 starts, how could he tell future generations of tall, heavy-set Sabathias that grandpa had left $50 million or more on the table to stay in Wisconsin? He's just a man, after all, and all men can be money-whipped.
[I know! What an idiot! Taking an extra $50 million. Seriously, who would do that? In a related story, Phil Rogers took a 50% pay cut to write this article.
Also, "going 11-2 in 17 starts" has very little to do with "Sabathia was happy in Milwaukee." But let's just assume that he was because he pitched well. Well, that and his proximity to the Mars Cheese Castle.]
How Many Tebow-for-Heisman Articles can David Whitley Possibly Write?
Seriously. We get it already, Whitley.
After some bizarre O.J. Simpson jokes, Whitley offers new and inspiring arguments.
The case for Tebow doesn't come down to big numbers.... The stats weren't quite as ridiculous this year but he played better. At least he did if you count things like leadership, determination and honor.
[This seems like an appropriate place to point out the fallacy that Tebow is attempting to become only the second player to ever win two Heismans. The reality is that Tebow would be the THIRD man to do so. Everyone always forgets that Mohandas Gandhi won back-to-back Heismans in 1889 and 1890. Dude had UNREAL determination and honor numbers in those seasons.]
If you don't believe it, see what happens when this one's gone.
[The "Marty McFly" argument. Always a winner. Tebow should win the Heisman THIS season because I can only imagine that Florida will suck NEXT season if Tebow is gone. QED.]
If voters have Tebow Fatigue, they should remember the Heisman tiebreaker. If it's close, give it to the candidate who spent spring break performing circumcisions on indigent Filipino youth.
[OK, we're done here.]
After some bizarre O.J. Simpson jokes, Whitley offers new and inspiring arguments.
The case for Tebow doesn't come down to big numbers.... The stats weren't quite as ridiculous this year but he played better. At least he did if you count things like leadership, determination and honor.
[This seems like an appropriate place to point out the fallacy that Tebow is attempting to become only the second player to ever win two Heismans. The reality is that Tebow would be the THIRD man to do so. Everyone always forgets that Mohandas Gandhi won back-to-back Heismans in 1889 and 1890. Dude had UNREAL determination and honor numbers in those seasons.]
If you don't believe it, see what happens when this one's gone.
[The "Marty McFly" argument. Always a winner. Tebow should win the Heisman THIS season because I can only imagine that Florida will suck NEXT season if Tebow is gone. QED.]
If voters have Tebow Fatigue, they should remember the Heisman tiebreaker. If it's close, give it to the candidate who spent spring break performing circumcisions on indigent Filipino youth.
[OK, we're done here.]
Hall of Kinda-Fame
After relatively few Theorem-worthy articles to start the week, I was sent and/or stumbled upon an inordinate number of winners this morning. I'll try to quickly touch on a few in the next hour or so.
The first is Dan Shaughnessy's iron-clad persuasive piece in favor of electing Jim Rice to the Hall of Fame. The arguments for (Rice's magical ability to strike "fear" into the hearts of pitchers) and against (Rice wasn't good enough) are well-documented, but Shaughnessy provides a nice overview.
Rice has never been a certified Cooperstown lock. That's why he's fallen short.
[Not sure what a "certified" Cooperstown lock is, but I am pretty sure that there are LOTS of performance-related reasons why Rice has fallen short, right?]
It's because his window of greatness was a tad short, he failed to hit 400 homers, his numbers are inflated by playing half his games in Fenway, he was a corner outfielder with little speed or range, and he didn't do much in his few postseason opportunities.
[Exactly. Seems pretty obvious that Rice does not belong in the Hall.]
But he belongs in the Hall.
[Ugh. Need we even read the subsequent sentences?]
He could hit for average....
[.298 career BA. Wake me when I'm supposed to get excited.]
[H]e could hit for power....
[Didn't we just establish that he failed to hit 400 HRs?]
Twenty other players have gathered between 70 and 75 percent of the vote and every one of them ultimately made it to Cooperstown.
[This is my favorite argument, by far. Comparing Rice to other players-- only, not based on their baseball merits, but on how they fared in Hall elections (ignoring the fact that those players may have played different positions, been far more qualified than Rice, etc. Any closing points?]
Rice was dominant. Rice was feared.
[Check. And. Mate.]
The first is Dan Shaughnessy's iron-clad persuasive piece in favor of electing Jim Rice to the Hall of Fame. The arguments for (Rice's magical ability to strike "fear" into the hearts of pitchers) and against (Rice wasn't good enough) are well-documented, but Shaughnessy provides a nice overview.
Rice has never been a certified Cooperstown lock. That's why he's fallen short.
[Not sure what a "certified" Cooperstown lock is, but I am pretty sure that there are LOTS of performance-related reasons why Rice has fallen short, right?]
It's because his window of greatness was a tad short, he failed to hit 400 homers, his numbers are inflated by playing half his games in Fenway, he was a corner outfielder with little speed or range, and he didn't do much in his few postseason opportunities.
[Exactly. Seems pretty obvious that Rice does not belong in the Hall.]
But he belongs in the Hall.
[Ugh. Need we even read the subsequent sentences?]
He could hit for average....
[.298 career BA. Wake me when I'm supposed to get excited.]
[H]e could hit for power....
[Didn't we just establish that he failed to hit 400 HRs?]
Twenty other players have gathered between 70 and 75 percent of the vote and every one of them ultimately made it to Cooperstown.
[This is my favorite argument, by far. Comparing Rice to other players-- only, not based on their baseball merits, but on how they fared in Hall elections (ignoring the fact that those players may have played different positions, been far more qualified than Rice, etc. Any closing points?]
Rice was dominant. Rice was feared.
[Check. And. Mate.]
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Peter King: Vol. 9
A decent week for Pete until the final e-mail of his Tuesday mail-bag.
From Joey, of Santiago, Chile: "Do you hear much talk around the league about a possible link between the resurgence of Ray Lewis and performance-enhancing drugs? I don't mean to gossip, but it seems like a few years ago people were talking about how Lewis had lost a step, and now the talk is all about how he's back and his incredible staying power over the years I suppose part of my suspicion has to do with what seems to me to be the quite low incidence of discovery of performance-enhancing drugs in the NFL more generally...."
[Pete has been HEAVING praise at Lewis all year so I expected a "Hey, he hasn't tested positive for anything as far as any of us know, so I can only assume he is clean" response, and that would have been the end of the exchange. But...]
I have been around Ray Lewis a lot over the past few years. Say what you want about Lewis. I know a lot of people don't like him, either because of the murder case in Atlanta or because they think he's too much of a showman on the field before and during the game. Here's what I know: He respects the game.
[Between the juxtaposition of "too much of a showman on the field" and "He respects the game," and how the PED accusation somehow feels like a more serious charge than "possible involvement in a murder," this is a great retort. And is it such a stretch to think that someone who is willing to plead guilty to obstruction of justice to avoid murder and aggravated assault charges would take PEDs to be good at football for an extra season or two? I'm not saying he is taking PEDs, but to dismiss a checkered history of decision-making simply because the guy goes all-out in training camp doesn't seem to carry water. Just say that there is no evidence that points to his guilt (in this instance!) and move on.]
From Joey, of Santiago, Chile: "Do you hear much talk around the league about a possible link between the resurgence of Ray Lewis and performance-enhancing drugs? I don't mean to gossip, but it seems like a few years ago people were talking about how Lewis had lost a step, and now the talk is all about how he's back and his incredible staying power over the years I suppose part of my suspicion has to do with what seems to me to be the quite low incidence of discovery of performance-enhancing drugs in the NFL more generally...."
[Pete has been HEAVING praise at Lewis all year so I expected a "Hey, he hasn't tested positive for anything as far as any of us know, so I can only assume he is clean" response, and that would have been the end of the exchange. But...]
I have been around Ray Lewis a lot over the past few years. Say what you want about Lewis. I know a lot of people don't like him, either because of the murder case in Atlanta or because they think he's too much of a showman on the field before and during the game. Here's what I know: He respects the game.
[Between the juxtaposition of "too much of a showman on the field" and "He respects the game," and how the PED accusation somehow feels like a more serious charge than "possible involvement in a murder," this is a great retort. And is it such a stretch to think that someone who is willing to plead guilty to obstruction of justice to avoid murder and aggravated assault charges would take PEDs to be good at football for an extra season or two? I'm not saying he is taking PEDs, but to dismiss a checkered history of decision-making simply because the guy goes all-out in training camp doesn't seem to carry water. Just say that there is no evidence that points to his guilt (in this instance!) and move on.]
Monday, December 8, 2008
Let the BCS Absurdity Begin!
With the BCS title game only (approximately) 87 days away, David Whitley of the Orlando Sentinel is excited and perfectly lucid!
The early prediction: Florida 107, Oklahoma 94.
[Now's there's a scenario that would get me to actually watch the game.]
These two teams don't like each other.
[Long, bitter rivalry? Hard-fought battles in recent seasons?]
Actually, they hardly know each other. Florida and Oklahoma have never played.
[In a related story, every time that David Whitley bumps into a total stranger on the street, he punches them in the neck.]
So is Oklahoma's offense that good, or are Big 12 defenses that bad? Yes.
[Yes??? What the hell, man? It was an "or" question. And neither of the options on either side of the "or" were "Yes." Solid analysis.]
The early prediction: Florida 107, Oklahoma 94.
[Now's there's a scenario that would get me to actually watch the game.]
These two teams don't like each other.
[Long, bitter rivalry? Hard-fought battles in recent seasons?]
Actually, they hardly know each other. Florida and Oklahoma have never played.
[In a related story, every time that David Whitley bumps into a total stranger on the street, he punches them in the neck.]
So is Oklahoma's offense that good, or are Big 12 defenses that bad? Yes.
[Yes??? What the hell, man? It was an "or" question. And neither of the options on either side of the "or" were "Yes." Solid analysis.]
Friday, December 5, 2008
Brandon Roy is good, but let's settle down.
Ian Thomsen of SI makes a strange case for Brandon Roy to receive more love.
Of the league's young wing players, the 6-6 Roy is among the least impressive athletically.
[I'm not really sure if this is actually true, and Thomsen certainly provides no evidence to prove the statement's accuracy. If nothing else, at 6'-6" and 211 lbs, he has good size for a wing player.]
Roy is the most valuable piece of the league's most promising young team not because of his athletic instincts, but because he has spent his short career taking the time to think things through.
[With the assumption being that more athletically-gifted players don't think things through? If so, I'm not sure that's accurate either.]
"He's the complete package.... He's like Walt Frazier: He's just a guard. He can shoot, he can drive, he defends, he's got size, he's got strength, he's got quickness." [Said Wizards coach Ed Tapscott]
[NBA coaches seem to think Roy is an OK athlete. And the Frazier comp seems to fit.]
Like Kobe and Wade, he is crucial to the Blazers' ultimate ambitions.
[I'm almost positive that Kobe and Wade are NOT crucial to the BLAZER'S ultimate ambitions.]
I don't understand the problem with saying that Roy isn't as good as LBJ/Wade/Kobe/Paul, but that he is still a REALLY good player. It's not a knock on Roy. Why force him into that discussion based on things like his "wisdom" of the game? Consider the 2008 lines:
B. Roy: 21.1 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 46.5 fg%, 83.5 ft%, 1.05 stl
L. James: 27.4 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 6.3 apg, 49.1 fg%, 78.7 ft%, 2.11 stl
D. Wade: 28.4 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 7.7 apg, 49.1 fg%, 76.3 ft%, 2.42 stl
K. Bryant: 25.1 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.1 apg, 47.7 fg%, 85.6 ft%, 1.65 stl
C. Paul: 20.6 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 11.8 apg, 51.6 fg%, 86.8 ft%, 2.81 stl
Roy is 16th in the league in PER (and he is actually 5-months older than LeBron and 10-months older than Paul). So Portland fans should be happy that they have a REALLY good player and stop complaining that people don't consider him to be on par with the game's elite players (primarily because, you know, he isn't).
Of the league's young wing players, the 6-6 Roy is among the least impressive athletically.
[I'm not really sure if this is actually true, and Thomsen certainly provides no evidence to prove the statement's accuracy. If nothing else, at 6'-6" and 211 lbs, he has good size for a wing player.]
Roy is the most valuable piece of the league's most promising young team not because of his athletic instincts, but because he has spent his short career taking the time to think things through.
[With the assumption being that more athletically-gifted players don't think things through? If so, I'm not sure that's accurate either.]
"He's the complete package.... He's like Walt Frazier: He's just a guard. He can shoot, he can drive, he defends, he's got size, he's got strength, he's got quickness." [Said Wizards coach Ed Tapscott]
[NBA coaches seem to think Roy is an OK athlete. And the Frazier comp seems to fit.]
Like Kobe and Wade, he is crucial to the Blazers' ultimate ambitions.
[I'm almost positive that Kobe and Wade are NOT crucial to the BLAZER'S ultimate ambitions.]
I don't understand the problem with saying that Roy isn't as good as LBJ/Wade/Kobe/Paul, but that he is still a REALLY good player. It's not a knock on Roy. Why force him into that discussion based on things like his "wisdom" of the game? Consider the 2008 lines:
B. Roy: 21.1 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 5.3 apg, 46.5 fg%, 83.5 ft%, 1.05 stl
L. James: 27.4 ppg, 7.1 rpg, 6.3 apg, 49.1 fg%, 78.7 ft%, 2.11 stl
D. Wade: 28.4 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 7.7 apg, 49.1 fg%, 76.3 ft%, 2.42 stl
K. Bryant: 25.1 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.1 apg, 47.7 fg%, 85.6 ft%, 1.65 stl
C. Paul: 20.6 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 11.8 apg, 51.6 fg%, 86.8 ft%, 2.81 stl
Roy is 16th in the league in PER (and he is actually 5-months older than LeBron and 10-months older than Paul). So Portland fans should be happy that they have a REALLY good player and stop complaining that people don't consider him to be on par with the game's elite players (primarily because, you know, he isn't).
Thursday, December 4, 2008
BCS Problems? Solved!
Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times thinks that we are all overlooking an obvious title-contender.
What if Alabama hands Florida a second loss in Saturday's SEC title game and three-loss Missouri shocks Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game?
[Take a closer look at the BCS bylaws, Dufresne. In this situation, the National Title game is cancelled and Notre Dame is crowned as the National Champion.]
Everyone assumes Alabama would play Texas. Not so fast. Texas didn't even win its conference.
[True. But I'm pretty sure that you don't have to win your conference to play in the title game, right?]
[C]ommissioners considered a rule change that would have required title-game participants to be league champions. The commissioners decided against it, but many still think it's a good idea. Sorry, Texas, for the purposes of this argument you're out.
[Good sequence there. Assume X. See if there is a rule to support X. Admit that there is not a rule to support X. Announce that it'd be awesome if there was, in fact, a rule to support X. Proceed with analysis as if there was a rule to support X. QED.]
Meaning: the school that deserves to play Alabama in this scenario would be the University of . . . Utah. All this talk-radio and Internet chatter about USC somehow slipping in the BCS title-game back door is being done with complete disregard for Utah.
[So you believe that Utah is the better team? OK, I'm listening.]
USC is the better team, OK, we all know that.
[Gotcha. Good talk. Actually, the strange thing is that Dufresne goes on to put forth a host of objective or semi-objective arguments as to why Utah actually IS better than USC.... even though "we all know" that they aren't.]
What if Alabama hands Florida a second loss in Saturday's SEC title game and three-loss Missouri shocks Oklahoma in the Big 12 title game?
[Take a closer look at the BCS bylaws, Dufresne. In this situation, the National Title game is cancelled and Notre Dame is crowned as the National Champion.]
Everyone assumes Alabama would play Texas. Not so fast. Texas didn't even win its conference.
[True. But I'm pretty sure that you don't have to win your conference to play in the title game, right?]
[C]ommissioners considered a rule change that would have required title-game participants to be league champions. The commissioners decided against it, but many still think it's a good idea. Sorry, Texas, for the purposes of this argument you're out.
[Good sequence there. Assume X. See if there is a rule to support X. Admit that there is not a rule to support X. Announce that it'd be awesome if there was, in fact, a rule to support X. Proceed with analysis as if there was a rule to support X. QED.]
Meaning: the school that deserves to play Alabama in this scenario would be the University of . . . Utah. All this talk-radio and Internet chatter about USC somehow slipping in the BCS title-game back door is being done with complete disregard for Utah.
[So you believe that Utah is the better team? OK, I'm listening.]
USC is the better team, OK, we all know that.
[Gotcha. Good talk. Actually, the strange thing is that Dufresne goes on to put forth a host of objective or semi-objective arguments as to why Utah actually IS better than USC.... even though "we all know" that they aren't.]
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Pete Fiutak and Jason Whitlock Might Throw Down
Even as an admitted ND-apologist, I found Pete Fiutak's take on Weis' retention to be a bit much-- but I also enjoyed it because I spent most of the time picturing Jason Whitlock reading it.
Charlie Weis just isn't all that bad a head coach.
[The only thing that would have made this thesis statement better would have been if Fiutak somehow managed to zing Ball State as well.]
Don't let anyone try to tell you that a coach can't win big at Notre Dame anymore. It's the opposite. It's hard for a coach not to win at Notre Dame.
[Did I forget to mention that this article was written in 1966?]
Weis has built the program to this point, and while the performance against USC might have been a nightmare, the season is a few plays away from not being all that bad.
[The "but if X hadn't happened..." argument is always a winner.]
Veteran teams win the close games like the 29-21 loss at North Carolina, and next year, Notre Dame will be a veteran team.
[Oh, "experience."]
Charlie Weis just isn't all that bad a head coach.
[The only thing that would have made this thesis statement better would have been if Fiutak somehow managed to zing Ball State as well.]
Don't let anyone try to tell you that a coach can't win big at Notre Dame anymore. It's the opposite. It's hard for a coach not to win at Notre Dame.
[Did I forget to mention that this article was written in 1966?]
Weis has built the program to this point, and while the performance against USC might have been a nightmare, the season is a few plays away from not being all that bad.
[The "but if X hadn't happened..." argument is always a winner.]
Veteran teams win the close games like the 29-21 loss at North Carolina, and next year, Notre Dame will be a veteran team.
[Oh, "experience."]
Quick Plaxico link
We will get back to the satire momentarily, but SI's sports law guy had a decent overview of the Plaxico situation.
Also, I'm seeing lots of "athletes and celebrities should be treated like every other defendant" articles (and sound bites from Mayor Bloomberg). I don't think that anyone would disagree with that sentiment. The law is the law.
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, however, points out the following:
John M. Caher, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, said that fewer than 10 percent of the people in New York City who were charged with criminal possession of a weapon — the charge Burress is facing — were convicted of that charge and that many ended up being convicted of a lesser charge.
Also, I'm seeing lots of "athletes and celebrities should be treated like every other defendant" articles (and sound bites from Mayor Bloomberg). I don't think that anyone would disagree with that sentiment. The law is the law.
Michael Schmidt of the New York Times, however, points out the following:
John M. Caher, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, said that fewer than 10 percent of the people in New York City who were charged with criminal possession of a weapon — the charge Burress is facing — were convicted of that charge and that many ended up being convicted of a lesser charge.
More Iron-Clad Tebow-for-Heisman Arguments
To be perfectly honest, if I had a Heisman vote, I would have a difficult time deciding on a selection. You can make a case for the three Big 12 QBs, Crabtree and Tebow (sorry, Whitlock). Of course, "make a case" would be the operative phrase there. Jeremy Fowler of the Orlando Sentinel uses some of our favorite approaches to make his case for Tebow.
If Tebow wins the Heisman, it might be because of his intangibles and leadership, not his statistics.
[It seems like it is always the guys with inferior statistics that are chock-full of "intangibles," doesn't it?]
Tebow has a respectable 37 touchdowns through 12 games this season, but his current 2,299 passing yards would be the lowest for a pass-heavy Heisman winner since Auburn's Pat Sullivan in 1971.
[Still waiting for why I should vote for Tebow....]
Numbers might prevail in the Heisman voting, but winning can't be ignored.
[OK, so let's not ignore it: Bradford (OU): 11-1; McCoy (Texas): 11-1; Harrell/Crabtree (TT): 11-1; Tebow (Fla): 11-1. Next argument.]
Despite Tebow's season paling statistically in comparison to last year's, some of his intangibles are surpassing the previous mark.
[Intangible- Incapable of being perceived by the senses; incapable of being realized or defined.]
Whether or not Tebow wins the Heisman, he might be guaranteed plenty of YouTube clips for years to come for his "you will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play" speech to the media after losing 31-30 to Ole Miss on Sept. 27.
[Non sequitur much?]
I don't know about you, but I'm convinced!
If Tebow wins the Heisman, it might be because of his intangibles and leadership, not his statistics.
[It seems like it is always the guys with inferior statistics that are chock-full of "intangibles," doesn't it?]
Tebow has a respectable 37 touchdowns through 12 games this season, but his current 2,299 passing yards would be the lowest for a pass-heavy Heisman winner since Auburn's Pat Sullivan in 1971.
[Still waiting for why I should vote for Tebow....]
Numbers might prevail in the Heisman voting, but winning can't be ignored.
[OK, so let's not ignore it: Bradford (OU): 11-1; McCoy (Texas): 11-1; Harrell/Crabtree (TT): 11-1; Tebow (Fla): 11-1. Next argument.]
Despite Tebow's season paling statistically in comparison to last year's, some of his intangibles are surpassing the previous mark.
[Intangible- Incapable of being perceived by the senses; incapable of being realized or defined.]
Whether or not Tebow wins the Heisman, he might be guaranteed plenty of YouTube clips for years to come for his "you will never see any player in the entire country play as hard as I will play" speech to the media after losing 31-30 to Ole Miss on Sept. 27.
[Non sequitur much?]
I don't know about you, but I'm convinced!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
More Plaxico insanity!
Mark Kriegel of Fox Sports takes the high road.
The real question is this: if a guy can't be counted on to attend team meetings or practice, can he be entrusted with a gun?
[Exactly. It's like when I was younger, I had perfect attendance in junior high. Seriously, I did not miss a single day. And you know what the principal told me upon giving me my "perfect attendance" certificate? He said, "I would totally trust you with an assault rifle."]
I understand what generates the paranoia: the cases of Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams and Richard Collier, just to name a few.
[Seems kind of like a legitimate concern, right?]
It's worth noting that Sean Taylor forgot to turn on his home alarm system the night he was murdered.
[Wow. Did Mark Kriegler just imply that Sean Taylor was......... asking for it???]
Nice dialogue, America.
The real question is this: if a guy can't be counted on to attend team meetings or practice, can he be entrusted with a gun?
[Exactly. It's like when I was younger, I had perfect attendance in junior high. Seriously, I did not miss a single day. And you know what the principal told me upon giving me my "perfect attendance" certificate? He said, "I would totally trust you with an assault rifle."]
I understand what generates the paranoia: the cases of Sean Taylor, Darrent Williams and Richard Collier, just to name a few.
[Seems kind of like a legitimate concern, right?]
It's worth noting that Sean Taylor forgot to turn on his home alarm system the night he was murdered.
[Wow. Did Mark Kriegler just imply that Sean Taylor was......... asking for it???]
Nice dialogue, America.
Plaxico madness!
I saw Mike Lupica almost have a seizure on "The Sports Reporters" over the weekend talking about the Plaxico-shooting-himself fiasco, and I kept my eyes peeled for a corresponding angry and uber-judgmental column. Voila!
Either the Giants have to tell Plaxico Burress he doesn't just get to come back to work as if nothing happened, or NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has to tell Burress that.
[Easy, Lupica. The league (and undoubtedly the teams therein) have player conduct rules that govern these kinds of situations. I'm pretty sure both the Giants and Goodell might glance at them with respect to Plaxico. In other news, I will be seriously impressed if you can write the rest of this column from up on your cross.]
Burress hasn't earned the right to be exempt, from anything. He thought he needed a gun to "protect" himself.
[Air quotes? Really?? Look, maybe Lupica is making a correct assumption that Plaxico carries around a gun to amass street cred. Or maybe Plaxico carries a gun because he doesn't want to get murdered like Sean Taylor did. The point is that I have no idea why Plax carries a gun! And I'm willing to assume that Lupica has no idea either. We do, in our society, have a reasonably effective way of determining such things; it's called the legal system! The angry judgment of sportswriters works too, though.]
In the end, Burress didn't even know how to work the safety, and nobody is talking about a free safety here.
[Totally appropriate time for a pun. Stay classy, Lupica!]
When was the last time you heard of somebody like Plaxico Burress being a crimefighter?
[Isn't the argument of famous people in these situations that they carry a gun to PREVENT a crime? I'm pretty sure there are "No vigilante crime-fighting" clauses in most professional sports contracts nowadays, anyway.]
More often than not, they become the crime.
[Kind of why they claim to carry the gun, right?]
Just knowing what we know now, you wonder how even a smart lawyer like Brafman, who has known his share of actual bad guys, can plead out on this one, at least in Bloomberg's New York anyway.
[Exactly. Why even permit Plaxico the opportunity to present a defense?! Or, hell, a trial even!? Just ship him straight to Gitmo before Obama shuts it down. (listening to the "America, F*ck yeah!" song from Team America on full blast)]
What happened with Burress happened in the real world. And in the real world, there are consequences when you act like this much of a dope. One is this: Your boss is the one who decides if you get your old desk back.
[Right. So why did YOU just spend several hundred words deciding? Who needs to look at acutal laws or league rules that will govern a situation when Mike Lupica's narrowly-focused rage will suffice?!]
Either the Giants have to tell Plaxico Burress he doesn't just get to come back to work as if nothing happened, or NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has to tell Burress that.
[Easy, Lupica. The league (and undoubtedly the teams therein) have player conduct rules that govern these kinds of situations. I'm pretty sure both the Giants and Goodell might glance at them with respect to Plaxico. In other news, I will be seriously impressed if you can write the rest of this column from up on your cross.]
Burress hasn't earned the right to be exempt, from anything. He thought he needed a gun to "protect" himself.
[Air quotes? Really?? Look, maybe Lupica is making a correct assumption that Plaxico carries around a gun to amass street cred. Or maybe Plaxico carries a gun because he doesn't want to get murdered like Sean Taylor did. The point is that I have no idea why Plax carries a gun! And I'm willing to assume that Lupica has no idea either. We do, in our society, have a reasonably effective way of determining such things; it's called the legal system! The angry judgment of sportswriters works too, though.]
In the end, Burress didn't even know how to work the safety, and nobody is talking about a free safety here.
[Totally appropriate time for a pun. Stay classy, Lupica!]
When was the last time you heard of somebody like Plaxico Burress being a crimefighter?
[Isn't the argument of famous people in these situations that they carry a gun to PREVENT a crime? I'm pretty sure there are "No vigilante crime-fighting" clauses in most professional sports contracts nowadays, anyway.]
More often than not, they become the crime.
[Kind of why they claim to carry the gun, right?]
Just knowing what we know now, you wonder how even a smart lawyer like Brafman, who has known his share of actual bad guys, can plead out on this one, at least in Bloomberg's New York anyway.
[Exactly. Why even permit Plaxico the opportunity to present a defense?! Or, hell, a trial even!? Just ship him straight to Gitmo before Obama shuts it down. (listening to the "America, F*ck yeah!" song from Team America on full blast)]
What happened with Burress happened in the real world. And in the real world, there are consequences when you act like this much of a dope. One is this: Your boss is the one who decides if you get your old desk back.
[Right. So why did YOU just spend several hundred words deciding? Who needs to look at acutal laws or league rules that will govern a situation when Mike Lupica's narrowly-focused rage will suffice?!]
Monday, December 1, 2008
Peter King Gets Paid For This: Vol. 8
Let's see what is on Pete's mind this week.
I am not blaming the travel and Thanksgiving night game for the Cardinals' pathetic performance at Philadelphia, but you're deluding yourself if you think the short week didn't play a part in it.
[I love deluding myself! I mean, I read ALL of your articles, Pete. Let's do this.]
I examined the short week of the Cardinals in advance of their game at Philadelphia and found three distinct disadvantages they faced:
[Enumerated list me!?!]
1. They were coming off a very physical game with the New York Giants, likely the best team in football.
[Playing the Giants sounds like a distinct disadvantage for the previous week... when they had to play the Giants...., right? Pretty sure they still weren't playing the Giants (who are awesome) when they played the Eagles (who aren't awesome).]
2. They were unfamiliar with the Eagles.
[Wow, I didn't know that none of the Eagles games were televised or video-taped by anyone. Great find, Pete.]
3. None of the other 2008 Thursday night visitors will have to travel nearly as far as Arizona's four-and-a-half-hour, 2,369-mile trip.
[This is a nit-picky point, but a point nonetheless. Arizona having to travel a great distance to play MIGHT actually be a plausible argument as to why they sucked on Thursday. Stating that none of the other teams that will play on a Thursday this season will have to travel that far is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Other teams' travel plans have NOTHING to do with the AZ-Philly game.]
In similarly impressive and persuasive fashion, Pete makes some strong arguments for his MVP ballot (per usual).
1. Peyton Manning
Manning ascends to the top by default, despite engineering zero touchdown drives for only the fifth time in a 10-year NFL career.
[Your primary contention for your top choice is the "by default" argument? Followed immediately by a "despite" bomb? Really?]
2. Matt Ryan
Falcons were supposed to go 3-13. They are 8-4. They've won at San Diego and Green Bay.
[He should have just stopped after "They are 8-4," right? SD and GB are a combined 9-15. And SD has the 31st ranked pass defense in the league. Just saying....]
3. Drew Brees
In many ways, he's having the best year at the most important position in football, even with a bummer Sunday in Tampa.
[And by "many ways," Pete means "passing yards." As many TDs as Kurt Warner. Fourth best QB Rating. Sixth best completion percentage. Tied with Favre for the most INTs (which is an accomplishment).]
4. Kris Jenkins
Mulligan.
[QED!]
5. James Harrison
I might argue this spot belongs to Troy Polamalu or LaMarr Woodley.
[NO! You wrote "James Harrison." It's right there! I am looking right at it!! My head hurts.]
I am not blaming the travel and Thanksgiving night game for the Cardinals' pathetic performance at Philadelphia, but you're deluding yourself if you think the short week didn't play a part in it.
[I love deluding myself! I mean, I read ALL of your articles, Pete. Let's do this.]
I examined the short week of the Cardinals in advance of their game at Philadelphia and found three distinct disadvantages they faced:
[Enumerated list me!?!]
1. They were coming off a very physical game with the New York Giants, likely the best team in football.
[Playing the Giants sounds like a distinct disadvantage for the previous week... when they had to play the Giants...., right? Pretty sure they still weren't playing the Giants (who are awesome) when they played the Eagles (who aren't awesome).]
2. They were unfamiliar with the Eagles.
[Wow, I didn't know that none of the Eagles games were televised or video-taped by anyone. Great find, Pete.]
3. None of the other 2008 Thursday night visitors will have to travel nearly as far as Arizona's four-and-a-half-hour, 2,369-mile trip.
[This is a nit-picky point, but a point nonetheless. Arizona having to travel a great distance to play MIGHT actually be a plausible argument as to why they sucked on Thursday. Stating that none of the other teams that will play on a Thursday this season will have to travel that far is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Other teams' travel plans have NOTHING to do with the AZ-Philly game.]
In similarly impressive and persuasive fashion, Pete makes some strong arguments for his MVP ballot (per usual).
1. Peyton Manning
Manning ascends to the top by default, despite engineering zero touchdown drives for only the fifth time in a 10-year NFL career.
[Your primary contention for your top choice is the "by default" argument? Followed immediately by a "despite" bomb? Really?]
2. Matt Ryan
Falcons were supposed to go 3-13. They are 8-4. They've won at San Diego and Green Bay.
[He should have just stopped after "They are 8-4," right? SD and GB are a combined 9-15. And SD has the 31st ranked pass defense in the league. Just saying....]
3. Drew Brees
In many ways, he's having the best year at the most important position in football, even with a bummer Sunday in Tampa.
[And by "many ways," Pete means "passing yards." As many TDs as Kurt Warner. Fourth best QB Rating. Sixth best completion percentage. Tied with Favre for the most INTs (which is an accomplishment).]
4. Kris Jenkins
Mulligan.
[QED!]
5. James Harrison
I might argue this spot belongs to Troy Polamalu or LaMarr Woodley.
[NO! You wrote "James Harrison." It's right there! I am looking right at it!! My head hurts.]
Jason Whitlock is an Insane Person: Vol. 4
Whitlock wrote this "article" last week, but I needed the entire holiday weekend to let it fully soak in.
My goal as a journalist/columnist is to be right about issues others don't see coming or don't have the courage/intellect to address.
[Let's remember he started the article with this "goal," shall we?]
Ball State's football season perfectly illustrated my problem with ESPN and why I believe the World Wide Leader is the most evil and destructive force in the sports world.
[Remember when ESPN fired you in September 2006? Yeah, I bet this has nothing to do with that. Not at all.]
ESPN is the enemy of the truth, and all who believe a pursuit of the truth is the lifeblood of a genuinely free society must stand against the Wal-Mart-ization of sports journalism.
[Enemy of truth?? Heavy stuff. Whitlock must have a grave and sober reason for reaching such a critical and stern conclusion....]
I reached this conclusion when trying to figure out why Ball State quarterback Nate Davis isn't one of the top-five Heisman Trophy candidates and Ball State coach Brady Hoke isn't the front-runner for national coach of the year.
[Yep, sounds about right.]
Do not laugh.
[No, sorry. I'm not. I just have a tickle in my throat. Honest.]
I'm cold and rational now when I tell you that Nate Davis is the best player in college football....
[I bet that Whitlock has plenty of relevant and objective evidence to support this claim.]
It's difficult to believe now, but in 1982 the 10 top vote-getters were all actually really, really good college football players: Herschel Walker, John Elway, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Carter, David Rimington, Todd Blackledge, Tom Ramsey, Tony Eason, Dan Marino and Mike Rozier.
[OK??]
Since 2000, here are your Heisman Trophy winners: Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Troy Smith and Tim Tebow.
[OK, I get it. Playing QB = sucking at college football. It's a good thing that Whitlock isn't currently touting a Q-- oh.....]
The conversation about the Heisman Trophy and all things in sports has been dumbed down by the World Wide Leader. This year the network pretty much decided you had to play quarterback in the Big 12 to be in consideration for the Heisman Trophy.
[Totally agree. ESPN's conscious decision to promote three random QBs from the midwest (a huge ratings hotbed) actually caused McCoy, Bradford and Harrell to put up monster numbers. It's science.]
Here's what's more frustrating. Not one of the Big 12's quarterbacks is in the same physical ballpark as Ball State's Nate Davis. It's not close.
[Putting aside the fact that that statement is false (Sam Bradford is 6'-4", 220 lbs -- who's the enemy of truth now??), I didn't realize that Heisman voters were supposed to take the oft-overlooked "physical ballpark" trait into consideration when selecting a winner. Shows how much I know.]
They can't match his resume. Getting Ball State to 12-0 under the best circumstances is far more difficult than getting Oklahoma to 11-1. I know Ball State's schedule isn't as difficult as Oklahoma's. I also know Bradford is surrounded by far more talent than Davis.
[LOGIC FAIL.]
Nate Davis has the tools to be better than Tom Brady.
[jnadsuiosdafnjkl;ladfnanjlka;lmkoin
Sorry. I just blacked out and hit my forehead on the keyboard.]
If you watch Nate Davis play, he looks like the second coming of Brett Favre.
[lknmdasbnf nmadnf;lasdfnnl;kadfn
I am going to put on a padded head-band for the duration of this article.
If these comparisons are true, how the hell could ESPN have missed this guy!?!]
Now, ESPN2 has broadcast Ball State's last four games.
[Oh.]
Let me tell you what passes for courage and independent thinking at ESPN. Chris Fowler dropped Ball State out of his AP top-25 ballot last week....
[(shaking fist towards sky) FOWLER!!!]
He has never been a professional journalist a day in his life.
[Exactly. C'mon, Fowler! Act like a freakin' professional for once! Here, watch and learn from a true pro....]
I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'd suspect he hasn't worn a jock since junior high school.
[Jason Whitlock: Professionalism incarnate.]
My goal as a journalist/columnist is to be right about issues others don't see coming or don't have the courage/intellect to address.
[Let's remember he started the article with this "goal," shall we?]
Ball State's football season perfectly illustrated my problem with ESPN and why I believe the World Wide Leader is the most evil and destructive force in the sports world.
[Remember when ESPN fired you in September 2006? Yeah, I bet this has nothing to do with that. Not at all.]
ESPN is the enemy of the truth, and all who believe a pursuit of the truth is the lifeblood of a genuinely free society must stand against the Wal-Mart-ization of sports journalism.
[Enemy of truth?? Heavy stuff. Whitlock must have a grave and sober reason for reaching such a critical and stern conclusion....]
I reached this conclusion when trying to figure out why Ball State quarterback Nate Davis isn't one of the top-five Heisman Trophy candidates and Ball State coach Brady Hoke isn't the front-runner for national coach of the year.
[Yep, sounds about right.]
Do not laugh.
[No, sorry. I'm not. I just have a tickle in my throat. Honest.]
I'm cold and rational now when I tell you that Nate Davis is the best player in college football....
[I bet that Whitlock has plenty of relevant and objective evidence to support this claim.]
It's difficult to believe now, but in 1982 the 10 top vote-getters were all actually really, really good college football players: Herschel Walker, John Elway, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Carter, David Rimington, Todd Blackledge, Tom Ramsey, Tony Eason, Dan Marino and Mike Rozier.
[OK??]
Since 2000, here are your Heisman Trophy winners: Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Troy Smith and Tim Tebow.
[OK, I get it. Playing QB = sucking at college football. It's a good thing that Whitlock isn't currently touting a Q-- oh.....]
The conversation about the Heisman Trophy and all things in sports has been dumbed down by the World Wide Leader. This year the network pretty much decided you had to play quarterback in the Big 12 to be in consideration for the Heisman Trophy.
[Totally agree. ESPN's conscious decision to promote three random QBs from the midwest (a huge ratings hotbed) actually caused McCoy, Bradford and Harrell to put up monster numbers. It's science.]
Here's what's more frustrating. Not one of the Big 12's quarterbacks is in the same physical ballpark as Ball State's Nate Davis. It's not close.
[Putting aside the fact that that statement is false (Sam Bradford is 6'-4", 220 lbs -- who's the enemy of truth now??), I didn't realize that Heisman voters were supposed to take the oft-overlooked "physical ballpark" trait into consideration when selecting a winner. Shows how much I know.]
They can't match his resume. Getting Ball State to 12-0 under the best circumstances is far more difficult than getting Oklahoma to 11-1. I know Ball State's schedule isn't as difficult as Oklahoma's. I also know Bradford is surrounded by far more talent than Davis.
[LOGIC FAIL.]
Nate Davis has the tools to be better than Tom Brady.
[jnadsuiosdafnjkl;ladfnanjlka;lmkoin
Sorry. I just blacked out and hit my forehead on the keyboard.]
If you watch Nate Davis play, he looks like the second coming of Brett Favre.
[lknmdasbnf nmadnf;lasdfnnl;kadfn
I am going to put on a padded head-band for the duration of this article.
If these comparisons are true, how the hell could ESPN have missed this guy!?!]
Now, ESPN2 has broadcast Ball State's last four games.
[Oh.]
Let me tell you what passes for courage and independent thinking at ESPN. Chris Fowler dropped Ball State out of his AP top-25 ballot last week....
[(shaking fist towards sky) FOWLER!!!]
He has never been a professional journalist a day in his life.
[Exactly. C'mon, Fowler! Act like a freakin' professional for once! Here, watch and learn from a true pro....]
I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'd suspect he hasn't worn a jock since junior high school.
[Jason Whitlock: Professionalism incarnate.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
