infinite sportswriter theorem

Jon Heyman is apparently not a Clemens fan

2009-05-14T13:45:00.003-04:00

Did anyone else read Heyman's most recent take on the Clemens situation? Bizarre, right? It can't just be me, can it? (Sidenote: Why do I continue to read SI.com?)

My favorite part of the Roger Clemens interview on the Mike & Mike in the Morning radio show Tuesday came when he said steroids could be bad for him because of his family history, and then cited his stepfather's heart attack as evidence.

[Actually, I'm with Heyman on this one-- citing a STEPfather to support a "family history" claim = High Comedy.]

Clemens also repeated the claim that McNamee never gave him steroids or HGH, calling the hosts "Greeny" and "Goli" (Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic).

[What nerve, right?! I mean, so informal! As noted by The Guy Who Knows Things in an email to me, "I wonder if when Heyman talks to two people on the phone both named Mike, if he insists on only calling them by their same first name instead of commonly used last names, since Clemens is a jerk for that too."

Exactly. Heyman would never call Mike Greenberg "Greeny." Totally unprofessional.]

It seems he is intent on repeating these claims until no one believes him (even Greeny said he thought Clemens was guilty).

[(heavy sigh)]

I texted McNamee as to whether he'd like to respond to Clemens' latest claims....

[Spoiler alert: Heyman knows McNamee.]

The response from McNamee: "Noooo! Sorry." Which makes sense. It's best to quit while you're ahead. And while we're still in the fifth inning of this drama, it's about 20-zip for McNamee.

[Heyman sent a smiley-face text back to McNamee, for those keeping score at home. Did I mention that they are buddies?]

I will never understand Clemens' "strategy" of denial on 60 Minutes (which I watched with McNamee)....

[Starting to get a little weird.]

While the feds haven't made their move on him yet, I firmly believe -- and many baseball people believe -- he has more chance to wind up in jail than Barry Bonds.

[Heyman knows that Kangaroo Court <> Criminal Justice Department, right?

-- If it pleases the court, I would like to offer Exhibit A into evidence. Let the record show that Exhibit A is a signed statement made by a self-proclaimed "baseball person" that Roger Clemens is more likely to go to prison than Barry Bonds. Also, I would like to offer into evidence Exhibit B- a photograph of me and Brian McNamee riding the Superman Roller coaster at Six Flags. The prosecution rests.]

Taking steroids may be a silly reason to go to jail, but I don't feel sorry for Clemens, whose ego is as big as all of Texas. As hard as it is to fathom, I am starting to feel sorry for Bonds.

[Exactly- Bonds would *never* hang his trainer out to dr-- oh, wait. Nevermind.]

Ibañez contract: A great deal for everyone

2009-05-12T10:40:00.003-04:00

What is Raul Ibañez doing with his three-year, $31.5 million contract he received from the Phillies? Joe Lemire of SI.com has the scoop, and thoughts on why this contract was awesome.

"We have really great, funny conversations during pitching changes," Ibañez said. "A lot of random things get brought up -- it's almost like an episode of Seinfeld."

[This has been happening for years in major league baseball, though. Everyone remembers when David Cone re-enacted "The Contest" episode in the bullpen years ago....]

For starters, Ibañez and Werth are avid watchers of infomercials. Though they declined to reveal what absurdities they've recently purchased for fear of giving an undue endorsement, it's not hard to imagine their homes are strewn with Snuggies, ShamWows and Swiffer SweeperVacs.

[Big blow to the ShamWow Guy-- heard he was really holding out for a Raul Ibañnez endorsement.]

"We both agree that it's tough to watch an infomercial and not want to at least try it," Werth said with a laugh. "Maybe we're both suckers."

[Is this really what ball-players do on the road at night? Watch infomercials? I miss the '86 Mets....]

The man Ibañez replaced, Pat Burrell, as well as another ex-Phillie, Bobby Abreu, both had comparable slugging numbers over the last five years, and they settled for contracts of two years, $16 million, and one year, $5 million, respectively.

[So this was... bad value, right?]

But Ibañez's hot start has helped dispel the notion that he was an unnecessary purchase.

[Oh, right-- forget about the part where we analyze multi-year contracts based upon the first 6% of the contract duration. Good point.]

Should opponents start summoning more lefty relievers to face him in the late innings, Ibañez ought to be equipped for the challenge. He's a .267 career hitter against southpaws, and this year is batting .250 with one homer.

[Was that second sentence ironic?]

One of the knocks on Ibañez was his defense, but he has had a renaissance on Philadelphia's south side.... Ibañez's cerebral approach to fielding includes noting the cut of the grass to predict which way a ball is likely to skip.

[This is great stuff.]

"Raul's a winner," Werth said of Ibañez, whose Mariner teams averaged only 72 wins per game. "That's really tough to say about somebody who's played for teams that haven't won."

[Bordering on amazing stuff.]

My favorite take on the Manny situation

2009-05-08T12:50:00.002-04:00

I got a text message last night my resident medical expert that read:

"Has anyone entertained the idea that maybe Manny wanted to have a baby?"

Pretty high comedy-- was actually kicking myself that I hadn't thought of that seemingly-obvious punch-line.

Jim Salisbury of the Philadelphia Inquirer uses a similar headline in his piece today, but then he kind of resorts to the usual fist-shaking.

Unwritten Rules: Unwritten for a reason.

2009-05-06T12:33:00.003-04:00

John Shea of the San Francisco Chronicle takes issue with Carl Crawford swiping a bag up 7-0 in the 5th inning.

Glancing at Crawford's 19 steals (in 19 attempts), we noticed one in Oakland on April 24. It stands out. Fifth inning. Rays leading 7-0.

[8-0 > 7-0.]

We looked everywhere for that unwritten rule stating baserunners ought not rub it in by stealing in a lopsided game. Couldn't find it. Then we remembered: It's not written anywhere.

[Because it's stupid?]

So we sought the opinion of a couple of A's. Kurt Suzuki, the catcher that night, said he didn't recall the situation and added it "never crossed my mind (that Crawford would disregard etiquette). He plays the game hard. He plays the game right."

[If he didn't recall the situation, did he really need to add that it never crossed his mind?]

Oakland's best base-stealing threat, Rajai Davis, said, "Yeah, I remember it," adding he was taught not to run at such a time. Davis wasn't knocking Crawford, who's respected around the game, as much as suggesting it might have been appropriate to shut down the running game.

[Of all of the things that Davis said, why only put "Yeah, I remember it" in quotes? The rest of the alleged statements were kind of the important part, no?]

Two different interpretations of the rule. What did you expect? It's unwritten.

[Thereby by precluding it from...... being a rule, right?

Not a believer here-- this isn't a YMCA league. These guys are paid professionals. Do other professional industries ease on the breaks if they are crushing their competitors? Suck it up, folks.]

Lessons in scouting

2009-05-04T15:19:00.004-04:00

From Peter King today in his SI.com column....

If you're a football scout or GM, how could you watch the Texas-Texas Tech game last fall and not think Harrell belongs in the NFL? He doesn't have the arm of Matthew Stafford, obviously, but neither did Joe Montana, and neither does Drew Brees.

[I sense something amazing forthcoming...]

My humble advice (and I mean that; I don't study college tape at all) to those who make their living grading college football players: Watch the games.

[Boom.

I am going to try to unscramble this:

- King blasts scouts for missing the boat on a player that he thinks is good.

- King admits that he does not "study college tape at all."

- King suggests that scouts should watch COLLEGE GAMES to determine which players are good.

QED.]

They wear gloves for a reason

2009-05-01T12:27:00.003-04:00

SI.com's Tim Marchman discovers that good defense --> run prevention --> good times.

A near iron law of baseball holds that if you can't quite tell why a team is good, it's probably good at defense.

[Just an atrocious sentence.]

On Tuesday, I had a chance to test this theory against 17 innings of observation when the first-place Seattle Mariners played a straight doubleheader over a cold afternoon and evening in Chicago.

[Iron Law = A Theory?]

It isn't just skill at work here. Like other teams, the Mariners put real thought into positioning.

[Not *every* team though. (See, Mets-- cross-ref Murphy, Daniel)]

"There's obviously three ways of looking at defending a batter," explains manager Don Wakamatsu. "Number one is you look at their sprays versus a left-hander or a right-hander pitching. Number two is you look at what hitters do off your pitcher individually. Number three is the individual matchups.

[Am I just not reading that last part correctly? #2 = #3, right?]

If the Mariners know that no one ever pulls Erik Bedard's curveball, for instance, they can pull the left fielder all the way toward center field at certain times.

[Wouldn't that tip-off the batter as to what pitch is coming?]

Last year, going by Ultimate Zone Rating, a sophisticated defensive statistic based on play-by-play data, the pennant winners were streets ahead of any other team in the field, saving more than 30 runs on defense above what the third-best team did.

[Cool-- I didn't want to know how UZR was calculated anyway. Knowing that it is "sophisticated" is good enough for me.]

"The bottom line is efficiency," he says, "This game is about pitch economy. The team that throws less pitches generally wins." It's an obvious point, but one apparently overlooked by teams such as New York's two clubs, who have struggled in part because of lousy pitching that hasn't been helped by lousy defense.

[2005 Mets: 83-79; 2006 Mets: 97-65; 2007 Mets: 88-74; 2008 Mets: 89-73.

2005 Yankees: 95-67; 2006 Yankees: 97-65; 2007 Yankees: 94-68; 2008 Yankees: 89-73.

2005 Mariners: 69-93; 2006 Mariners: 78-84; 2007 Mariners: 88-74; 2008 Mariners: 61-101.

Yup. This article is going great so far.]

Either way, the wins count the same. The Mariners are on pace to improve on last year's UZR total by about 80 runs....

[OK, got it. Good UZR numbers = Good Defense.]

Granting that it's early and that UZR, like any statistic, has its quirks -- right now it rates spectacularly inept Mets left fielder Daniel Murphy among the better defenders in the game...

[njhfdsahnifdsyuinjkldfajknl]

...this would seem to suggest the Seattle Mariners is for real.

[This article are FAIL.]

The NBA Playoffs: Dreadful, but humorously so

2009-04-30T13:02:00.003-04:00

With the exception of the Bulls-Celtics series, the rest of the '09 NBA Playoffs have been completely unwatchable (and even the Bulls-Celtics is a tough sell with the TV networks highlighting every Garnett F-bomb). The Hornets lost to Denver 121-63 a few days ago. Brutal. Just go ahead and call me when LeBron and Kobe meet in the finals. Until then, here is an amusing Playoff entry from SI's Scott Howard-Cooper.

It's foolish to put too much stock in one quote after one game, especially a game with the emotions of a season-ending defeat, but just try disregarding the Jerry Sloan assessment of Utah reserve point guard Ronnie Price in the televised news conference Monday.

[But that would be foolish!]

"I've never seen a guy play that hard in my life in that situation," the Jazz coach said.

[OK.]

It's Sloan, the most anti-hyperbole guy in the NBA and possibly the world, so: Wow.

[The most anti-hyperbole guy in THE WORLD.

Anti-hyperbole.

The World.

Wow is right.]

Hey, High-Schoolers-- go chase millions. Unless it is via basketball.

2009-04-24T12:41:00.004-04:00

Hard not to see this kind of fist-shaking coming on the heels of high school hoops star Jeremy Tyler opting to take his senior year of high school overseas to play pro ball in Europe. Eric Crawford of the Courier-Journal is all over the problem.

The last time a kid said he was going to skip his senior year of high school and go pro, the year was 1999, his name was Brandon Bender, and everybody laughed.

[So I guess for the purposes of this "big picture/problem with society" piece that we are just going to ignore golf/tennis/baseball/auto-racing/music/acting/etc.? OK, cool.]

I can't knock the 6-foot-11 U of L prospect and his family for deciding to negotiate a six-figure professional basketball deal in Europe, probably Spain, in favor of his senior year of high school.

[Why do I feel like he is about to knock him anyways?]

Something tells me that Tyler isn't availing himself of much in the way of "off-the-court stuff" in high school, either. Might as well finish his graduation requirements online, as he plans to do. Let's hope one of those lessons teaches him to find Spain on a map.

[Bingo. Classy.]

On the flip-side, a rare kudos to SI.com for Andy Staple's piece on the same issue. Hint: Staples takes a slightly different view than Crawford.

NFL Draft Columns: Where Logic Goes to Die

2009-04-23T12:34:00.003-04:00

A couple of points in Peter King's most recent column (though, he is hardly the only one making them) about the upcoming NFL Draft that I cannot quite wrap my mind around.

Curry's less of a gamble than Stafford because quarterbacks fail at a higher percentage high in the draft than do linebackers.

[Perhaps I am missing something, but this simply makes *no* sense. Picking Curry is less risky than picking Stafford because previous players that *aren't* Stafford have failed?? Really? Not sure what that has to do with Stafford. Using past performance of SEPARATE individual players to predict future performance of a particular present-day player seems...... stupid, right? I mean, this is an obvious point, no??]

New England will surely hit it rich on one of their first-day picks. Check out some of the names taken in the last two decades with that 34th pick, for instance: Carnell Lake, Amani Toomer, Jamie Sharper, Kyle Vanden Bosch, Chris Snee, D'Qwell Jackson.

[Kind of the same idea here, right? Predicting that a team will get a great player at a certain pick because six times in the last 20 years the team with that same pick ended up with a decent player? Solid. Cherry-pick = Fail.]

Citi Field: Why aren't you causing the Mets to win every game?

2009-04-14T12:02:00.003-04:00

Bob Klapisch plays the role of Buzz Killington in his breakdown of last night's Citi Field debut.

Everything was bigger, louder, brighter — a consumer’s dream, at least for those who equate a good time at the ballpark with the perks.

[True. I'd prefer the Mets play their games on one of the LGA runways. No grass. No dirt. No seats. Just asphalt, jet fuel fumes and baseball. Good time.]

But it’ll take more than the peripherals to make believers out of this long-suffering community.

[Believers of what? It's a BUILDING.]

The only way to eradicate the collapses of ’07 and ’08 is to win a pennant in ’09, which is to say, give it a month and Citi won’t feel so new anymore.

[Really? Those two things are related? Dude, it's a new stadium, not one of those Men In Black memory-erasing gadgets. Which is to say, fail.]

Is Mike Pelfrey injured?

[Why? Was he holding his arm or complaining of soreness?]

He allowed five runs in five innings, and with an 8.10 ERA has management worried.

[Oh, right, he's had a bad *week*. Obviously injured. In a related story, Chien-Ming Wang is in a coma.]

By June, depending on how the Mets are playing, Citi either will be greater New York’s nifty little treasure, or just another place where fans can have their hearts broken.

[Note to architects: Worry less about the actual structure, and more about the various people that may occupy it. And nice T-square. Nerds.]

If Shea Stadium’s legacy belonged to Tom Seaver and Mike Piazza and Darryl Strawberry and Keith Hernandez, Citi will be Wright’s domain now and forever. Only 25, he’ll soon enter his prime years in this ballpark, and with left field a manageable 364 feet in left, the third baseman easily could evolve into a 40-homer threat.

[In contrast to right field, which is 330 feet IN RIGHT.]

Learning that the ball doesn’t carry straightaway is just one of the many secrets of Citi.

[Soooo, they should..... swing harder?]

The Mets have the potential to rock the house in 2009, but not because Citi is a nice upgrade over Shea.

[Just enjoy the new digs, Klapisch. This isn't that hard.]

Tiger, We Hardly Know Ye

2009-04-09T12:45:00.004-04:00

Here's a truly bizarre piece by Edwin Pope of the Miami Herald about Tiger, and how the fact that we don't know anything really damaging about him makes him a jerk.

He is the greatest athlete the world has never known. And never will.

[Tiger Woods = Keyser Söze]

I wrote about 10 years ago that the only thing wrong with Tiger's future dominance was that we would never know him. At the time, I thought that sad.

[The only thing wrong with his FUTURE dominance?? That must have been a breakthrough column. "Tiger Woods: Young Phenom Destined for Greatness-- But also Sadness."]

Tiger has plenty to say, including how it must feel to be a future billionaire. But I sat through a 40-minute news conference with him here and he never said one word about himself that was worth printing.

[So...... I'm just going to write an entire article about how he didn't say anything worth printing.]

And he was too bland, as he almost always is, for it to be accidental. Only obsessive self-control seems to keep everything about him inside.

[I guess I should be happy that he said "seems."]

He talked about his wife, Elin, and their two children, who, he said, could save the worst golf day any human ever endured. Nothing about Tiger. Nothing that would give away the slightest hint of what he is all about.

[Frustrating, right? I mean, who talks about their family?? What an irrelevant topic! Tell me about things that are, you know, *important* to you.]

I have one rag-tag theory why he is like this, but it cannot be any more than a guess.

[But what the hell! Let's print it.

Professional.

Journalism.]

A friend of mine, one of golf's most prominent writers ever, has known every top golfer of the past 50 years, but he doesn't know Tiger.

[Here's a rag-tag theory of my own: Using the word "prominent" a little loosely, are we? Just a thought?]

On a different level, some expect Woods to at least occasionally refer to President Barack Obama, if for no other reason than Obama is the first black president.

[Apparently all minorities must make at least one audible reference to Obama per day? Can anyone confirm this?]

On the Obama matter, though, Tiger has been pointedly apolitical. He spoke at a Navy Glee Club affair at the Lincoln Memorial in connection with Obama's inauguration. Otherwise, no politics.

[The nerve! Who does Tiger think he is-- not forcing his personal views on all of us!?!]

Part of this is easy to understand. With a virtually limitless fortune to manage alongside his still-blazing golf ambition, he has no time to spare.

[While Pope, on the other hand, apparently has tons to spare!

What, exactly, does Pope actually want to *know* about Tiger? His favorite ice cream flavor? His Tivo recordings? His favorite Beatle?

Pointless.]

Losing breeds... winning?

2009-04-08T13:29:00.003-04:00

Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel "explains" how Tracy McGrady's selfishness paved the way for Magic's future success.

And, to think, all these years I've been erroneously blaming Me-Mac for essentially quitting during the 2003-04 season when the Magic lost 19 consecutive games at one joyless juncture and finished the season with an NBA-worst 21-61 record.

[What does "essentially" quitting mean? Who cares-- attacking a guy's character here with vagaries here!]

Without the Magic's disastrous difficulties of five seasons ago, they would likely still be in a state of utter disrepair.

[hgjhmujkmjghu7yikknm3asctnh5hnq

Let me try to wrap my mind around this one: If the Magic weren't terrible five years ago, then they would probably STILL be terrible now..... even though (under this logical gem) they *weren't* terrible five years ago?]

Let's be honest, shall we? Without Dwight on the team, the Magic would today be the Bobcats, who took Emeka Okafor with the No. 2 pick in that 2004 draft. Actually, they might be worse than the Bobcats.

[Great point. If not for event X occuring, team A *might* be different.]

If McGrady had been a real leader who refused to give up in 2004 instead of the team captain who abandoned ship and sat out the final 10 games of that season with one of his mysterious ailments, the Magic might be the Grizzlies right now.

[Did I already mention that Bianchi thinks that McGrady is a total pansy? I mean, who gets injured or sick anyways?? Sounds bogus to me too....]

The San Antonio Spurs, coincidentally, were 21-61 the year before Tim Duncan arrived and have won four championships in the years since. Could the Magic conceivably be on a similar path? What better person to ask than....

[...Tim Duncan? The Spurs GM?]

...Magic reserve point guard Tyronn Lue, who was shipped to Houston along with McGrady after the calamitous 2004 season but now is back in Orlando.

[Or him. Done!]

It's Official: The Yankees' Off-Season Was a HUGE Fail

2009-04-07T12:57:00.002-04:00

SI's Jon Heyman takes the completely appropriate perspective in dissecting the Yankees' off-season acquisitions of Sabathia and Teixiera.

The whole thing was such a letdown after the big buildup, yet manager Joe Girardi declared in the postgame press conference that he feels as good about this Yankees team as any team he's ever been associated with, big talk since Girardi was on the 1998 Yankees team that won 125 games.

[Yeah, Girardi. Idiot. You just lost a game. Totally not something that the '98 team would have done.]

Between Sabathia and Teixeira, the Yankees got zero return on their $341 million investment.

[Seriously. If Cashman knew that Sabathia and Teixeria were going to have a *single* bad game over the course of their lengthy multi-year contracts, he would have NEVER inked those deals. Spot on, Heyman. Kudos on a job....... done.]

Baseball Trivia Wears a Bow-Tie!

2009-04-03T09:43:00.002-04:00

Nils (if he is still alive-- questionable at this point) and I are naturally excited for baseball season to finally start, and in that spirit I am passing along (courtesy of The Guy Who Knows Things) a link to George Will's most recent Newsweek piece that includes 50 baseball trivia questions that are actually pretty fun to skim through.

And I also share TGWKT's hope that Will, this Sunday morning on ABC, "responds to a question about the banking crisis by talking about Placido Polanco's musical sounding name."

LeBron and Arbitrary Statistical Benchmarks

2009-04-02T13:12:00.004-04:00

Big fan of Michael Wilbon here, but his piece on LeBron's chances at averaging a triple-double was fail-tastic.

We see all-court brilliance like this every 25 years or so, when a player is extraordinary in basketball's primary skills: scoring, rebounding and passing. Only Oscar Robertson, in 1962, has averaged double digits in those three categories over an entire season.

[OK.]

It has been such an unreachable mark, like hitting .400 for an entire season or scoring 100 points in a single game, that it's now presumed to be unthinkable that a player would average a triple-double over a full NBA season.

[Except that every other NBA columnist is writing "LeBron! Triple-Double!" articles now. Makes it seem at least kind of thinkable, right? Oh, and also, what makes an impossibility (which none of the noted achievements are, by the way) an unreachable mark versus *such* an unreachable mark? Infinity plus one!]

Robertson, who isn't one to throw a lot of phony praise at today's players, said of James: "I am definitely impressed with LeBron. . . . [He's] so gifted in his abilities. He doesn't even know, yet, all of what he can do."

[For example, last week it was reported that LeBron realized that he was fluent in Mandarin. Neat.]

There are those who think LeBron could, if he decided it was a priority.

[Great point. Accumulating as many points, rebounds and assists as possible would be a stupid top priority, especially when LeBron has that cool baby powder entrance to focus on each game. I'm sure that LeBron actively decides to limit the number of points, rebounds and assists he gets each game. It just makes sense. Think about it.]

Even if LeBron wanted to go after the season-long triple-double it might be out of his reach because what Robertson did is the pre-steroid statistical equivalent of hitting .350, with 55 home runs and 160 runs batted in.

[???? This is turning into some kind of sportswriting Madlibs. Oooh! I want to try one:

...what Robertson did is the (arbitrary sports era) pre-forward pass statistical equivalent of (your favorite number) 20 points in a single game.

Fun.]

He knows it's going to be difficult, but Robertson repeated that he believes LeBron has a chance.

[What is he supposed to say? "You know, Mike, actually..., not a huge LeBron fan here. Seems a little flash-in-the-pan-y for me. I bet he levels off big time."]

That such a discussion even exists and that one of the five best all-around players in history has an open mind about LeBron doing it is one of the best arguments for him being MVP this season....

[This statement makes the BBWAA seem like Dr. Gregory House. Let me see if I got it. One of the "best" arguments for LeBron being named the 2008-09 MVP is that *one* retired player mentioned to a reporter that LeBron has a "chance" at having an historic statistical season... at some point in the future?

Sold. Start etching that plaque now!]

"Optimism" for the Royals

2009-04-01T12:52:00.002-04:00

Buster Olney blogs today about Mark Teahan's transition to 2B as one piece of the "widespread optimism" in Kansas City this spring.

Teahen feels the optimism that has been pervasive in the Royals' camp. He sees the improvement in Alex Gordon and in Kyle Davies. He sees the same potential in the team that rival scouts have noted. "This is the first year I'm leaving camp thinking that we should be in contention," Teahen said.

[Hmmm. Seems pretty glass-half-full, but I haven't really looked into the '09 Royals to any meaningful extent yet. So maybe the "pervasive" optimism about the '09 Royals is appropriate.]

It appears that Sidney Ponson has won a spot in the Royals' rotation....

[Nevermind!]

Never? Did I say never??

2009-03-30T13:59:00.002-04:00

Bob Ford of the Philadelphia Inquirer seems confused. I know I am.

"The Play" - and it will be known for a very long time as "The Play" among followers of Villanova basketball in particular and Philadelphia basketball in general - never works in practice, of course.

[Can't you just picture Ford forcing this "The Play" moniker into every conversation he has about that Villanova-Pitt game?

Co-worker/friend/relative/total stranger: Bob, tell me saw the finish to that Villanova game!
Bob Ford: You mean "The Play?"
Other Person: No, I mean when Scottie Reynolds went almost the length of the court weaving through defenders and hit that shot in the paint with practically no time left?
Bob Ford: Right! "The Play!"
Other Person: What the hell are you talking about? Did you see the game or not?
Bob Ford: Of course. It's called "The Play." Everybody's calling it "The Play."
Other Person: Nobody is calling it that. That's stupid. Whatever, Ford.]

It is one of the Wildcats' standard, end-of-game, little-time-left, 94-feet-away plays, and they practice it every day, with the blue team of starters being defended by the white team of reserves. Never works.

[I wonder why it NEVER works in practice....]

Either the inbounds pass goes to Scottie Reynolds and he can't make his way through the maze of defenders quickly enough, or the pass goes to Dante Cunningham but is knocked away. Or perhaps the blue team scores, but leaves too much time on the clock, and the white team comes right back down and wins the imaginary game.

[That would mean that the played WORKED though, right?? You know what? Forget it. Whatever, Ford.]

Best Damn Benchmark Period.

2009-03-30T13:51:00.003-04:00

Personally, I would be a little surprised if John Calipari left Memphis to take the Kentucky job. But, I could see how Memphis fans might be moderately nervous. Geoff Calkins of the Memphis Commercial Appeal, however, identifies the key pro-Memphis arguments that should help put all Tigers fans at ease.

He can’t get more famous than he is now. He can’t get richer. He can’t do better than the No. 1 recruiting class in the country. He can’t have any more appearances on “The Best Damn Sports Show Period.”

[Yup. Sorry, Kentucky. Unless you randomly hire Tom Arnold as your athletic director in the next few days, might as well start looking at other candidates.]

Maybe these Tebow-rific quotes will drag Nils out from hiding...

2009-03-27T14:45:00.003-04:00

Not a jab at David Jones at all here. I just felt compelled to share some of the quotes he got for his The USA Today piece that are...... well......

When it came time for Urban Meyer, head coach of the defending national champion Florida Gators, to offer some advice to his new quarterbacks coach on how to handle Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Tim Tebow, the message was pretty simple. "Coach Meyer said just don't screw him up," Scot Loeffler said.

[That would imply that Tebow has flaws or even human mortality, which is a ridiculous implication because everyone knows that he does not.]

Loeffler calls it "an honor" to be apart of the UF staff and work with Tebow.

[Hmmm, that's an OK start. But I still think that your adulation for Tebow can be a *lot* more over-the-top, to the point where it borders on creepy.]

"From day one, meeting the kid, he's had 'it.' And he'll always have 'it.' There's not one thing that surprises me about him except how he handles the off-the-field issues. He has a miraculous way of dealing with the public. He's awesome in every sense of the word."

[Boom.]

"Wanting it" > Anything Else

2009-03-27T13:04:00.002-04:00

Last night, I found myself watching Villanova completely destroy Duke and wondering aloud "How is 'Nova doing it?" Well, thanks to Bob Ford of the Philadelphia Inquirer, my query has been answered.

It is this simple: They don't want it to end.

[Analysis over!]

From the very start, Villanova played to win, not to avoid a loss.

[Which would also leave "winning" as their only option..... right?]

From the very start, the Wildcats gave No. 2-seeded Duke far more than it wanted.

[Well, that's not surprising because we've already established that Duke wanted "it" less than Nova did, so the amount of "it" that Duke wanted was likely a manageable sum.]

If the game was a test of will, only one team passed.

[In fact, Jay Wright's $2,000 suit was actually made out of "will." Really durable fabric.]

Whatever this postseason will become, however far it will go, it isn't over yet.

[?]

Who needs coins anyways?

2009-03-24T13:15:00.003-04:00

One area where Peter King and I have always agreed is that the NFL overtime system is stupid. His take on what the appropriate remedy should be, however, leaves me a little... well, let's take a look:

From Bruce Grossberg of Forest Hills, N.Y.: "Overtime: Instead of focusing on each team having a possession, why not focus on the unfairness of the coin flip? Why can't there be a 100-yard dash for possession, or the longest throw, or a "punt-off" for possession? Something quick, but something that would be less arbitrary than a coin flip."

King's response: I actually like that. Eliminate the capricious coin flip in favor of something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other.

[Brilliant. What better way to illustrate one *team's* superiority over another *team* than by having one guy from each 53-man roster run a 100-yard dash?

In a totally unrelated story, the Dallas Cowboys reportedly just offered Usain Bolt an $800MM contract.]

The following is the e-mail and King's response that immediately preceded the above exchange. King's advocacy for "something that would demonstrate one team's superiority over the other" got me thinking. What kind of activity could reliably demonstrate this....

From Matt Cafaro of Athens, Ga.: "Fixing overtime is the easiest thing imaginable: Follow the old NHL rules, which were fair. Every regular season game plays a full extra period if it ends in a tie at four quarters. If the game remains tied after this extra period, it's a tie. Deal with it. For playoff games, you do as hockey does in the playoffs. You keep playing full quarters, until there is a winner. You could go to six or seven 'quarters,' but you get a winner without having to compromise to the college solution."

King's response: The problem is that players don't want to add a full quarter to the season, which, as I explained Monday, is likely to be increased by a game or two in the near future. If the league goes to 18 games -- which I think would be a disaster because of the increased injury factor -- and if a team plays two overtime games in that season, the team would be playing 2.5 more games than it's playing now. That's 16 percent more football in a league in which injuries are already at high levels. Not going to fly.

[Adding a "full" quarter to the season = C'mon, don't be an idiot.
Adding a game or two to the season = Yeah, we can do that.

So yeah, that who-can-kick-the-ball-the-farthest idea is definitely better (ignoring that it could still result in a horrifying full quarter being added to a season).]

Slow stretch, paging Nils, etc.

2009-03-23T12:46:00.003-04:00

Apologies for the recent drought. Chalk it up to some recent travels and Nils' propensity to completely vanish for weeks at a time. Which reminds me, several people have asked if Nils and I are, in fact, the same person simply operating this site under two psuedonyms. This is not the case, but now I am also starting to wonder if Nils is a real person....

In other news, March Madness is one of my favorite times of year, but it doesn't seem to lend itself to the usual amount of humorously poor sports journalism. Fortunately, baseball season starts next week.

Nonetheless, here was a quality facts-be-damned piece on the tournament from Jim Litke in the Boston Herald.

The focus for the first weekend of the NCAA tournament may have been on fresh faces, but next weekend it’s back to familiar ones.

[OK.]

The NCAA tournament is miles ahead of the BCS when it comes to crowning a real champion, but they have this in common: Nobody wins it on the cheap. There are 330-odd Division I basketball teams competing for 64 spots and the median program runs a yearly operating loss approaching [the] million figure.

[Did he write this in the cab on his way over to meet his deadline?? 330-odd? You couldn't look up the exact number? And where are we getting these "median program" operating loss numbers from? You couldn't type "number of ncaa division 1 basketball teams" into Google, but you went through the balance sheets of all 330-odd programs? P.S. It's 65 spots now.]

Money is the short answer to the question of why a real mid-major still can’t win the NCAA tournament.

[After the previous paragraph, we were supposed to be expecting the *long* answer?]

The [Siena] Saints still might have been good enough to topple another No. 1 seed most nights, but not Louisville on this night.

[Huh? What?]

It took nearly all 60 minutes for that slight edge to prove decisive, but it usually does.

[Actually, this is a good point. Louisville really showed why they are superior to Siena in those 20 minutes that immediately followed their FORTY MINUTE BASKETBALL GAME.

Solid editing job.]

Hey, NCAA, Bobby Bowden is more important than your precious "academic integrity"

2009-03-10T13:12:00.005-04:00

Love this article. Just amazing. I present to you "Strippin wins from Florida State's Bobby Bowden too steep a punishment" by Gary Shelton of the St. Petersburg Times.

The man who will write history wears a clip-on tie.

[As did, ironically, the man who wrote the exams for Bowden's players, I think.]

At least, in my mind's eye, he does. He works in an office where big books have small type, and there is a toy of Capt. James T. Kirk on his desk. He owns the latest calculator, the one that plays the theme from the X-Files whenever he hits the button to make it multiply.

[Yeah, nerd! I bet this completely fictional Johnny Do-Gooder never even went to a football game. Pshaw, what would he know?]

He went to a football game once, but he didn't care for it.

[See? This guy is *such* a loser, what with his books of words and math-figuring-out machines.]

Tell me: Is that the guy who will determine the winner in the Joe Paterno-Bobby Bowden race?

[NOOOO!]

In a typically ham-fisted decision, the NCAA's Committee on Infractions has decided to trim an unspecified number of victories off Bobby Bowden's coaching record because players cheated in a course that — let's be honest here — Bowden probably didn't know existed.

[Unbelievable use of "let's be honest here" right in the middle of casually dismissing a cheating scandal. And if Shelton's excuse was somehow validated, I bet that FSU football team study hall would start going something like this:

Player X: Hey, does anybody know if Coach Bowden is aware of the existence of LEI 1181-Leisure and Recreation?
Player Y: No, he's not. I took it last semester and he had no idea that course existed.
Player X: Phew, good. Because I was planning on cheating in that course, and now if I get caught, at least I know that Coach won't lose any of his career victories.
(Player X and Player Y high-five each other.)]

For the record, the course was called "Cultures of World Music." Ha. The only thing that Bowden knows about music is that the 1812 Overture sounded better back in 1812.

[Exactly. Call me when his players cheat in a course Bowden knows something about, like PEO 3644-Theory and Practice of Football.]

Look, cheating is a horrible thing, and with 61 athletes from 10 sports involved, no one should suggest FSU shouldn't pay heavily. If you remember, I was the guy who wrote FSU should offer to withdraw from the 2007 Music City Bowl because of the academic fraud.

[Not the Music City Bowl! You wouldn't!!]

On the other hand, when you're talking about vacating victories, you have reached the point where the punishment no longer fits the crime.

[Right; it's sheer lunacy! It suggests that the eligibilty of the players is somehow tied to their academic standing. C'mon, Clip-on-Tie Guy. Put down the rubix cube and get with reality.]

When it comes to the NCAA, shouldn't that be the point? (Of course, it is often difficult to say what the point is when it comes to the NCAA. For instance, it remains a mystery why the NCAA hasn't taken bloodhounds and magnifying glasses and the cast of CSI: Miami to look into the Reggie Bush case, but I am sure there is an explanation.)

[Hey, everyone! Quick, look over there! Someone else may have also violated a rule! Nothing to see here! Ignore Bowden! No reason to talk about this any further!]

The truth is that it shouldn't have any effect. Not unless the NCAA could prove the cheating was directly aided by the coaching staff. Not unless the college was unwilling to act on its own.

[Coach Bowden doesn't even wear a headset on the sidelines anymore. Do you really think he would start wearing one for a massive "Old School" style cheating endeavor?? (Good test.)]

Again, cheating is terrible, but if you are talking about gaining a competitive edge, this isn't the same as a coach buying cars for his quarterbacks.

[Love this approach. Running over puppies with your car is terrible, BUT....]

Besides, in most places, where is the sting to having the NCAA erase a victory from the season before last? In most places, the coach's lifetime record is just another line on his resume.

[So why are you whining!?]

At FSU, and at Penn State, it's a little different. Bowden and Paterno have earned that.

[And that's something we can all be proud of.]

I appreciate the dedication; but seriously, you can take a week off, King.

2009-03-09T12:43:00.003-04:00

I just realized today that Peter King still writes his MMQB column even though football season has long since ended, and nothing is really happening in the sport. Sure, he had a few quick points about TO signing with the Bills, but let's face it, nobody really cares about the Bills.

What else, then, did King use to fill his weekly football column? Well, a large chunk of it was dedicated to the hot scoop that his family is moving from Jersey to Boston, including an anecdotal Top Ten list of things he'll miss about Jersey. Awesome. I'm glad I know which of your neighbors helped you coach a U-10 girls softball team. Seriously, the column was a family newsletter. Save it for Twitter, King.

Although I did like the following (and rather miraculous) progression:

Page 3: "I will not miss moving. The pain. The humanity. The sore back."

Page 4: "Moving, at 51, has a certain energizing quality to it, and I'm excited."

I am a big Cap'n Jetes fan, but c'mon!

2009-03-04T12:17:00.004-05:00

It has been well-documented that Jeter's defense has markedly declined over the years (although, I must admit that as an average layperson fan, I still have a difficult time adequately deciphering the various defensive metrics).

But, as Mike Vaccaro of the New York Post points out, who needs defense when you have a "C" on your jersey.

Yesterday afternoon at Steinbrenner Field, there were two baseball teams competing against each other - one representing America, the other America's Team. But there was only one captain on the field, one designated leader for both Team USA and the Yankees.

[And in an interesting gesture, Jeter asked to wear jersey number 200 for the WBC just so that he depict his dual-captainship on the back of his jersey.]

The fact is, there were nearly 60 players on the field during USA's 6-5 win over the Yankees who would tell you they wouldn't trade Derek Jeter for anyone-

[Are we sure that's a *fact,* professional journalist Mike Vaccaro? Like, you asked all of the players and they said so? Oh, no? Oh, OK. You're right, though. Let's just call it a fact anyways. Solid.]

There may be one prominent player who disagrees with that...

[One?]

...but he was in Jupiter, Fla., yesterday, telling reporters how much he would enjoy having Jose Reyes on his team.

[Aww snap! A-Rod may or may not have just implied that Jose Reyes is better at baseball than Derek Jeter! That would probably REALLY sting if it weren't accepted as an obvious factual statement by, you know, EVERYONE.]

"I wish [Reyes] was leading off on our team, playing on our team," Rodriguez said. "That's fun to watch. Anytime you have that type of speed.... So, to recount, in the space of 47 words Rodriguez buried Jeter, buried Johnny Damon, then said he didn't mean it.

[Huh? Settle down, Vaccaro. Who *wouldn't* want Jose Reyes leading off for their team. Oh, right... The Mets.]

Those who choose A-Rod as the Yankees' current foundation do so only because of his numbers, which are historic (regardless of artificial inflation) and awe-inspiring -

[That is only partially true. I would probably choose A-Rod as the Yankees' current foundation because of his awesome numbers AND because it would make Mike Vaccaro visibly angry.]

A leader? Would you like to know what a leader does?

[Brings in bagels for the whole team?]

A leader, when asked the other day about David Wright, says something like this: "I have a great deal of respect for him, because he's talented and he loves to win, and he plays hard. It's a great challenge playing against him, so I'm happy to have the chance to play with him for a little while."

That's what Jeter said about Wright.

[Do you know what A-Rod said about Wright?? Well, needless to say, the phrase "garden variety" appeared several times.]

[Jeter] has been criticized for not publicly defending A-Rod more, but it is on days like this that you realize his silences are as loud as any words he might employ.

[Again, I am a big Jeter fan, but isn't having an open and rather public feud with a teammate kind of, oh I don't know, not very leadership-y??

Although I bet those bagels make up for it and then some.]

Haynesworth's Mega-ish Deal

2009-03-02T12:38:00.001-05:00

Albert Haynesworth, you need a new agent. Or, bad sportswriting is not always the fault of the reporter.

An AP headline blazed “Haynesworth gets 7-year, $100 deal from Redskins,” and opened up the possibility for a million and one economy/stimulus jokes. Disappointingly, the body of the article correctly states that the deal is a $100 million deal…well, as correctly as the value of any NFL contract is stated and anyway far closer to the real value that $100.

Unfortunately.

For one hot minute, my chosen career seemed awfully lucrative.

Fun with analogies and fist-shaking!

2009-02-26T12:24:00.003-05:00

Jason Whitlock is taking issue with Jim Calhoun's weekend press conference spat in connection with a question regarding his salary.

Jim Calhoun's "got to feed his family," too.

[Let the misplaced analogizing begin!]

Sprewell submarined the last few years of his NBA career when he foolishly claimed insult over a three-year, $27 million contract offer from the T-Wolves and uttered words that live in infamy: "I got to feed my family." Calhoun blabbered words equally as brainless on Saturday when a citizen journalist/activist slipped into Calhoun's postgame news conference and wondered how Calhoun felt about being the state's highest-paid employee when the state is going bankrupt and government employees are being terminated, laid off, pink-slipped and separated from their health insurance.

[These are two fairly different situations, right? (1) A guy responding to an *offered* amount of money, and (2) a guy responding to a query about an amount of money he *already* makes (as a result of a bilaterally negotiated contract). But, yeah, let's just pretend they are the same. It's easier that way.]

But Sprewell and Calhoun share a common characteristic.

[Ummm, that they were/are both prominent basketball figures?]

They deserted reality years ago and have a deep belief in their own importance.

[That was my next guess!]

Only arrogance and greed would make a man take the bait. Calhoun believes he's underpaid. That's why he ranted about his basketball program generating $12 million.

[Let the fist-shaking begin!]

Jim Calhoun is doing the entire state of Connecticut a gigantic favor funneling kids through the academic charade and winning basketball games for the entertainment of alumnus, boosters, faculty and students.

[I know Whitlock is being sarcastic here, but hasn't he kind of stumbled upon the kill-shot to his own tirade? For a state that is "going bankrupt," isn't Calhoun ACTUALLY doing said state a "gigantic favor" by generating $12 million dollars while only be paid about 10% of that amount?? Seems like the state would welcome that kind of return, no?]

No one wants Calhoun to refund any of his money.

[Then what's the point of this article? That Calhoun needs sensitivity training? Great scoop.]

Calhoun isn't Roger Goodell.... Goodell recently accepted a 20 percent pay cut from his $11 million salary. Does Roger feel your pain? Maybe. Maybe not. He's probably just negotiating with the NFLPA. Goodell's league is headed toward an economic showdown with its players. He'll soon be asking the players to take a lot less than what they're expecting, and he'll be able to say he's in the same boat.

[Again, something that Calhoun will NOT have to do. He's a state employee.]

Goodell is smart. Calhoun is arrogant and delusional.

[Why do I even bother reading this stuff? Where is Nils already? Stop making me read Whitlock.]

And I'm equally sure that Geno Auriemma, Connecticut's women's coach, and his peers were Calhoun's most frequent callers. The most passionate supporters of Title IX are the overpaid women's basketball coaches who play in front of volleyball crowds and get paid every two weeks as if they're filling Michigan's football Big House.

[We get it! You have a problem with coaches' salaries.]

I don't have a problem with the salaries of coaches....

[hjsdfnldfasnloeruihoanlkdmadsfljkmceo

Sorry. I just hurled my laptop out of the window. Surprisingly sturdy.]

I have a problem when coaches/athletes lose touch with reality, rub their ble$$ing in our faces and carry themselves like they're above being queried about the economic flaw in our democracy.

[Whitlock doesn't have a "problem" with coaches' salaries, he only thinks that they are an "economic flaw in our democracy."

(re-opening window...)]

Note to NBA Players: C'mon, guys! Team owners are only billionaires! Let's be flexible here.

2009-02-25T10:15:00.003-05:00

Interesting piece in the NY Times this week where Howard Beck discusses the NBA's future with super-agent David Falk. Hat-tip to The Guy Who Knows Things for passing this along. (And a finger-wag to Nils for going into witness protection.)

The N.B.A.’s system is broken, Falk says, and fixing it will require radical measures that almost guarantee a standoff in 2011, when the collective bargaining agreement expires.

[But LeBron can still be on the Knicks, right? In any event, I'm assuming that "radical measures" implies compromise on multiple fronts.]

Falk said he believed Stern, the commissioner, would push for a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, a higher age limit on incoming players, elimination of the midlevel cap exception and an overall reduction in the players’ percentage of revenue.

[Aaaaaand I would assume incorrectly.]

“The owners have the economic wherewithal to shut the thing down for two years, whatever it takes, to get a system that will work long term,” he said in an extensive interview to discuss his new book. “The players do not have the economic wherewithal to sit out one year.”

[*Two* years? Wouldn't a lot of NBA guys just go play overseas (where a lot of them are already wildly popular)? Although, this is assuming that the Euro leagues still have money.]

The players, he said, must recognize that the owners have the ultimate leverage. Many are billionaires for whom owning an N.B.A. team is merely a pricey hobby.

[Ugh.]

Unlike most of his peers, and the union leadership, Falk is an advocate of the age limit, which Stern won during collective bargaining negotiations in 2005. Falk said the limit, now 19 years old, should be raised to 20 or 21.

[That sounds totally impractical from a player representation standpoint.]

His reasons are purely practical.

[(shaking head)]

The influx of underclassmen to the N.B.A. has eroded fan familiarity and the quality of play, Falk said. An age limit will create more polished and prepared rookies, while the N.C.A.A. provides free advertising for future N.B.A. stars.

[Oh, ok. So that last sentence should have actually read that his reasons are purely practical FOR OWNERS. From a player's perspective, I am almost positive that "Making (potentially) millions of dollars" > "Providing free advertising for your future employer."]

Changes to the salary cap and the age limit sound like sacrifices from the player’s side.

[I would certainly see it that way.]

Falk does not see it that way.

[This is still super-agent David Falk, right? That is, super-agent to NBA players, right? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!]

“The only logical way over the next 25 years that players are going to make more money is to grow the pie,” Falk said.

[Yep. Take note, Kobe. If you want to be more richly compensated two decades from now, you are going to have to make some concessions in the present day. Wait, what's that, Kobe? You say that won't be playing in the NBA 20 years from now? Well why not? You'll be in your mid-50s? Hmmmm. Hey, what's that over there!?! (scurries away)]

It seems to me that current players aren't likely to benefit (outside of potentially avoiding a work stoppage) from making the kinds of concessions noted herein by Falk. But you know who will? Well, owners, obviously. But also...... agents like David Falk who will still be representing NBA players 25 years from now, albeit new and different players. Clever, right?

Nostalgia = Acumen

2009-02-20T13:23:00.003-05:00

Jerry Brewer of The Seattle Times outlines the sentimental maneuvering that brought legend Ken Griffey, Jr. back to the Mariners.

Of all the touching, misty, joyful tales of this Junior Reprise, the most underrated comes from a man you've been hoping would be thrown overboard wearing a concrete life vest.

[I'm not really sure what A-Rod could have possibly had to do with this....]

For years, Mariners fans have blamed team president Chuck Armstrong, along with CEO Howard Lincoln, for their team's woes.

[Oh. Right. Sorry. I am just so accustomed to reading.... Nevermind.]

How did it happen? Go back several months, to the start of free agency. General manager Jack Zduriencik had just been hired, and after he got comfortable and started mulling plans to improve the roster, Armstrong mentioned his familial relationship with Griffey and his agent, Brian Goldberg.

[Hint, hint....]

Maybe it was his love for Griffey. Maybe he just knew him better than most. So the team president offered his assistance to Zduriencik. "Let me take the Griffey thing," Armstrong told his new GM. "Obviously, you have autonomy to do what you want here, but I'll look into this, and if you think acquiring Junior is the best baseball decision, then I will do everything I can to make it happen."

[HINT, HINT!!!]

After examining their options, Zduriencik and manager Don Wakamatsu agreed the Mariners could use Griffey's left-handed bat.

[Zduriencik's "options": (1) Keep job; (2) Lose job.]

Armstrong flew to California, where Griffey was playing in a Pebble Beach pro-am golf tournament. Griffey, his agent and Armstrong had dinner together at the Lodge at Pebble Beach that night. People kept coming over to say hello to Griffey, and Armstrong became nervous he would be spotted.

[Do you think he put on a fake Groucho Marx mustache? I bet he put on a fake Groucho Marx mustache.]

But no one recognized Armstrong as a representative of the Mariners.

[Huh? Is this guy one of the Jonas Brothers or something?]

After dinner, the three men went to Junior's hotel room to talk some more. Armstrong wiggled past an ironing board in the middle of the room.

[Umm, ok?]

"You ironed your shirt?" he said. "Yeah, I wanted to look good," Griffey replied.

[Cue over-the-top wah pedal riffs.]

It spurred conversation of how much Junior had grown in the 22 years since the Mariners drafted him.

[Crank up over-the-top wah pedal riffs. All the way to 11.]

They drifted back in time, to the first contract Griffey signed. What a long night that was.

[It's already at 11!!]

Then Atlanta started bidding against Seattle, and it seemed like the Braves would sign him.... At least the experience was cathartic for Armstrong. Griffey made him feel inspired again...

[I could keep going with this all day.]

Shortly after Armstrong's flight landed, he turned on his cellphone and received the call from Goldberg. He sounded very serious and put Griffey on the phone. "It's hard for me to tell you, but ... " Griffey said softly, pausing for effect, "I'm coming back!" When the call concluded, Mariners team physician Mitch Storey, who was on that same flight, looked at Armstrong and noticed some wetness around his eyes.

[Serious question here: Would you want *this* guy running your favorite team?]

After all the lows, Armstrong finally felt the ultimate high — pure joy.

[Can't say enough about how much I loved this article. Just amazing.]

Justice. Sweet, arbitrary justice.

2009-02-18T12:55:00.003-05:00

Nils and I have been waiting for this yawner A-Rod story to disappear before cranking it back up here at The Theorem. But, my goodness, people just WON'T stop pontificating about this. I feel compelled to mock *one* story, if only to avoid accumulating too much rust. (Deep breath) Here goes.

Rick Reilly (ugh, am I really going to do this?) wants to take the recent MVP awards and give them to their "rightful" recipients.

It's been tougher than a $4.99 steak. Got chased by Dobermans eight times. Had to hire five different sticky-fingered third-graders. Broke into the wrong house twice. But it's finally done. I've been able to retrieve every single MVP award that was wrongfully won by every single suspected 'roid ranger over the last 20 years.

[Hey, did you know that Reilly reportedly makes $3.4 MILLION per year to write stuff like this?]

[H]ere's yours from 2001, Luis Gonzalez, after you finished behind The Barry Bonds Pharmacy. We won't even mention the home run title you would've won that year.

[Well at least Reilly isn't accusing guys who saw random statistical spikes (in this case, Luis Gonzalez) but have never admitted using PEDs or been linked to usage. Maybe I was wrong about Reilly. He deserves credit for that much.]

You already have two MVPs, Albert [Pujols], and you're about to get three more, since Barry Bonds ripped you off worse than Bernie Madoff to win the award from 2002 to 2004. You hit .335 and averaged 41 bombs those years and yet you finished second behind the clearly creaming Bonds in '02 and '03 and third behind Bonds and Adrian Beltre in '04. We're throwing out Beltre since, while he denies ever using PEDs, he fell off the face of the planet once baseball put in stricter steroid suspensions in 2005. If he wasn't cheating, I'm the Queen Mother.

[Honestly, it's my own fault for even bothering to read a Reilly article. It really is.]

Revisionism, Hello Old Friend

2009-02-13T10:14:00.004-05:00

Slow week at The Theorem largely because Nils is lazy and I am not particularly interested in the latest steroid psuedo-drama. But I couldn't pass this piece by Carl Steward entitled "Next generation must restore baseball's purity."

[Purity should definitely be in ironic air quotes, right?]

If the sanctity of Major League Baseball is to be restored, it'll be the next generation of players, not the ever-growing cast of tarnished stars, that does it.

[Restored??]

It's a ray of hope in a sad, sordid time for the game.

[Really? If *now* is a sad, sordid time for the game, what would we call the ENTIRE period before 1947?]

Desire to shake fist at the sky > Having perspective.

Sanctimony is the new black!

2009-02-10T13:07:00.002-05:00

Ian O'Connor is on a roll.

In the real world, the Yankees would do what employers always do when they discover an employee has deceived them. They’d fire Rodriguez.

[Unless the deceit was limited to your tax return.]

The fans don’t want him. His teammates don’t want him. Even the old-timers have had their fill. “I was just across the street having a beer when all the TV kept showing was A-Rod hitting homers,” Whitey Ford said from his Florida home. “I made the owner of the place change the channel. I don’t know A-Rod, but this steroid thing is the same story over and over, and I’m sick of it.”

[This might be my favorite reaction to date. According to The Baseball Page .Com profile of Whitey Ford, they list his "Best Strength as a Player" as follows:

His willingness and ability to skirt the rules. Ford was a master at doctoring the baseball. He bragged that he could cut a baseball in more ways than any other pitcher. Ford sharpened the edges of his wedding ring and used it to cut slices in the ball, as well as the buckle on his belt. He also had his catchers, including Elston Howard, sharpen their belt buckles. One of his most famous inventions was a "gunk ball" which he loaded with a mixture of baby oil, resin, and turpentine. Several other pitchers, teammates and opponents, claim that Ford taught them how to throw the spitball and cutball.]

Good times.

Who is to blame for the A-Rod situation? Hank Steinbrenner. Oh, and Warren Buffett

2009-02-09T13:16:00.003-05:00

In general, nothing gets sportswriters going like outrage; and nothing seems to create outrage quite like steroids (unless it is an NFL player). Ian O'Connor gets the ball rolling nicely.

Hank [Steinbrenner] signed off on a $305 million contract worth more than some major-league teams, a deal including $30 million in bonuses for slaying baseball’s sultans of swat. Never mind that the fan base couldn’t stand A-Rod, and that the DNA of the game’s most gifted player was so clearly missing that indefinable winner’s gene.

[Yeah, because it is smart to emphasize "indefinable winner's gene" over "the game's most gifted player" in that analysis. Maybe Cashman should have run a few gels before signing off on the new contract.]

Do Warren Buffett and the money guys at Goldman Sachs deserve a little grief from Yankees fans for bridging the troubled waters separating A-Rod and their team. Sure, why not?

[Ummm, because that's stupid?]

But Hank was the voice of the franchise at the time.

[Voice = Sole decision-maker]

As it turned out, Hank would’ve been much better off letting A-Rod sign with the Toledo Mud Hens.

[I got a guy on the other line asking about some white walls!]

There isn’t going to be a next employer; Rodriguez is too radioactive for any team to take.

[Umm, I'll take him, right?]

Everyone loves a bad boy

2009-02-05T12:55:00.003-05:00

Bob Kravitz of IndyStar.com writes why he thinks Bob Knight would be a good hire by the University of Georgia. The bottom-line, according to Kravitz?

For all of his behavioral excesses -- the bullying, the sexism and the rest -- the bottom line is, college basketball is better with Knight.

[Sorry, ladies!]

Wishful thinking!

2009-02-05T12:32:00.003-05:00

Brian Windhorst of the Cleveland Plain Dealer thinks that even after a 52-point, triple-double performance at MSG, Knick fans are SOOOO over LeBron.

Like most of the Northeast, the country's largest city is in a veritable midwinter deep freeze these days. For now, apparently, so is the unfolding LeBron James 2010 drama.

[Is he serious? He can't be serious, right?]

After getting peppered about his future during the Cavaliers' previous visit in November, James enjoyed a more subdued trip to Madison Square Garden on Wednesday.

[Did Windhorst miss the part where LBJ was the first person since *1975* to score 50+ and register a triple-double in the same game? Definitely a more subdued trip.]

Even the questions from reporters during James' pregame media session focused on his recent play and the Cavs' All-Star snubs.

[Like that time he went for 52, 11 and 10? Yeah, I'd probably ask about that too.]

Save a Championship Bath Robe for Jesus

2009-02-03T14:43:00.004-05:00

What an article…we have contrasting emotions, outrageous hyperbole, filler sentences, a Kurt Warner/Jesus joke and championship bath robes. That’s right. Championship bath robes. Take it away, Dan Bickley:

In the dark minutes after Super Bowl XLIII, the contrast in emotions was striking.

Because, already prepared by sportswriter groupthink with the “it was a good loss” column, Bickley was surprised to see that the Cardinals were actually upset that they had lost.

He had figured that they would probably be pretty happy with themselves and that their emotions, despite the close loss, would be similar to the Steelers’. It was a woeful miscalculation.

Didn’t they know that this good loss was just like winning? Didn’t they know that they should be happy with their effort? Didn’t they know that they were ruining the premise of a thousand articles currently being written by sportswriters all across America?

Oh no, they didn’t.

The Steelers strolled toward the team bus wearing white championship bath robes and smoking cigars.

Championship bath robes. Just think about that for a second.

…

…

…

Championship.

Bath robes.

…

…

…

I love professional sports.

They were in a state of collective ecstasy. Their lives had all changed forever, for the better, and they knew it.

I like hyperbole. Hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole. Get in my article.

The Cardinals were appropriately numb. The difference between winning and losing a Super Bowl is immense, emotionally, historically and financially.

Some other sentences that didn’t have to be written:

John McCain was appropriately numb. The difference between winning and losing a Presidential election is immense, emotionally, historically and financially.

The patient was appropriately numb. The difference between anesthesia and no anesthesia is immense, emotionally, physically and lawsuit-causingly.

Colonel Jessup will look back and think that he probably shouldn’t have ordered the Code Red.

Beer is awesome.

… What if someone had just pushed the Steelers' James Harrison out of bounds on that interception to end the first half? What if the Cardinals had gone to that explosive, no-huddle offense earlier in the game? What if the defense would've just stood up at the end? What if Santonio Holmes doesn't make one of the best catches in Super Bowl history, rivaling grabs from the Giants' David Tyree and the Steelers' Lynn Swann?

Then the Cardinals still probably have lost the game because Jesus was upset that Kurt Warner didn’t set aside a Championship Bath Robe for him.

Good guys DON'T finish last

2009-02-02T13:00:00.003-05:00

Nils and argued this point vehemently over a slew of text messages last night, but I still say that the best commercial of the night was the one about the free Grand Slam breakfast this Tuesday at Denny's. I'm not even sure how this is up for debate.

As far as the game goes, it was surprisingly exciting. But what put Pittsburgh over the top, exactly? Peter King has some ideas.

It's a story about the affection everyone on the Steelers has for everyone, basically.

[I'm not following....]

"It matters,'' said [Hines] Ward. "You're going to be a better team if you like one another and trust one another."

[Oh, OK. Actually, I was thinking a similar thing when Warner threw that crippling INT that was returned for a score right before half-time. I thought, "Wow, Warner just *totally* showed his lack of trust in his teammates. If the back-up punter hadn't intentionally ignored Warner's 'I've got five on this seat' when he got up to grab a bagel during film study that week, Warner would have definitely thrown a TD right there."

I am still a little unclear on how liking each other directly causes success on the field, though. King, do you have another quote that, when taken out of context, is creepy and altogether hilarious?]

"We're just a bunch of little boys, fooling around in the living room,'' Troy Polamalu said.

[Perfect.]

Chemistry didn't win the most exciting Super Bowl I've covered, but chemistry did wear a Pittsburgh jersey.

[Because chemistry, like players, can only play for *one* team at a time. Sorry, Cards.]

Chemistry got built three years ago in Pittsburgh when Jerome Bettis wanted to draw the franchise quarterback more into the fraternal graces of the locker room and started playing a silly game with Ben Roethlisberger, standing 20 yards from the goal post and seeing who could be the first one to hit an upright with a pass.

[This is brutal. One more.]

No one knows what chemistry is, or how important it is in winning.... It's one of those things you can't define, but you can see. And the Steelers are full of it.

[OK, I can't read anymore of this. And how counter-examples do we all need to experience before we stop singing this song (Reggie Jackson-Billy Martin, Shaq-Kobe, Hall and Oates (there's no way they liked each other, right?), etc.)? Enough already.

Well, on the bright side, only 16+ hours until my free Grand Slam at Denny's.]

The Boss >> EVERYTHING. EVER.

2009-01-30T12:55:00.003-05:00

Look, I think Bruce Springstein is OK. I can appreciate his song-writing abilities. But honestly, I never really "got it" with respect to the sheer insanity of his rabid fanbase. For example, take a look at Ian O'Connor's column.

His sideburns and soul patch a dusty shade of gray, his voice as rough as a turnpike exit ramp, the man dressed in casual black sat on a stool with his right foot planted on the floor and his left foot planted on the crossbar. Springsteen wouldn’t have come across any better, any more regular-Joe genuine, if he had grabbed a guitar and starting singing about warm beer and a soft summer rain.

[For starters, I have a personal rule against getting *too* excited about anyone with a soul patch. Also, now that we know how the Boss likes to position his feet when sitting, why does "warm beer" conjure a positive connotation? Warm beer is gross. And a song about it would just be weird.]

So I’m one Bruce-loving son of New Jersey who is going to positively hate himself in the morning.

[Should have taken it easy with the warm beer. Maybe bring a cooler or something next time.]

The Boss is bad for the Super Bowl.

[Huh?]

He’s too big, too good, too damned popular to be plunked down in the middle of America’s leading sports event.

[Great point. With 100+ million people watching, we wouldn't want someone *too* popular. Think about it....]

Springsteen doesn’t play at the Super Bowl.

[Boy, those TV execs are going to be PISSED come halftime.]

If NFL officials wanted Bruce so badly, they should’ve turned this into a concert and had Pittsburgh and Arizona play a 12-minute game at intermission, like those mini Giants Stadium scrimmages the little boys play at the half.

[I can't tell if he's being serious or not.]

Springsteen said he hasn’t played football since his backyard games from 50 summers ago, and yet he was met at the Super Bowl by a larger audience than would greet a collection of every living member of pro football’s Hall of Fame.

[We get it. The Boss is popular.]

War Crimes & Homoeroticism in the Sports Section

2009-01-30T11:10:00.004-05:00

I think that Bill Plashke may be losing it…and I don’t mean that in an insulting way. I mean it in a positive we-can-help-you-Bill way.

Because I want to help.

The fairy tale is that, if he wins Sunday, the Arizona Cardinals quarterback has promised to buy his family a puppy.

It’s a fairy tale? As in, it's not real? Warner’s kids are going to be PISSED.

The reality show is that the Pittsburgh Steelers are going to whip the dog out of him.

I’m pretty sure that is not a real phrase.

The fairy tale is that, while dining with his family every Friday night before home games, the Arizona Cardinals quarterback picks up a stranger's bill.

How is this a fairy tale? This really happens. It happens every Friday night before home games. I know this because you just told me it was true…even though you also told me it was a fairy tale.

Your bad writing hurts me.

The reality show is that the Pittsburgh Steelers are going to cash him out.

Plashke is currently waterboarding this fairy tale/reality show device despite waterboarding being specifically disallowed in the Army Field Manual...which means that this column is four sentences in and already officially guilty of a War Crime.

Good start.

The fairy tale is that, for the second time in a bungee-jump of a career, Kurt Warner will finish work Sunday as the sweetest of Super Bowl heroes.

Just when I started to think “hey, that actually is kind of a fairy tale” and “maybe that means that Plashke just needed to get warmed up and is now going to make sense,” I do something stupid like read his next sentence…

The reality show is that the Pittsburgh Steelers will make him melt in their mouthpieces.

Without a single shred of a doubt, this is the single most disturbing sentence ever written in a sports column.

There are, by my rough count, 325,648 jokes that it is possible to make from this sentence alone, but each of them only reinforces what I just read…and I need to be cleansed of that sentence. To pretend that it never happened. To scour my mind clear of the thought that any part (or emission) of Kurt Warner might be melting in the mouthpieces of a single Steelers player. To try manfully to knock away the image of the Steelers actively wanting Kurt Warner in their mouths. So I do not joke about it.

I just flail helplessly beating my head against the wall and weeping in sorrow for the state of sportswriting.

I would go on, but Plashke rides the fairy tale/reality show metaphor so indecently, unfeasibly long that it really belongs in a John Holmes movie. And I just can't do that to myself.

Or to you.

LeBron James might be a fictional character sent from the future

2009-01-29T13:15:00.003-05:00

Here's a pretty mind-boggling piece by Chris Ballard on SI.com about the mythological creature we know as LeBron James.

Apparently, LeBron weighs "between 265 and 270" and has "5% body fat." And not only that, but according to Ballard, "James has never really lifted."

I'm not even mad; that's amazing.

Peter King, Scoop Machine

2009-01-27T14:05:00.003-05:00

I'm not entirely sure why, but Peter King devoted most of his Tuesday column to a conversation with Jake Plummer. I know he played for the Cardinals years ago, but.... Plummer? Really?

Plummer did not watch the NFC championship game. He didn't see the team that made him its poster child a decade ago make the first Super Bowl in its history. "I caught the highlights,'' he said, "but I had a handball tournament in Seattle."

[Here's how my "Things I Bet Jake Plummer Is Doing With His Retirement" list looked prior to today:

1. Spending time with family.
2. Staying in shape for eventual comeback.
3. Grooming beard.
4. Grooming mustache.
.
.
.
.
.
.
847. Playing in handball tournaments.]

Aren't there a hundred questions you'd like to ask Jake Plummer?

[At least that many just about handball tournaments, right?]

Plummer knows what he wants to do for the rest of his life -- something in coaching, but not at any level higher than high school.

[OK.]

"I really don't know what I'll do exactly," [Plummer] said.

[No, Jake, you *do* know. You want to coach. King just said so. C'mon dude.]

Handball, he said, is a way to keep his competitive juices flowing. He has bonded with a lot of western handball players, who play the game for the love of the game instead of money.

[SO refreshing to hear. Personally, I'd about had it with all of the prima donna handball players.]

"It's the purest sport in the world," Plummer said. "Even the president [the President's Council on Physical Fitness] says it's a great sport to stay physically fit.

[Things that make this quote hilarious:

(1) The "purest" sport in the world? Per Wikipedia: "Contact is only allowed when the defensive player is completely in front of the offensive player, i.e. between the offensive player and the goal, this is referred to as a player sandwich." Mmmmmm, player sandwich. Pure.

(2) The fact that King had to include the bracketed portion. This means that coming off of the most publicized and hype-filled Presidential election in recent American history, Jake Plummer refers to the guy who heads the President's Council on Physical Fitness as "the president."

(3) I Googled the President's Council on Physical Fitness to determine the name of "the president" (so as to make an Obama joke), and found the following on the Council Members bio page:

PCPFS Chairman - Vacant
PCPFS Vice Chair - Vacant
PCPFS Council Members - Vacant

Acting Executive Director - RADM Penelope Slade-Sawyer, P.T., M.S.W.

How to become a Council member:
All Council members are appointed by the President of the United States. Please contact:
Director, Office of Presidential Personnel
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
(202) 456-1414

If a person who was appointed on the basis of asking-for-the-job-when-apparently-no-one-else-wanted-it says that handball is a great sport to stay physically fit, consider me officially convinced.]

"I TiVoed the game last year, but the last three minutes got cut off. I was a novice TiVo-er, and I recorded the game, but I guess it ran long, so there I was, watching the game and it just stopped. I was a little mad. The game was getting good. This year I'll make sure to TiVo the program after the Super Bowl."

[Best. Interview. Ever.]

Stay classy, Torre

2009-01-26T13:25:00.003-05:00

Tell-alls are all the rage, I know. Britney is about to write one. Ditto for Sarah Palin. So Joe Torre is striking while the iron is hot, as the excerpt posted on SI.com illustrates.

The meeting was Torre's idea. Hank, Hal, Lopez, Levine, Trost and Cashman had kicked around the idea of what to do about Torre for the better part of a week. Do they offer him another contract, and, if so, for how long and for how much money? Do they even want him back at all? While they deliberated, Torre told Cashman he wanted to meet with the group face-to-face. It wasn't much different than how he managed: You look somebody in the eye and rely on direct honesty, rather than leaks and secondhand information.

[A bonus feature for purchasers of this book who also happen to work in the Yankee front office: Torre will come to your home or office and read the book aloud to you. Direct.]

"They only want to give you one year," Cashman told him over the phone.... "Cash, I have an idea. What about a two-year contract? It doesn't even really matter what the money is. Two years, and if I get fired in the first year, the second year is guaranteed. But if I get fired after the first year, I don't get the full amount of the second year, just a buyout. The money doesn't matter. I mean, as long as it's not just something ridiculous. It's not about the money. It's the second year."

[Exactly. The money makes *no* difference. Oh, but yeah, I'm going to want to see the terms of that buyout before I sign off on it.]

Torre had just gone through a hellish season, with constant leaks in the press, sniping from the front office, frequent rumors about him getting fired and the feeling that people within his own organization were rooting against him. He was worn out by all of it. There was no way he was going to go through another year like that.

[But *two* years of that? I can be persuaded....]

All Torre wanted was to manage one more season in relative calm, and the second year on a contract would help provide that kind of stability. The second year was nothing but an insurance policy. He planned to retire after that one season, anyway.

[Amazed that this negotiating tactic was unsuccessful, I tried it out myself following my recent performance review at my own place of employment:

Boss: Archie, is there anything that you'd like to discuss?
Me: Actually there is, sir: my employment contract.
Boss: OK, what specifically would you like to discuss?
Me: The length of my imminent extension. I know that we normally go year-to-year, but I would really prefer to get 2009 *and* 2010 guaranteed now.
Boss: Hmmm, for any particular reason?
Me: Yes. I'd like to retire in 2010 and move someplace warm..., maybe Scottsdale. But I'd prefer to get paid for that year.
Boss: .....But you have no intention of working for the company. You just admitted as much.
Me: You are focusing on all the wrong details, sir. Paying me for 2010-- even though I have no intention of working for you at all during that year-- will make me more productive in 2009.
Boss: I'm going to have to say "no" here, Archie. I'll see you on Monday.
Me: Maybe a buyout option?
Boss: Don't make me call Security.

"Yeah, I was leaving a lot of money on the table," Torre said, "but I didn't give a s---, because I knew what I went through the year before, dreading coming to the ballpark and sitting behind that desk every day. It would have been the same thing."

[How could the Yankees let this guy go?!?]

Mark McGwire's Air Tight Excuse

2009-01-23T18:29:00.002-05:00

I have a new defense the next time I do something egregiously wrong, whether at work or personally…human error. How does that work? I’ll let Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle explain:

McGwire’s Mistake was Human Error.

Pure, simple, could-happen-to-anyone human error. Like forgetting to carry a one or grazing the side of the garage when parking your car or purposefully injecting yourself with a not-quite-legal performance-enhancing drug that markedly improves your performance.

People are way more complicated than those of us in the media sometimes paint them. For instance, Mark McGwire. He was a great baseball player in every sense.

Except for that whole not cheating part.

Not only was he one of the best offensive players of all time, he handled himself with class off the field as well.

He helped little old ladies across the street, helped abused children and never swore. He also used the shit out of steroids. But he never swore.

His teammates loved him. They admired his talent, and they loved his humility and decency. They loved how he went about his business and placed winning above any individual accomplishment.

They loved how he gave them access to his dealer and his abnormal size and performance gains gave cover for their own steroid use. They loved how he never lorded it over them that he got into steroids first. They thought that it was pretty decent when he shared his needles. They loved how he made the 90s fun.

I got to know him over the years and found him to be smart, moody and dedicated to being the best he could be.

It’s weird, he was never described as moody during his early years in Oakland…

I know all the things he’s accused of doing, and I believe he did them. In his case, unlike those of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, performance-enhancing drugs might have been critical to the career he had.

It would be pretty neat-o if sportswriters used actual evidence when they made an argument. It would help to make this credible, it’s kinda their job and it would make it so I wasn't wondering why Mark McGwire, an excellent player who became abnormally awesome in his twilight years, was good only because of performance-enhancing drugs, whereas Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, who were also both excellent players who became abnormally awesome in their twilight years because of performance-enhancing drugs too, would have been good anyway.

I am not saying this is wrong. I am not even saying that it is a ridiculous assertion because it is impossible to prove. I am just saying that a little information to back it up would be nice.

The Sept. 11 attacks had occurred two weeks earlier when we spoke, and McGwire’s eyes filled with tears as he talked of being glued to CNN for hours.

Or we could just change subjects. That’s cool, too.

He wondered what he could do to help the victims.

Strangely, neither 9/11 nor McGwire’s helping the victims are relevant to his unethical and illegal use of steroids, but let’s stick with this for a while. It’s a human interest story. People love that shit.

Even steroid users have charitable hearts.

Must be a side effect of the drug.

I’m guessing he has been devastated by the loss of his good name these past few years.

And the worst part is that because of the steroids, he’s still too bulky to pay the world’s smallest violin.

I figured he would be the first of the alleged steroid guys to tell the world what they did and why.

Me: Why Mark, why?
Mark McGwire: Well, I was in my late 30s and not that good anymore and wanted to be better so I could make millions more dollars.
Me: Hmm. Do you think that would make me better at my job?
Mark McGwire: What do you do?
Me: I blog.
Mark McGwire: Couldn’t hurt.
Me: Do you know a guy?

If that happens, others could come forward. They might find that people are way more forgiving than they think. The truth is we’re all trying to get our minds around baseball’s steroid era.

And the best way to get our minds off of the steroid era is to have a bunch of guys from the era talk about all the drugs they did. Logic. Fail.

… Forget prison. What Bonds and Clemens have lost is far worse than jail time. Their reputations have been destroyed, their accomplishments diminished.

Cheating leads to people thinking you are better than you are. Getting caught leads to people thinking that you’re not as good as they thought you were before they knew you were a cheat. And that is worse than jail.

Fans sometimes complain that players don’t care as much as they do. In the case of Bonds, McGwire and Clemens, they might have cared too much.

The old “I hit you because I love you” defense. Air tight.

They allowed their ambition to get the best of their judgment. For that, they’ll pay forever.

And that seems fair, right? What is Justice going to write next, an agonized defense of Madoff?

Jeff Kent: A be-mustached matryoshka doll of sensitivity

2009-01-23T12:49:00.003-05:00

Bill Plaschke notes that under the close to two-decades of unpleasantness lies the *real* Jeff Kent.

In announcing his retirement Thursday, Jeff Kent finally showed the passion that he spent 17 years hiding underneath an icy veneer that won many games but few friends.

[Take note Albert Belle: When people refer to you as "surly," correct them; it was merely your *veneer* that was surly.]

He cried when talking about the Dodgers uniform, cried when talking about his family, sincerely thanked reporters for their questions, and even explained the last unexplainable thing in his career. "My dad was a police officer . . . hence, the mustache," he said, smiling below reddened eyes.

[Somewhere Nic Cage is nodding in approval.]

It's a sad thing, knowing now that he could have perhaps used some of this passion to have more impact as a leader.

[MORE impact as a leader?]

He spoke of his confrontations with everyone from Barry Bonds to Milton Bradley to Dodgers rookies as being part of a plan to sacrifice himself for the sake of the clubhouse. "The run-ins I might have had with teammates or some of the media, almost everything I did, I did purposely," he said.

[O Captain! My Captain!]

He said that his perceived toughness on teammates was just his way of injecting a respect for the game.

[Similar to when Kenny Rogers gave that cameraman an "esteem hug" back in June 2005.]

His one misgiving, he later admitted, was that perhaps he wasn't tough enough on one teammate. Kent will forever believe that after his San Francisco Giants blew the five-run lead in the last three innings of Game 6 of the 2002 World Series against the Angels, he should have fought Barry Bonds.

[He even went as far as passing the bat-boy a note addressed to Bonds that read: "Visitors parking lot - 30 minutes after the game. Be there. Or else. P.S. Nobody likes you."]

"If I had fought Barry, I could have gotten the focus off losing, and we could have been better prepared for Game 7."

[This has to be the mustache talking, right? I can hear the pre-game interview now: "You know, despite the fact that I have two broken bones in my hand and Barry's jaw is wired shut, we've never been more focused as a team than we are right now."]

We may have never known the depth of the real Jeff Kent, but the one we did know was plenty.

[Amen.]

Ingenius Tactics

2009-01-23T11:34:00.004-05:00

After following the latest Caroline Kennedy/Senate developments, Donovan McNabb has announced that he is withdrawning himself from Super Bowl MVP consideration.

In other news, Buster Olney, on his ESPN blog, thinks that

A candidate for least interesting story of the year so far, for me, is word that Mark McGwire's brother, Jay, has circulated a book proposal in which the brother says the former slugger used steroids.

[I will follow Olney's lead and propose my own candidate for least interesting story of the year so far:

Buster Olney's piece devoted to the story that *he* deemed a candidate for least interesting story of the year so far.]

Cardinals in the Super Bowl = BCS is awesome

2009-01-22T13:16:00.003-05:00

Stewart Mandel, who I normally really like, launches a myopic (and kind of angry) defense of the current BCS system.

Each year, when fans, broadcasters and columnists engage in their annual hand-wringing over the lack of a college football playoff, the lords of the BCS defend their divisive system by noting a playoff would deflate the sport's uniquely gripping regular season.... Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present the living embodiment of a devalued regular season: The Arizona Cardinals.

[Basing a broad argument on a sample size of *one* specific instance? Solid.]

Because the sport employs a traditional playoff rather than polls and computers, a Cardinals championship will be deemed far more legitimate than Florida's BCS title this past college season. Four great playoff games will override four months of mediocrity.

["Playing actual games" is an inherently more legitimate "polls and computers" means of determining which is the better team, right?]

"If the NFL has now arrived at a strange point where regular-season performance does nothing to predict playoff performance, and every team has an equal chance to win if they make the tournament, is that bad for the league?" Football Outsiders president Aaron Schatz wrote [Peter] King in an e-mail. It's certainly bad for the Tennessee Titans, whose league-best 13-3 record this season earned them ... bupkis.

[WRONG. Having the league's best record earned them (1) the privilege of playing one fewer game to win the championship (having to win 3 games >>> having to win 4 games); and (2) the opportunity to play at home (the Titans were 7-1 at home this year). Just because the Titans lost that playoff game does not mean that the privileges garnered by having the league's best record were devoid of value.]

[W]hy does the NFL even bother to hold a regular season? (Wait, I know -- for fantasy football and gamblers.) Why not stage one big, 32-team playoff?

[Glib.]

In a story from last week's Sports Illustrated leading up to the NFC title game, Cardinals defensive end Bertrand Berry explained his team's late-season slump thusly: "Mentally we eased up a little bit because we had clinched [the NFC West division] so early." That, my friends, is exactly what college football's powers-that-be fear most. Theirs is the only sport where every single game truly matters, where you can't afford to take your foot off the peddle for even one week.

[Again, not always true. Both Florida and Oklahoma lost a game in the regular season. Did it ultimately matter? No. They still made the title game. Plus, the "every game truly matters" mantra results in embarrassing non-conference scheduling by the perennial powers (e.g., Florida hosting Citadel, Oklahoma hosting Chattanooga, etc.). *Winning* every game truly matters, so let's line-up as many non-conference cupcakes as we can. Now THAT'S a meaningful regular season.]

The Virginia Tech Hokies are a more appropriate college parallel to the Cardinals. The Hokies won the ACC last season with a 9-4 record. They were ranked 19th in the final BCS standings and hadn't entered the national-title discussion since the preseason. However, in a playoff, Virginia Tech would have been guaranteed a berth. (Every other major sport, college and professional, gives first dibs to conference/division champions. College football wouldn't be any different.) Who's to say the Hokies couldn't have gotten hot, pulled off a couple of upsets and won the whole thing?

[I don't understand why a team getting "hot" is dismissed as some completely arbitrary stroke of luck. If a Florida's blow-out win against Citadel is so meaningful, why wouldn't a Virgina Tech win over Florida in a playoff format be viewed the same way?]

A national champion with four losses. There goes your "meaningful" regular season.

[Yes, because in a system wherein the contending teams almost *never* share common opponents, win-loss records should be the sole basis for comparing teams' relative dominance.]

Don't get me wrong, the BCS is far from ideal. Now more than ever, it's an inherently ludicrous task to identify just two teams worthy of a shot at the national championship.

[That's kind of *my* point, right? But yeah, let's just stick with the inherently ludicrious approach.]

With a playoff in place, fans would inevitably lose interest once their teams were eliminated from contention.

[Another off-base blanket statement. Most teams (in the current system) are out of contention once they lose their *first* game. I'm pretty sure most fans continue to follow as the season goes along.]

Even if the bowls stayed in business, they'd become to football what the NIT is to basketball.

[This argument always confuses me. Isn't that what the bowls already are?? We have the National Championship game, and then all other bowls. Am I missing something?]

Meanwhile, the regular season would become just like the NFL's and college basketball's. Instead of revolving around the national-title race, the biggest games at the end of the season would be those involving potential wild-card or at-large teams.

[Which would mean that there would be *more* big games each week, right? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.]

In college football, there's always at least one, if not several, big "national" games each week (like the ones GameDay features). With a playoff, it would be more like basketball, where there are only two truly "big" games unaffiliated fans watch in droves: The two Duke-North Carolina games. Just substitute Ohio State-Michigan and Oklahoma-Texas.

[See the previous point. Opening up a shot to play for a national title to four or eight teams (instead of just two) would inherently create more important regular season match-ups. That *has* to be correct, doesn't it?]

Obviously, the NFL doesn't exactly suffer because of its playoff format. Fans will not be any less interested in next September's games due to the Cardinals' presence in this year's Super Bowl.

[Ugh. I'm glad we just wasted the previous ten minutes reading how much the NFL's system sucks...... just to come to the conclusion that the NFL system is actually fine.]

If the Cardinals played in college, they might have finished their season in the hometown Insight Bowl. Last month, two 7-5 teams -- Minnesota and Kansas -- played in that relatively low-profile game. It's funny. In college, we complain when mediocre teams like the Gophers and Jayhawks are rewarded with bowl berths. In the pros, the system rewards comparable teams with a shot at the championship.

[This is hyperbole. A 7-5 team would *never* qualify for a four or eight team college playoff. And a "shot" at the championship still requires a team to win games (three, for a team like the Cardinals)-- which is not exactly a hand-out.

P.S. Mandel, ask undefeated Utah how truly meaningful the college football regular season is. The BCS will remain in place because it puts the big schools at an obvious and distinct advantage, thereby making the regular season almost completely meaningless for everyone not included in that group.]

Hyperbole = No Match for Jason Whitlock

2009-01-21T15:07:00.002-05:00

An Inauguration-themed piece by Mr. Whitlock.

A half-black, half-white American president is stealing the spotlight this week, but Raheem Morris truly pulled off the impossible and proved just how far we've come in terms of racial equality.

[There's more....]

You want real proof of America's racial progress? Take a look at what just transpired with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers....

[One more....]

OK, so maybe Obama has a bit more on his plate than a couple of football coaches. I'm still more impressed with Morris' rise than Obama's.

[I've got nothing.]

[P.S. Who is Raheem Morris again?]

One more, then this story is dead to me. Honest.

2009-01-21T14:41:00.003-05:00

As Nils has pointed out in previous episodes, Rick Reilly is a touch out-of-touch. His article on Larry Fitzgerald both reiterates that notion and serves as a perfect representation of the media's looking-the-other-way love affair with the star WR.

Obama is a football freak, so he'll be watching next Sunday when the world finally gets a load of Fitzgerald's son—the anti-T.O.—a receiver who catches everything and brags about nothing, who climbs his own invisible staircase to get to footballs, who dresses and speaks impeccably and travels the world alone in the off-season, taking in museums.

[Insert your own "must stay 200 feet away" joke with respect to the "travels the world alone" compliment.]

"He looks so much like his mother," says Larry Sr. "He has her humility, her smile and her stubbornness."

[I bet T.O. looks *nothing* like his mother.]

No wonder Junior still carries his mom's driver's license in his wallet. No wonder he wears his hair in long dreads—as she did—to honor her. And now this Samson comes into the Big Bowl as one of the main pillars the Steelers have to topple.

[This story is officially dead to me. Although, the following Wikipedia passage on Samson is a bit eerie:

--

On the way to ask for the woman's hand in marriage, Samson is attacked by an Asiatic Lion and simply grabs it and rips it apart, as the Spirit of God moves upon him, divinely empowering him. This so profoundly affects Samson that he just keeps it to himself as a secret.

Getting warmer.... (I think)

2009-01-21T13:07:00.004-05:00

Can someone confirm that the Larry Fitzgerald-restraining order story is true? You know, this one. I don't mean to bring this up again, but Paola Boivin's article in the Arizona Republic about Anquan Boldin makes me start to think that the whole Fitzgerald thing is just something that I made up.

Super Bowl frenzy has arrived, which means the Cardinals season is officially available in high definition and double-digit megapixels. The smallest blemishes are magnified, a reality Anquan Boldin needs to take to heart.

[See what I mean?]

Former NFL safety Matt Bowen blogged on NationalFootballPost.com that "I've seen my 5-year-old nephew act better in times of adversity." The Miami Herald ran a story debating a Boldin trade and a YouTube video showing the wide receiver's shouting match with offensive coordinator Todd Haley in Sunday's NFC title game earned a five-star rating.

[Not a five-star rating on YouTube!?!]

The worst part? Many are slapping "diva" before Boldin's name, lumping him with the NFL's wide receiving Brat Pack. Terrell Owens, Plaxico Burress, Randy Moss. Really? Then show me the police files suggesting criminal behavior.

[.............. It's not just me, right?]

You can't, because Boldin is none of those things.... He's never embarrassed this organization off the field.

[(cough, like Fitzgerald, cough)]

His shouting match with Haley over his exclusion in a personnel grouping was ill-advised but not uncommon. That God-fearing quarterback himself, Kurt Warner, is often bickering with Haley....

[I wonder why it's cool when Warner does it? Hmmm....]

Yet, instead of talking about the accomplishments of this organization, coach Ken Whisenhunt was forced to answer questions Monday about Boldin's attitude.

[Fitzgerald must be *loving* this diversion. Everyone look over there at Anquan! Nothing to see here. No judicially mandated protection orders or anything! Hey, look how pouty Anquan looks!]

The Cardinals are a terrific story. I can't tell you the number of national media members who said they were grateful for the fresh story lines, impressed by the personalities in this locker room.

[Yeah, these guys get tired of covering star wide receivers with legal issues. Thanks for the *fresh* story lines (the ones we will choose to write about, that is).]]

"We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench a fist," President Barack Obama said in a message directed at dictatorial leaders of other nations. The sports world wants to extend a hand to Boldin, too. If only he would accept it.

[Seriously?? We are going to make *Boldin* the villain of the Cardinals' receiver corps, AND we are going to use Obama's "unclench a fist" sound byte to make the point??]

Peter King, Championship Sunday

2009-01-19T12:08:00.005-05:00

King breaks down yesterday's Championship games.

[A] few words on what we saw last night in the Baltimore-Pittsburgh Texas Cage Match. This is now officially the best rivalry in football. It just passed New England-Indianapolis in my book. The thing is, it's a little bit like the running of the bulls in Pamplona, or Balboa-Creed. I'm not sure how often I want to see it. I'm afraid someone's going to get maimed.

[Sorry. Last night's game was unwatchable. It took forever to play (thanks to a discouraging number of injury timeouts and multiple lengthy replay reviews), there were five combined turnovers, dropped passes (followed by Sweed acting injured), stupid penalties (wasn't that "roughing the punter" penalty the ultimate irony compared to the rest of the absurdly violent game?), multiple players leaving with concussions, and Willis McGahee's near paralysis. That wasn't the *best* anything.]

If I'm Larry Fitzgerald or Kurt Warner, I'm saying a prayer the night before the Super Bowl. First, to give great thanks for one of the more incredible ascensions to a conference title ever. And second, to humbly ask, "Please do not let me get killed out there."

[Fitzgerald irony alert!]

I'm one of 44 voters for the Hall of Fame, and I could well be in the vast minority on this. But Warner, at this point, even with the victory over the Eagles, making him the second quarterback in NFL history (Craig Morton, Denver and Dallas) to quarterback different teams in the Super Bowl, is not yet a Hall of Famer to me. The reason, mostly, is longevity.... It comes down to this: Do five outstanding years make a Hall-of-Fame career?

[I guess not, according to King.]

In essence, five great years got Gale Sayers into the Hall of Fame, and I supported that.

[(nodding)]

I think the Ravens are going to have to pay Ray Lewis. I know he's 33, and a 13-year vet, and logic says you don't pay someone really big money at that stage of his career, but how about $15 million to sign, and a three-year deal with low base salaries -- say, totaling $9 million? He made as many heart-and-soul plays as anyone playing this weekend on the defensive side of the ball, and I think he must be rewarded.

[Nice. Anytime you start an arugment with "logic says X, but...," you know you are on the right track. This is the "Benjamin Button" approach to running a sports franchise. The player gets older and presumably less productive, but his subsequent contracts remain high-priced (or increases in value) because the team wants to retroactively "reward" the player for past performance. Good luck with that.]

The Arizona crowd sounded important over the TV.

[Huh?]

Jim Rice >> Babe Ruth

2009-01-16T13:41:00.005-05:00

Amidst the many strained pro-Rice arguments, I had not actually heard the one shot down by Tracy Ringolsby in the Rocky Mountain News.

Amid the debate over Jim Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy came a missive from a New England fan who wanted it known that "Jim Rice's offensive stats for his first 10 years in the Majors were better than Babe Ruth's."

[Right off the bat there are a few reasons why this is a stupid pro-Rice HoF argument:

First, why the arbitrary "first 10 years" cut-off? Why not just say "Jim Rice had a better fifth season than Babe Ruth," or "Jim Rice was more productive in the 1980s than Babe Ruth was?" Ruth played 22 seasons. Rice 16. At age 36 (Rice's final season), his OPS+ was 70. At age 36, Ruth's OPS+ was 218.

Second, in Ruth's first five seasons, he had a total of 678 ABs. Rice, on the other hand, had 2,533 ABs (including 677 ABs in 1978). You know what Ruth was doing in those first five years instead? Throwing 1,057 innings (over 211 per year, and with respective ERA+ of 68, 114, 158, 128 and 121).

Third, even with that whole "being a full-time pitcher" thing, as a part-time hitter, Ruth still hung OPS+ of 50 (in only 10 ABs), 189, 121, 164 and 194 in those first five seasons; while Rice put up OPS+ of 89, 127, 120, 147 and 157.

You know what? I'm not even going to go through the rest of the article. Ringolsby agrees that the argument is stupid, but the rationale is solely that the eras were different (as opposed to, you know, that Ruth was a *lot* better than Rice).]

Bill Plaschke is on the money (seriously).

2009-01-16T12:59:00.003-05:00

I would not consider myself a USC fan, but I must say that I have a hard time not liking Pete Carroll. He is undeniably good at his job. He seems to create and foster a fun environment for his players. He even hangs out with gang members in the middle of the night in South LA in attempt to improve their lives.

Which is why I found his reaction to the decision of Mark Sanchez to turn pro most peculiar. Bill Plaschke agrees.

Sanchez, the Trojans' starting quarterback who will finish his classwork in May with one year of remaining football eligibility, formally declared that he was leaving school to join the NFL. Carroll, his coach, publicly treated him like a traitor.

[Here's the thing I never quite understand about college sports (most notably college football): Quite often, as with Sanchez, the player isn't actually leaving school "early." The "red-shirt" nomenclature of college football underscores Plaschke's point that there is a "gap between college football and college education." Sanchez is *done* with his college education.]

Carroll was so visibly frustrated, he wouldn't even sit next to Sanchez during the Heritage Hall news conference, then later refused to sit while answering questions.... Said Carroll: "Mark is going against the grain in this decision, we know that, he knows that."

[Against what grain? If Sanchez (as projected by Mel Kiper, Jr. last night on ESPN) is a potential top 3 pick in the upcoming draft, how do you not encourage him to seize that opportunity? That is life-altering money. Weird scene all-around.]

Jason Whitlock: Vol. 8

2009-01-15T12:50:00.004-05:00

I will give Whitlock credit for sticking by his guy McNabb a few months ago when most other writers were calling for his head. But, let's take it easy a bit, Mr. Whitlock.

Somehow I think football fans will remember McNabb for leading the Eagles to five NFC championship games in 10 years more than they'll remember a regular-season tie at Cincinnati.

[Agreed. Or at least fans *should* remember him more for that.]

He's not Tom Brady (or even Peyton Manning). But McNabb is a winner, the third-best quarterback of his era. (I don't include Brett Favre in McNabb's era.)

[Huh? Ignoring the substance of his list, why doesn't he include Favre in McNabb's era? Does this make sense to anyone??]

I place McNabb slightly ahead of Kurt Warner because Warner spent the middle five seasons of his 11-year career looking like an Arena League flash-in-the-pan.

[I think he means the middle *three* seasons-- Warner was MVP in 2001.]

If Warner and the Cardinals win on Sunday, McNabb will fall to No. 4 on my list behind Captain Kurt.

[Makes sense. Warner is currently behind McNabb because of five (allegedly) poor seasons. But if his team beats McNabb's team in ONE GAME, then Warner will jump McNabb on the list. QED.]

But if McNabb gets the Birds past Arizona and wins the Super Bowl, then you might hear me arguing that McNabb is Peyton Manning's equal.

[Sorry. I know Whitlock argues that McNabb never had the same level of supporting cast as Peyton, which is likely true (not nearly enough, however, to make up for the MASSIVE statistical difference between the two). But if we are going to compare value, why not start with something simple that brings inherent value to your team: actually playing in games. In his eleven year career, Peyton has averaged 16 games per (regular) season-- that's EVERY game. In his ten year career, McNabb has averaged just over 13 games per season. Put another way, McNabb has missed, on average, nearly 20% of his team's regular season games throughout his career.]

One more unrelated point from Whitlock in his column:

I have the perfect solution for Carolina's Jake Delhomme problem: Nate Davis.

[Fumbles >> Interceptions. Apparently.]

Some classic Pettitte-Love

2009-01-15T09:17:00.006-05:00

Wallace Matthews of Newsday thinks that Andy Pettitte would be perfect for the Mets.

The Yankees can find nearly a half-billion dollars to pay three players who, as brilliant as they've performed elsewhere, have yet to do a thing for this franchise. And yet they can't scrape up a nickel more than $10 million for Andy Pettitte, who played an instrumental role in bringing them four world championships?

[A few things:

(1) BrilliantLY.

(2) When did "what have you done for me lately" give way to "what did you do for me a decade ago?" Also, Pettitte's post-season prowess is often overstated. In 35 career-postseason starts (31 of which were made as a Yankee): 218.1 IP, 3.96 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 5.73 K/9, 2.32 K:BB. Decent (especially the nearly 6.1 IP per start), but we're not talking about Schilling or Smoltz post-season career numbers here by any stretch.

(3) Other than providing bulk innings, Pettitte was pretty bad last season, and objectively awful in the second half (79 IP, 5.35 ERA, 1.52 WHIP after the AS break). $10 million? No thanks.]

Pettitte has just as much right to be insulted over the Yankees' contract offer as the Yankees have the right to insult him.

[Where is it written that a player's salary has to go *up* with each new contract, regardless of his performance?]

Last time I checked, the Mets were still shopping for a starting pitcher, and one glance at their roster reminds you of how badly they need one.

[Preferably a *good* starting pitcher, I would assume.]

And best of all, Pettitte doesn't cost you all that much, in money or years. One year at $12 million to $14 million, maybe with an option, probably gets it done, and that's perfect.

[True on the one-year potential. But $12-14MM is still waaaay above market for Pettitte, right?]

One more MLB HoF thought

2009-01-13T15:01:00.006-05:00

As previously (albeit infrequently) stated, we here at The Theorem like to point out quality reads from the world of sports. Here is a particularly attention-holding piece from Keith Law regarding Tim Raines' HoF candidacy as well as the composition of the HoF voting body.

And just for fun, compare Law's sophisticated research-based take to the ...... umm,.... different approach taken by Dan Shaughnessy regarding Jim Rice.

More recently, as he snared more votes, there was a backlash among new-age, basement-dwelling number crunchers who found flaws in Rice's résumé (always borderline by Cooperstown's lofty standards).... But the older writers had the benefit of being eyewitnesses. They watched Rice hit and saw the nightly fear in the visitors dugout at Fenway.

[Well-played.]

Peter King (and others) only read the East Coast police logs

2009-01-13T13:38:00.002-05:00

Hey, remember when seemingly the entire sports media united to drag Plaxico Burress over the coals? Actually, it's still happening (in the wake of the Giants' loss on Sunday). Plaxico's situation was serious, and certainly some level of outrage from the media was appropriate.

A little consistency, however, does not appear to be in the "Cards." (Nice)

Monday's Peter King column is a good example.

In Pete's "Awards Section," (solid) he hands out the following praise:

Larry Fitzgerald, WR, Arizona. He's becoming a gentlemanly Randy Moss, right down to wearing the gloves on his facemask when the game's been decided.

[A "gentlemanly Randy Moss?" Really? Pete is certainly not alone, but with the recent protection order filed against Fitzgerald, I'm not sure that "gentlemanly" is completely accurate.

And remember when a protection order was similarly filed against the actual Randy Moss last year during the NFL playoffs? The order was eventually dropped, and so may be the eventual outcome of Ftizgerald's current predicament. But, nonetheless, to call Fitzgerald a "gentlemanly Randy Moss?" In light of the reaction to the Plaxico situation, the lack of coverage with respect to Fitzgerald's story seems arbitrary and weak.]

Rickey Henderson for all the Wrong Reasons

2009-01-13T12:55:00.005-05:00

Rickey Henderson was awesome at baseball. I totally saw him play the Twins in 1991 before I retreated to my Mom's basement and stopped watching games because it's more fun to do equations and play with spreadsheets...and he was so good that it was almost enough to keep me from learning Excel and just hanging at the ballpark all day. Almost.

Despite failing at that, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

It’s just that he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame for the reason that Jayson Stark thinks he does:

Unless my calculator's busted, those numbers are telling me that 28 voters cast ballots that did not include the name of Rickey Henderson.

That is pretty shocking. Who are these people?

But at least it's great news for Corky Simpson, the retired writer from Tucson, Ariz., who has been getting hammered by much of North America for admitting in a column that he didn't vote for Henderson because he's "not a Rickey guy."

Question answered.

OK, so of the other 27 voters who couldn't find Rickey's box to check, two of those ballots were blank steroid protests.

Principle is principle, I guess.

But that still leaves 25 voters with other agendas…Seriously, by what standard is this man NOT a Hall of Famer?

You mean besides the “are you a Rickey guy” standard?

He scored more runs than any player in the history of baseball.

Do we even need to list ANY other qualifications?

Yes.

Jayson, here’s the thing: because baseball is a team game, the only way to ensure that a batter is going to score a run is to hit a home run. If you don’t hit a home run, you will not score unless your teammates do something, like get a hit, that will advance you to home. If you need to brush up, this is all in the rules.

Henderson hit 297 home runs, which is very impressive for the player nicknamed the Man of Steal, but still means that his teammates played a big role in this runs scored bull jive.

There are a myriad of things that Rickey Henderson did independent of his teammates that make his case for the Hall of Fame, things like steal more bases than anyone else ever, clock in with a .401 OBP and a 127 OPS+, etc and so on…so why are you focused on a meaningless statistic that shows little about Henderson’s actual ability?

It’s reasoning like that that makes it okay for Bert Blyleven not to be in the Hall of Fame yet.

Back to the BCS

2009-01-12T13:11:00.002-05:00

More BCS madness, this time courtesy of Rick Reilly:

Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.

One these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same…

Dick Vitale doesn’t want styling mousse. Though unfunny, I get the joke that Reilly is making about the very thin Kate Moss not wanting an all-you-can-eat card, whatever that is. Oklahoma and Florida though both very much want(ed) the BCS “national championship.”

Logic fail.

It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility.

Rick Reilly, however, has all the credibility. He’s practically made of credibility. In fact, when he writes his columns, he sits in a little cave on a mountain of credibility, a sportswriter Swami whose turban, incidentally, is woven out of credibility.

Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.

Because Rick Reilly gets to decide these things.

The End. Roll credits.

And when he makes a decision, goddamn it, it’s final.

Argue with this, please. I beg you.

No need to beg.

Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero.

This is probably the best argument in Utah’s favor…except that the nature of college football means that not all teams can play each other, making an obvious indicator like record less useful than it is in, say, baseball. Also, the vagaries of strength of schedule play a factor, meaning that games like those Utah played against Michigan and Wyoming are more like scrimmages than actual competitive contests. Finally, because there is no playoff, the current system relies on voters going with their gut.

Reilly is going with his gut on this one, decrying a system based on going on the gut of so-called experts because his gut disagrees.

Airtight case, this one.

Beat four ranked teams.

You know who else beat four ranked teams this year?

Florida. They defeated #5 Oklahoma, #6 Alabama, #10 Georgia, and #23 Florida State.

USC. They utterly destroyed #8 Penn State, #9 Oregon, #11 Ohio State, and #25 California.

Texas. They beat #5 Oklahoma, #11 Ohio State, #16 Missouri, and #18 Oklahoma State.

In fact, one team even beat five ranked opponents.

Oklahoma. The Sooners rang up victories against #7 TCU, #12 Texas Tech, #16 Missouri, #17 Cincinnati and #18 Oklahoma State.

Other than that, good point.

Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

What Rick actually meant was: went to a neutral site where the fans were split evenly between the two teams and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.

The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks.

As anyone who watched the Tide this season knows, the Utes put the hurt on a team with real quality.

The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season.

We get it, Alabama was a good football team.

The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.

Florida > Alabama. Utah > Alabama. Though there is an argument, if we consider only these two results and finely weight on the relative margins of victory, that this could equal Utah > Florida, a sensible person clearly can’t consider only those two games.

In fact, a sensible person would likely have to do some pretty sophisticated mathematics, maybe even involving the Perron-Frobenius Theorem, to correctly weigh the relative strength of the teams that have an argument for the national title based on the results of the games that they played this season.

All the games. Not just two.

And not just for Utah and Florida either, but for everybody in Division 1 (especially teams like USC and Texas who negotiated a demanding schedule with some success). After all, the point is to determine the best team in the country. Let’s leave no stone unturned.

Or, instead of trying to use statistics to find out the true relative ability of the Division 1 football teams, you could just say that 13-0 Utah is the best because they lost no games and beat Alabama.

That way does take less math.

Four Problems with the BCS

2009-01-09T16:53:00.002-05:00

To make a comment that is completely devoid of freshness or originality, the BCS system for determining the NCAA-sanctioned college football national champion is a complete joke. Except it’s not funny.

Kind of like this blog.

(I made a funny! I made a funny!)

Bill James had, as you would expect, a good column in Slate that outlines some of the key issues with the BCS system:

The problems with the BCS are:
1. That there is a profound lack of conceptual clarity about the goals of the method;

This is reflected in the fact that the rankings are routinely described as "computer" rankings. Computers, like automobiles and airplanes, do only what people tell them to do.

Until they become self-aware and try to destroy their creators. But at that point I doubt that we will care very much about the college football championship, so I’m willing to take this point at face value.

2. That there is no genuine interest here in using statistical analysis to figure out how the teams compare with one another. The real purpose is to create some gobbledygook math to endorse the coaches' and sportswriters' vote;

Throughout the 11 years of the BCS, whenever the "computer" rankings have diverged markedly from the polls, the consensus reaction has been, we have to do something about those computers. And they have.

I am shocked, shocked that people would disdain statistics that challenged their preconceived notion of thing. If that sort of thing really happened, websites like Fire Joe Morgan would have been wildly successful. What? Eh? Oh.

3. That the ground rules of the calculations are irrational and prevent the statisticians from making any meaningful contribution;

The prohibition against using point differentials to rank teams, of course, dates from the Nebraska-in-2001 experience, when those dirty Cornhuskers beat Troy State, Rice, Missouri, Iowa State, Baylor, and Kansas all by 28 points or more. The BCS reacted to this by requiring the computer rankings to treat a 56-7 victory the same as a 20-17 contest.

I am a rank mathematical amateur. And that’s not false modesty…I mean, I work in advertising. Outside of counting change, which I rarely use because I have a credit card, there is no reason for me to use math. (Except, of course, during baseball season, when I just look at stats in an Excel pivot table rather than watch the games because going to the games requires me to change out of my pajamas and leave my Mom’s basement. But I digress…)

The fact is that even for an amateur like me it is easy to conceive of how statistics could be used to measure the relative strength of sports teams based on competitive results among them, where not all teams play each other…just like college football where USC may not have played Texas, but they both played Ohio State.

To illustrate, imagine a small league with just four teams, in this instance, Holy Cross, Bucknell, Colgate and Lafayette. None has played before so, pre-season polls be damned, they all start with a comparative strength rating of 50 (on a scale of 1 to 100):

Holy Cross: 50
Bucknell: 50
Colgate: 50
Lafayette: 50

Holy Cross opens their season with a two-touchdown win against Bucknell. Colgate also wins by two touchdowns against Lafayette. Let’s assume, as simple math peons, that a two-touchdown win indicates a relative strength ratio of 80-20. The new ratings then become:

Holy Cross: 80
Colgate: 80
Lafayette: 20
Bucknell: 20

The next week the two losing teams play, with Lafayette running out victorious against Bucknell by a touchdown. We now have information about the relative strength of Lafayette and Bucknell. And we also have information about the relative strength of Holy Cross and Colgate, which we didn’t have before (Lafayette now being known as the more difficult opponent, Colgate’s win over them entitles them to a slightly higher ranking than the Mighty Crusaders).

From this point on, every result between any two teams must adjust, however slightly, the ratings of all other teams. The math to figure out how was beyond me. Luckily, it was not beyond Google…which took 0.00025 seconds to come back with results to my query, including the Perron-Frobenius Theorem, that may hold the answer.

I don’t claim to understand the Perron-Frobenius Theorem beyond knowing that it is different than the Infinite Sportswriter Theorem, but if a little bit of research can get me on the scent of a statistical system that could possibly determine relative strength of teams that don’t play each other, it is clear that someone who knows about these things could, too.

Except, if we used statistics to determine the best teams, what would it matter what sportswriters thought?

4. That the existence of this system has the purpose of justifying a few rich conferences in hijacking the search for a national title, avoiding a postseason tournament that would be preferred by the overwhelming majority of fans.
In the 1990s there was a strong movement, within the NCAA, to organize a national postseason football tournament. The problem was, had the NCAA in fact organized such a championship, two other events would almost certainly have followed:

1. The smaller schools, which outnumber the big football powerhouses about 5-to-1, would have voted to send a lot of the money to the smaller schools that in fact had not participated in the national championship contest in any meaningful way.
2. The big football schools would have bolted and revolted. They'd have walked out of the NCAA and formed their own organization. The two-tiered system of NCAA and NAIA schools would have been replaced by a three-tiered system with the NCAA occupying the middle tier.

It is sad that the result is neither a sixteen team playoff nor a statistical method of determining the relative strengths of teams nor even the old system that let the teams play their whole schedule and allowed coaches and journalists to vote on their relative strength based on the results of that whole schedule, but instead an arbitrary method that determines who will play for the “title game,” the winner of which MUST BE CHOSEN as the national champion.

Because that is the way these things work.

And if they don’t work, we can just adjust the computers, right?

MLB Hall of Fame approaching dead-to-me status

2009-01-08T14:53:00.005-05:00

I stumbled upon a Tim Kurkjian (who I normally quite enjoy) chat on espn.com today and assumed that I would find some solid arguments. Instead, I found this:

There is no denying that Dawson's career OBP (.323) is exceptionally low for a Hall of Famer, or a strong Hall of Fame candidate. But you're right; the emphasis recently, meaning the last 10-15 years, on OBP, doesn't help Dawson's case. Believe me, I love guys who walk a lot. I love guys who get on base. But occasionally, there is a player or two who will take a pitch that would normally be a ball and hit it for a two-run double. We cannot look past guys like that just because they don't walk all the time.

[Doesn't the exceptionally low *for a Hall of Famer* qualifier effectively negate this supposed "recent" emphasis on OBP? And if Dawson so frequently took a pitch that "would normally be a ball and hit it it for a two-run double," wouldn't his, ummm, OBP have been higher? Unless by "hit it for a two-run double" Tim actually meant "swung and missed."]

[Dawson] played as hard as anyone who ever played, he's one of the great character guys of the last 30 years. That means something to me.

[Well, I guess Albert Belle can go ahead and cross one name off of his pending campaign phone bank list.]

A really good stat guy told me yesterday that most Hall of Famers are better hitters at home than on the road, because they get comfortable in their home park.

[Seriously? A "really good stat guy" analyzed hitting with the use of the amorphous concept of "being comfortable" (as opposed to using, say, stats)?]

I think our best baseball fans understand that there is a difference between Babe Ruth and Jim Rice, Willie Mays and Andre Dawson. I don't think we need a tier system; we just need to understand that the greatest players of all time are in one category, and great players are in another.

[Category 1: Hall of Fame. Category 2: Owners of sports bars bearing their name.]

But they can all live in the same house in Cooperstown.

[Or we could do that.]

I voted for nine players. I voted for Dawson, Rice, Raines, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Bert Blyleven, Mark McGwire, Alan Trammell, and of course, Rickey Henderson. Again, I am way in the minority voting for nine guys. A good friend and fellow voter once told me that I'd better have a really good reason not to vote for a player, just in case he missed by one vote. If I don't have a really good reason, I vote for him. I have some friends who vote for ten guys every year, no matter what. I have other guys who won't vote for more than one or two, no matter what. That's the beauty of the Hall of Fame voting. Everyone has a different philosophy.

[Love it. Basis for voting: A career's worth of player performance < Tim not wanting to be *that* guy.

And given the topic, it seems like there are way too many "no matter what" and "Jack Morris" references in there, right?]

Bert Blyleven for all the Right Reasons

2009-01-07T18:53:00.001-05:00

Because Archie would be disappointed if I didn’t do this for one of Holland and Minnesota’s finest:

Yes, Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award and pitched in only two All-Star Games. But pitching for much of his career for lousy teams, the great curveball pitcher won 287 games and threw 60 shutouts. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for any pitcher in any era.

I am happy that Tim Cowlishaw recognizes that Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Fame talent. Most sportswriters don’t. Of course, he seems to base his feeling that Blyleven is eligible for the Hall based on his 287 wins. Most sportswriters think that wins matter. They don’t.

And they especially don’t in the case of Blyleven.

The dude had 60 shutouts. That means that fully 21% of his “wins” were recorded because he was so good that he kept the other team from scoring ALL GAME LONG. No image, as a thought experiment, that the bullpens on his teams were just a little bit better. Like less than 1% better. As in, just enough better that over the long haul Blyleven doesn’t finish at 287 wins but at 300 and we don’t talk about this because d-bag sportswriters anoint him into the Hall of Fame because he “won” 300 games.

Wins are so worthless as a determinant of a single player’s ability that I start to go wild when people use them as a measure of quality. Like seriously crazy. Warewolf crazy. I start to get hot, sweaty, hairy, want punch people in the face and eat them…but only if I read to the end of the article. These days I can tell the signs and just look away.

Since wins aren’t meaningful numbers, what are? Glad you asked. These numbers are:

158 ERA+, 2.52 ERA, 1.117 WHIP, 258 Ks, 325 IP. When he was 22 years old.

142 ERA+, 2.66 ERA, 1.142 WHIP, 249 Ks. The very next year.

Bert went on to have four more years of ERA+s over 133.

Blyleven is fifth all-time in strikeouts.

He has an ERA+ seven points better than strikeout leader and Hall of Famer Nolan Ryan.

He is 13th all-time in innings pitched.

He was an awesome postseason pitcher, managing to win two World Series and record a 2.57 postseason ERA.

Those numbers matter.

Why am I even arguing this, you may ask? Because it’s the principle of the thing…I don’t care that somehow this Cowlishaw character came to the right conclusion about Blyleven as long as he did it for the wrong reasons. Baseball is the thinking man’s sport and goddamn it, it’s time that baseball writers started doing some thinking!

(Starting to get hot…want to punch someone in the face…must…turn…away…)

Hall of Fame Talk: Amusing to Me, Infuriating to Others (Nils)

2009-01-07T12:57:00.003-05:00

MLB Hall of Fame results are out next week. Let's see how Tim Cowlishaw decided to vote.

I voted for five players, although the only one I know is going to make it for sure is first-year eligible Rickey Henderson.

[OK. Henderson is fine.]

The funny thing is that I voted for three others who will either make it or come very close – outfielders Andre Dawson and Jim Rice and pitcher Bert Blyleven....

[I'm not sure why that's funny, but I am curious to see why Cowlishaw thinks that these three are Hall of Famers....]

I think Rice, Dawson and Blyleven all are borderline Hall of Famers.

[Oh, OK. Kind of like Hall of Famers. Except not. Sold!]

Yes, Blyleven never won a Cy Young Award and pitched in only two All-Star Games. But pitching for much of his career for lousy teams, the great curveball pitcher won 287 games and threw 60 shutouts. Those are Hall of Fame numbers for any pitcher in any era.

[Then he's no longer borderline, I guess? Let's just move on. I'm sure that Nils is reading this now shouting "Borderline?!? Oh, I'll show you borderline!"

The arguments for and against (although most of them all kind of sound like "against" arguments to me) Rice and Dawson have been well-documented, but I liked how Cowlishaw contrasted them with his pro-Tim Raines arguments.]

Rice had a shortened run, but it was in impressive one. He was top 10 in American League slugging eight times, top 10 in homers seven times, top 10 in OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) six times.

[OK...]

Dawson was a much superior outfielder (eight Gold Gloves) who had some great hitting seasons that went largely unnoticed in Montreal. I loved in 1987 when he told the Cubs he would play for them at any salary. That earned him an MVP award while playing for a bad team.

[THAT earned him the MVP? Really? Him saying that earned him an MVP? Hall of Fame plaque, please!]

[Raines] had 2,605 career hits, and 3,000 hits always has been Hall worthy. Why didn't Raines get there? Oh, perhaps because he led the National League in walks seven straight years from 1982 through 1988. He also led the NL in singles, doubles and triples those seven seasons. No player in major league history has a better stolen base percentage than Raines' 84.7.

[A lot of "led the NL for seven straight seasons" in there, as well as a "No player in major league history has a better...." Sounds a lot more Hall-ish than "top 10 in the American League," or "[telling] the Cubs he would play for them at any salary," right?]

Mack Brown is the Greatest. Ish.

2009-01-06T21:42:00.004-05:00

There is nothing like the Bowl season for blatant homerism. Let's jump right in to this beauty from the great state of Texas:

UT claims another win for the ages

It sure was a good game, but hard to celebrate squeaking by a team that lost to Penn State and was destroyed by USC.

Texas made its statement with heart, resolve and a relentless will to win.

And that statement said: "We, the Texas Longhorns, are just about as good as an Ohio State team that lost to Penn State and got destroyed by USC. You know, that team from California that also destroyed Penn State."

This is the kind of game Mack Brown will cherish long after he’s done. When people ask why he loved coaching, he’ll tell them about this Monday night.

As opposed to, say, that Rose Bowl game from the other year when his team had Vince Young and beat USC in the last seconds of one of the best national title deciders ever. Weird, but you never know about Texans. They're a different breed.

He’ll talk about Quan Cosby, who has neither the speed nor size of a great wide receiver. Yet he’s a great wide receiver because he has soft hands, terrific instincts and deceptive strength.

Or maybe he will talk about the national title he won with Vince Young at this stadium in Pasadena. Nah, probably not. Quan Cosby is a WAY better story.

He’s a lot like quarterback Colt McCoy, who is gifted in ways that can’t always be measured. He is another guy Brown will remember.

Because using stats like yards thrown for, completion percentage, quarterback rating or anything like that would totally do Colt McCoy a disservice.

This was a night two fabulous college football teams exchanged body punches for 60 minutes, each refusing to give into the other, each fighting through exhaustion and frustration.

... Brown proved again he’s as good as any coach in the country.

Beating an okay team = being one of the best coaches in the country is marginally better as a logical statement than Archie's post about Ohio State fans calling their loss a victory, but still meaningless when you consider that Mack Brown apparently showed his ability by barely edging out an offense-less team that lost to a disappointing Penn State and was torn to pieces by USC.

Buckeye Psychology: I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone-it, People Like Me

2009-01-06T09:38:00.004-05:00

As explained by Bob Hunter of the Columbus Dispatch, for Ohio State fans, losing isn't really losing at all!

Remember the 1992 tie with Michigan that Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee called the greatest win in the school's long football history? This was something like that.

[I bet it wasn't. Let's find out.]

OSU's 24-21 loss to Texas last night in the Fiesta Bowl isn't the new greatest win, but it did feel more like a victory more than so many of the others.

[OK, so we've established that a LOSS isn't the "greatest win," but it still FEELS like a victory. I feel good about this.]

So how to classify this game? It's hard to say, exactly.

[A loss?]

It obviously didn't clinch a championship.

[True.]

It wasn't historic.

[Warm.]

It didn't set a record, mark a milestone or qualify as the first or best of anything.

[Warmer.]

If someone were to describe it, an adjective as broad and as indefinite as "big" might be used.

[Colder?]

The Buckeyes' high-profile failures no longer seem so conclusive; instead, they blend back into a wider range of big games under Tressel that show the Buckeyes both winning and losing their share.

[Another high-profile loss makes the previous string of high-profile losses LESS conclusive. QED.]

So will Tressel again be viewed as a football genius?

[Really?]

Doubtful, but he is much closer than he was before the game.

[Losing = Advancing towards "genius" status. Someone get Rod Marinelli a MENSA membership.]

As losses go, this was about as positive as it gets.

[Are Ohio State fans really that dead inside?]

These are a Few of my Favorite Things

2009-01-05T18:46:00.004-05:00

You might be surprised to know that Bill Simmons and I share a number of traits. It’s true! And it makes me happier than my dog when he broke into the refrigerator and ate two hot dogs and half a bottle of ketchup.

1.We’re both graduates of the College of the Holy Cross.

2.We both write about sports.

3.We both have, at some point, lived in California.

4.We both like making lists.

And as I read his most recent list-laden column, I found myself nodding along. Mostly.

1. I want to catch a foul ball during a major league baseball game. I've come within about 6 feet twice in the double ohs. Never happened.

Me too!

And this one time, I went to a Frisco RoughRiders game and when I walked off to get beer and food this girl I was with bought a novelty baseball, scuffed it and rubbed it in the grass just outside the stadium (it’s the minor leagues, she could reach), and convinced the people we were with to pretend that she had caught it. I believed her. I blame the beer.

To her credit, she later bought a trophy holder for the ball with a little plaque that said she had caught it and gave the date. The trophy and call proudly sit in my living room.

When, one day, I catch a ball I will put it in a trophy and send it to her. This is my vow.

2. I want to see the Holy Cross men's hoops team pull off one March Madness upset. Rather than just leaving me upset.

Absolutely!

I was at Holy Cross for three heartbreakingly close NCAA tournament losses – to Tayshaun Prince’s Kentucky, Drew Gooden’s Kansas and Dwayne Wade’s Marquette. I firmly believe that small schools that value academics and graduate all of their athletes deserve a break. I have to deal with BC letting in flagrantly unqualified students to win a few games and then have to hear about it. Beating Notre Dame in the NIT does not count as an upset. My college’s alma mater is to the tune of “Oh Christmas Tree.”

I deserve this. We all deserve this.

3. I want to watch the baseball playoffs without hearing the voice of a certain announcer. House rules prevent me from sharing the name. In other news, did you know that, if you start an inning with a home run instead of a walk, you're more likely to have a multi-run inning?

Hear, hear!

I know what you’re thinking. How has he not mentioned Jimmy Kimmel yet?

4. I want one of my readers to strike it rich, purchase an NBA team and name me as general manager. Stranger things have happened. I mean, Mike Dunleavy continues to be the only coach-GM in the league. If the Clippers were a movie character, they'd be the mustachioed guy who bailed on De Niro's crew in "Heat," then gets found by De Niro lying on the ground after being beaten within an inch of his life. You know how Mustache Guy's life ended? He kept whispering, "please, please" to De Niro through battered lips, begging his friend to shoot him and put him out of his misery. And De Niro did. That's the Clippers right now. I think I have a chance.

Lukewarm agreement!

Though I do think it’s pathetic that Bill is begging to be GM of the Clippers (and trying to cover it up with a pop culture smokescreen), I gotta be honest and say that I wouldn’t say no to an offer to run the Royals so I see where he is coming from.

5. I want to finish 11-0 against the spread with my NFL playoff column.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

First of all, what are you doing betting against the spread?

Secondly, what are you doing wasting your fifth sporting wish?

Third, how in God’s name have you not mentioned Jimmy Kimmel yet?

That's probably the most realistic of the five remaining goals… Why couldn't I finish 11-0 for the playoffs? As always, we'll be leaning on my trusty Playoff Manifesto 4.0 (last updated in January '06), which should hopefully be useful during one of the single strangest Round 1s in recent NFL history.

Here’s a thought: maybe you couldn’t go 11-0 because you are making predictions based on a playoff betting guide that you made up in 2006 that hasn’t worked since its inception.

Or maybe because betting against the spread is stupendously dumb thing to do given the vagaries of luck and the fact that the line is set based on the number of people betting on each team, not on any actual performance or other factor. It’s like betting on how many cups of beer someone can drink based on how many people think that your guy can drink more than another. There is no correlation! The spread is a useless tool that allows Vegas to make money! How have you still not mentioned Jimmy Kimmel!

I feel like I am taking crazy pills.

My Post-Playoff Overreaction by Terence Moore

2009-01-05T14:53:00.005-05:00

There is nothing like the playoffs to inspire irrational sports journalism, especially for a writer whose hometown team has just lost. And, if I may torture a metaphor sportswriter style, the NFL playoffs are like the Hanukkah of irrational sports journalism – days of the same piece written about each team that loses.

I love this time of year.

There is a formula for playoff loss analysis pieces: forget for a second that the NFL playoffs are among the greatest of small sample size crapshoots and that there are circumstances mitigating the loss, just make a big deal about how the players are not playoff ready/clutch enough, make sure you meet your word count, call it a day.

And Terence Moore of the Atlanta Journal Constitution is fantastically formulaic:

Falcons need more playoff-type players

Because the regular season-type players who were good enough to get the Falcons into the playoffs immediately became crappy in the playoffs. I hate when that happens. I call it A-Rod Disease.

Just because you soared or slid from the regular season into the playoffs, that doesn’t mean you’re a playoff team.

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

Ask the 2008 Falcons.

Me: Hello, Atlanta Falcons?
Falcons: Hello.
Me: Hi! This is Nils Nilsson and I am sorry to bother you but I just wanted to confirm that by winning enough games to qualify for the playoffs you actually became a playoff team.
Falcons: Who is this?
Me: My name is Nils. Just need confirmation - were you a playoff team?
Falcons: We were a football team playing in the playoffs, so yes, we were a playoff team.
Me: Yes, but you lost in the first round.
Falcons: But we played in the playoffs. You asked if we were a playoff team.
Me: That sounds altogether too logical. I think that I am going to ask writer Terence Moore to further define what playoff team really means. Thanks for your time and, by the way, good job losing to the Cardinals yesterday. That has gotta hurt.
Falcons: It does.

Better yet, ask Steve Wallace, the former San Francisco 49ers offensive tackle with three world championship rings.

Better yet, I’ll ask Steve Wallace.

Said Wallace, combining his 49ers past with the Falcons’ present and future, “To win Super Bowls, you have to have those guys that will be playmakers — those guys that won’t sit back and watch somebody catch a ball in front of them. That won’t sit back and make a half-hearted effort at pushing a guy out of bounds. That always will have the mind set that this particular moment in a playoff game could be the difference in the game.”

This is why sportswriters exist. Before Terence got his killer interview with Steve and cracked the big egg of knowledge all over my head, I never knew that not letting other players catch a ball in front of you, not sitting back and not making half-hearted efforts were playoff-type player specific skills. I thought that they were more general skills. Skills that could be the difference between a good player and an average one. Silly me.

To hear Wallace tell it, the Falcons don’t have enough of those players.

That’s because they don’t.

The Falcons went 11-5. With a rookie coach. And a rookie quarterback. They lost in Arizona by less than a touchdown to a team playing in front of energized fans who had never seen a home playoff game. Even if you blame sub-par players, there have been worse losses.

Wallace watched it all. Then again, he hadn’t a choice. The Falcons are deep inside his still solid frame of 6-foot-5 and 280-something pounds. He’s an Atlanta native who lives in Buckhead, where he remains so enthralled with the hometown team that he rarely has missed a millisecond of its games since his retirement as an NFL player 12 years ago. “You know how much of a diehard Falcons fan I am?” said Wallace, 44, who graduated from Chamblee High School along the way to Auburn. “As a kid, they were always blacked out locally, so I was glued to the radio listening to Bob Neal and Harmon Wages.”

When sportswriting goes bad:

1. “Wallace watched it all…he had no choice.” Why? Because he is an Atlanta native who lives in Buckhead. Air tight logic.

2. “He rarely has missed a millisecond of [Falcons] games since his retirement…12 years ago.” How? Dude has a bladder of steel, never blinks and watches games in a sensory deprivation chamber.

3. “You know how much of a diehard fan [he is]? He listened to the Falcons on the radio.” And…that is what passes for diehard in Atlanta.

Wallace laughed. Then he sighed…

Then he hugged Terence. In his big beefy diehard arms. It was weird.

There were numerous gaffes by Falcons linebackers and defensive backs.

Bummer. But with a single game sample size, it’s hard to indict an 11-5 team.

Star defensive end John Abraham and his aching thigh finished with just two tackles and no sacks.

Especially when a star player was injured.

So this isn’t surprising: More than half of those on the Falcons’ roster on Saturday hadn’t been in a playoff game before.

Yet another reason why this loss may not be because of non playoff-type players, but rather something that could be put down to other factors. Just saying.

Said Wallace, who went to the playoffs every year during his decade with the 49ers. “You walk into the stadium, and you can barely hear yourself talk. It can pretty much handicap your offense if you’re not ready, and the Falcons weren’t ready.

They would have been ready, however, if they had playoff-type players. Because playoff-type players don’t need a game plan or intense tactical preparation or anything like that. They shit on stuff like that. Then they go out and make a full-hearted effort at pushing a guy out of bounds and their team wins the game.

That’s how football is played!

“You could see early in the game where their offensive line wasn’t even putting a hand on guys. The crowd noise was bothering them and the whole team. After a while, you could tell that (offensive coordinator) Mike Mularkey made some adjustments.”

Mularkey bought the O-Line those Bose sound-cancelling headphones.

It was too late then.

He had missed the post-Christmas sale, shipping was a total rip-off and FedEx doesn’t guarantee before-game delivery for items that are ordered during the game. It was a mess.

Maybe next year, but the Falcons have to get those playmakers first.
Because the current young team that went 11-5 and lost a game by a touchdown despite having at least one key injury, playing away, and struggling without their Bose sound-cancelling headphone is total crap.

Logic. Fail.

Peter King: Vol. 15

2009-01-05T13:09:00.003-05:00

Pete does a pretty solid job covering the Wild Card weekend, but I had a few quick hits.

I'm actually starting to like Deion Sanders on TV. I know that'll rankle some peers, but he's confident, he's opinionated, he backs up opinions with good arguments (some of which I think are bunk, but who cares?), and he's good at the sound-bite game.

[Wait. So are his arguments good or bunk? I'm confused.]

I think Brett Favre is perilously close to leaving the game -- for good, this time -- and disappearing into a Mississippi deer stand for a long time.

[Why "perilously" close? Dude is washed up. If he returns, the Jets would be periously close to missing the playoffs again (they will in any event, but you get the point).]

Favre also told me he declined to have right biceps surgery, even though Jets doctors advised him to have the surgery if he thought he was going to play football in 2009.

[What do they know. They're only doctors.]

The fact he didn't choose to have the surgery, however, isn't a definite indicator that he's retiring, because a similar injury to his left biceps once went away without surgery in Green Bay.

[That biceps injury "went away?" Favre = a magic healer.]

I don't know why Adrian Peterson, ridden hard all season, didn't touch the ball on the last 16 Viking plays of the season. Not that it would have mattered much, most likely, but he's your horse, Vikes. Ride him.

[Because it... wouldn't have mattered...?]

ESPN's Chris Mortensen had a great nugget on Boston College coach Jeff Jagodzinski being told if he interviewed for the Jets job to just keep walking and not come back. That's a ridiculous demand by Boston College, unless there's a clause in his contract that the coach cannot interview for NFL jobs, which I don't believe exists.

[Odds that Pete has actually reviewed the contract in question??]

Caught "Bobby," the Bobby Kennedy assassination movie. Compelling and interesting. Emilio Estevez is smart.

[Ha. Great point to finish on. Emilio!]

Bill Plashke Takes a Stand...or Not?

2008-12-31T15:18:00.006-05:00

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.

My Favorite Article of The Year

2008-12-31T12:27:00.005-05:00

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.

Jason Whitlock: Vol. 7

2008-12-30T12:26:00.004-05:00

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?

Jason Whitlock: Vol. 6

2008-12-30T08:55:00.005-05:00

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.]

OK, Yankees. I see your CC/AJ/Teixiera, and I raise you... an Andruw Jones!

2008-12-29T17:03:00.004-05:00

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....]

Peter King: Vol. 14

2008-12-29T09:59:00.003-05:00

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.]

Actual Sports Journalism

2008-12-26T17:07:00.003-05:00

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!]

Lake-Show Have More Want-to-win-ness than Celtics

2008-12-26T14:02:00.003-05:00

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."

Peter King: Vol. 13

2008-12-24T13:14:00.003-05:00

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.]

You KNEW this was coming....

2008-12-24T09:44:00.005-05:00

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.

[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?]

Well-played, Rod Marinelli

2008-12-23T12:59:00.003-05:00

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?]

Let's All Blame the Broncos' Good Player

2008-12-22T16:09:00.003-05:00

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.

Positive Reinforcement = Proof of Professional Journalism

2008-12-22T14:02:00.004-05:00

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.]

Jason Whitlock: Vol. 5

2008-12-22T13:28:00.003-05:00

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.

There Already is a "Greg Oden of Blogging"

2008-12-22T11:24:00.003-05:00

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.

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

2008-12-22T10:52:00.000-05:00

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

Peter King: Vol. 12

2008-12-22T09:47:00.003-05:00

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.

Judging Championship Potential with Ian Thomsen

2008-12-19T18:00:00.003-05:00

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.

Yankees: Hate-able Even Before Yesterday

2008-12-19T11:55:00.003-05:00

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.

Peyton Manning -- Next Up: Curing Cancer

2008-12-19T09:42:00.003-05:00

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....]

Quick Hits from the World of Sports

2008-12-18T19:57:00.003-05:00

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?"

Seth Davis and the Time-Space Continuum

2008-12-18T17:27:00.003-05:00

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.]

CC = Good Guy = Yankee Championship

2008-12-18T13:49:00.004-05:00

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.]

The Lake-Show is in trouble

2008-12-17T10:57:00.003-05:00

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."]

Peter King: Vol. 11

2008-12-16T13:15:00.003-05:00

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.

Peter King: Vol. 10

2008-12-15T13:54:00.005-05:00

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.

Back in my day, we had to walk 8 miles in the snow for a loaf of bread!

2008-12-12T10:30:00.004-05:00

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."]

CC Pity Party

2008-12-11T13:41:00.003-05:00

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.]

How Many Tebow-for-Heisman Articles can David Whitley Possibly Write?

2008-12-11T13:24:00.003-05:00

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.]

Hall of Kinda-Fame

2008-12-11T12:40:00.004-05:00

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.]

Peter King: Vol. 9

2008-12-09T17:32:00.003-05:00

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.]

Let the BCS Absurdity Begin!

2008-12-08T10:08:00.003-05:00

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.]

Brandon Roy is good, but let's settle down.

2008-12-05T12:37:00.008-05:00

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).