Showing posts with label possessing the properties of the insane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label possessing the properties of the insane. Show all posts

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Old Sportswriter Notes One Fact, Makes Insane Generalization

I'm sorry, I know Frank Deford is a crotchety old dude. I know the NPR just hires him for some color commentary.  I know that his segment is called "Sweetness and Light", so it's not supposed to be serious, but when he says things this stupid, I can't hold back.  Here's one of his segments from this spring: "As American Sports Skew More Arm-Centric, Throwing Injuries Rise"

Whatever happened to rotator cuffs? It seems like just yesterday that every pitcher who was injured had a problem with his rotator cuff. But baseball player injuries now invariably require something called "Tommy John surgery," which has become epidemic.

Right, this is one fact, Tommy John surgery is up. Let's see where we go here.

The difference is simple: The rotator cuff involves the shoulder while Tommy John relates to the elbow, or more precisely, the ulnar collateral ligament. The corrective surgery, by Dr. Frank Jobe, was first performed 41 years ago on Dodgers pitcher Tommy John, and for years it remained fairly uncommon. Now, it is downright commonplace.

Ok, so this is just an extension here.  So far so good. 

It is also indisputable that as more pitchers throw faster — mid-90 mph becoming routine — the more Tommy John surgeries we encounter. It doesn't require a crack detective to solve the case: The more pitchers throwing with all their might for just a few pitches, the more ulnar collateral ligaments that are failing. Pitchers' arms are becoming like football players' heads. The happy difference is that you do not need a good arm to keep on living a long normal life the way you do need an undamaged brain.

Wohoo!  Take that, football! You guys all have damaged brains! But even so far Frank is  just ambling along saying nothing interesting.  But here we go:

But let's face it: American athletics are armcentric. Not just the pitcher — everybody on a baseball team has to throw the ball. Football depends more and more on passing. "What's his arm strength?" the scouts first ask of quarterbacks. Basketball shots are propelled by strong arms, especially now with the long 3-point basket in vogue.

What?  There are so many levels of stupid here:
1. First basemen, offensive tackles, and power forwards basically never throw anything with one arm.  Nothing at all about their games is increasingly armcentric.  In fact, this whole paragraph makes the insane point that Tommy John surgeries are up, and that must be tied to the increasingly armcentric wold of sports.   It's like Frank Deford hates modernity so much that he just makes wild generalizations just to show how life is going to hell in a handbasket.

2. Were scouts in previous ages no longer primarily concerned with arm strength?  Do baseball position players throw any more now than they used to?

3.  What about the statement that "the long 3-point basket in vogue"?!  The NBA adopted the 3 in 1979.  That was 36 years ago, Frank!  Where the hell have you been?

Throwing is certainly not unnatural, but pitching a baseball overhanded is too abnormal an action for the human body. In contrast, throwing a softball underhanded is a pretty smooth motion. A cricket bowler delivers the ball to the batsman in something of a high loop, without being allowed to break the elbow.

Are Tommy John surgeries in cricket bowlers up or something?  Who cares?

It would seem that pitchers have survived, barely, these past 150 years or so, but now the added stress — especially for pitchers who started throwing too hard too young — is just enough to break down too many arms.

It would seem that Frank Deford has survived, barely, these past 150 years or so, but now the added stress - especially for bitter bloggers who started blogging too hard too young - is just enough to break down dan-bob's sanity.

Rob Manfred, is, officially, only the commissioner of professional baseball, but just like the bumbling NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, Manfred is really the steward of his game. 

Take that, football! Your sport is becoming inceasingly armcentric and your commissioner is so incompetent that even 150-year old fossils get their digs in!

Manfred should convene some sort of all-baseball conference to examine this serious issue. Until then, it appears that baseball simply feels that pitchers are fungible, that there's always another kid with a temporarily live arm who can fire it by the hitters.

"Fungible"?  Put away your thesaurus, Frank, The whole article sticks in a pretty simple diction, appropriate for a general audience on the radio, and then Frank drops a totally unnecessarily fancy word as he moves towards his close.  It's the same thing he did in my last post with "high-falutin'".

Really, we've got to do better by our best arms.


National Public Radio really has to do better by its ordinary listeners.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Rick Reilly: Pipe Down

Well, I wanted to post something, and I didn't have to look far. Rick Reilly, champion of every underdog team, avenger of every wronged squad, restorer of justice to every defamed group of athletes on this planet, provides us with just what we're looking for.

It's the perfect combination of righteous indignation, overblown hyperbole and mindless ranting: Boise State Broncos can't buck this trend

So that's it, then. It's done. The fix is arranged. It's Game Over and everybody knows the score. The BCS computers TKO Boise State. Why keep punching when it's not a fair fight?

Yeah, especially when Boise State plays in a conference that is orders of magnitude weaker than the other teams in contention for the BCS title. Teams with drastically weaker strengths of schedule are not really fighting a fair fight.

Auburn and Oregon are No. 1 and No. 2 in the country according to Sunday's latest, most fraudulent compilation yet from the BCS rankings. If those two schools win the rest of their games, they'll play in the BCS Championship Game.

Boy, that seems fair to me. As long as you don't have a plus-one or a playoff, that's the most sensible way to go about it.

And Boise State? Members of football's lowest caste system? It doesn't matter. The BSUntouchables play Louisiana Tech on Tuesday night, but they're just cleaning windows on the Titanic now. If Auburn and Oregon win out, Boise State can wipe out every opponent 50-0 and not make it in now. And the Broncos probably won't even if the Tigers and Ducks don't win out. Yes, we're talking about Auburn. The team that has 13 fewer wins over the past five seasons than Boise State.

I'm going to count up the number of totally irrelevant statistics that Rick cites in support of his argument. Auburn's win total over the last five years is the first.

Yes, we're talking about Oregon. The same team Boise State punched out last season 19-8.

Two.

It's the biggest rip-off since the Nigerian prince scam. It makes you wonder why you watch college football at all. What Boise State is being asked to do isn't doable. It's like trying to win a Cuban election. Or break into the Genovese family.

Or trying to make sense of your argument.

The Broncos are 6-0. They've won 20 straight games, the longest streak in the country.

Three.

They've beaten two BCS automatic qualifiers -- 6th-ranked Virginia Tech and 24th-ranked Oregon State. Doesn't matter. BSU could whip the 103rd Infantry and it wouldn't get a sniff. The computers are in charge. The pod bay doors won't open.

This is just mindless rhetoric. I hate. Also, I don't know why Rick [Edit: I once mistakenly called him "Bill" here] cites VT as the 6th-ranked team. At the moment, they're in the 20s of all the ranking systems.

Boise State is going to get seated at the kids' table again.

They play at the kids' table for 10 of their 12 games every year.

The Broncos will go to some pointless bowl and beat somebody like they always do -- they've already bested Oklahoma and TCU in bowls like that -- and they'll come home with a win and a hatful of "You kids sure play with a lot of heart up there" put-downs from the BCS blazers.

Yawn. It's a good thing they have a champion of the little guy like Rick Reilly to further pigeonhole them into a spunky upstart. If Rick Reilly ever writes an article about my teams, I'll be pissed, because I know he's taking them on as a human interest story, not a sports story.

Amazing, isn't it? NCAA Division I football is the only sport in the world where continued, uninterrupted, hats-in-the-air winning doesn't mean you keep progressing. For Boise State, it gets you a squirt of vinegar in the eye. It's a three-card Monty game and all they get is two cards. OK, here it comes. Say it: Boise State doesn't play anybody.

Well, in FCS football, continued winning doesn't mean you keep progressing. You're still just the FCS champ. The same goes for every minor league organization on the North American continent. The Columbus Clippers and the Toledo Mud Hens can win every game this season and not make it to the World Series!

They could even win every game 50-0 and not even get a sniff!

Boise State plays -- and beats -- whoever they throw at it. It thumped San Jose State 48-0. Wisconsin, which beat No. 1 Ohio State and No. 15 Iowa, only beat SJSU by 13, at home!

Four. Ugh, this is stupid.

Boise State smashed Wyoming 51-6. Wyoming nearly beat Air Force and Air Force nearly beat Oklahoma. You're telling me Boise State couldn't beat OU? Oh, wait. It already did.

Ugh, there are three irrelevant facts in one paragraph. I'm up to like 987 in this article already.

Boise State whipped Virginia Tech on the road. VT is undefeated in the ACC. Are you telling me Boise State wouldn't be carving up the ACC?

Are you, Rick, telling me the ACC is a conference equal to the Pac-10 or the SEC?

People think of Boise State as some kind of Tahitian ice skating team. It's not like the Broncos have to wait for the high school girls' field hockey team to get off the field at 5 p.m. before they can practice. They have killer facilities, blue or otherwise. They recruit against the best for the best. They have a head coach, Chris Petersen, who is 55-4 there. (Anybody remember Urban Meyer?) They've been to a bowl eight of the past nine seasons. They're trying to be the first BCS outsider to make the championship game, but who knew they'd have to whip a bunch of Geek Squadders, too?

This paragraph is a rhetorical disaster. It's a sign that you have a weak point to begin with. It has all the hallmarks of a moron. Rick's plan: confuse the argument (blue fields), call your opponents names (Geek Squadders), simplify your opponents' arguments (Tahitian ice hockey), and cite irrelevant facts (bowl record) . This is such a disaster of thinking. Who cares about their facilities?

Also: Auburn has been to a bowl nine of the last ten seasons. Oregon seven of the last eight. Ohio St. ten of the last eleven. Oklahoma twelve straight. So... that statistic isn't even all that impressive.

"If they played anybody in the country," said Oregon's offensive coordinator, Mark Helfrich, who used to coach at Boise State, "they could give them a game. One time? Against anybody? Absolutely, they'd give them a serious game."

Yawn. What is this, Little Giants?

"I think they'd be tough to beat," said Auburn's offensive line coach, Jeff Grimes, who also used to coach at Boise State. "They've proven that. They could beat anybody on any given Saturday. Could they win every Saturday in the SEC? No. But who can?"

If a rhetorical question has a disproving non-rhetorical answer - like Alabama in 2009 or Florida in 2008 - it's probably a poor rhetorical choice. But this is Rickworld we're living in.

Also: What the hell, Rick. Did you just go around interviewing former Boise State coaches? Did you expect some kind of unbiased opinion from them? Wouldn't it have been more relevant to interview the coaches who've lost to BSU?

Also: Jeff Grimes was offensive line coach at BSU for one season, in 2000. Mark Helfrich was the QB coach for three seasons - 1998-2000. Is their opinion valid here? Kinda.

How would Grimes feel if he were the Boise State coach, getting more shaft than Chilean miners?

I'm glad Rick kept that joke PG.

"I think I'd say, 'Bout time for a playoff, isn't it?'" Grimes said.

Exactly.

Of course, Petersen, who's just so annoyingly classy, won't say boo. "Coach Petersen likes to stay away from the topic," said a Boise State spokesman. "If he starts worrying about the polls and all the noise out there about it, it will just be a distraction to the team."

I like Chris Petersen! He has some decent sense! He realizes that fulminating like Rick Reilly is a quick way to make everyone hate him.

No, what Petersen needs to do is get noisy in Boise! He needs to be calling up reporters and seething about the short in the BCS mainframes. He should be asking anybody, How come your schizoid computers keep vaulting unworthy teams over us to No. 1? Two weeks ago it was Ohio State. They lost. Last week, it was Oklahoma. They lost. This week, it's Auburn. Who's the computer going to leapfrog us with next? Swarthmore?

Auburn beat a top ten team.

Boise State's athletes and coaches deserve better than this dog's breakfast. Fix the crappy data going into the computers. Get rid of the SEC bias. Update the strength-of-schedule logarithms. This is 2010, not 1960. The difference between the old-school schools and the new-school schools is a butterfly's burp.

What? Rick seems to have this impression that people are throwing random numbers into these computers and coming out with equally random numbers. Now, I'm no expert at the BCS computers, but seriously? The lack of substance in these allegations suggests that the real absurdity comes from the Reilly himself.

Sports isn't fun when you take the anything-can-happen out of it and that's exactly what the computers have done.

Better yet, get us a damn playoff.

Do I think a plus-one is a good idea? Yes.

Do I think Rick Reilly's rhetoric is insanely stupid? Yes.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Anyone Ever Been to Detnews.com?

Okay, the much-hyped Detroit Tigers started out 0-5, so what's the first thing some nerd like me should do when this happens? That's right.

Step 1: Go to Google

Step 2: Search "Detroit News" to find a suitable Detroit news site.

Step 3: Look for completely awful attemps to explain the horrible start.

Step 4: Field day!

And uh....that's how I discovered Lynn Henning.

DETROIT -- A handful of things have conspired to make Opening Week a mini-disaster for the Tigers.

One by one, here are some problems the Tigers are facing in the wake of Friday's 8-5 loss to the White Sox that didn't go over particularly well with Comerica Park's fans:


I feel all giddy inside. This is exactly what I was looking for!

1. The team "doesn't look right"

It's amazing how many shrewd observers have said this the last couple days.


I'm going to stop you right there. "Shrewd observers"? Is that a "shrewd" thing to say? The team "doesn't look right?" Let me scroll up to the tagline of this article real quick. It says.....

Reasoning behind poor start difficult to diagnose

...well at least you hit the nail on the head. Doesn't. Look. Right.

An ongoing belief is that Curtis Granderson's absence is taking a toll. The top of the order is out of whack. The leadoff spot is a team's ignition switch, and no player ignited a game offensively better than Granderson.

Look, I'm aware Clete Thomas isn't good. But he's leading off to the tune of .500/.571/.500 and playing Granderson's position. I don't know what your definition of "ignited" is, but I'll take that line any day over a 5 game sample from a replacement leadoff guy. Also, Brandon Inge has started in center, and he's hiting .375/.474/.688. The two guys that have effectively replaced Granderson have been 2 of the 3 best hitters on the team thus far. You sure Placido ".087/.087/.087" Polanco isn't more of a problem? Or Magglio "3 GIDP" Ordonez?

2. Everything is upside down

So THAT'S it. Players standing on their heads. Hot dogs eating people. Up is left, down is front, right is chocolate pudding. This is what's wrong with the Tigers, people!

This happens when a team is caught in an unexpected free fall. Friday's example of how completely twisted the Tigers have been in going 0-4 came in the first inning with the bases loaded and nobody out. Magglio Ordonez poked the first pitch to second for a rally-killing double play.

See, you could have just gone with "double plays" as a reason rather than the upside-down bullshit. Make a mental note for next time.

When a team is in rhythm -- go back to the karma Granderson creates -- Ordonez gets a single to right or double up the gap. Or, at the very least, a sacrifice fly.

Whaaaaaaa? We have an outright claim that a lack of Grandersonesque karma radiating from 3 spots higher in the batting order simply emasculates Magglio Ordonez's bat! Granderson's name being penciled into the 1 hole would have changed the outcome of that at-bat!

::checks mail:: Oh dear....it appears logic died, and I've been invited to its funeral.

This will change, guaranteed. But having your leadoff man and No. 3 hitter (Gary Sheffield also is sidelined with a finger injury) out of the lineup is an invitation to a screwy scoring chance.

Replacement #3 hitter Carlos Guillen: .375/.524/.688

There was more freakiness in the fifth. With runners at second and third and one out, Jacque Jones ripped a grounder to a pulled-in Juan Uribe at second base. Jones was out and Pudge Rodriguez got doubled off second.

How did Pudge get doubled off second if this was a "grounder"?

Comerica Park officially had morphed into the Twilight Zone. Don't be surprised if it lingers for a few more days or weeks.

Twilight Zone? Ummmm...you have seen a lineout double play before, haven't you? I mean they aren't all that common or anything....but....what's that? Oh that's an upside-down play? My bad.

3. Jason Grilli got lit up

Yay! A real reason! That guy's WHIP is 5.25 right now!

You can reach Lynn Henning at (313) 222-2472 lynn.henning@detnews.com.

A PHONE NUMBER!?!?!?!??!?!?!??! Oh man, I know what I'm doing first thing on Monday morning....

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Gene Wojceichowski Can Wait

He's just been one-upped by Around the Horn supporting character J.A. Adande. Thanks to reader Peej for the tip.

This is really, really, really bad.

This March, NBA Has the Madness

My editor sent down a list of games for me to cover, and that March 21 Rockets-Warriors assignment didn't bother me at all. Yes, I know the significance of the date. It's the first Friday of the NCAA tournament. One of the best days on the sports-viewing calendar. When I bought my comfy leather theater seats, I envisioned this day, the hours I would spend staring at the screen. Only this time, I don't mind missing that sport's holy day one bit.

I'm not as excited about the road to the Final Four as I am about the final eight weeks of the NBA regular season.

Everyone in this wonderful country of ours is, of course, entitled to their opinion. At the same time: you're wrong. Very wrong. And I'm saying this as a big NBA fan, too. I'm not some kind "football and NASCAR are the only real sports and if you like anything else yer a big pussy" kind of guy. I like the NBA almost as much as I like MLB or the NFL. In my opinion, the NBA's regular season clowns on college basketball's regular season and the NBA playoffs are just a slight step below March Madness. Wire-to-wire, therefore, I think the NBA puts out a much more entertaining product. So with all that said, let me reiterate: J.A. Adande, you are a fucking idiot.

This year the pro game doesn't just offer better players, it offers better games and better story lines.

Such as: how many Eastern Conference playoff teams will actually have winning records? At what point will teams actually start playing like there's something on the line? Why is everyone who plays for the Spurs such a little bitch? Must see TV.

As soon as Tennessee ended Memphis' quest for an undefeated season, this year's festivities became Just Another Tournament. We won't get a chance to see perfection.

Why is just another tournament capitalized? Is there some acronym joke in there that I'm missing out on? And for what it's worth, a team has entered the tournament undefeated exactly once in the last 28 years. (UNLV, 1991.) So if that's your complaint, you're clearly not the March Madness fan you made yourself out to be in that awkward intro.

There's no fully loaded Florida, Duke or UNLV going for a repeat.

Whoop-de-shit. Did anyone besides UF's fans enjoy last year's tournament that much more because of their repeat pursuit?

There are no truly great teams that will be remembered by anyone but their fans a few years from now.

Yeah, but that Suns-76ers matchup on March 28 is guaranteed to be one for the ages! (J.A. specifically names this game as one he's excited about watching in lieu of NCAA games in a sidebar to the article.)

In the NBA, the Rockets are working on the league's longest winning streak since 1972.

True, that is interesting. Probably about 10% as interesting as March Madness, but still, I'll give credit where it's due.

The Lakers are trying to lay the foundation for a new dynasty.

Apparently being bounced out of the playoffs early a couple seasons in a row, then being one of the best teams in league 3/4 of the way through a subsequent regular season now qualifies you for dynasty-foundation-laying status. Man, if only my Nuggets could put together a little win streak and get themselves to the top of the Western Conference heap, they'd be laying the foundation for a new dynasty too.

The Spurs are trying to put a cap on theirs.

Here's my impression of a person watching a Spurs game: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Get it?

The Celtics are trying to do their banners proud.

What? Are they good this year? I hadn't heard.

LeBron James is walking across the bridge from potential to reality.

He's been doing that for like three years, dummy. It's still not more interesting than March Madness.

For a change, none of these stories can simply wait until the playoffs.

Actually, they will have to wait until the playoffs. And 99% of American sports fans will not be bothered by this at all.

There's too much on the line right now, when seeds can be gained or lost, pathways determined. All you need to know about the importance of this month is that Kobe Bryant would rather play with an out-of-whack finger than get surgery and miss any of these games.

That's right, folks. A hyper-competitive, mega type-A superstar who's working on cementing his legacy as an all time great would rather be on the court playing than sitting out to heal. Therefore: the NBA's regular season is better than March Madness.

Not that there's anything wrong with the tournament. I love filling out my brackets. I even love it when they get shredded by an out-of-the-blue upset. I love getting off a plane in March and seeing people crowd around the airport bar TV sets, with the sound of high-tops squeaking on the court coming from the speakers.

Good, yes, these are all reasons many people (especially airport employees) like the tournament.

But my first love is the game of basketball, and it's being played at a much higher level in the NBA.

No. Stinking. Way. Shut the front door. Please excuse my dear Aunt Sally. You're telling me... players in the NBA... are better at basketball than college athletes? This is outrageous. Everything I thought I knew has just changed. Down is up. Left is right. Basements are full of natural light. Jay Mariotti is awesome. Carlos Mencia is funny.

Instead of watching Derrick Rose and imagining how good a point guard he might be, I'd rather witness the mastery of the position demonstrated by Chris Paul and Deron Williams right now. Michael Beasley can be. Tim Duncan is.

Compared to 99.9999% of the population, Rose is already an amazing point guard and Beasley already "is." The difference between those guys and Paul/Williams/Duncan is relatively small. If you're going to pick on something, sheesh, pick on NCAA role players compared to their NBA counterparts. The gap between the average NBA 10th man and NCAA 10th man is astronomical compared to differences between the stars. Not that that even matters.

Ultimately it comes down to this: The pros make shots. As intense and competitive as that Memphis-Tennessee game was, neither team shot 40 percent.

Both teams in the one NCAA game Adande watched this year had bad shooting nights. Therefore: fuck March Madness. Bring on the Celtics visiting the Hornets on March 21! (Memphis for the entire year: 46.6% on field goals. Tennessee: 46.1%.)

Normally the tournament compensates for the talent gap with extra passion.

Not this year. Turns out, none of the players, coaches, student bodies, or alums give a shit anymore. Weird timing, huh? Why, it was just last year that the tournament was as exciting as ever. Now people are really just looking forward to getting up and going to work every morning.

Win or else your season and/or career comes to an end.

That's still how it works.

But in this season's NBA, in which no team's playoff seeding is assured, there's something to be gained or lost every night. Add stakes to skills and you get phenomenal ball.

In the West, 8 teams are fighting for 9 playoff spots. Yawn. In the East, everyone outside the top four teams knows that they suck, are extremely lucky to still be in contention, and are getting bounced the fuck out in the first round. Are you really going to call that "something to be gained or lost every night?"

Seeing a college kid dive for old U is one thing. Seeing Shaq hurdle seats because he wants one last ring for his collection is something beyond.

The college kid is playing for nothing more than tuition, and will be selling insurance in a year or two. But he'll always remember that year he led his mid-major team full of nobodies to the Sweet 16 and became a household name for just a few days. Shaq, on the other hand, wants to buy another diamond-encrusted bidet. He knows he can afford to do so with a playoff bonus. You're right- that second storyline is a lot more compelling than the first.

For every day of the tournament until the championship game gets that Monday night to itself, I can point you to an NBA game that could make for better viewing. (Read the table on the right to see what I mean.)

I've already referenced it twice. Click on the story link and check it out yourself in its entirety if you need a good chuckle.

There's no guarantee that all of these matchups will turn out to be great.

But the pro games I promise you won't be subjected to:

Complete and total lack of defense from many teams until the fourth quarter? Hilariously preferential refereeing for superstars? Constant offensive sets consisting of nothing but isolation kick-outs? Oh, wait. You definitely will be subjected to all of those.

Obsessive coaches hogging the attention, forcing their players to stick with systems while mismatches scream to be exploited. This drives me crazy. I almost want to smuggle some Detriot Pistons game DVDs to the kids just to show them it's OK to break from the offense to take advantage of a weak defender.

How often is this an issue? I'm no Phil Jackson, so someone feel free to explain to me the extent to which this is some horrific epidemic at the college level. I'm guessing that it really isn't.

Excessive use of the word "Cinderella." It comes up in the NBA, just not as often. Google search hits for "George Mason Cinderella": 355,000. Google search hits for "Golden State Warriors Cinderella": 70,000. And I dare any writer to go up to Stephen Jackson and compare him to a fairy-tale princess.

Fuck, that doesn't prove anything. I dare you to make eye contact with Stephen Jackson from less than 15 feet away. It doesn't really matter what you say to the guy, he's probably going to rip off your arms and beat you with them regardless. And really, who is complaining about "Cinderella?" Anybody? Anybody besides J.A., and maybe people like Dennis Miller or Larry David who complain about everything?

Any of that Duke floor-slapping stuff. Although I have to say, the most satisfying college basketball moment I've seen in a while came during Saturday's Duke-North Carolina game, shortly after Greg Paulus did a floor slap. Danny Green threw down a Lipton's special dunk on him that said, "Slap this." That was so next level. I hit the rewind button on my DVR so much I nearly drained the battery. That enriched my life immensely. Thank you, Mr. Green.

What the hell are you talking about? Stop. Acting like anyone really gives a shit about Duke's celebration tactics is like saying "much has been made" of the Celtics' African mantra/motto thingy this year.

The problem with the NCAA tournament is that it doesn't deliver Duke vs. North Carolina. The committee is required to spread conference teams as far as possible, to put off a potential meeting until the later rounds -- so we get a bunch of matchups with no history.

I don't even need to explain how dumb that is. If you can't figure out why, let me give you two hints from two different angles, phrased as questions:

1. Do you think the point of the NCAA tourney is to determine a champion, or recreate historic conference matchups that already happen twice a season?
2. Remember all those great Nuggets/Mavericks games from back in the day? Or how about all the times the Cavaliers and Magic have gone toe to toe? Woo hooo!

J.A. is evidently one of those people who thinks that every year, the World Series should be the Yankees vs. Red Sox, the Super Bowl should be Cowboys vs. Steelers, and the Olympic hockey final should be USA vs. USSR.

Because the players turn over so often and the scheduling is inconsistent, it's hard to develop good national rivalries in college hoops.

Yet somehow, it's still easy to effectively shut down productivity in most places of work that employ sports fans for two Thursdays and two Fridays each March. How does the NCAA manage to pull it off? My theory: steroids.

The NBA loads up on the conference and divisional matchups as the schedule winds down. This season promises to be a slugfest all the way through.

Sure, I'll be watching the NCAAs during the off hours. But when NBA duty calls, I won't feel I'm missing out. I'll be where the real action is.

You will be alone. Everyone else will be where the allegedly fake action is, which we find to be about 1,000 times more compelling. Pretty strange- I guess you're just that much smarter than the rest of us.

Seriously, what a dipshit.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Computers Don't Know Anything....After All, They Can't Love Or Hate Or Feel Pain!

Rick Morrissey has his own theories about how to predict the fortunes of baseball teams. There's a thing called a "hunch", people. We don't need no stinkin' computerboxes.

If computers ran the world, Steven Seagal probably would have won a few Oscars by now, assuming they judged him on the $2 billion his movies have earned. If computers had a way of measuring acting ability, he'd be running a martial-arts school in a strip mall.

Okay, equating judging an actor by how much money his movies make is sort of like evaluating hitters using batting average and evaluating pitchers using wins. It's stupid and useless. The computers you're about to declare worthless don't do anything that simple. Chalk up another to "terrible similes and metaphors."

But they don't run the world, yet, which means we can still type in our credit card numbers online without worrying that all our money is being sucked into a fund earmarked for global dominance by a dastardly computer.

Attention all forms of cerebral parasites: do not feed on the brain of Rick Morrissey. It is clearly diseased and "possesses the properties of the insane."

Computers have no use for heart, or least they can't quantify it. They can't analyze what's inside an athlete, for example. They can't tell you who has the heart of a lion or the backbone of an earthworm.

They can't!?!??!??!?! Whew. Good thing for computers that having the heart of a lion doesn't make a human being any more likely to hit a curveball. In one corner, we have a computer using projected stats to formulate run totals from run elements to predict a final season record of a team. In the other corner, we have Rick Morrissey arbitrarily placing people on a scale of (Earthworm) Jim to Simba to calculate wins. Vegas's odds on Ricky are 234.5:1. If you like Eckstein a lot, financial opportunity is knocking......

Computers can't tell you that White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko is upset with how he played last season.

They don't need to. Everyone who knows anything about Paul Konerko knows that. The job of computers (not that dissimilar to that of journalists) is to tell people things that they don't know.

All they can tell you is that he hit .259 in 2007, that he just turned 32 and, therefore, he must be on the downside of his career because that's what the model says is supposed to happen to him.

Really, that's it? How totally uninformative.

(Interesting side note: BP 2007 listed Tino Martinez as one of Konerko's top PECOTA comparables and pointed out that Martinez had a severe production decline at age 31, which was exactly what happened to Konerko. Damn unreliable squawkboxes!)

If you saw the piece about Baseball Prospectus' 2008 predictions in Sunday's Tribune, then you know the publication's computer has the Sox going 77-85 and finishing third in the AL Central, and the Cubs going 91-71 and winning the NL Central.

I know as much about computers as I do about astronomy


Which puts you in just an oh-so-good position to dismiss them as irrelevant, doesn't it?

but I believe the computer term for Baseball Prospectus' Sox prediction is "fatal error."

The prediction for the 2008 White Sox literally made the computer implode. Rick's not joking.

I have the Sox winning 85 games and giving Cleveland a run for its money for second place in the division.

Okay, sure. I'm positive you'll tell me what this is based on shortly. But as long as we're being insanely optimistic, why not go all the way and say they'll contend for the division lead? After all, there's no way Cleveland is that far below Detroit (if you ask me, Cleveland's slightly better).

I know, I know: The Indians are loaded with talent, and if it weren't for Detroit spending gobs of money, they'd be the favorites in the AL Central.

Actually....BP still has them as favorites anyway. But, moving on, moving on.

But, again, what about heart?

That thing that beats out grounders to first base? No....that's speed. That thing that makes the ridiculously tough play in the outfield? No....that's speed too, and good judgement and athleticism. Hit home runs? No....that's power. Striking players out? No.....good arm strength and pitch placement. And we all know that it can't be walking, because walking is like the anti-heart. Where does "heart" fit in there, Rick? I'm pretty sure that the Sox aren't trying any more gooder than the other teams. Plus, they punted Erstad (HAHA! HAHA! A PUN!), so they're already out 51 "cardions" in the heart statistic. See? You CAN quantify it!

Hal (or Smitty or Shecky or whatever the computer's name is)

We'll call him "Slobby", thanks to Ed Hardiman and the slobbermetrics it uses.

and I pretty much agree about the Cubs, which, given my track record on predictions, should make Hal/Smitty/Shecky do a lot of soul-searching

So you're pretty much admitting that you're wrong a lot on predictions? I could never have fathomed this! You base the things you say on so much excellent evidence!

...I...I thought we just named him Slobby.....

which is impossible because it doesn't have a soul, just an evil chip that makes it want to mate with Marie Osmond and produce robots that sing show tunes.

Oh no he di'int!

But: and this might seem like an irrelevant question, Rick. Does the soullessness (I'm inventing words, this guy is so stupid) of a computer stop it from predicting the outcomes of baseball seasons. Does it? Just answer, I won't go crazy and argue it has a soul.

Do feelings count? Or hunches?

Hunches....you mean those things that by definition are based on absolutely nothing? I have a hunch that Alfredo Amezaga will outproduce Matt Holliday this year. Just a hunch. It counts, dammit!

Where is there room in computers for the inexplicable?

Nowhere, just like there's no room in baseball for it either. Improbable, yes. Inexplicable, no.

Does the fact that it's the Cubs' 100th season since their last World Series title mean anything in the computations?

I dunno, Rick? Do you think that the last 100 Cubs seasons (which, by the way, primarily featured players not currently on the Cubs' roster) have any bearing on how many games this team will win?

Does it mean anything that the Cubs could be driven by the challenge of a century of dryness or, conversely, that they could cave in under the pressure of it and finish 10 games below .500?

Okay, let's assume that's true. Those two possibilities cancel each other out approximately, leaving the same initial prediction. The computer doesn't think these things CAN'T happen, Rick, just that they are unlikely. It just takes the record in the middle of the range of the most likely outcomes. Why is this so fucking hard to understand?

I believe the Sox are embarrassed by what happened last season and, not to belabor the point, there is nothing in a computer's innards that can measure the effects of that.

So what are you saying, an embarrassed with-something-to-prove Jose Contreras will be better than his physical ability?

That the Sox dropped from 90 victories in 2006 to 72 games last season was one of the shocks of the baseball season. But not to Baseball Prospectus, and the people who run it deserve their props. They chalk up a lot of what happened on the South Side last season to the inevitability of time catching up with older athletes. I chalk it up to a number of players having down years at the same time.

Right, you attribute it to that because you're not paying attention at all. The team is losing, so you exacerbate what went wrong, and fail to pay attention to what went right! For every player on the Sox who had a bad year (relative to the expected), there's one that had a pretty good year by his standards. Jim Thome fought aging very well, and had a very good season. Bobby Jenks broke out. Mark Buerhle, Javier Vazquez, and Jon Garland all had very good seasons by the standards of their ability. Players stopped being so absurdly healthy like they were when the team was performing very well.

Isn't there room for a number of Sox to have good years at the same time? Say, in 2008? If Jim Thome stays healthy, he could have an excellent season.

Just like he had last season! .328 EqA+!

The Cubs don't have a good enough rotation to do the impossible and win the World Series

The '06 Cardinals were famous for having an AMAZING starting rotation. Guys like Jeff Suppan and Jeff Weaver. Top-of-the-line talent, really.

but perhaps Carlos Zambrano's feistiness becomes contagious and the staff starts pitching like the '69 Mets did. Can a computer comprehend feistiness? I don't think so.

Oh dear Lord! The computer's calculations were leaving out feistiness! Silly computer! Move the K/BB ratio and GB/FB ratio projections, and remember that Carlos Zambrano has a fire in his belly! Ryan Dempster and Jon Lieber will rediscover their youth! Jason Marquis won't suck anymore, inspired by Zam punching random objects and pointing to the sky after every inning! I plan to destroy the computer on which I am typing after this post. How could it have missed this?

This is the time of year for predictions, so it's not surprising there would be a few bad tidings, especially for the Sox.

The problem with computers is that you can argue with them until you're blue in the face, and they don't even blink in response. There's no satisfaction in it. You can, however, achieve a higher level of contentment by hitting them with a baseball bat.


Agreed. So long, Compy. I hardly knew ye. I'm sorry for shouting aimlessly at you until my face turned blue.....I just....I just don't understand how you can't comprehend the grittiness of Pablo Ozuna and Ryan Theriot! Forgive me, we're from different worlds. Maybe we'll just never understand each other. ::sniff::

::CRASH!::

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Scoop Jackson Has An Announcement: Scoop = Right, World = Wrong

If that sounds unbelievable, that's because it is. It starts out relatively inoffensive, then gets stupid.

Shaq will thrive on solar power

Incredibly, incredibly cute.

Guess what? The Suns just made a fantastic trade

Fantastic? You're going to tell me that this was "fantastic"? The best argument I've heard involves "Marion is a malcontent so the Suns did the best they could by shipping him out for Shaq." But fantastic? Read on....

The world has finally given up on Shaq.

Because his PPG and RPG have dropped rapidly over the last 3 years, perhaps? The fact that he has only played in 99 games the last two seasons and has only played in 32 during this one?

Many feel the gimmick is up, there's no room left for the games, that he's not worth his weight or contract on anyone's roster anymore. "Damaged goods," is how one man described him. "Stupid," "Dumb," "Doesn't make any sense," and "What in the #@$% were they thinking?" are some of what's being said. If you've read ESPN.com or any blogs, listened to any sports talk radio or had time to peep the sports pages, you'd know that the Suns are catching heat for bringing Shaquille O'Neal into their almost perfect basketball universe.

The same kind of heat the Lakers caught when they gave him up and gave up on him almost four years ago.


Right. Because 4 years ago, Shaq was still pretty damned good. He was a 20 points, 10 rebounds kind of guy. Very very productive. And those critics were right, he went on to win an NBA title. Got news for ya scoop, they're still right.

Shaq doesn't fit into their style of play. Even if he's in the best shape of his life, he can't get up and down the floor with the Suns. He'll be worthless on offense, and he's going to destroy their flow. He's lazy. He's not going to work hard. He's injury-prone. He's not worth the money. They still won't win a championship with him there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Wrong. Wrong.


Correct answers: Yes. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Yes. Impossible to determine.

Since you have 1/2 credit on some of these, you get 4.5/8 right for a 56.25% score. Lets look at where you screwed up!

Shaq absolutely does not fit into their style of play. A large, old player does not fit into a run-and-gun fast-break style offense. Absolutely not. This should be obvious. He won't be completely worthless on offense, but not worth very much considering Amare is a better option almost every time, and he probably will disrupt their flow. Shaq is nowhere near the 2nd best player in the NBA, so no, he is not close to worth 2nd best player in basketball money. And you have no idea if they will win a championship with him there or not. That's bullshit.

In Miami (and in L.A. and Orlando before) Shaq was Option 1 or 2, and over the past two seasons that became a problem. In Phoenix, he'll be Option 4, maybe 5. Mike D'Antoni should have no plans to depend on Shaq for any offense -- heavy emphasis on "depend." Not in the conventional way that everyone is thinking. The pressure on him to score 20 and grab 10 is finally over.

Read what the hell you just said! You're basically arguing "Shaq will totally help propel Phoenix to a championship, my reasoning is that 1) he's not that good anymore, and 2) but that's ok, because he won't be expected to be that productive." Cleanup on aisle common sense!

Now he'll be the Big Decoy.

Which will totally work, because other teams have no sense for evaluating if he's still as good as he used to be. You know, I hear the New Orleans Hornets and San Antonio Spurs prepare for games by looking at tapes of the 1999-2000 season.

And because he won't be double-teamed (remember he's still one of the best-passing post players in the game, and the Suns are one of the best outside-shooting teams in the League, hitting 38.7 percent on 3-pointers along with four players capable of dropping 20 to 30 every night), Big stands a chance of being more valuable by doing less in Phoenix.

Big Decoy, 2007-2008 season: 1.4 APG, good for 14th in basketball among centers. He's behind Zydrunas Ilgauskas for fuck's sake. His assist to turnover ratio is .47! Not as comically bad as Eddy Curry, but still awful, even for a center.

The beauty is -- again, if the Suns play this right -- Shaq doesn't need to be a part of their transition game, he just needs to ignite it.

Get ready for this guys, it's pretty funny.

Rebound, turn, outlet! Rebound, turn, outlet! Precision. Execution. Buckets. Only six seconds off the shot clock. Back on D. Repeat. So unfair.

Sounds exactly like what Shawn Marion did for them! Only Marion grabbed rebounds more often and actually was able to run the floor to contribute anyway even if he wasn't the lucky fella to whom the rebound bounced. FANTASTIC trade! I guess if you're arguing that Shaq "wouldn't be completely dismal" to the Suns, you've done a C-minus job. But that the trade was FANTASTIC!?!?! Gimme a break.

It will be so systematic that no one will be able to stop it once it gets perfected.

For crissake all you're saying is that he can grab the farking rebound and pass it. The rebound is the hardest part, and he's not even very good at that anymore. Ben Wallace is way shorter and lighter and having a terrible season and he STILL gets more rebounds per game than Shaq, who is 40th in the NBA.

And for those who think it's predictable and defenses will be able to shut it down, here's one to grow on: Whenever teams played the 49ers, they knew where, when and how Jerry Rice was going to get the ball. Yet for years, the best defenses in the game could not do anything to stop it. Nothing. The Niners won four rings with Rice, proving that predictability when perfected, works.

Football....that doesn't happen to be a completely different sport with different dynamics than basketball....does it? Chalk another one up to the "anecdotal bullshit" category!

On defense, all Shaq needs to do is breathe, partially because Amare Stoudemire is so active. As long as Shaq doesn't move (and get in foul trouble, which my be a bigger problem on offense), no one'll get hurt. Remember Chief from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"? That's Shaq all day on defense. Just play the paint, don't protect it.

So, what does Amare Stoudemire's man do when Amare goes to help out Shaq? Run into the stands and buy a hot dog? No, he stands right under the fucking basket for easy points if the ball can get to him. An awful defender can bite you in the ass, regardless of how good the help defenders on your team are. And I'm so gonna think of a Cuckoo's Nest-related label.

There's more grief from the world about this. Grief of how "the Suns should have kept Shawn Marion," how he was "their best defensive player and best rebounder" and how "there's no player in the league like him." All true. But Marion wanted to go. He wanted out of everyone's shadow and the organization's underappreciation of him. And before the Suns ended up like the Grizzlies after trading Pau Gasol and getting "the twin of nothing" in return for the Matrix, they decided to get someone who, if you checked his history, guarantees your team will either get to the NBA Finals or win a ring.

Orlando? Finals in three years. L.A.? Finals in four years, three rings in eight. Miami? Finals and ring in his second season.


Sir, a coke-addicted moron could fine serious, serious flaws in that logic. For starters, you just represented something that has historically happened 53.3% of the time as a "guarantee." Hey guys, 53.3% of the time, Shaq gets to the finals EVERY TIME. Second, you just assumed that things like the state of Shaq's career (currently the severe decline phase), Shaq's teammates (ones who play a vastly different style of basketball than he does), and the conference and division in which Shaq is competing (both pretty tough) are irrelvant.

Get ready, this is about to become dismal.

See, the Suns are outthinking all y'all.

You're a professional writer. "Y'all" should not appear in your sports column.

They know that one thing comes almost assured with this trade: They will win a title with Shaquille O'Neal in the lineup. It's just a matter of whether the one ring they get with him is worth the years they won't win while he's still there.

Could you be more completely and totally irrational? First of all, as you just discussed, Shaq didn't win a ring with Orlando. Second, you are talking like the Suns are 100% completely and totally guaranteed to win a title either this year or in the next two. If you can say this with confidence, Scoop, head to Vegas right now, bet the farm on it, and start living the good life. And third, if the Suns absoluetly will win at least one ring with him there that they wouldn't have won without him, then it's not a "matter" of whether the other two years are worth it, because the Suns are absolutely dying for a title, and it's a very difficult title to win. If this trade guarantees them ONE title (which it absolutely doesn't), then it's no fucking question that it's worth it. Period.

The Suns have never won an NBA championship -- just like Miami before Shaq arrived. And if they're smart, they can take the one they'll win and milk it for 30 years -- just like Portland. The question is if $20 million per for the next two seasons is worth getting the one year of ring service they're going to get from Shaq.

It's official, you've fallen off the proverbial cliff harder and more dramatically than the little Price is Right mountain climber guy with an idiot contestant playing. If there is a fucking team in the NBA that wouldn't pay a guy $20M for two years with the stipulation that it would guarantee them one championship in the next three (hell, it's probably true of the Knicks), that team shouldn't have a fan in the world, and the GM should probably be drowned. And you continuously hammer home the "fact" that Shaq in some sort of divine way "guarantees" a championship in Phoenix, which is a "stupid" "thing" to "say."

There are so many other variables that play to the Suns' favor in this: a front line of Stoudemire, Shaq and Boris Diaw that no squad in the West can match -- not even the Lakers, when Andrew Bynum comes back with Gasol in the slot. Amare will be able to play his natural position, power forward, which causes matchup drama for any other team.

For the 20 minutes per game you'll get out of Shaq, that's true. Stoudamire is currently running at 23.1 PPG and 9.4 RPG. We'll see if those improve. My guess: not significantly.

Steve Nash is going to get open looks because of Shaq's presence and how coaches automatically forget about other players on the court because they are still afraid of getting killed by Shaq in the playoffs.

Those teams must still have the image of Shaq dominating the Bulls last year fresh in their minds. Oh wait....

Shaq's and Grant Hill's passing ability in the half-court will be more dangerous than Nash's, which will now increase the assist-per-game ratio for the team, which is the most difficult stat in the League to alter and one that correlates most to a team's ability to win.

Are you fucking kidding me? Shaq and Grant Hill better passers than Nash? Even though Nash is overrated, he's at the very least one of the three best passers in basketball. Shaq can go ahead and add his 1.4 assists per game at the expense of Marion's 2.1. Grant Hill averages 3.3 assists. Nash averages 11.7. How many of Nash's are in the half-court, I can't say for sure, but it's still way more than Shaq or Hill get. Mark my words, Scoop, the Suns' APG will not be seeing a significant boost from this trade, and you couldn't overrate O'Neal's ability as a passer any more than you have. You know what else correlates to winning? Not turning the ball over. Shaq does that a lot.

Big might come to town rejuvenated. He probably hears everything that's being said about him, which could send him back into 2005-06 mode. Just being gone from Miami with all of the hot mess surrounding his divorce will give him a new lease on his life. Robert Horry might think twice about running a Suns player into the scorer's table next time.

So....all the Toronto media needs to do to get Frank Thomas to hit like he did for Oakland 2 years ago is start talking shit about him! Totally makes sense!

Variables that no one outside of Steve Kerr's office and Robert Sarver's bank account could possibly comprehend. The fact is, by attaining the services of Shaquille O'Neal and not expecting or needing much from a productivity standpoint in return, the Phoenix Suns may have made the most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years. Only time will tell. It's just a matter of how wrong they -- and he -- really want to prove the world to be.

Most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years!??!??!?!?!

::faints::

Friday, January 25, 2008

And Here I Thought I Knew What Unnecessary Meant.....

I can't fucking believe this was written. There couldn't be a thing in the world more irrelevant. Here's my thought: no Chicago team did anything worth bitching about, so JayBird's digging deep to bash the Sox for something they did in 2001. Two. Thousand. Fucking. One. I hope you're ready for a fuckton of irrelevancies, because here we go.

I once asked Magglio Ordonez about steroids. It was three years ago, after his divorce from the White Sox and shortly before fellow countryman Ozzie Guillen called him ``a Venezuelan (bleep),'' and I wondered if Ordonez had observed or suspected any steroids use on a Sox team known for sluggers.

He responded by mumbling something under his breath, but what I remember most was the perplexed look on Ordonez's face. His eyebrows were raised, arching higher than the central Florida sun, as if I knew more than I was supposed to know. A simple ``no'' would have worked -- unless, of course, ``no'' wasn't the truth.


Here's the likely real story....from 3 years ago.

Jay Mariotti: Yo Maggs, do you know of anyone on the Sox that's juicing?

Magglio Ordonez: (raises his eyebrows higher than the fucking central Florida sun, perplexed as hell at why he is being bothered by a loud talking doughnut, utters under his breath) Get away from me, you fat shit.....

3 years later.....

Jay Mariotti: There must have been something funny going on with that Ordonez fellow.....

This weekend at the Palmer House Hilton, snarling fans will continue a Soxfest tradition. They'll demand straight answers from general manager Ken Williams, who would have more fun sleeping naked at Wrigley Field in a snowstorm. They will ask why he left the rotation filled with craters, why he whiffed badly on Torii Hunter and Miguel Cabrera and why he keeps talking about a championship when finishing .500 seems like a -- cue the silly Hawkeroo -- ``stretch, stretch, stretch.''

This is getting so old......

1) Didn't whiff on Hunter. He was even going to overpay for Hunter before that dumbass Reagins upped the bid despite already having a good center fielder. Swisher is a better player.

2) In what universe did the White Sox even have close to an attractive package to offer for Miguel?

But if the good people are true baseball loyalists, they won't focus on 2008 at the session as much as 2001. That was when Williams, in a signing that reeked even before we completely grasped the monumental impact of steroids, purchased Jose Canseco from the Newark Bears of an independent league.

What the fuck??????

SoxFest is a convention allowing fans to ask the GM and manager questions about the upcoming baseball season.

Jay Mariotti just said that if these fans are true to baseball, they would interrupt all the interesting dialogue and debate about the upcoming season to interrogate him on why he signed a man of questionable character to play half a season when the White Sox had little-to-no chance to make the playoffs seven fucking seasons ago

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?!??!?!?!??!?!

Monday, January 21, 2008

Been Quiet Recently, Eh?

But Scott Merkin is still a dumbass. He's the mlb.com mailbag dude for the White Sox.

Where is Scotty Pods going to end up?
-- Bob, Homewood, Ill.


There are two correct answers to this question.

1) The minor leagues.
2) Out of work, but lucky Scotty, he's still married to a Playboy playmate!

I was talking about this exact topic with a few higher-ups in the White Sox organization recently, and there really doesn't seem to be any current buzz surrounding Podsednik. It could come down to a Minor League deal for Podsednik, although for those of you who asked, it won't be with the White Sox. When healthy, Podsednik still is one of the few elite leadoff hitters in the game.

I'm trying to think of contexts in which "Podsednik" and "elite" should be used in the same sentence. Sadly my puny brain can't bend itself to find something. Let's rank these "leadoff hitters" or something.

1-16, whatever order: DeJesus, Granderson, Sizemore, Pedroia, Roberts, Ichiro, Willits, Lofton, Soriano (if he even counts), Weeks, Rollins, H. Ramirez, K. Johnson, Reyes, B. Giles, Furcal (and plenty of other guys like Kaz Matsui, Scott Hatteberg, and Alex Rios who lead off sometimes for brief stints)

17: Healthy Scott Podsednik

18 - crap: People similar to Juan Pierre (like Podsednik).

Merkin, the guy was damn good in 2003 (thanks to him having SOME power and probably a sick BABIP or something), and hasn't shown a sign of being even above-average since. Can we please stop deceiving Bob from Homewood, IL? I'm sure he doesn't appreciate it. As soon as he goes to Podsednik's stat page, followed by that of an actual elite leadoff hitter, he's going to figure out that you're a lying sack of shit.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Integrity

Let's talk about integrity, friends. I am going to lecture you all about integrity. I feel that as some guy who searches the internet for bad sports writing and mercilessly bashes the somewhat-innocent writers of the pieces, I am mega-qualified to tell people the value of integrity.

Oh fuck it, I'm burning in hell. Let's let someone good, with high morals, like Jay Mariotti tell you why integrity is so important.

Bad time to acquire a juicer
Leadoff hitter could be perfect addition to awesome lineup, but admitted user of performance-enhancing drugs also would kill club’s integrity


I have never seen a worse subtitle in my entire life!

Let me correct that first clause real quick. It should say "leadoff hitter could be good addition to awesomely overrated and flawed lineup." (Soriano is just....not that good, folks! And I don't care what Soto did last year on a small sample either!)

Now, for the second, blatantly more wrong, blatantly more irrelevant, blatantly more completely idiotic part.

but admitted user of performance-enhancing drugs also would kill club’s integrity

Admitted user. Brian Roberts admitted to taking steroids. He publicly came clean. Admitting when you have done something wrong is a SIGN of integrity, not a detractor from it! How would he "kill club's integrity?" He's not juicing now! You, on the other hand, once lied and said Torii Hunter was better than Nick Swisher, just to try to make your for-some-reason archrival Kenny Willaims look bad. Who has more integrity, Brian Roberts, or Jay Mariotti?

Is it possible a man can use steroids only once? Does he feel a needle pierce the hide of his buttocks and realize, right then and there, that he has violated his conscience and made a grievous mistake? Are we really expected to believe someone smokes weed only once, drinks and drives only once and embezzles an employer only once before suddenly finding religion?

Jay, those things happen all the time! I know tons of people who have smoked weed only once and said "hey man, that's not for me." Some people drink and drive, then remember just how dangerous it is and don't do it again! Some people don't feel how wrong an action is, like embezzling an employer, until they actually do it! Did you really just write that? Really? Then again, you once said that John Paxson should be fired and the Bulls nucleus dismantled after continued improvement in 4 straight seasons. So maybe we shouldn't take what you say to heart too much.

Such is the claim of Brian Roberts, who could be a Cub by the time you read this. Last month, Roberts was named as a steroids user on Page 158 of George Mitchell's report probing baseball's juice era. He didn't comment immediately, waiting a full five days before revealing he'd used performance-enhancers.

That FIEND! He kept the nation guessing for 5 FUCKING DAYS before coming clean! I bet you waited less time than that to write an entire "sports" column about how Rick Morrissey is stalking you.

Only once, of course.

``In 2003, when I took one shot of steroids, I immediately realized that this was not what I stood for or anything that I wanted to continue doing,'' Roberts said. ``I never used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing drugs prior to or since that single incident. I can honestly say before God, myself, my family and all of my fans, that steroids or any performance-enhancing drugs have never had any effect on what I have worked so hard to accomplish in the game of baseball."


A very open confession. Given no hard evidence at all to the contrary, there is little reason not to believe Roberts. Jay has tried to convince the world of stranger things, on the other hand, like that time he said the Bears would be better off losing football games for reasons besides getting a better draft pick. Is anyone besides FireJay giving you the third degree about that one, JayBird?

The problem I have with his impassioned confession is that it also exposes his bold-faced lie.

No it doesn't. I literally can't wait for what you're about to say. And besides, you lie all the time. Remember when you said Chris Duhon was better than Kirk Hinrich?

When the great snitch Jason Grimsley told federal agents in 2006 that Roberts was a user of anabolic steroids, he flatly denied it.

So we're supposed to believe Jason Grimsley, the perpetual blowhard who was one of the steroid ringleaders, and not Roberts? That's crazier than that time you said that the Sox were cheapskates for not overbidding for big fat overrated Torii Hunter (he isn't fat, I'm sorry, that was a lie. See why I'm having Jay teach you aboiut integrity instead?).

Side note: why is Roberts's denial evidence of his guilt?

``His accusations are ridiculous,'' Roberts said then. ``We've had steroid testing, and I've taken all the tests. There is no point in getting into verbal wars. That's all there is to say.''

A very mature, evidence-filled reply. It wasn't an outstanding argument or anything, like that time Jay said David Eckstein would vastly improve the White Sox, but you know, it was alright.

So now, as the Cubs consider making a major deal with the Baltimore Orioles for Roberts, we're supposed to conveniently forgive this episode as one simple, human mistake? He didn't tell the truth, people.

Yes! Forgive it! There's no reason not to! Especially because he isn't juicing now! And you can't say that Roberts didn't tell the truth, because you have absolutely no proof of it. Something Jason Grimsley said might either be false, or he might have based it on the one time that Roberts did use steroids. You are literally just looking for reasons not to like things Chicago sports teams are doing. I'm even more disappointed in you than that time you said football fans shouldn't be passionate about their team!

And after the Mitchell Report, he again waited a good while before noticing others were confessing guilt and deciding to come out himself. This is not called being forthright. This is called trying to cover your syringe-poked butt before something else might be said.

He waited 5 fucking days! That's all! That's not even a week! Saying Joe Torre would boost the 72-90 White Sox to a 90-win season before they made any offseason moves isn't being forthright either! It's dodging the issues with the team and spewing wrongitude as a futile attempt to attack Ozzie Guillen!

We have reached a fascinating juncture, then, as baseball observers. Facing Cubdom is an ethical debate far removed from the usual beertap arguments, such as when a manager should pull a starting pitcher or if the girl in the halter top looks better than the girl in the t-shirt. What is more important: (a) trying to win your first World Series in 100 years by acquiring an elite leadoff hitter and second baseman, which would let Lou Piniella drop Alfonso Soriano to third in the batting order and create a powerful lineup; or (b) maintaining integrity as an organization during a scandalous period in baseball history?

"Elite leadoff hitter" is a bit of a stretch. And why choose one when you could have both! The only way you could add a player and not maintain integrity is if you added a guy that was secretly still doing drugs! (or like, some guy who steals things from teammates' houses) Roberts isn't! This sounds like a healthy dose of your Ashton Kutcher-related bullshit.

I choose integrity.

That is the most fucking ironic thing I have ever seen! Sweet! I love it when extreme things happen!

You didn't choose integrity that time you claimed the DBacks were beating the Cubs using "grinderball".

Nor did you choose integrity when you chose to write an entire column accusing the White Sox of using anti-Mariotti propaganda (imagine the irony!).

General manager Jim Hendry, sadly, has chosen the .290 batting average and 50 stolen bases. And my guess is, most Cubs fans are siding with Hendry.

THAT IS BECAUSE MOST CUB FANS AREN'T COMPLETE RETARDS THAT CAN'T FORGIVE SOMEONE FOR ONE INSTANCE OF USING STEROIDS AFTER THEY APOLOGIZED AND CAME CLEAN!

Maybe, just MAYBE, they're as excited about Brian Roberts for playing baseball well as I was when Larry found that blip on Deadspin about someone paying $15/year to make www.retardedvagina.com link to your column.

If so, those people are hypocrites.

FUCK THE HECK!?!??! Jay calling someone ELSE a hypocrite is probably the most hypocritical thing in the history of hypocritical things.

You clearly have forgotten that time on July 5 that you suddenly decided Piniella was the best manager ever after bashing him for 2 straight months.

You can't decry the Steroids Era in one breath, then cheer wildly when your ballclub acquires one of the stars of the Mitchell Report.

Roberts was not a "star" of the Mitchell Report. Clemens, Segui, Grimsley. Those men are stars. Roberts was something of an afterthought.

You can't claim the White Sox had no injury problems in 2007 and that the manager is responsible for their losing since July 2, 2006 when neither of those things are true!

Hendry was relieved when no current Cubs were listed in the report, but dealing for Roberts would smear that record.

HOW? The reason Hendry was relieved that no current Cubs were listed in the report was because he didn't want to find out that one of his guys was secretly, unbeknownst to Hendry, using steroids. Hendry knows Brian Roberts was in the Mitchell Report and has accepted that. It's a completely different scenario than if Hendry traded for Roberts before the report was released. Just like when you said it would have been a completely different scenario in the ND vs Georgia Tech game if only Charlie Weis had ::gasp:: revealed to the public that Demetrius Jones would be the starting QB!

This isn't a player with a drug or alcohol problem being given a second chance to conquer his disease. No, this is someone who made a conscious decision to use steroids as recently as five years ago, when everyone knew the juice was sinful.

Anyone else completely lost here? Like, why is the sentence about the "player with a drug or alcohol problem" in here. Like, is he saying the Cubs should want someone who is being given a second chance to cure a drug/alcohol addiction, but not a guy who used steroids once 5 years ago and apologized for it and for sure isn't doing it anymore? That makes less sense than saying Tony LaRussa could fix the White Sox.

Won't another leadoff hitter be on the market eventually? Isn't Mark DeRosa a solid second baseman for now? Why sacrifice your soul for a .377 on-base percentage?

Scene: Hell, 3 years after Hendry's death.

Hendry: Where did you guys go wrong in life?

Adolf Hitler: I persecuted the Jews and caused the death of millions of people.

Osama Bin Laden: I ordered that attack on the Twin Towers in New York. Lots of terror and lives lost.

Adolf & Osama: What did you do to piss off God, Jim?

Hendry: I um....::gulp:: traded for Brian Robe--

Hitler: No! Not Brian Roberts!

Osama: That guy who used steroids and came clean about it???

Hendry: I know, I know. I realized I was submitting myself to eternal damnation by doing so.....but he had that .377 OBP in 2007.....

Hitler: That's just a horrific and inexcusable sin! C'mon Osama, this guy's a lunatic, let's get out of here.

End scene.

Pretty ridiculous right? Not as ridiculous as that time Jay said that a baseball that rolled in from the bullpen was cursed because "baseball" starts with the letter "b", but still, pretty insane.

``Absolutely, you don't take it lightly, and you try to be aware of it,'' Hendry said recently in his only post-Mitchell comments. ``But you can't go to bed every night thinking about, `Gee, I heard back in '01 that this guy might have done that,' or, `Gee, I wonder about that report from the thing that came out in Orlando.' I'm sure there are people that have done certain things that we would all feel weren't maybe appropriate or proper at the time. We have no idea who they are. You can't speculate on who did what or who did this.''

Okay, everybody, deep breath. I'm not even going to make a Family Guy-esque transition into a previous Jay column. This has been an insanely long post, and we just heard a voice of reason.

Ready? Okay. Proceed.

Speculation, this is not. Even if Roberts is described almost universally in baseball circles as a fine human being, he is stained by his mistake.

Yes, there's no arguing that. But the man came clean, and one instance of using steroids is no fucking excuse to throw out the fact that he's a good guy. That compliment has no business in an "even if Roberts..." clause. Just like writers have no business constantly slamming a manager and blaming him for things for which he's not responsible, like players being old and terrible.

And with the catfight between Roger Clemens and trainer Brian McNamee soon to reach the Congressional stage -- Jerry Springer wants to do a live show from Capitol Hill, I hear -- steroids again will be the dominant topic in spring training. Do the Cubs really want their newly acquired steroids guy to be a national story line in Arizona? Do they want their moral code and value system questioned? How do the prospective new owners feel about inheriting one of Mitchell's poster boys?

There is almost zero chance of Brian Roberts becoming a "national story line in Arizona." I have no idea where you got the idea that this was going to happen. Just like I have no idea where you got the idea that Paul Konerko was the only position player you could definitively pencil in for 2008 when A.J. Pierzynski and Jim Thome were both under contract for that year.

Strictly as a baseball hire, Roberts would be a treasure for the Cubs. Imagine an order of Roberts, Kosuke Fukudome, Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, Geovany Soto, Felix Pie and Ryan Theriot. Relinquishing two young pitchers, Sean Marshall and Sean Gallagher, and shortstop Ronny Cedeno would seem well worth the price under normal circumstances. Roberts would cement the Cubs' position as National League Central favorites and legitimate pennant contenders. But you'd also have to draw an * in the second-base dirt before every game.

1. Lineup is good, not great. Fukudome and Soto are question marks. Pie and Theriot are bad hitters.

2. The performances that Brian Roberts will give in 2008 are not under the influence of steroids, as are the historical records you're referencing, so this asterisk crap doesn't hold water.

3. Did you determine that Roberts would be worth the price using your Lou-bik's Cube?

Roberts is someone you want to forgive, someone you want to like. Even Curt Schilling, who seems to hate everyone (including himself), wrote on his sinister little blog that he feels terrible for Roberts. ``Brian Roberts worked as hard as anyone I've ever been around," Schilling wrote. ``Not to mention he's about as kind and giving as anyone you'll ever meet. I know how regretful he is and I know that this mistake is not indicative of his choice making in life. He screwed up, knows he screwed up and admitted it."

Here's a thought, Jay. Putting more and more evidence that Roberts is a good guy into your column is not exactly a good way to win support for your "Roberts is a shady dude" argument. Just like when you are arguing that the White Sox are underperforming, you should ask yourself if they were predicted to be any good in the first place.

For example, when I made a prediction about you writing a bad column about the Michael Barrett trade, and you somehow didn't do it, you overperformed expectations.

That, he did.

So what is your problem with Roberts??? What is it going to take for you to just accept him for who he is as a player? It's like when you wrote an entire column about the ongoing drama between Zambrano and Barrett last season. You're looking to write about anything but baseball itself! And when you do write about it, it's the same crap over and over again!

``I am very sorry and I deeply regret ever making that terrible decision," Roberts said. ``I have worked very hard to develop a good reputation both on and off the field. I have always taken pride in being a man of integrity and values. I know that by being a professional athlete, I am held to a very high standard. I never have and never will take that for granted. However, I am also human and I have made mistakes."

This Roberts quote is somehow supposed to prove your point? After reading your column, I almost couldn't be more convinced of Brian Roberts's innocence, just like you couldn't have been more convinced that Lou Piniella wouldn't last past Labor Day, 2007.

You should really stick to what you're good at (like making fun of Hawk Harrelson), because it isn't arguing via writing.

Next year, maybe I'd feel different. Maybe there would be enough distance. But with Clemens in steroids hell and Barry Bonds headed for a landmark court case, this is no time to acquire Page 158 of the Mitchell Report.

So wait.....if you're 5 years removed from taking steroids, you should not be traded for. But 6 years removed, well that's just an entirely different story! Oh Jay, that's senseless! Like telling the Bulls to lose every game until they're ready to win a title.

So as you all can see, there are few figures in sports more filled with integrity than Jay Mariotti. I sure learned a lot today from him, and I'm sure you all have too! Join us next time when Bill Simmons preaches against using anecdotal bullshit and blatant homerism in arguments!

Monday, November 12, 2007

Post Number One Thousand Billion Million About Bill Simmons Being A Piece Of Shit

I hate Bill Simmons. You hate Bill Simmons. Anyone living south or west of Connecticut hates Bill Simmons. It's old hat.

Anti-media types everywhere love to trash on The Sports Guy. He's an easy target; he's popular and constantly writes things that, were they said out loud in a sports bar, would get the guy who spoke them kicked in the balls. He also riles people up by being snide, hypocritical, insufferably and outwardly homer-ish, and generically just a big bucket of douche. And of course, for every action, there's a reaction: whenever he gets trashed on teh blogowebs, commenters who love him come to his defense. They point out that he's not a traditional sports journalist and isn't paid to come up with "hard" analysis. He's just supposed to seem like an everyday friendly kind of guy who happens to write about sports. 97% of these people are fans of Boston sports teams; the other 3% are too apathetic about sports to notice the homerism and manage to somehow work their way through the rest of the issues listed above. So basically, what you're about to read is old hat. I'm not blazing any new trails here. Yawn. Another blogger ripping on Simmons? How un-groundbreaking.

So as I sat down at my keyboard to write this tonight, I had second thoughts. I legitimately considered not writing what I'm about to write, not just because it's trite at this point but also because Simmon's article is soooooo flagrantly ridiculous that it's basically not worth talking about.

In the end, though, I couldn't let it go. I just couldn't. I had to do this. This time, he's gone too far.

Experiencing the chill of 'Victory'

In a 24-hour span last weekend, I watched "Victory" on cable and the Patriots-Colts battle on CBS. The two events had more in common than you might think.

If you don't remember what happened in "Victory," the Nazis organized a war-time soccer game between a German squad and a team of POWs led by a potbellied Michael Caine and the stunt double used for every Michael Caine soccer scene.

By any calculation, it's one of the 10 greatest sports movies ever. But my favorite part, other than Pele's wooden acting and the 15 different chill scenes during the game? Max von Sydow playing the Good Nazi -- the German officer who loves soccer and was promised a fairly officiated game, then slowly realizes the game is fixed as the refs ignore every Nazi cheap shot.

From the time the movie was released in 1981, I have measured every real-life contest with shady officiating against that Nazis-Allies game. (Important note: Even though it's a fictional movie, I've seen "Victory" so many times during the past 25 years that I now feel like the game actually happened.)

Right now, if you are not named Sully or Murph, several thoughts should be sound in your head. Not necessarily in any specific order, they should include the following:

1) Referencing movies from 26 years ago that no one younger than 40 has seen is not cool
2) Comparing events in a real life NFL game against those in a movie from 26 years ago that no one under 40 has seen is not cool
3) It would have been pretty easy to complain about the officiating without bringing up Nazis, hey, I'm just saying is all
4) How has Simmons seen this movie "so many times" in the last 25 years? Does he have it on Laserdisc? I don't even think USA would show this at 4 in the morning
5) I can't believe I'm reading another blogger's anti-Simmons rant

In response to #5, don't worry about it. I'm doing this more for me than you.

So the irony of enduring the Pats-Colts game so close to my umpteenth "Victory" viewing was just too bizarre. In fact, here's how bizarre it was -- while watching "Victory," I thought to myself, "I hope this isn't how the Pats game is called tomorrow."

As it turned out, I wasn't far off. Nobody outside of Boston made a big deal about the officiating because the Patriots prevailed.

Nobody outside of Boston made a big deal about the officiating because it wasn't one-tenth as bad as people like Simmons made it out to be. That's right, I said it. There were 2, maybe 3 blown calls during the whole game. (We'll go over those later.) Also, speaking of irony: correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Patriots once on the good end of one of the most controversial and almost definitely blown calls in the history of the NFL? And didn't it happen in a playoff game? During a season in which they ended up winning the Super Bowl? Are there any Raiders fans out there reading who can confirm my suspicions about this?

And besides, everyone was more interested in making excuses for the Colts (which reminds me, you can play the "Indy really missed Marvin Harrison card" so long as you also mention all the key guys New England was missing in the AFC Championship Game last January)

No. No. No. Considering that it's now this season, if you so choose, you can play that Marvin Harrison card all you want without mentioning something that happened last season. That's how sports work. Can Bears fans get away with saying "You can call our team bad all you want, as long as you also mention how good we were last year." I know several Bears fans. They would all laugh at any other Bears fan who said something like that. Because they are not living in the past.

and taking solace in the closeness of the game (giving everyone hope that New England's 19-0 season isn't a foregone conclusion).

The whole world isn't out to get New England, Bill. (Although they should be.) After it finished, most NFL fans who don't cheer for either the Patriots or Colt were enjoying what a close and exciting game it was. I mean, he's got people like me figured out. That's definitely exactly what I was doing. But what about some random die-hard Packers fan from Milwaukee? Or a Seahawks fan in Seattle? Were they really "taking solace" in the fact that Indy nearly won?

Few noticed the Patriots needed just nine minutes of quality football to defeat an undefeated Super Bowl champion on the road, or that they pulled off the comeback despite having 95 percent of the borderline calls go against them.

Again with the paranoia. I sure wish more of the sports world hated the Patriots. But based on my frequent browsing of all kind of teh blogosites, most people (besides their fans, Dolphin fans, Jets fans, and Colts fans) are pretty "meh" about them. The consensus is that while it's wrong of them to run up the score, you have to appreciate their talent and execution.

I knew the Pats were in trouble less than three minutes into the game, when Aaron Moorehead's entire left foot landed out of bounds on a first-down catch. Standing 10 feet away from him on either side, two officials improbably decided Moorehead landed inbounds, forcing the Patriots to waste a challenge to overturn a miserable call.

This is actual blown call #1 out of 2. And it got overturned. This kind of thing happens from time to time in the NFL. All 32 teams deal with it.

Of course, that moment wasn't one-tenth as egregious as the play when Ellis Hobbs got tackled from behind by Reggie Wayne while trying to catch an interception (8:58 remaining, second quarter), followed by the officials' whistling Hobbs for a 40-yard pass interference penalty because he made the mistake of bringing down Wayne's arms with his back. Hey, Indianapolis, here's a free first-and-goal for you guys. Enjoy!

Hmmmm... I didn't see that play. I did see a play in a similar situation during which Hobbs undercut Wayne without turning and looking for the ball. I wonder if Bill caught that one?

(Note: Watch NFL Network's replay of the game for the split-screen explanation by Mike Pereira, NFL vice president of officiating, who claims Hobbs impeded Wayne's path to the ball and initiated contact before turning around to find the football. Only one problem ... as Pereira is telling us this, the split-screen replay shows Hobbs turning around before there was any contact. It's an incredible 10 seconds of TV. I wish we could hire Pereira to describe other things that allegedly didn't happen while we show videotape to prove the opposite was true. "As this tape by Rick Salomon proves, Paris Hilton has never had sex with someone on camera ...")

This is by far the best paragraph in the article, and the primary reason I ended up talking myself into doing this post. Here's the video in question. There simply are not words to describe how wrong Bill is. Is he serious? To quote Larry David, "What [is he], fuckin' nuts?" Does he really expect anyone to watch the video and come to the same patently false conclusion he does? When combined with its corresponding video, this is officially the worst paragraph in the history of sports journalism. Now, is this a call you'll see made 100% of the time similar contact occurs? No. But as the rulebook goes, it was the correct call.

Throughout the game, the sketchy calls kept coming and coming. Like the head-scratching no-call when Dallas Clark pulled down Rodney Harrison as Harrison tried to catch an end-zone interception on Indy's first drive (10:09 remaining, first quarter).

Wrong. (Wish I could show you video.)

Like Asante Samuel's drawing a pass-interference penalty on an uncatchable 40-yard bomb that set up Indy's first field goal (4:14 remaining, first quarter).

This is actual blown call #2.

Like the incredible no-call when Moorehead blocked Rashad Baker in the back (how did Jim Nantz and Phil Simms both miss this?!?!?!?) to spring Joe Addai's 73-yard touchdown at the end of the first half.

Complaining about a missed block in the back call is so far from realistic I won't even address it besides saying that Bill must not watch a lot of football. Oh, and also, this one was about a two on a 1 to 10 scale of questionable blocks where 10 is the most questionable.

Like the 15-yard "unsportsmanlike conduct" call on Matt Light after Gary Brackett's interception, of which CBS couldn't even find a replay (14:04 remaining, fourth quarter).

Well if they didn't show a replay, it must not have happened! The use of quotation marks there is fantastic. I like this complaint almost as much as the Hobbs pass interference one; Bill clearly didn't see whatever Light did to draw the flag. And since CBS didn't show a replay (which is often the case with unsportsmanlike conduct calls), then it's automatically questionable. Great logic. You know what? I haven't seen any replays of O.J. Simpson "murdering" Ron Goldman. Maybe that never happened either.

Wait, there's more! There was the no-call when Rosie Colvin got held while trying to sack Peyton Manning on a crucial third-and-15 that the Colts ended up converting on their last touchdown drive (12:52 remaining, fourth quarter).

See: allegedly botched block in the back call.

Or the no-call on Indy's final drive when Bryan Fletcher was blocking Colvin at the end of a running play, got frustrated and ripped Colvin's helmet off right in front of an official (2:55 remaining, fourth quarter).

It was clearly intentional.

Or the no-call when Kevin Faulk got hooked directly in front of an official while reaching for a third-and-21 pass over the middle, followed by Tom Brady's flipping out and berating the official involved.

Brady: unbiased defender of truth and justice, who would have done the exact same thing had it been a Manning pass intended for Joe Addai. This is potentially actual blown call #3, but after watching it several times, I'm not so sure.

Or a pivotal first-and-goal interference call on Randy Moss when he made the mistake of running forward for five yards and turning around, which nearly murdered the Pats because they were trailing by 10 points and suddenly looking at first-and-goal from the 12 with less than nine minutes to play.

Moss has gotten away with so much offensive pass interference this year that it's not even funny. He's been running amok. How dare the refs actually call him for pushing off every once in a while!

(Note: I'd give you the exact times on those last two plays, but both of them were mysteriously deleted from the NFL Network's official replay of the game. Hmmmmmm.)

Yes, Bill. The NFL network is involved in a vast conspiracy to undermine New England's season and disband the team. Gregg Easterbrook is the mastermind, with Don Shula as his second in command. Keep telling yourself this. Nevermind that the NFL Network's official replays are heavily edited, omitting literally dozens of plays from every game that gets reshown. But go ahead, I'm all ears- tell me about how everyone is out to get you.

All in all, the Pats were whistled for a whopping 146 yards in penalties, a single-game record for the franchise. At one point, after a rarely seen "blocking someone while they're out of bounds" penalty on Willie Andrews, my dad called me just to say, "They're calling things that I never even knew were penalties!!!" It's one thing to have incompetent officiating for a football game; it's another thing to see nearly every call and non-call benefit the same team.

And it's yet another to see a guy who is a lifelong fan of one team and a rabid hater of the other claim such a thing when the two of them match up. This must be the first time in history of sports that someone thinks their team was treated unfairly.

In 60 minutes of play, only one borderline call went against the Colts -- a holding penalty on their second-to-last drive that erased a 25-yard Addai run.

Really? Where does it say that? The AP report of the game? Oh, nevermind. That's just a "fact" made up by Bill as he whips himself into a frenzy throughout the course of this article.

The final tally for the Colts: four penalties, 25 yards. We haven't seen homefield advantage work that well since Hitler invaded Russia.

Again with the Nazis! Although in this analogy, I guess the Patriots are actually being compared with them as both had to overcome the (alleged in one case, very real in the other) home field advantage. Then again, the Patriots ended up winning, so maybe he's trying to say... no, I won't go there.

With the Patriots playing at such a high level, you could argue the referees subconsciously favored Indy. After all, nobody likes rooting for Goliath.

The Patriots are no more Goliathish than the Colts (at least at the time the game was played). Both were undefeated. Of course, of the two, only one has been flagrantly running up the score on opponents all season. So maybe what Bill meant to say was "After all, nobody likes rooting for a bunch of dickheads."

We've seen this happen in basketball, when unstoppable big men like Wilt Chamberlain and Shaquille O'Neal were treated differently than everyone else by the officials; any defender was allowed to push, prod, elbow and basically clobber them for 48 minutes a game.

Shaq has averaged more than 10 free throw attempts per game throughout his career. Wilt averaged more than 11. I don't think either of these guys are/were hurting for calls. Also, this might be the first time I've heard anyone try to claim that dominant NBA players actually receive anti-preferential treatment from refs. Wow. Just... wow. Ask Dwyane Wade about that one.

But we've never seen it in football. So, yeah, you could say this happened. You could also say Roger Goodell doesn't want the Patriots to go 19-0, and the referees acted accordingly Sunday.

Yes. If you were delusional, and didn't bother to think about the massive ratings and exposure the league generates by having a team chase perfection well into November, and didn't further make the connection that Goodell is the league's commissioner, and undoubtedly sees those ratings and exposure as a good thing... yeah, you could say that. Hell, if you were that dumb, you could say almost anything. You could say that "Victory" is one of the ten best sports movies of all time. The sky is really the limit for your idiocy at that point.

You can't rank one fishy contest above another; you can only add them to the collection of ongoing examples. When Richard Steele stopped the Chavez-Taylor fight with two seconds remaining and Taylor leading every card, that wasn't any more or less fishy than Game 6 of the Kings-Lakers series in 2002, or the Soviets stealing the '72 gold medal from the USA hoops team, or Vince McMahon stealing Bret Hart's WWF title and giving it to Shawn Michaels, or the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl, or Games 3 and 4 of the 2006 NBA Finals between the Heat and Mavs, or even Robert Parish being allowed to remain in Game 5 of the '87 Eastern Conference finals after punching out Bill Laimbeer just a few feet from referee Jack Madden. The degrees of fishiness didn't matter as much as the general odor of rotten fish.

I can't help myself, I'm going to bring it up again. There's one more game that belongs on this list: it happened in 2002, and the Patriots were involved. So were the Raiders. And it was a playoff game. Give up? It was the 2002 Divisional Playoff game between the Raiders and the Patriots!

Last Sunday's game failed the seventh and last checkmark: Somehow, the Patriots overcame the "elements" and prevailed. Nobody praised them for this achievement because of everything that transpired since Week 1, when they cheated against the Jets, paid a stiff price and eventually evolved into the Cobra Kai Yankees, an arrogant, unapologetic, supremely confident juggernaut that ran up scores and turned everyone outside of New England against them.

I'm really not going to go over this too many more times. Plenty of people praised them. Plenty of fans, plenty of analysts. Of course, since Bill is such an arrogant fuckwad, and has already written three borderline-unreadable Patriot knob schlobbing columns this fall, he probably gets an outrageous amount of anti-Patriots hate email. This is probably the source of his impression that absolutely everyone hates New England. Bill, it's not them, it's you.

Was everything that "happened" (for lack of a better word) in Indy just a one-time deal?

What better word(s) can you substitute in there? Occurred? Transpired? Went down? I mean, I see what he's trying to say. He wants to say in a different way that the Patriots got screwed. But this is not the way to do so. At all.

Was it just an elaborate coincidence the Patriots couldn't buy a single break for the entire game? Was the NFL unveiling a new way of evening the score against New England because a $500,000 fine and the loss of a No. 1 pick weren't enough? Did the league decide no NFL team could conventionally stop the Pats, so they'll have to play against opponents AND referees for the rest of the season? Does the NFL have a hidden trigger much like the one used in the "Madden" video games, when everything starts going against your team as soon as it becomes clear there's a chance for an undefeated season?

No, no, no, and finally, no. This just in: the perceptions of a fan base about whether or not their team's game is being fairly officiated may or may not be accurate.

There's no way to definitively answer the previous paragraph.

I just did.

But if you're a fan of the Patriots, you've never felt as passionately about them as you do right now. The same "us against them" mentality that galvanized the coaches and players ended up galvanizing the fans as well.

Work with me here, Bill. We're going in circles.

You should see some of the texts and e-mails I received from friends during Sunday's game -- genuine anger and incoherence from some of the most rational people I know -- or the remains of my living room remote control, which didn't survive a 95-mph throw across the room after the no-call on Faulk.

I wish Rick Reilly were here so he could tell us that sports are just so darm beautiful sometimes.

Like everyone else who loves the Patriots, this season has become so personal that it's difficult to adequately describe. It's almost like watching a family member get raked through the coals, like being a member of Sen. Craig's family, only if he wasn't such a creep.

Are you sure it's not like being on of Hitler's closest personal friends as the Allies closed in on Berlin?

For better or worse, that's our mantra for the 2007 season. After the legitimacy of the three Super Bowl titles was questioned, there was only one response: 19-0. The players keep saying they're taking it one game at a time; I say they're full of crap. They want to join the '72 Dolphins and destroy everyone along the way. Why? Because bleep everybody, that's why. After Welker clinched the Colts game with a crucial first-down catch, he defiantly hopped up and screamed at the poor cornerback covering him, "YOU F------ SUCK!" Unquestionably, it was the defining play of the season -- not just that the Patriots converted the exact same situation that killed them last January (when they could have clinched a Super Bowl trip with one more completion on third-and-short), but that Welker displayed such arrogant disdain after finishing the Colts off.

Normally, I hate crap like that. Not this time.

Right. Not this time. Why? Because you're a fan of the team that's doing it. So stick with me here: I want you to take that mindset, and re-apply it to your opinions about the officiating during the Patriots-Colts game. See how that works? When your favorite team is involved in a situation, it makes you evaluate things differently than you normally would.

Once you enter "bleep-everybody" mode, it becomes a state of mind. You can't shake it. After they slaughtered the Redskins, everyone debated the merits of the Pats' running up the score and missed the larger point -- namely, that those inflated scores were serving a larger competitive purpose.

And although it may take a few years for them to fall from the ranks of elite NFL teams, those blowouts were also serving another purpose: ensuring as soon as said fall from grace occurs, every single other team in the NFL will be running up the score on the Patriots just like they did to opponents this year. Now, I can't get ahead of myself and be all excited about this. The fact remains that they're probably going to win it all this year. Still... when those blowouts do start happening, I'm going to enjoy them.

Later, generally defending his beloved Pats:

The players have always handled themselves with class, on and off the field.

Good thing he didn't include the coaching staff in that claim!

When everyone wanted them punished after CameraGate, they took their penalty without a whimper.

If only we could say the same about their fans in the journalism business.

When everyone wanted to turn them into villains, they puffed their chests and gave everyone an endless loop of Tony Montana's "Say hello to the bad guy!" scene in "Scarface" for the next two months.

What?

Like it or not, everyone's getting something out of this. We get to watch one of the greatest NFL teams ever. We get to argue about them constantly. We get a world-class villain. And if they stumble some time in the next three months, we might even get a potential upset on the level of USA 4, USSR 3.

That's an insult to the 1980 US Hockey team, the 1980 USSR Hockey team, the Winter Olympics, the Summer Olympics, sports, and anyone reading it.

Again, this is totally new -- not just for Patriots fans, but for everyone rooting against them. Normally, we have to watch a sports movie like "Victory" to find a good villain. This is happening in real time.

Real time sports villians from the past 10-15 years:
Barry Bonds
Barry Bonds
Rae Carruth
Drew Rosenhaus
Todd Bertuzzi
John Rocker
Barry Bonds
Scott Stevens
Rasheed Wallace (although I do love him... "Both teams played hard. Both teams played hard.")
Mike Vick
Juan Gonzalez
Lawrence Phillips
Mike Tyson
Barry Bonds

Granted, almost none of these are villians for things they did on the field of play. Still.

And the quest for an undefeated season lingers over everything -- it's like watching someone throw a no-hitter, only if the no-hitter lasted for five straight months. Only two years ago, I wrote that the Colts would be crazy for pursuing an undefeated season and risking injuries when the only thing that mattered was a Super Bowl title. Now? I guess I'm a hypocrite.

Admitting it is the hardest part. Now the healing can begin.

If you asked any Patriots fan to pick between two doors that determined the rest of the season -- behind Door No. 1, the team would lose once but have a 100 percent chance to win the Super Bowl, and behind Door No. 2, there would be two-in-three chance at a 19-0 season or a one-in-three chance that the team would lose in the playoffs -- a surprising number of fans would roll the dice with that second door. Including me.

You heard it here first- if the Patriots go undefeated, there's only a 2/3 chance they win it all. If they lose a regular season game, might as well give them the Lombardi Trophy. Don't get me wrong, it's obvious they're the class of the league. Still, this is just a tad presumptuous.

If the undefeated season doesn't happen for the Patriots, let's hope it's because they were outplayed and not because of something more sinister.

(Larry B rolls eyes)

And let's hope this is the final time an NFL game gets compared to a soccer movie starring Sly Stallone and a bunch of Nazis ... and the comparison isn't a stretch.

Let's also hope this is the final time a sportswriter feels the need to reference either "Victory" or Nazis themselves four times in a single column.

Well that's all I've got. Be sure to check in Wednesday morning when I continue to venture into uncharted territory by making fun of Gregg Easterbrook for the exact same stuff I always do!