Time to Rip Off Simmons (even moreso than I normally do)

[Note added after the post was finished: it's pretty long, and there's a link to a charity thing at the end. So if you're one of those people with a short attention span, just go all the way down and check that out.]

In what way will I rip Simmons off this time? I mean, everything I do rips him off in some way, because I'm super jealous of him, a fact which one or two Simmons fanboys are usually quick to remind me of in the comments every time I do a post on him. But THIS TIME I'll rip him off by doing a post that more or less amounts to a mailbag. Before we get there, though, let me provide you with some background/tell all four of you readers something I've wanted to tell you for a long time. In addition to being something I want to get off my chest, it will also give context to the post.

So the very, very brief history of FireJay is as follows: pnoles, Chris W, dan-bob, me, and maybe some other people got together via email and decided to form the blog in May 2007. We later discovered that there was already some blog out there called "Fire John Morgan" which we were allegedly copying, both in terms of format and content. Who knew? I had certainly never heard of them until some mean ol' commenters over here let me know of their existence. Anyways, that's how it all got started.

From then up until August 2008 (when I finally fulfilled my dream of one day studying law), FireJay ate up a lot of my time. I really got into it- tried to post every weekday, or at least three or four out of every five; checked the Google Analytics every single day; tried to get us linked on Deadspin and The Big Lead, even though The Big Lead is a complete and total travesty; frequently checked the email account and responded to anyone who wrote in; engaged in email back-and-forths with real sportswriters like Jeff Pearlman and Jerry Crasnick- yeah, I mean, I was into it. I guess you could say that I really wanted to be part of the BLOGOSPHERE.

In any case, like I said, in August 2008, shit changed. I got a lot busier than I had been, for one thing. I also was maybe a little burnt out on blogging- turns out that at some point, as most members of the BLOGSITES will attest to, it starts feeling less like fun and more like a chore. I know the other writers listed over there on the left sidebar will attest to that. (That's not a passive-aggressive dig at them- they already know I hate them for posting so infrequently.) So yeah, that's kind of how it's worked for the past 22 months or so. Posting has obviously tapered off.

But don't worry, this story doesn't end with "So that's why I'm telling you that we're shutting the blog down." No, not at all. We're going to continue at our current pace pretty much as long as we feel like; a couple shitty posts a week, many of them short. We'll keep half-assedly writing them as long as you keep half-assedly commenting on them! I mean, just because I'm not nearly as excited about doing this as I used to be doesn't mean I should stop doing it entirely. There's still shitty sportswriting out there and I'll be damned if I don't occasionally take a few cheap pot shots at it.

So if the point of the story wasn't to announce that we're shutting down the blog, what was it? Well, of course, part of it was to tell the few of you who are devoted readers and check the blog every day to please keep doing so. We're not going away entirely anytime soon. But the other part (which I really could've just come out and said, rather than taking this roundabout route) is to tell you that until tonight, I had not checked the official, Google sponsored FireJay email account since last August. I shit you not. Kind of crazy. I can't believe they didn't close it, really. But they didn't- and upon logging in, I was met with 5,000 pieces of spam (most of them announcing that we've won a lottery- a disappointingly small number of the "GROW UR DICK 9 INCHES IN A WEEK" variety) and about ten relevant emails.

So tonight, because I am both lazy and super jealous of Bill Simmons, I will write what basically amounts to a mailbag column. I bet maybe two of the people who wrote these emails end up seeing these responses, but that's OK. The rest of you can read anyways. And hey, maybe as a result you'll be inspired to write your own email to firejaymariotti@gmail.com; at this rate, I'll get back to you around April 2011. And awayyyyy we go.

On August 13, some dude who wrote a blog called Fire Rick Reilly (DOESN'T HE KNOW HE'S RIPPING OFF FIRE JAY MARIOTTI?????) checked in to thank us for adding him to our blogroll, which I had promised to do about a month earlier.

Hey Larry,

Thanks for your note. I appreciate you looking at the site and putting me up on your blogroll. Keep writing.

-Tapps

I say "wrote" rather than using the present tense because Fire Rick Reilly hasn't been updated since March 31. And I didn't follow through on that promise then. BUT I WILL NOW. Enjoy, Tapps. Maybe this will inspire you to get back into blogging so you can quit again in a few more months.

On October 6, Dan emailed us about Gene W. You know which Gene W he's referring to.

Please write about his terrible article about the game last night. He says he was raised on the Packers (long before Favre was around) yet he's happier to see Favre win than his favorite team tie up the division and get a key divisional win, not to mention sucking him off for every throw he made when he had all the time he wanted. And despite 2 turnovers, Rodgers still kept them in the game even though his line quit on him and the game changed for good after that 4th down drop. Swap quarterbacks and the Vikings probably win by more.

Apt analysis. Although let's not dump on Aaron Rodgers too much- not only is he a good QB, he also shat all over Tony Kornheiser last week. And anyone who does that is cool in my book.

He is a terrible writer, only using hyperbole and making stars like Favre and Tiger seem invincible, then disappearing or making excuses when they fail (like the Jets season and saying Tiger was absolutely winning the British, then after he missed the cut writing about how it's no big deal, Tiger's reign isn't over). Fuck him

Dan

Welcome to sports journalism, Dan. I assume that in the last 8 months you've become more and more familiar with the "make a bold/outrageous claim- pretend you never made the claim when you end up being totally wrong" phenomenon. You know, that's the one redeeming part about Around the Horn- all those morons call each other out for their dumb predictions since they see each other every day. And that's the last nice thing I'll ever say about Around the Horn. I also want to start ending emails with "Fuck [person place or thing] Larry" with no punctuation. I dig it.

From November 10 (email titled "GREGG EASTERBROOK!!!")-

Since I know you guys will comment on gregg easterbrook; column at some point.

I did.

You could comment on how he doesn't understand ineligible receiver rules.

Unfortunately, I didn't. I mostly bitched about the Crabtree Curse. BEWAAAAAAAAAARE

A couple weeks ago and in this week's coumn he wrote about a screen pass that goes for a touchdown that should be called back because of lineman downfield. But if its a screen pass behind the line of scrimmage it doesn't matter. I just find it funny he's brought this up multiple times. It might even be a weekly thing, I can't stand reading his whole column every week.

Have fun with this weeks TMQ,
Chris.

"It might even be a weekly thing, I can't stand reading his whole column every week" pretty much sums up my thoughts on almost everything Easterbrook writes. Science fiction movies are unrealistic. The team in Friday Night Lights DOES NOT PLAY AN ACCURATE TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL SCHEDULE. There are football gods. Teams that kick field goals when they're down 35-0 with 3 minutes left are doing it because they are desperate to avoid shutouts. Etc. Although I've gotta say I do enjoy when he calls out public officials for spending money on ridiculous bullshit. That 1% of his writing is cool with me.

Fast forward all the way to December 30. James wants us to know that:

Jay has no facts but equates Leach to the torture in Midnight Express.
This joke of a sports expert has no credibility. He works with Craig James, he knows Craig James, thus James' kid can do no wrong.

If I never hear another word about Craig James's silver spoon fed crybaby spoiled child, I won't shed any tears over it. Obviously Mike Leach is insane, and probably did some shit he shouldn't have, but yeah- Craig James can kiss my dick for the way he handled that whole thing. And while I never read Mariotti's take on it, I'm sure that take was a complete and total fucking bullshit.

Maybe trying for some bromance with his colleagues. Ozzie Guillen had it right.

The Blizzard did indeed have it right.

On January 17, a dude without a name sent a link to an amazing article re: why stat nerds know nothing about who belongs in baseball's HOF and who doesn't. I'm not going to post the link because I want to do a full writeup of the article. It's preposterously funny.

The non-spam emails were coming fast and furious at this point. Must be the cold weather keeping people inside, right? Except that blog nerds are ALWAYS inside, which is why they don't know how to talk to girls or what it feels like to go from first to third on a single to right. So I guess that's not an explanation. Anyways, on February 9, Chris (a different Chris than before) wrote in:

Hi.

As a fan of your site, I created my own version of the types of things you're well known for.

I hope you like it.

He attached a Fire____ type breakdown of an article about a Giants Eagles game from 2008. I'm very flattered. It's getting a little dusty in here, honestly. Good to know that as the non-asshole version of Ken Tremendous once inspired me (like... pre-2007 Ken Tremendous), I inspired someone else. The guy has a blog, but it's not a Fire____ blog- just a blog about shit he likes. I think it's kind of cool. He hasn't updated since late April though, so like FireRickReilly, this one's time may have already passed. Check it out anyways. (He didn't put his article breakdown on the blog- just emailed the text.)

Just a few days later, on February 14, Trevor asked us to:

Please please please please please please please do a takedown of Jemele Hill's latest column.

We didn't, unfortunately, but be sure to check out the column anyways. Guess what? It's fucking terrible. And somewhat topical, even four months later.

March brings a few things to the sports world: spring training, March Madness, and NFL draft hype. OK, spring training actually starts in February and NFL draft hype starts in September. But whatever. On March 17, annoyed by all the bullshitting and ridiculous prognosticating about a certain Jesus-loving now-Denver Bronco, Justin sent us a long and thoughtful email. He started by kissing our asses. Sort of.

Dear kind folks at FireJayMariotti,

I enjoy your site immensely, even if there has been a bit of downtime on it lately.

Right. Like I said though, don't give up on us.

Just as well, I haven't been as frequent a visitor as I used to be due to an uptick in things going on, so I completely and implicitly understand, and I'd apologize, I guess, but I'm not sure to what.

Right. Not sure where that sentence was going, but no apology necessary. So then Justin did kind of a cool "guess who said this?" setup and copied and pasted a couple pieces of analysis (analysis in italics) uttered/dictated by ESPN's talking heads without telling us who wrote them until later. The first:

So what I would do with Tebow is take him in the third or fourth round. I would commit to continuing to develop him as a passer and change his mechanics. But I would promise him and the team that he would not step foot on a football field on Sundays for two years. If that can take place in today's NFL, I believe Tebow one day down the road can be a successful quarterback.

And then the second:

I look at Tim Tebow as a football player,

I knew exactly who this commentator was once I read this. And I fucking despise him and his Legoman hair.

and that's one of the highest compliments I could pay a guy. Given the right circumstances and given the time to learn his craft at the NFL level, I don't think there's any question that he could be a successful QB. But here's his value in the first couple of years when he's probably not playing a lot -- he's going to be running a scout team situation and he's going to be making that defense better. They're going to ask him to run the Wildcat quarterback and he's going to be flying around the football field

What kind of field?

giving the defense an unbelievable look. An average Joe fan never sees that.

OK Justin. Take it away.

The first is Trent Dilfer.

Unsurprising.

The second is Mark Schlereth.

I KNEW IT. I FUCKING KNEW IT.

Yes, Tebow needs to be taught things and is a project, but the methodology they provide to make him into a top-flight player is nothing short of a combination between uneducated guessing and nonsensical ramblings.

I am simply astounded these two are continually allowed to appear on television, describing a game they once played (surprisingly) well with the logic and vocabulary of a six-year-old gushing over a toy.

Pretty much par for the course for most draft prospects, but yeah, ol' TT#15 seemed to get the "toy treatment" just a little bit more than the average dude.

Plus, Dilfer looks inbred.

Kaboom!

I doubt this will make it on the site as an entry you tear asunder, but I still felt this travesty should be duly noted. Thank you.

Noted. Well, what Dilfer and Schlereth said eventually made it onto the site. And your analysis made it too! All because I'm too lazy to write my own analysis. Ah, user generated content: the wave of the future. (Did I use that term correctly? I'm really more of a first-wave blogger; all this newer internetty stuff is beyond me.

A guy who will remain nameless, just because I don't want this to somehow pop up and get him in trouble at his job (as a newspaper writer, no less! You know, someone who's part of the OLD media!), wrote in on March 22 to give us a big electronic high five.

I am the editor of a small paper and I'm with you --- I am even emailing you from my work account, cause this guy Mariotti is so shabby (in my opinion). I'm embarrassed by him, I hate his work so very much.

[Name withheld]
Managing Editor
[Vague Midwestern Sounding Location] Times

Ah, if only you and him could switch occupations, kind sir. Interesting use of "shabby"- I think of that as a British-sounding adjective, but it works well for Mariotti too.

March 29 brought a great email- probably my favorite in this bunch. It's from Rick, and he only has one thing to say:

The guy is a joke, fire away.

That's it. That's the whole email. Sounds like you need to start alsofirejaymariotti.blogspot.com. Rick. And you know, you remind me- PNoles really shouldered the Mariotti stuff, and obviously, he doesn't write here anymore. I should make a conscious effort to take on the JayBird more often. PNoles grew up in the Chicago suburbs, and I did not, so my personal distaste for him doesn't run as deep. But yeah, I should get on that.

The account was quiet for a couple months, until May 21, when another Chris offered some analysis:

In an article i caught today: http://jay-mariotti.fanhouse.com/2010/05/20/life-isnt-fair-when-nash-cant-win-title/

"The Suns have a problem down low named Amar'e Stoudemire, who is playing like someone who will be fleeing the desert in a few weeks and signing elsewhere. Unwisely, he ridiculed Lamar Odom's 19-point, 19-rebound breakout in Game 1, saying, "I'm not giving him no hype right now...

Can't disagree with Jay's general premise. Stoudemire is a fucking dingbat.

...Stoudemire didn't help the situation by refusing to back down from his comments. "Nah, I'm gonna always be myself,'' he said at a shootaround. "That's just my character. It's just what I was feeling. It's not happening any more. We're going to contain him.'' This garbage came only days after his 54-year-old mother, Carrie Mae Stoudemire, was arrested in Scottsdale for not having an ignition interlock device on her Lincoln Navigator. The device doesn't allow a car to start unless a driver breathes into it and records a legal blood-alcohol level. Stoudemire's mother, who has been arrested several times for charges including drug possession and prostitution, received a three-year prison sentence in 2006 after she was convicted of aggravated DUI following an accident.

Meanwhile, Odom was rolling his eyes about the lucky crack."

Hooooooooo boy. Hoo boy. That Jay- oozing class, as usual. Back to Chris's take on the whole dealio.

Mariotti jabs Amar'e's mother and then just moves on. If he wants to write an article about Amar'e's sad, sad family (2 brothers in jail, a deadbeat mom and non-existent father) then he can write it. Maybe it would bring context to the man's foibles. But I'm trying to figure out what bringing up her arrest had to do with Amar'e's comments. Nice journalism, ass.

So you're saying bringing up something tragic about someone's personal life DOESN'T add context to a discussion of game-related trash talk?

Please let me know if you run this.

I'm running it, because what you said rules. If I wasn't supposed to without clearing it with you, and you want me to take it down, DON'T send us an email about it. I won't get that email. Instead, leave something in the comments. And hey, although I've identified you as Chris, you're the third one I've mentioned in this post. So you kind of blend in.

Finally, just a couple weeks ago on May 29, commenter Fred Trigger wrote in about a worthy cause:

Hey guys, Fred Trigger, as I'm sure you dont recognize the name. Would you mind giving a quick link to friends of the blog Respect Jeters Gangster? They are trying to raise money for the Childrens Health Fund and are trying to get it as much exposure as possible. Here is the link.

http://respectjetersgangster.blogspot.com/2010/05/chf-and-rjg-get-benevolent-for-children.html

Thanks.

No, thank YOU. Everyone click on that. And email it to everyone you've ever met. They're doing a raffle as part of supporting their cause, and the winner gets tickets to a Yankees/Red Sox game in August. Even if you fucking hate both those teams, which I kind of do, you have to admit that seeing a game between them in person would be kind of cool. And even if you don't want to enter the raffle, be a peach and help spread some awareness.

Well, I think this was sufficiently long. A real post, later this week? Maybe. Joe Morgan hasn't seen me post, so he can't say for sure whether I'll post again anytime soon. I might, or I might not. But anything could happen. It's a long season.

Pat Forde + Logic = Train Wreck

See if you can find the problem with this sequence of ideas. (Re: 41 year old American Olympic swimmer Dara Torres, who just finished an amazing Olympic trials in which she set several personal records and even one American record even though she's coming off of multiple surgeries.)

Torres has never tested positive for any performance enhancers to my knowledge. She's requested random blood and urine testing from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and said she wants to be "an open book."

Torres met with USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart last year and, according to a report in The New York Times, decided to volunteer for a pilot program under the agency that "tests more broadly" for doping through blood and urine samples.

"Can USADA give Dara or some other athlete the stamp of cleanliness?" Tygart asked the newspaper. "No, the science isn't there yet." But he added, "I think a dirty athlete would be crazy to volunteer for this program."

According to the report, Tygart has yet to release any of Torres' results, but she told reporters here at the trials this week that she has been randomly tested "probably about 12 to 15 times since March."

But locking up a stunning fifth Olympic appearance on the Fourth of July by winning the 100-meter freestyle makes me wonder whether too good to be true is the same thing as too good to be clean.

It's true. I'll address it in detail at the end of the post, but it's fine to feel like that about something like this. It's only natural. However, don't justify those feelings like this:

Baseball and other sports have poisoned the well to the point that Torres' late-career renaissance reminds me of too many fraudulent fairy tales that have been foisted off on the gullible American public.

We were supposed to believe Roger Clemens was a dominant pitcher in his 40s because he trained harder and smarter than everyone else. We were supposed to believe Barry Bonds was capable of hitting 73 home runs at age 37 because he was simply that good and had worked tirelessly to build his body naturally. We were supposed to believe these miracles of human preservation, but we've since been given reason to believe they really were lying cheaters instead.

Hey, DUMMY- there's a key difference between the drug testing Olympic athletes go through and the drug testing MLB players went through prior to 2005. (Actually, there are still a lot of differences between the programs, but let's just say the gap has been narrowed at least a little.) Google it and see if you can sort the situation out.

Listen, I'm all for skepticism when it comes to extraordinary athletic accomplishments in this day and age. There's no way around it- the proliferation of PEDs means that anyone who does something incredible is bound to come under some degree of scrutiny. That's fair. I have no problem with it. So in that sense, I have no fundamental problem with Pat's article. What she's done is pretty unbelievable... maybe too unbelievable to be clean. As Chad himself says, no one has ever swum like she just did at this age. But here's the problem- if you're going to write an article about this kind of sports-related skepticism, comparing an Olympic athlete's allegedly clean accomplishments to the allegedly clean accomplishments of MLB players in the late 90s/early 00s is fucking preposterous. Really? Being Barry Bonds, and just saying you're clean, is the same thing as Dara Torres and volunteering for an extremely rigorous pilot testing program? At least compare her accomplishments to Floyd Landis's, or something.

And yes, I know that there is no testing routine that's anywhere close to perfect or comprehensive. A very decent sized chunk of the athletes competing in Beijing this summer will be dirty, and almost all will get away with it. I'm just saying... it's fucking ridiculous to say that it's hard to enjoy Torres's accomplishments specifically because of untested cases like Bonds and Clemens. Go jump in a lake, Pat Forde.

Special thanks to last Friday's anonymous commenter for tipping me off about this article.

Sportscaster Says [X] On Air, Later Clarifies That He Didn't Actually Say [X]

I was about to preface this post with a protracted discussion about two massive problems affecting the world of celebrity today. On one hand, almost anything a famous person (even a local baseball broadcaster; I'm counting them as celebrity because they have access to audiences of millions) does can be unfairly and wrongly taken as offensive by nearly any person or group of people. But on the other hand, because celebrities have to half-heartedly apologize for stupid shit all the time, when it comes time for them to either make a legitimate apology or at least own up to something controversial that they said, they're completely unable to do so. Yup, I was going to spend like six paragraphs talking about that subject. But fuck that noise. It was probably bad enough for me to include even that brief summary in the post. Let me just tell you about this thing I heard that I feel is worth mentioning on this blog.

That second problem described above, regarding being unable to either apologize for a legitimately offensive statement or own up to it and defend it as controversial but appropriate, happened two nights ago in Kansas City. Said Royals broadcaster Ryan LeFebvre of visiting Rangers Josh Hamilton and Milton Bradley: (quote is pulled off Sportscenter audio and is 100% accurate)

Here's a guy (Hamilton), with all the troubles he's had, has shown that if you work at it you can get your life back in order. And that would be a pretty good role model for Milton Bradley, who clearly has no control over himself, because it's the same thing year after year. This game is... this country, really, if you follow baseball, has really embraced Josh Hamilton. And I think they've wanted to do the same with Milton Bradley. But Milton Bradley has refused to allow himself to be put in that position.

Now, let me add a brief but obvious disclaimer before I come to my long overdue conclusion: I'm not here to defend Milton Bradley. As far as pro athletes go, he seems like a grade-A shithead. He's done almost nothing in his career to convince me that he's not an awful teammate. I'm not sure what kind of person he is outside of baseball, but if the hotheadedness he shows there translates over to his personal life (and fairly or not, I assume it does to some extent), he's probably not a great guy to hang around with.

There, I'm done. That was mean, wasn't it? Sure. But I'll stand by it. I'd say it to Bradley's face, as long as there was someone in the room to prevent him from beating me mercilessly. And that's what make me different than Ryan LeFebvre, because according to Sportscenter, you know what he said about those comments when later asked about them? Apparently he "wasn't singling out Bradley" and "wasn't ripping him."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Read the original monolouge again, and let me know if I'm taking crazy pills here. Is that not the very definition of singling someone out, and, although not very maliciously, also close to the definition of ripping someone? Now you probably see why I wanted to write that intro. And now we come full circle to the end of the most cumbersome post in this (or maybe any) blog's existence. LeFebvre, in my mind, had two options once what he said became an issue and required further comment:

He could have A) apologized to Bradley and said he didn't mean to come across so harsh or without provocation. He didn't have to do this, of course. His original comments weren't really harsh enough to warrant it. But had he wanted to, he could have apologized, and it wouldn't have been weird or anything.

OR, he could have B) owned up to what he said and reaffirmed it. He could have simply said he was stating his opinion on the matter based on everything he's ever seen out of Bradley, and that while it's not the end of the world, it seems like Bradley is a troubled guy with some anger issues. There, that's not that hard, is it? Although it might have the fallout of causing Bradley to follow LeFebvre to his car one night and cave in LeFebvre's head with a bat, it's still an acceptable way to respond to the situation.

Is it really that hard to do one of those two things? Apparently so, because instead of either of them LeFebvre just decided to punk out and tell a bald-faced lie to a scandalously interested national audience. "Hey, I know I was singling out Milton Bradley and kind of ripping him, but I want you all to know that I wasn't singling him out or ripping him. Just thought I'd clear the air on that." OK, buddy. Whatever you say. Jeebus- give me a fucking break. What is this world coming to?

I know, I know, this post stinks. Sorry. Listen, all I ask is that if you leave a comment telling me this post sucks, and later on someone asks you "Hey, didn't you tell Larry B earlier today that his post stunk?", don't deny it.

New Blog Feature Thing: Reader Extra Participation Fridays

I was facing two big problems earlier tonight.

1) I am tired
2) Gregg Easterbrook released a TMQ column this week that contains some absolutely wretched analysis

I mean, how was I supposed to reconcile these two with each other? If I go to bed, Easterbrook's turd of an article goes unchecked, probably forever. If I take a bunch of time to complain about the article, I go to bed late. Then I'll just be tired again tomorrow. And maybe Saturday too. What kind of bullshit life is that? How am I supposed to break that vicious cycle if I don't start tonight? But just as I was starting to panic, I had an idea. Let me lay it out for you slowly, so that by the end of the explanation you're so bored with what I'm saying that you have no interest in being a part of the idea.

Yesterday saw FireJay set another direct traffic record. Very exciting stuff. We also shattered our old record for being looked for on search engines; Google was overflowing with lovejuice for us. And the 34 comments (granted, like ten of them are from me, Chris W, and pnoles, but don't burst my bubble) on the Simmons piece has to be close to an all time record for the blog as well. So there's definitely a lot of you out there reading this drivel. I mean, shit, look at you right now. You could be doing anything on the internet. But you've chosen to be here.

Therefore, here's my idea: every Friday, we do a sort of play on those "You Write the Caption" competition magazines and blogs are always having. It used to be one of my favorite features in Sports Illustrated For Kids, even though most or all of the winning selections were probably written by kids' parents. But whatever. Anyways, for our little thingy I'm describing here, instead of a picture, we'll just present you with a handful of quotes from a terrible article and a theme for you to follow in your responses. Then you all just go buck wild making up jokes from the perspective of the author, which is sort of caption-ish in a way. Pow. Instant comedy. I mean, what better way to celebrate this windfall of new readers than by asking you to show us and each other how witty and snarky you can be? I hate the word snark, but I think its made-up definition applies nicely to what FireJay and blogs like it are all about. You wouldn't be here if you didn't like snark, and weren't pretty damn good at being snarky yourself. Hell, most of you are probably better at being snarky than I am. I'm really more angry/angsty. Snark snark snark. Fuck that word. See? I'm pissed now.

But seriously, you can see what I'm getting at here. I want you all to use your rapist's wits to help make the blog a funnier place. Some of you already do that in the comments section on a daily basis, but I want Friday to become a special day where you really focus and bring your A games. And on top of that, maybe some of you that read but don't comment will be inspired by this feature to make the plunge into commenting every once in a while.

This week will be the trial run. If it flops, we'll pretend it never happened. If it's even a mild success, which I define by having at least two commenters participate without making fun of me for thinking this would work, then we'll keep it going.

Easterbrook went like ten steps further than he usually does this week in terms of making shit up and passing it off as the truth. Here, he speculates as to why some of the NFL's divisional playoff games turned out the way they did.

Dallas took its regular-season finale off, then had the bye week, then honked at home. As you just might possibly have heard, certain Cowboys not only lost focus during the bye but treated the week as a vacation! Receiving millions of dollars per year for a part-time job, some Dallas players nevertheless felt they had to award themselves a vacation to get their minds off the playoffs -- and as we saw Sunday, the Cowboys' minds surely were off the playoffs!

Really? How did we see that? They piled up 11 penalties, but that alone isn't going to convince me. I'm going to need a little bit more explanation than "as we saw Sunday, [X], and that is that because I said so and I like science fiction a lot."

Romo kept trying to throw deep, rather than throwing slants, which are the standard counter to the big blitz. You sensed Romo wanted to hit a deep pass so everyone would credit him for winning the game.

Did I? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I mean, Romo's usually a spotlight hogging asshole, but- oh wait, no, that's someone else on his team. Nevermind.

Garrett never straightened Romo out in the fourth quarter -- perhaps because Garrett's head wasn't really in the game, either.

So I guess Gregg was either at the game, or has a magical TV feed that allows him to watch what's happening on the sidelines at all times.

In the fourth quarter, Dallas' offensive line play broke down. Could this have something to do with offensive line coach Tony Sparano not having his head in the game because he spent the bye week interviewing for head-coaching jobs?

Great theory. Totally unprovable and probably no more than 10% true. But it's cute. You know what will often cause offensive line play to break down? Being lined up opposite Osi Umenyiora and Michael Strahan all damn game.

Jacksonville trailed the highest-scoring team in football history by 11 points in the fourth quarter; reaching first-and-goal, the Jags absolutely had to score a touchdown. So why didn't the coaches assume they'd use all four downs and power-rush three times? Jacksonville had to get a touchdown. The mouselike field goal was all but running up a white flag. You could see at that point that Jack of the River had quit on the game. He wasn't going all-out to try to win, he was trying to hold down the margin of defeat so that on the banquet circuit in the offseason, people would say, "You gave the Patriots a good game."

Yep, I bet that's it. Why make decisions that you think give you the best chance at beating them, like kicking a field goal to get a one-score deficit? What's the glory in that? If you end up winning, no one's going to praise you for that on the offseason banquet circuit. Those banquet people are a tough to please crowd- they really only gravitate towards close losses.

Whoever coaches Indianapolis next season, if the Colts win a bye again, please, don't give the starters the season finale game off! Dungy has done this four times, and four times the result has been first-round home-field defeat for Indianapolis. Was the problem that the Colts defenders relaxed when LaDainian Tomlinson and Philip Rivers went out?

I'm glad this one is phrased as a rhetorical question rather than an outright true statement, but it's still stupid and wrong.

OK, so here's the theme for this week's Reader Participation Friday: given all these assessments Easterbrook makes about last weekend's games that range anywhere from "completely unprovable and unresearchable" to "batshit insane," please come up with some other explanations Gregg might formulate to explain occurrences in the world of sports. Write your response in the first person, as though you were him. Here, I'll do a couple examples to start things off.

"Maybe if Ohio State was more worried about preparing for LSU and less worried about visiting as many locations as possible in New Orleans that were portrayed in the movie JFK, they wouldn't have been blown out so badly in the National Championship Game."

"Jimmy Johnson just won his second straight NASCAR season championship. And it's no wonder, considering how much better he is at never letting any of the parts in his car break than the other drivers on the circuit."

"It's clear that the Colorado Rockies were swept in the 2007 World Series by the Boston Red Sox because the Rockies were too busy worrying about Drew Carey taking over hosting duties on 'The Price Is Right' to focus on the games."

"The secret to Tiger Woods's success lies in the fact that he never thinks about whether or not spectators are staring at his ass. John Daly, on the other hand, is particularly afflicted by this problem."

"Kobe Bryant is a dominant scorer in the NBA year in and year out for one reason: defenders refuse to guard him close due to his cripplingly bad breath."

Is this a good idea? It's a good idea, right? No? Well screw it, we're trying it this week anyways. I guess I'll find out when I wake up and check the comments in the morning. Come on, people. It's Friday. Nothing says "the weekend's almost here" like imitating Gregg Easterbrook.

(And of course, keep in mind that future installments of the feature will be much shorter because I won't have to laboriously explain my stupid thought process or anything.)

Let's Not Build This Up Too Much

Because if I do, I'm just going to let you all down. Let's just leave it at this: Bill Simmons has written an article comparing the 1986 Celtics to the 2007 Patriots. And it is awful. "Mission Impossible 2" awful. Worse than Jemele Hill awful. "Last Call With Carson Daly" awful. Crap, I'm building it up.

Breaking down Beantown's best

Breaking down the spirit of any ESPN.com reader who doesn't give a shit about Boston sports.

When the Colts ducked the AFC Championship Game with an indefensible choke job against San Diego, many die-hard Boston fans thought the same thing: Ralph Sampson.

After all, a heavily favored Lakers team pulled the same trick in the '86 Western Conference finals, allowing themselves to be "shocked" by the upstart Rockets -- with Sampson making the series-winning shot in Game 5 at Los Angeles -- to avoid what would have been a ritual beating by an unstoppable Celtics team. Twenty-two years later, Indianapolis couldn't beat the banged-up Chargers at home when the refs were handing the defending champs every call and Billy Volek and Norv Turner were prominently involved. Did they want any part of the Patriots in Foxborough? Apparently not.

Since Bill is so often creating rules and manifestos for analyzing stuff, let's just take this one and apply it to every single possible situation. Anytime the second best team in any competition loses to someone other than the best team, it's because they subconsciously chose to. They were afraid. They couldn't deal with the idea of ultimately receiving a "ritual beating" from that top seeded team later on. It's a fact. Write it down. Chisel it into stone, and mail a copy of the stone to every single coach of any team at any level anywhere in the country. They can use the stone as a paperweight, and a reminder of the above stated rule. Let's break down some recent examples.

2006 NFL Playoffs- The Ravens, terrified of having to potentially play the top seeded Chargers for the AFC Championship, subconsciously default their divisional round game to the Colts. (Just another example of how smart Brian Billick is/was.) The Chargers go on to win their first Super Bowl. Shawne Merriman is initially thought to be having a seizure during the postgame on-field celebration; it is later discovering he was just dancing like a fucking idiot.

2004 NBA Finals- Coming to grips with the obvious fact that no team of mortals will be able to best the unstoppable Lakers, the Pacers subconsciously decide to mail in their Eastern Conference championship series against the Pistons despite having won 61 games during the regular season. Reggie Miller subconsciously allows Tayshaun Prince to block his layup during the turning point of the series's 5th game. Detroit ultimately decides not to play LA for the NBA title, and instead immediately hangs a "2004 Eastern Conference Champions and NBA Finals Losers" banner in the rafters of their arena the day after topping Indy. Shaq, displeased by this because he wanted to actually play out the games, personally goes to the home of each Pistons player and defecates on their lawn.

2003 MLB Playoffs- Subconsciously realizing they are absolutely no match for the invincible Yankees, the Cubs decide to graciously allow Marlins to win the NLCS. It's a sensible move; they wouldn't want to put their fans through such a painful near miss! After initially refusing to even take the field against lowly Florida, the Yankees are eventually coerced to do so by Bud Selig who promises to take them all to Six Flags if they play. Yankees sweep the Marlins for their 27th World Championship. George Steinbrenner buys himself another helicopter filled with Faberge eggs.

So as you can see, Bill's right.

In the process, they cheated two unforgettable teams of punctuating unforgettable seasons by topping their natural rivals.

How selfish and rude. Who do they think they are? Losing games subconsciously on purpose like that, and taking the shine off someone else's championship! The nerve. Maybe they should have been thinking about someone other than themselves when they painfully blew those playoff games. Their fans should be embarrassed. And should also start hanging out in Joe Montana's diner. And letting a smarmy Masshole guy make chippy one liners to them about how their players are girly and Tom Brady and Larry Bird are so sexy, they have semen running through their veins.

And that's not where the similarities begin and end with the '86 Celtics and the '07 Patriots. For the past few months, I've been avoiding the inevitable "Dr. Jack breakdown" because the responsibility of choosing between the best Boston-area teams of my lifetime was too overwhelming.

Sound exhausting. I'm impressed you're willing to take on this massive challenge. I'm sure there's a terrible 80s movie with a plot that perfectly parallels this situation. See, here's things the way I see them. Some people just weren't wired to deal with success and happiness. You know that guy from college who you wanted to avoid after he hooked up with a chick, or when he was having a fun night out at the bars? The guy who was just too happy with himself for his own good? The guy who just couldn't seem to handle his shit when things were going well? The guy who would tell you unsolicited stories about his exploits, when a normal person who went through the same thing(s) was content to just sit back and enjoy his good fortune on his own? Take that guy and make him a thousand times more hateworthy. Then give him a job at ESPN, and provide him with a rabid group of delusion bandwagon jumping readers who are convinced they are better/more significant sports fans than people who like other teams. That's Bill, three years ago. Today? I have no idea how to describe him.

But following the undeniable parallels between the Lakers-Rockets and Colts-Chargers outcomes, in the words of REO Speedwagon, I can't fight this feeling anymore.

If I ever am hired by a major media outlet to write down my thoughts, I will be sure to reference as few 80s love ballads as possible.

(One crucial anti-jinxing note: So I don't have to keep writing "assuming the Pats eventually win the Super Bowl" throughout the column, we'll shorten that phrase to the acronym "ATPEWTSB." Got it? I don't want to be blamed if this Patriots' season somehow goes to hell.

Don't flatter yourself. Although I do hope that if the Patriots lose, some crazed fan actually does come to the conclusion that it was all Bill's fault and decides to collect on the bounty Kissing Suzy Kolber has put out on his hands.

This is a hypothetical analysis predicated on the realistic assumption that the Patriots, currently 1-3 favorites to win Super Bowl XLII and 14-point favorites in the AFC title game, will win two more games. Which seems fairly likely. You have to admit.)

I have to admit that I hate Simmons and every team he's ever written a puff piece about. That's the extent of things.

All right, let's break this baby down, Dr. Jack style …

I don't have the time or energy to cover every one of Bill's made up comparison categories, but I will hit some key highlights. If you really want to lose your lunch, follow the link and read the full 40,000 word treatise. There's not much to say about most of them except "Sheeeeeeeeit" or "fucksheeeeeeit" or "I want my 20 seconds back."

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER
Tom Brady submitted the best regular season in quarterbacking history (4,804 yards, 50 touchdowns, eight picks and a 117 QB rating)

Peyton Manning's 2004, a season in which he only played in 15 games (plus a single non-TD drive before being benched in the meaningless 16th game): 4557 yards, 49 touchdowns, 10 INT, 121 QB rating. Take out Brady's meaningless 16th game and he's below 4500 yards and now has only 48 TDs. His rating would also drop because he completed more than three quarters of his passes in that meaningless game. So, no, he didn't just submit the best regular season in quarterbacking history.

and came within a Wes Welker drop and an uncalled interference penalty away from completing every pass against the Jaguars in the AFC divisional playoffs.

He can thank his offensive line for that.

Meanwhile, Larry Bird cruised to his third straight MVP award in '86, averaged a 26-9-8 for the playoffs and created the 90-50-40 Playoff Club (90 percent from the line, 50 percent from the field, 40 percent from 3-point range).

He created it a whole seven seasons after the 3-point line was implemented into the rulebook. Fuck you, guys who played before 1979. You're not allowed to be in the club. Pete Maravich? More like Pete Marabitch. Jerry West? Fairy West.

The phrase "peak of his powers" applies to both guys, and both were true leaders who connected with teammates on a supernatural level -- Brady and his receivers with their uncanny ability to freelance at the line of scrimmage,

Dozens of NFL quarterbacks do this. Few have the amount of time to throw or weapons to throw to that Brady enjoys, which is why they don't have his numbers. But this is no more "supernatural" than a second baseman/shortstop combo who sometimes pull off a no-look double play flip.

Bird and his teammates with their unselfish passing.

I've seen a lot of basketball in my day. Some guys are much better at passing than others. Bird was really good. I still have a hard time believing the adjective "supernatural" is applicable.

Now that's Supernatural!

Here's the trump card: I can't imagine any professional athlete executing his job better than Brady did through these first 17 games: He made the single toughest position in sports

Hockey goalies might have something to say about that. Or baseball pinch hitters, if that counts as a position. Or Olympic-level ping pong players.

look easy, and every time the Patriots needed him to come through, he did come through.

Every time they needed another TD to push their lead from 28 to 35, he was right there. What a gamer.

On top of that, he excelled during an unhealthy era in which we digest sports through various mediums, argue about them constantly and pick athletes and coaches apart on a 24/7 basis.

This is why not everyone makes it as a pro athlete- they're worried about what Tony Kornheiser is going to say about them on PTI, and whether or not people want them on their fantasy teams.

As Tony Romo showed over the past few weeks, many of these "superstars" can't handle it.

Yes. Romo can't handle the spotlight. That was his one and only problem last Sunday. Not happy feet. Not a vicious New York pass rush. Not mediocre mechanics. It's all about the fact that some reporters asked him about his recent vacation. Brady is so damn excellent at dealing with his off the field nonsense; that's the difference between him and Romo. Besides their offensive lines. And talent.

PRIZE ADDITION
Both Randy Moss and Bill Walton were considered on the downside of their careers, both were rescued from bad teams, and both transformed their teams from "really good" to "great." Statistically, Moss crushes Walton in every respect; his ability to stretch defenses, draw double-teams and provide a home-run threat for Brady dwarfs anything Walton did for the Celts. So this shouldn't be close.

Still, Walton's undeniable contributions remind me why I despise the increasing reliance on complicated statistics for basketball judgments: That season, he only averaged 20 minutes, 7.6 points, 6.8 rebounds and 2.1 assists -- not breathtaking numbers by any imagination -- and yet, you had to be there to witness his infectious and sorely needed enthusiasm, the otherworldly way he and Bird freelanced together on pick-and-rolls, the way the Garden crowd responded to him, and how Walton's minutes allowed Bird, McHale and Parish to stay fresh AND keep the team playing at a high level.

Heart! Gristle! Grit! Guttiness! Playing the game the way it was meant to be played! Being white! The ability to enchant fans despite being objectively (basketball stats are not as straightforward an indicator of performance as baseball stats, but they're still pretty good) not that important to the team! That's what Walton brought to this Celtics team, and people all over New England who love white athletes rejoiced. I like Bill's thinly veiled shot at complicated basketball stats like PER here. Why use something like that, which quantitatively measures nearly every way a guy can help his team, when you can just vaguely speculate about someone's value based on the way the crowd responds to him?

With that said, the neatest thing about the Walton/Moss parallel is how they pushed the careers of Bird/Brady to another level. Nothing was more exciting this season than seeing Brady take seven steps back, plant his feet and heave the football as far as he possibly could to Moss,

What made these plays possible? Thanks again, offensive line. Here's your courtesy photo op, because you have crazy facial hair! Now go back to anonymity so we can all gargle Brady's balls some more.

and if you were a true basketball fan, there was nothing like watching Bird and Walton run pick-and-rolls and give-and-gos like they'd known each other for 30 years. What a cool category. I feel honored just to be writing this section.

Wow. Way to compliment yourself for something you made up, while still working on that something. That's incredible. Nothing says "douche" quite like patting yourself on the back for something you're not even done creating.

You're doing a great job on this post, Larry. Well thank you, it's an honor to be here. No problem, keep up the good work. Great.

What the hell is going on?

DEFINING REGULAR-SEASON GAME
Could you narrow it down to one for the Pats? I don't think you can -- at gunpoint, I'd go with the Giants game, but you could make strong cases for four or five other ones.

I would vote for the one where they scored like four extra garbage time TDs well after the game was in hand. Yeah, I remember that games well. All seven or eight of it.

As for the Celtics, one definitely stands out: A January comeback win when the Hawks raced to a 27-point lead at home and made the unforgivable mistake of talking trash right before halftime, leading to a ferociously ticked-off Boston team roaring back, scoring 14 straight in the fourth quarter and eventually winning in OT. I have this one on tape -- in the second half, the entire Celtics team morphs into Clint Eastwood during the final 15 minutes of "Unforgiven." It's incredible to watch. This game should run on ESPN Classic once a week.

Yeah, what sports fan wouldn't want that? I can't believe this hasn't already happened. I mean, if you like sports, you have to like the exact same teams and moments Bill likes, right? How could you not? It's the fucking 1986 Celtics, man. Destiny's team. What? You don't care? You want to see a variety of programs, covering teams from many different cities? Go watch QVC or something. Pussy. You're Canadian, aren't you?

HOME CROWD
Almost as big of a mismatch as Belichick-Jones, only the other way: The '86 Celtics had one of the most significant home-court advantages in sports history, finishing 50-1 at home (including the playoffs) and breaking records for "Most times a group of fans recognized that a great pass was about to happen even before it happened," and "Most times a crowd has ever lifted a team from one level to another."

We've seen this from Bill before: the idea that Boston fans are just different and smarter and more influential and more powerful than fans from anywhere else. In reality, the only thing that separates those of them that actually believe this from everyone else is being the country's only contingent of fans deserving of being launched into deep space. Listen, fuck-oes: you're not special. You're not different. I don't care what ESPN told you. Here's a bouncy ball. Go play in traffic. (Again, this only applies to those of you who think you're different and special. Which can't be anyone left reading at this point in the post.)


LOCAL LOVE FOR THE TEAM
ATPEWTSB, the Pats have a built-in advantage for the simple reason that football is more popular than basketball. On top of that, when the Patriots were vilified nationally after SpyGate, that made Patriots fans more attached to the team and the season became about something else. Everyone loved the '86 Celtics, but this Patriots season has been different -- it's a much more personal experience as a fan, something that can't fully be explained. When you're rooting for a team that everyone is rooting against, it's almost debilitating. I'm not kidding. I need a vacation after this season.

Please, for Christ's sake, take it. Take it and never come back. Go see Europe. All of it. You've always wanted to do that. Or go hole yourself up in a cabin somewhere and write that novel you've been thinking about all these years. As long as it's not about sports.

QUIRKIEST WRINKLE
For the Pats, it's the fact they finished 16-0 even though they were basically running Warren Moon's old run-and-shoot offense for the past 10 weeks. (I didn't even realize this until stumbling across highlights of an old Oilers game and realizing their offense looked familiar.)

Like fuck he did. I will bet you US $1000 that this is a huge lie. Bill did not notice this on his own. I've never been more sure of something unprovable in my life. There is zero chance he "stumbled" across this. He was undoubtedly tipped off on it by someone who actually knows shit about football, and is now trying to impress his readers. Just like how he always talks about how hard he used to drink in college. Similar to how I always claim to know what it's like to work a steady job and not live at home well into your 20s.

CAPACITY TO SHAME BIGGEST RIVAL INTO SUBCONSCIOUSLY GIVING UP BEFORE THE DAY OF RECKONING
Rockets-Lakers was an enormous upset, but not totally: The '86 Lakers were a subpar rebounding team and an aging Kareem was too much of a ninny to deal with the young legs of Sampson and Hakeem. So it was a semi-defensible upset until the series-clinching game, when Hakeem got thrown out for fighting and the Lakers still managed to choke at home. Really, that's how a defending champ should go out? Come on. As for the Chargers-Colts game, even though San Diego showed an immense amount of heart and Norv Turner's play calling was so good that he nearly caught fire on the sidelines at one point like an "NBA Jam" character, you can't say enough about that gag job by the defending champs. What a disgrace. Part of winning a title is defending the title after you win it … and that wasn't anything remotely resembling a defense.

Kind of reminds me of 2002, when the Patriots missed the playoffs the year after winning the Super Bowl. Nice title defense right there. Or 2006, when they were two-time defending champs and proceded to shit the bed big time against Denver in the divisional round. Speaking of gag jobs, the defining play of that game happened when Brady hit Champ Bailey directly in the hands in the Denver end zone to thwart a potential go-ahead drive. But I digress. Comments like Bill's here are the quintessence of insecurity. Trash-talking journalism only comes from writers who are more concerned with crapping on their team's rival than actually coming up with something most people might find readable or relevant. So when that rival loses a big game, it's all about "disgrace" and how pathetic the rival is. Look, the Colts weren't at their best. But Manning was good/great. Both his picks bounced off receivers' hands. And somehow, some way, Philip Rivers went off. The end result was that the Chargers won that game, the Colts didn't lose it. Any Colts fans out there who are feeling bad should just read this. Might be my favorite Simmons article ever. And it should be noted that as a fan of a rival AFC team, I hate the Colts.

THE GRANDKIDS TEST
Whether it's a team or a player, the test remains the same: Will you be bouncing your grandkids on your lap some day and telling them how great Player X or Team X was? (Note: I always thought this would be a great way to decide the Hall of Fame -- if somebody doesn't pass the Grandkids Test, they're out.)

Other HOF methods that are just as effective and reasonable as the Grandkids Test:
-The cherry pick one stat test
-The cherry pick one significant game he played well in test
-The cool name or nickname test
-The goofy facial hair test
-The I heard a funny story about him partying on a road trip this one time test
-The only enshrine guys who played for your favorite teams test
-The yeah but they let Gary Carter in test
-The I don't know, I mean he was pretty good wasn't he? test

MY DAD'S TAKE
With the Celtics holding a slim 12-10 lead, I phoned my father to get his grizzled take for the deciding verdict. Here's a rough transcript of our conversation:

Finally, Bill goes straight to the foremost authority on Boston sports to settle the argument. Why didn't he just do this from the beginning?

Dad: "I guess. [Thinking.] I have to go with the '86 Celtics. There was no way we were losing that season. Nobody could beat us in the Garden. With the Pats, our defense makes me nervous and nothing made me nervous during that Celtics season. Then again, if the Pats go 19-0 … [thinking] … you know, I can't believe you're doing this before the last two games! Why are you doing this again? This is the dumbest thing you've ever done -- it's even dumber than the time your car got stolen because you left your keys in your car door. Can't you wait three weeks? I'm hanging up."

FINAL VERDICT
We have to wait three weeks. For now, the Celtics have a slight edge. To be continued.

Gag me. So not only has Bill wasted almost everyone's time on a topic 90% of his readership doesn't actually care about, he won't even settle the debate for those who do. All I can say is please, whoever is in charge up there in the sky or the stars or wherever the shit you live- give America something to smile about this Sunday. Let the Chargers march into Foxboro and hand the Patriots' shit to them in a neat little box with a bow on top. Let LDT go off for 200 and 4 TDs. Let Antonio Gates magically heal and force Rodney Harrison into a constant stream of unsportsmanlike conduct penalties by pissing him off while beating him deep. Let Antonio Cromartie get in Brady's head and leave some Snickers wrappers lying around (Curb, anyone? Anyone?). Let Eric Weddle get a more masculine name. Hell, let Merriman act like a dipshit all afternoon, I don't care. I don't care. (No Philip Rivers allowed, though. That guy is a fuckstick. Let's keep Billy Volek at QB.) Please, please, please let this painful story have a happy ending.

Can you imagine the stuff Simmons will write if the Patriots lose? I can promise I wouldn't waste any of my time tearing it apart. It'd be just fine on its own. And we could all laugh together.

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!

SMACK!

[This is the post I've been hyping up all week. I worked on it for like four days, and in the end, it turned out to be a piece of garbage. Sorry. Basically, I just learned a painful lesson: don't ever make a big deal out of a something that's a work in progress. Only awfulness comes of that. Go ahead and read it if you need to be put to sleep. And no, I'm not fishing for compliments. Just shut up and enjoy the crap.]

Here's the deal: a mystery journalist just wrote a scathing response to Andy Pettitte's admission that he did HGH. Don't click on the link if you don't want to find out who it is! Soak this up and pay very close attention to the author's tone and conditions of judgment.

I'm confused. Was Andy Pettitte's admission that he used human growth hormone supposed to be an apology, or an insult to everybody's intelligence?

It came off as the latter -- as something so disingenuous, it's laughable. It's hard to take any apology seriously when it contains this loaded statement: "If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize. I accept responsibility for those two days."

If what I did? Way to be contrite, Andy. Sorry, but this was more than an error in judgment. This isn't throwing to third base when the play was at first. This is your credibility and your reputation.

Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that former Yankee Jason Grimsley told the feds Pettitte was one of the players who used performance-enhancing drugs. This is how Pettitte responded to that allegation at the time: "I haven't done anything," he said. "I guess reports are saying I've used performance-enhancing drugs. I've never used any drugs to enhance my performance in baseball before. I don't know what else to say except it's embarrassing my name would be out there."

Now Pettitte wants us to believe he took HGH only twice in 2002, and only because he wanted to heal faster for his team's sake?

Riiiiiighhhhttt.

The only thing Pettitte has demonstrated is that he can lie under duress and then craft an apology that would make any public relations expert proud.

The apology was definitely weak, and this person's analysis of it is actually pretty fair. I kind of enjoy it. I mean, focusing on previous denials of use isn't overly relevant. Pettitte is hardly the only player to have taken this path. It's par for the course for most high profile users. Overall, however, the author's point that he made a pathetic "admission" is 100% spot-on. It's a slight improvement over not saying anything at all. (Remember that I said that. It will be important in about three to five minutes depending on how fast you read.)

Had I read what this journalist wrote without knowing their identity, like you just did (or at least pretended to do, for the purpose of the point I'm trying to make), I'd have been content to nod in agreement and move along. Overly convoluted celebrity non-apologies are annoying. Some of what the author says is a little melodramatic, but overall their points are salient and well-put.

But- as soon as you find out who the person behind the article is... some serious problems arise. If you haven't already figured out who they are, I'll tell you. It's a woman. She writes for ESPN's Page 2. We complain about her all the time here at FireJay. Eriz made a label in which he identified her as a "stupid bint." (Eriz, being a bit more vulgar than me, might have meant definition #1 on that list when he made the label. Since I'm trying to keep this mildly classy I'll clarify that I mean the cleanest interpretation listed under definition #3- "a girl not well liked." That's right. Classy.) Yes, it's Jemele Hill.

Why does the fact that Jemele penned this piece create problems? Well, most of the time, any journalist is free to comment on a controversy in any way they see fit. But when a writer takes a particular stance on an issue, they can't just suddenly change their mind or create a double standard whenever it's convenient. Put more simply they can't contradict their initial position when a new story in the same vein of controversy arises. It's bad journalism. Really bad. Like, I'll bitch about you in in my anti-sports media blog if you do it bad. "Well then," you ask, "how is Jemele's position here a contradiction of something she's written before?" Don't be so coy. I think we both know exactly what/who I'm referring to. So in order to fully understand just how offensive this anti-Pettitte article is to anyone with a brain and an interest in sports, let's review a history of her thoughts on Mr. Barry Q. Bonds.

First, let's establish Jemele's fascination with Bonds. Since last April, including this Pettitte article, she's only written eleven articles about baseball. But five of them have been about Barry. So although she primarily covers the NBA and NFL, when she does venture into the world of MLB she often talks about Bonds. Therefore it's extremely unlikely could she could have written an article about baseball (much less baseball and steroids) without considering Barry's place in the situation. I just don't see it happening.

Second, let's look back on what she's had to say about Barry since April. At the conclusion of this review you should (if you don't already... am I just preaching to the choir here?) understand why this Pettitte column is an insult to anyone who reads it.

Jemele's views on Barry didn't start out very positive. Back in May, she wrote an article awkwardly pleading with God to somehow stop Barry from breaking Hank Aaron's record.

...I've got a critical request that requires your immediate attention. God, if you do this, I promise to be kind, generous and compassionate. At least for the next 30 minutes.

God, can you smite Barry Bonds before he breaks Major League Baseball's all-time home run record?

(OK, maybe smiting is a little extreme. Could you conjure up some locusts every time he bats? Give him a few boils? Crack a stone tablet over his head?)

I know the Bible says vengeance is your department. But might you consider speeding things up?

The point of the article wasn't necessarily just to shit all over Bonds, but also and more importantly to hope for the preservation of Aaron's untainted record. She announced her stance, which she has been consistent with ever since, that he knowingly took steroids. It was almost completely critical of Barry and made no apologies for him. But something must have snapped after this column appeared, because she's been singing a different tune ever since. My theory is that she realized she was going about things all wrong in terms of generating attention for her columns and making them "buzzworthy." Who wants to read yet another anti-Barry piece? Boooorrrrring. So although she couldn't reverse her position that Bonds was definitely a user, she could still generate controversy/"buzz" by defending Bonds in other ways. Ever since, she has sung a different. Every column has contained an acknowledgment of his usage, but then moved past it to a bunch of bullshit about how he's still great/important/awesome in a mysterious and "honest" way. It's sickening.

First (on June 25th) she wanted us to know that he belongs in the All-Star game, no matter what anyone thinks of him.

So how would it look if the biggest story in the sport is absent from the league's marquee showcase? A marquee event, by the way, that's held in San Francisco -- the one place in the solar system where Bonds has unwavering support.

Aren't All-Star games supposed to be entertainment for the fans? What would be more entertaining than the scene at AT&T Park when Bonds is at the plate? Even the most ardent Bonds hater would want to see that.

Despite Bonds' transgressions -- both real and imagined -- he is a transcendent figure in sports. He's a star. And last time I checked, that's the defining characteristic in an All-Star Game.

Gross. See what she's doing? It's an intentionally understated position of "Barry is a cheater, sure... but he's still a great, majestic, important figure who transcends baseball! Yay Barry!" But, like I said, more understated. It's disgusting.

Then in November, Hill wrote two articles within a week full of sneakily disguised disgusting pro Barryism. First, she railed against that fashion designer who put the asterisk on Bonds's 756th home run ball.

You can trust Bonds' defiance, arrogance, and certainly, his talent. You can trust that Bonds really doesn't give a flying bat what we think of him or whether we -- the media, fans or baseball -- believe he knowingly or unknowingly took performance-enhancing drugs.

He reiterated his feelings a week or so ago, when he promised to boycott the Hall of Fame if it accepts his historic 756th home run ball with an asterisk.

Too bad everyone else isn't so easy to read.

For the record, I believe Bonds took steroids and knew exactly what he was doing when he did it. I believe he dishonored his talent and his legacy, acting out of jealousy of Mark McGwire when McGwire wasn't a tenth of the player he was -- home runs or not. Still, the federal government's repeated attempts to nail Bonds are a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of power. And given the numerous reports of various players obtaining human growth hormone, it appears Bonds was merely a fish in a sea of cheaters.

But that isn't the real issue. The issue is history is being manipulated for personal gain, so that an artist can pull off the ultimate tag -- the sullying of a historic home run ball.

Again, gross. Bonds himself sullied that ball more than Mark Ecko ever could have. But don't ask Jemele to make that connection. According to her, Bonds did steroids... but he should still be treated like the super-duper awesome home run king he is! Also, as per the first paragraph I printed up there, he's a defiant hero of a talented superstar whose consistent assholism is actually a positive thing.

Finally, a week later, when the perjury indictment came down, Hill was up in arms again. (I covered this article in its entirety here.)

The decision to indict Bonds on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, a charge I still don't understand, considering the government didn't need Bonds to topple BALCO -- isn't right, fair or just.

The feds have made Bonds into Al Capone, when he's more like Pookie than Nino Brown. They're blaming the crackhead instead of the drug dealer, the prostitute instead of the pimp, the wayward child instead of the enabling parent.

The government has spent some $6 million to catch a baseball player who mostly committed a crime against himself and his legacy. They have sought Bonds for four years, a pursuit that would have been reasonable if he were a violent criminal. For what? Because they didn't like that Bonds didn't cower in fear while testifying during the BALCO trial? Because he's spoiled, rich and arrogant, and they wanted to knock him down a peg or two?

Bonds' most egregious error is that he is not content to play the role of the grateful black man.

Of course, no matter how this situation concludes -- despite the hypocrisy and racial undertones in this case -- the overall moral lesson here is integrity should be used in conjunction with talent.

If it's true Bonds could have avoided this -- had he not been jealous of Sammy Sosa and McGwire, players whose talent was never in the same stratosphere as Bonds' -- then that's the real crime. Had Bonds simply stayed the course and remained the player he was prior to the steroid era, he would have received the credit that made him seek out performance-enhancing drugs in the first place.

He'll have to live with that forever. And that, to me, is justice.

Gag me. More of the same. "Barry screwed up, to be sure... but stop picking on him! He's a victim, not a criminal!" The whole thing makes me sick. It's so subtle and yet so obvious.

And since I'm sure that no one is reading this anymore, I'll make my conclusion as short and sweet as possible. Jemele Hill loves Barry Bonds, but knows she can't get away with stating it outright. So she keeps printing pieces that underhandedly defend him. On its own, this is merely annoying. But it turns into nothing short of unprofessional journalism when you combine it with what she says about Andy Pettitte. Look at this line:

The only thing Pettitte has demonstrated is that he can lie under duress and then craft an apology that would make any public relations expert proud.

Are you kidding me? The only thing Bonds has demonstrated is that he can lie under duress and then continue to lie for years on end. If you're Jemele, how can you possibly write the Pettitte article after spending the whole year defending Barry? It's a subject you can't touch. You painted yourself into a corner. Steroid discussions about other players, particularly those that fess up to using (no matter how weakly they fess up), are off limits! It's shockingly brazen.

Hill herself maintains that Barry used. Therefore he's also a liar. Given that fact, what she says about Pettitte, and how often she writes about Barry, I have to conclude that she considers it morally more acceptable to stick to a lie than to come clean on one. And given that conclusion, I think it's safe to definitively say that Jemele Hill is indeed a stupid "girl not well liked."