They Were Who We Thought They Were: Bad Analysts

Super Bowl XLII: America's Idol Game

2008-01-26T01:20:00.000-05:00

Lemme preface by saying that I'm not gonna mock this article... because it's mine, and it mocks stuff itself... so if you're reading it here, do me a favor and click the link so I get a hit, because the more hits I get, the more likely it is I'll win!

Every year Super Bowl season comes around, it's like Christmas again for overweight, middle-aged men—or remembering Saturdays back on campus.
That is to say, lots of beer and junk food will be consumed.
Or maybe that's last week, or yesterday—depends on how much beer you had and how far back you choose to recall.
Anyways, FOX is going to be showing the Super Bowl in HD. That's exciting news—the last time the NFL was involved in making the game this real was Super Bowl XXIII: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB_D5IbcAeg
Bob Costas declared that the "single proudest moment" of his life. Probably much the same way viewers felt after surviving the onslaught that came to be known as the Super Bowl XIII Halftime show.
Speaking of halftime shows, every year audiences have the opportunity to watch some big name perform for millions of viewers. Unfortunately, ever since "wardrobe-malfunction-gate," fans have been unable to enjoy musical talent at these shows.
To be fair, I wouldn't call NSYNC and Britney Spears "football music" (or music at all). But hey, half time isn't for the the football fans' entertainment—it's for their spouses, girlfriends (or boyfriends) that don't care to have something to watch while they wait to use the bathroom, or go out to buy more beer.
This year, the NFL gave out a wish list which included stars such as Bruce Springsteen, The Eagles, and even Norah Jones. Somehow, we wound up with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Heartbreakers? Maybe the Giants should see if they can borrow that if and when Eli doles out his usual pout after throwing a desicive pass right into the arms of Rodney Harrison.
Bridgestone is going to be the sponsor for this year's halftime show. Firestone petitioned mightily to sponsor the show themselves, but recent pictures of Tom Brady in a soft cast seemed to correspond with their withdrawal from consideration.
Who knew Star QBs drove Ford Explorers?
Willie Nelson is reported to be performing at a pre-game tailgate party. It's likely that this will be the first time that an entertainer fails the NFL's substance abuse policy. Oddly enough, Giants fans have been seen sending invitations to the tailgate party to the Patriots' locker-room.
It's been a running joke for a while now that whenever poor music is played, somewhere Simon Cowell is putting down the person responsible. With FOX's ties to this year's Super Bowl, we may actually get to see that happen.
Ryan Seacrest will apparently be MCing the pre-game and half-time shows. This means that millions of people will be using cell phones to attempt to vote Michael Strahan into the next round. Either that or they'll be changing the channel frequently.
As if that wasn't enough (which it is), Paula Abdul somehow managed to get free airtime for her newest music video, wherein an aging female pop singer's only means of reviving her music career is. She also is in the process of rehearsals for a half-time show with Soulja Boy.
America is currently bracing itself for the first literal representation of SuperManning that Ho. The FCC is waiting to pull the plug on all broadcast feeds while leaving all GoDaddy.com and bikini-beer commercials on-air.
For those of you that are interested in commercials, you'll be intrigued to know that presidential candidates are spending money on Super Bowl air-time. This is convenient, because I seem to remember my high school government teacher always proclaiming that Patriots vote. It seems like the politicians have identified their target audience here.
This year, companies will spend a whopping $2.7 million dollars for 30 seconds of air-time. That's too much—I say we boycott this practice.
I'm not saying we should stop watching the Super Bowl, but when commercials go on, we should listen from the adjoining room. That'll confuse those marketing department wizards.
In between mocking Ryan Seacrest, changing the channel, and drinking beer and eating chips, it turns out some guys are going to be playing football or something.

Perfect Pats!

2007-12-30T01:19:00.000-05:00

In front of a nationally-televised audience (on more than one major broadcasting station), the Patriots made history. By defeating the New York Giants 38-35, the Patriots completed their historic run at a perfect season. Now, as Tedy Bruschi put it, "the exhibition season is over," and it's time to for the team to prove they're as hardy as the teams of dynasty years past and bring home the win that matters. For now, let's take a look at all the records the Patriots broke this season:

Team
Most TDs scored, season: 75 (prev. record: 70, 1984 Miami Dolphins)
Most points scored, season: 589 (prev. record: 556, 1998 Minnesota Vikings)
Longest reg. season streak: 19 (prev. record: 18, 2003-04 New England Patriots)
Largest point differential, season: +315 (prev. record: +284, 1999 St. Louis Rams)
Most wins, season: 16 (prev. record: 15, various teams)

Individual
Most TD passes, season: 50, Tom Brady [2007] (prev. record: 49, Peyton Manning [2004])
Most TD receptions, season: 23, Randy Moss [2007] (prev. record: 22, Jerry Rice [1987])
Most TD connections, QB-to-WR, season: 23, Tom Brady-to-Randy Moss [2007] (prev. record: 18, Dan Marino-to-Mark Clayton [1984] and Brett Favre-to-Sterling Sharpe [1994])

I was a bit surprised that Montana-to-Rice wasn't up there on the last one, but the site I found the stat on went on to explain that Rice caught only 13 of his TDs that year from Montana, 8 from Steve Young, and the last from RB Harry Sydney. Go figure.

What an amazing, belief-defying season we just witnessed.

Astonishingly bad writing!

2007-12-17T15:18:00.000-05:00

Astonishing, according to James C. Black of Yahoo! Sports, is Michael Spurlock's kickoff return for a TD. Before we really dive into this, let's define astonishing so that we can all easily grasp the full meaning going forward.

astonishing
adjective
1.	surprising greatly; "she does an amazing amount of work"; "the dog was capable of astonishing tricks" [syn: amazing]
2.	so surprisingly impressive as to stun or overwhelm; "such an enormous response was astonishing"; "an astounding achievement"; "the amount of money required was staggering"; "suffered a staggering defeat"; "the figure inside the boucle dress was stupefying"

Are we good with that? Cool. Moving on.

Tom Brady is going to top Peyton Manning's single-season touchdown record. Brett Favre has surpassed yet another Dan Marino mark (all-time passing yards). Randy Moss is chasing Jerry Rice's 22 touchdown receptions in a season. And Adrian Peterson owns the single-game rushing record that once belonged to O.J. Simpson and Walter Payton. Yet none of those feats is more astonishing than what Michael Spurlock – who? –

Excellent question. Stop there.

accomplished Sunday.

Damnit. You blew your shot to look smart.

Honestly, you're going to tell me that, more important than all of the following:

1. The Patriots becoming the first team since 16 game seasons were implemented to have a record of 14-0, the second team ever to hold that distinction
2. The Packers' Brett Favre laying claim to yet another all-time passing record
3. The Eagles upsetting the Cowboys
4. The Jaguars beating the Steelers
5. The Browns beating the Bills in absolutely atrocious conditions, and keeping hopes alive for a playoff spot by riding on Jamal Lewis's back and Phil Dawson's leg
6. The Chargers clinching the AFC West in an offensive explosion that nearly single-handedly vaulted them back into the AFC Elite club
7. The Bucs clinching the NFC South in a blow-out
8. The Seahawks dropping one to Carolina
9. Jessica Simpson in attendance at Texas Stadium to root on Tony Romo
10. I can't believe I'm about to write this, but - The Dolphins locking in their first win of the season in OT, as the Ravens dropped their 8th in a row

is the first occasion on which a kickoff was run back for a touchdown in Tampa Bay. Not only was this more important, James C. Black, but you label it clearly as the most astonishing happening this weekend in football. Hot damn! If ever there were an example of a non-deserved wordhumping, this would be textbook.

Spurlock, literally, went where no man (wearing a Tampa Bay Buccaneers jersey) had gone before – to the end zone following an opponents' kickoff. As a result, the Bucs no longer reside next to the New York Mets (zero no-hitters) and Arizona Wildcats (no Rose Bowl appearances) in the sporting oddities hall of fame.

In the what? You mean there's actually a place where idiots keep track of dumb, completely useless crap like this? Oh wait, there's no such thing, which makes this entire paragraph dumpster material. Nobody should care this much about things like these, James C. Black.What does the "C." stand for, anyway? "Canadian"?

Tampa Bay, known more for failure – such as going 0-14 in 1976 and winless in its first 26 overall games – than success in its 32-year history, had returned 1,864 kickoffs before Spurlock broke through with its first score.

Yes, of course, the Bucs are known for how they perennially suck. Not how, since 2000, they've finished with a record over .500 4 out of 7 years, have now won the division twice, and won the Super Bowl in 2002. They're definitely associated more with those decaying statistics that a brand-new, wet-behind-the-ears team put up in its brutal first few years of existence. The Bucs are a good team, and KRs for TDs are rare enough that it doesn't surprise me they had never taken one all the way back before Sunday. What surprises me is the huge deal James "I'm a bobble-headed Canadian" Black made of the return. Most of the time, PRs/KRs for TDs need a little luck to take off. A block falls the right way, the runner squirts through a tackle that 9 times out of 10 would take him down, and all of a sudden there's nobody to beat but the kicker. It's a gambling situation, where good instincts and fast cuts can earn you a big pay-off (see: Devin Hester). The return game may not have been a very big focus of Bucs coaches' game plans in years past - maybe their Special Teams unit wasn't well-coached, or they focused more on having a pounding defense and a strong running game than trying to return a kick for a TD. Because you see, that's what smart coaches do. It's way easier to stop a team with your defense and put together a power running game than it is to actively try to return a kick for a TD (Unless you have Hester on your team). I'm of the opinion that the Bucs had no real strong feelings about this - either it would happen or it wouldn't happen. No need for any fuss.

Luckily, Black shifts his focus at this point away from Tampa Bay. Unluckily for us readers, he doesn't get any better at analyzing football and presenting his written opinion about it in a clear and coherent fashion.

Cam Cameron might have saved his job and Greg Camarillo scored the game-winner, but Jason Taylor was the hero of the day for the Miami Dolphins (1-13) as they finally captured their first victory of the season.

Emphasis mine. Never in the history of man would this sentence be logically acceptable. How does the coach of a team who lost THIRTEEN games in a row save his job by winning his first game of the entire season?! How?! Regardless of Miami's final record after this season, they need to fire Cam Cameron and beg someone with football intelligence - like Nick Saban - to come back to their sorry program. That, and actually use their draft picks intelligently. Well, there's a lot of problems with Miami. Let's not get into it. They suck. James "Canadian" Black could be their mascot, even.

Perhaps even more amazing, Brian Westbrook had enough foresight to fall down at the 1-yard line instead of going in for the sure touchdown, so the Eagles could run out the clock without giving Dallas another shot.

Things I find amazing:
-Tony Romo is dating Jessica Simpson
-Tom Brady did not throw a TD Sunday
-The Eagles beat the Cowboys
-Bill Belichick smiled as he left the field Sunday against the Jets. What the hell? Is he taking mouth viagra?
-I scored a 71 on my Italian test. Solid Ecksteinian effort there! I wrote with tons of grit!

Things I don't find amazing:
-Brian Westbrook falling down at the 1-yard line against the Cowboys
-James "Canadian" Black's explanation of the afore-mentioned falling down.

Seriously, how can you call what Westbrook did "foresight"? Yes, the Eagles were then able to run out the clock and win the game. But, we're talking about a sure touchdown! Open field to the end zone, and an 11-point lead with 2 minutes and some-odd seconds left. Even if, if the Cowboys somehow managed to drive down the field and score, there's no play in the rules of football that's worth 11 points. This means that, regardless of what Dallas would have managed to do with the ball after getting it back, their best-case scenario at winning the game would be a TD with a converted 2-point play, a successfully recovered onside kick, and then a drive down the field (with absolutely no timeouts remaining, mind you) to set up the game-tying field goal and push the game into overtime. Even if all of these ridiculously improbable things happened, James "Canadian" Black, the game would still be tied. Tied! Tied means "nobody has lost yet, please keep playing." And with the way that Cowboys offense was playing, I doubt they could've even seen the first condition to completion, let alone gone on to win in overtime. While what Westbrook did isn't wrong, per se, I'd still take the sure-fire TD any day in a situation like that.

Does Brian Billick care to reiterate that he's staying put? Ultimately, Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti might strongly believe that Billick isn't most responsible for the team's eight-game losing streak, but how could he possibly tell himself "there's absolutely no better option" without at least exploring the matter?

Unless Bill Parcells or Bill Cowher decides to un-retire (AGAIN, in Parcells' case), there won't be a better option. Billick is an accomplished coach who took his team to a Super Bowl win in 2000, and last year had them standing at 13-3 and the second seed in the AFC playoffs. He's smart, he knows how to handle his players, and he's got a good sense of what it takes to succeed in the NFL. The Ravens may not be performing to expectations this year, but they need to get younger at several positions, and I don't doubt that once that happens, they'll be a good team again. Bisciotti would be a ludicrously dumb individual if he sacked Billick after this season - almost as ludicrously dumb as James "Canadian" Black!

Nice way the Falcons have of showing Bobby Petrino they're better off without him: 5 first downs, 133 total yards and 17:01 time of possession.

The funny thing about all of this is that it seemed more like the Falcons' way of showing everyone they were better off with Petrino, regardless of how many shots they took at him after he left. Let's see if Black touches on this!

Arthur Blank should hope his team never gets this riled up at someone's departure again.

He swings! He misses! Oh man, I felt the breeze on that one. James "Canadian" Black is just one strike-out from going down as the most ludicrously dumb writebatter in basewritingball history. What's basewritingball, you ask? A game I just invented that James "Canadian" Black apparently sucks at. Go figure.

Hmm, the next section of this article is titled "Please Explain..." This sounds fun!

Why commentators can't come up with something more insightful than, "Whatever team gets off to the best start today probably has the best chance of winning," as Rich Gannon said at the open of the Ravens-Dolphins clash.

Hey, I know this one! Maybe it's because both teams looked absolutely atrocious coming into this game, one having been losing - literally - all season, and the other in the middle of bottoming out, on a 7-game losing streak since starting 4-2. The commentators weren't dicking around when they said that, Black. Seriously, whichever craptacular team started off better Sunday did have the best shot of winning that loser-fest. Surprisingly, despite leading 13-3 at the half, Baltimore dropped this one. But that Matt Stover kick in OT came ever so close to going in! Also, with that, it's official - James "Canadian" Black sucks at basewriterball more than anybody else, even gritty, scrappy, spunky, determined, hardy, resilient David Eckstein!

How Panthers wide receiver Drew Carter is supposed to "do a better job of going back for the ball" – as an announcer asked – on a slant pattern with the defender shielding him.

The thing about this is, that's what wide receivers are taught to do. Coaches teach them that. So what the announcers were saying, James, was Drew Carter needed to do a better job of doing his job. I didn't see the play in question, but I assume the ball was thrown behind Carter, in which case he most likely should have altered his route, possible only unless it was a really bad throw, or the defender is holding him - which is a penalty in the NFL.

How the Patriots so successfully turn half the players on their roster into multi-positional threats? The latest example: wide receiver Kelley Washington blocking a punt that led to the Patriots' second and final touchdown.

Now James, this is actually a very simple concept, but because I know you're a little... well... dee dee dee, I'll lay it out in steps for you.

1. Read The Blueprint. It is, or at least tries to be, for football what Moneyball is for baseball. You could learn something from it.
2. Know this: On the New England Patriots, everyone plays special teams. Everyone. None of this "stars need special treatment so don't put them on the punt coverage team" crap. Everyone plays. Except maybe Tom Brady. He's the Golden Boy.
3. Kelley Washington is listed at 6' 3" on the New England Patriots' website. That's kinda freakin' tall. Not NBA tall, but a big guy for sure. That and his freakish wingspan, along with that thing I mentioned earlier that helped the Bucs - what was it? oh yeah, luck! - probably contributed largely to him blocking Ben Graham's punt.

How the referees missed Cowboys safety Ken Hamlin leaving his feet and spearing tight end Matt Schobel, who left the game with a head injury after the first-quarter collision.

Refs botch calls. It's been happening since -14,357 B.C. and it'll keep happening for a long-ass time. It happened in the Pats-Colts game, largely to the Colts' benefit and the nation largely ignored it. It happened in the Pats-Ravens game, largely to the Pats' benefit, and the nation as a whole pounced on the refs for "giving the game to the Patriots." We wish it would stop, James, but it won't.

What Tony Dungy and defensive coordinator Ron Meeks had to be thinking as they watched the Raiders go on a 20-play, nearly 12-minute, 99-yard touchdown drive in the first half.

"Holy shit, we're making them look like the fucking New England Patriots out there!" What were you expecting?

With the ball at their own 43, why the Raiders did not bring in JaMarcus Russell so he could heave one to the end zone to end the first half.

Sure, why not - bring in the greenhorn rookie to heave a likely INT into the other team's endzone. I mean, we could score, but them Indy DBs could just as easily bust the play and return it for a quick pick 6 to end the half. Makes sense to me!

Barry Bonds' crime--being black

2007-12-14T15:28:00.000-05:00

I find it hard to even write about something like this, as usually I just throw things in anger whenever I think about people who think like Howard Bryant.

McGwire fell sharply, from robust and hulking, a famous dad who made time for his son, to his nationally televised demise as an American icon on March 17, 2005. His tragic verbal denouement -- "I'm not here to talk about the past" -- has since defined him, even more than his own name does.

That's because he wasn't there to talk about the past. If you're not prepared to talk about something in court, you don't talk about it, because then you risk saying the wrong thing. McGwire was called into court to testify about the current situation in baseball. That's all.

Both men are in the position they are today -- Bonds perhaps facing prison, McGwire a fallen legend -- because they looked in the faces of powerful, law-enforcing, law-making bodies (never mind their millions of admirers) and did not convince the public they were telling the truth.

Again, that's not why Mark McGwire was called into court. He was not there to convince the public he didn't do steroids. Granted, others took the liberty to do so (Palmeiro of course lied about it, and Frank Thomas apparently told the truth). But did they have to do that? Not at all.

And in the years that have followed, neither has been able to "man up." McGwire ran under the back porch and hid like a child, and he's been hiding ever since.

Mark McGwire retired from the game of baseball. As a human being who is no longer a baseball player, I think he deserves the right to not have to talk to the media about what he did when he played. Some can say they think he ignores everything because he's hiding the truth. I like to think that it's because no matter what he says (and there's two choices: "I did steroids", or "I didn't do steroids"), the media is going to be in every aspect of his and his family's life for at least six months, and then every year around Hall of Fame voting time. So rather than deal with that, he exercises his right as an American to remain silent and live in peace.

Bonds bullied, went on the offensive to say he was being singled out because of his race, even though it is common knowledge in the game that Bonds is, at best, indifferent to other blacks in baseball.

A common thread exists for both men; race is a secondary, but still important, spool. McGwire did not exactly lie under oath, but he wasn't forthcoming that cold day in Washington, the day he stood under oath and verged on moral collapse, weighted by his guilt. That day, he grew as defiant as Bonds has ever been, his answers short, his tone quick and arrogant. He looked into the faces of millions of his countrymen and women and under oath refused to defend one day of hard work, or any of his 583 home runs, against steroid allegations. He refused to say that even one single moment of his career came honestly.

Why should he defend that? In a court of law, which is where he was, he is innocent until proven guilty. It is not the defense's responsibility to prove innocence. It's only their job to refute the prosecution. And McGwire was not being prosecuted. So why defend himself?

And here comes the part I can't believe...

He rejected his hero position then as much as he runs from it now. That's why, as a person of public substance, he's been finished for two-and-a-half years, having plummeted mercilessly to earth, a flaming, redheaded Sputnik, unlikely to return.

Bonds effectively dared prosecutors to take him down. He spent the past four years using his wealth, his talent and his position to buttress a defense that has gone no deeper than "because I said so." Exposing him was a challenge federal prosecutors readily accepted and one the public, tired of easy escapes by powerful people, hungrily relished.

They also are linked because they provide an unforgiving mirror for the American blemishes that do not fade. One is white, the other is black.

Wow. First of all, apparently someone really hates Mark McGwire. That first paragraph is just disdainfully poetic. Then, Barry Bonds is portrayed as the classic protagonist, daring and brave, ready to strike down those who oppose him with his blade of fury!

And one is white and one is black. Howard Bryant, the author of this, is also black. I wonder where this is going.

There are many tributaries along this river of disgrace. They range from the thought that the federal government wanted to "get" Bonds more than the rest, to the flimsy notion that neither of them ever failed an official Major League Baseball drug test and so somehow both are $100 million victims, to the idea that Bonds' blackness is the reason he has been hit the hardest, been treated more harshly than McGwire, has received the least amount of public sympathy.

None of these issues lacks merit. In fact, it is impossible to conduct a full, rounded discussion without their mention. Race plays a factor in every discussion between blacks and whites, whether it's about Friday night poker, Bonds, O.J., Michael Vick, Don Imus or McGwire. Accept this for no other reason than the country was built on a foundation of the races being split, a foundation that never has been -- and likely never will be -- properly retrofitted.

None of those issues lacks merit? I think they do plenty. I don't want to be racist, but black people: please stop thinking the government is out to get you. McGwire is not targeted like Bonds because McGwire doesn't play anymore. He also didn't break the biggest milestone in the history of milestones. He also didn't go from a scrawny, grit-filled base-stealer who would be lucky to hit 20 home runs, to all of a sudden being able to hit 73 at age 37. McGwire was always a big guy. He hit 49 home runs as a rookie (MLB record). These are reasons why Bonds is targeted. His race has NOTHING to do with it. Not one single bit.

And just for kicks, Michael Vick? He was targeted because he committed a crime. Plain and simple. Race didn't enter into it. If he were white, the government would not have said "Oh, well in that case you're allowed to kill dogs. In fact, here's a baseball bat and a kennel of puppies. Have fun."

And you even cite O.J., and I'll cite another: Ray Lewis. Two black men who got off the hook. So race clearly doesn't have any merit here.

The difference isn't that Bonds has been treated differently because he happens to be black. The difference is in how McGwire has been treated because he happens to be white, and it started with the decided lack of bloodlust to pursue him after he folded before Congress. It should be recalled that while the press has lauded the federal government for its apparent netting of Bonds, it attacked Congress for meddling with baseball that day in March two years ago -- I remember, because I was there -- even when it was McGwire who was betraying the public trust.

How does being white enter into this? He wasn't pursued as much as Bonds, and he happens to be white, so we make the conclusion that being white got him off the hook? That's so narrow-minded I want to choke myself. But instead I'm just going to keep typing words here.
Look, again...the reason McGwire wasn't chased as much as Bonds is because Bonds was still playing baseball and breaking huge astronomical records. McGwire retired from baseball 4 years prior to the hearing. Also, he didn't attack the media when the media attacked him. Bonds simply egged the media so much that he became a much bigger target. It's like poking at a bee-hive. The more you hit it, the more they want to sting you, and the more of them that do so.

There are other factors that are not insignificant. McGwire stopped playing a full three seasons before his testimony in front of Congress. He retired after the 2001 season and therefore escaped the game's new drug testing policy, as well as the harsher, more cynical treatment that awaited players in the following years. He got off the stage, while Bonds kept climbing and infuriating.

You even acknowledge the real reason why they didn't pursue McGwire. That reason is definitive and absolute. Race no longer enters into it. Accept it!!

One is the black Bonds, whose "bad Negro" defiance inspires a certain kind of basic hatred toward him, especially when combined with his enormous wealth and unwillingness to play the hero game, even for the millions of fans who pay to watch him play. Bonds knows that only he stands in the batter's box. For him, his success is not a shared experience.

The other is the white McGwire, less confrontational but equally suspect, with one special distinction: Too many fans and members of the press, especially, willfully deluded themselves with the McGwire myth, built by them because of their shared whiteness, their belief in his false purity. To turn on McGwire would be to admit he took steroids in '98, that the whole thing was a testosterone-fueled act. Unlike with Bonds, whose record-breaking years of 2001 and 2007 came long after the public had learned the joke was on them, it was too hard for them to outright reject McGwire. The legend became fact, so they printed the legend.

This could actually be a reason why people don't care as much about McGwire. This is a somewhat logical reasoning (which doesn't have anything to do with him being white). Of course, it could also be because the public saw Bonds go from tiny to enormous in the span of one or two years, and they saw McGwire hit 49 home runs as a rookie, staying relatively the same size throughout his career. They also saw McGwire break a single season home run record, only for it to be beaten by Bonds, and the original record to be beaten more than once by other players, whereas Bonds broke the biggest record ever in anything. One certainly weighs a lot more than the other. To say the breaking of Roger Maris's record was equal, or even anywhere near 756 is just ludicrous. And I don't mean that as in crazy. I mean that as in the rapper. To make such a comparison is as big a joke as listening to his music.

As whites are with McGwire, blacks want to believe in Bonds, to hold on to the different but similarly destructive myth that their shared blackness makes his problems the same as theirs. The racial prism through which the two men are viewed so differently will always say more about us as a whole than it ever could about the two of them. But on this senseless day and the days to come, when Bonds' fate is in the hands of the law and McGwire has lost the only thing worth owning -- a reputation -- they are the same man, disgracing their sport and themselves.

Poor Mark McGwire has lost everything. In losing his reputation, he no longer has the millions of dollars, a loving family, and the support of still millions of fans (even if he lost a substantial amount of them). Oh wait, he still has those. And he still has his reputation. When I think of Mark McGwire, I think of gargantuan home runs, crushing line drives, exciting All-Star Weekend festivities, and heck, I even think of Big Macs from McDonalds before I think of his refusal to talk about his past in court.

Man does it pain me to read that people actually believe race makes a difference in things like this. I'm going to go hurt things now.

Why can't we all think like this

2007-12-08T14:37:00.001-05:00

I decided to peruse through ESPN.com for some comedy goldmines, and instead I found this. At first, when I saw it was going to talk about "system quarterbacks", I thought it would be great to pick apart. I was astounded to find out it would be great instead to post here and share with everyone for its insight.

It's not really Ivan Maisel who provides much of the insight, but rather coaches who seem to understand the game so much more than anyone in the media. Surprise!

In the past, the term has been used to diminish the inflated statistics of players who run spread offenses. Texas Tech quarterbacks have thrown for at least 4,200 yards in five consecutive seasons in coach Mike Leach's offense, yet none of them has gotten enough votes to merit serious consideration for the Heisman.

The apprehension dates back nearly 20 years. In 1989, Houston quarterback Andre Ware led the nation with 4,699 yards and 46 touchdown passes. Ware won a close Heisman vote over tailback Anthony Thompson of Indiana. But Ware's struggle in the NFL cast a shadow over the shotgun, run-and-shoot and spread quarterbacks who came after him.

The phrase "system quarterback" stuck its nose into the lexicon.

That's understandable. A player does great in college, but then does terrible in the pros, so he wasn't deserving of the Heisman, because as everyone knows, the Heisman is an award that goes to college players who then have success in the pros.

This season, when nearly all the top quarterbacks have come out of these offenses, may have taken some of the condescension out of the voice of everyone who utters the phrase.

Hooray!

"If there is a system quarterback, then we're all dumb. We should be running that system," said Oregon offensive coordinator Chip Kelly, who took over the Duck offense for this season and transformed Dixon into one of the best players in the nation. "I hear that all the time. Obviously, some guys flourish in one program. Matt Ryan [of Boston College] is not going to come in and run the spread. He's a helluva quarterback."

Finally, someone who gets it. I mean, to say "Oh, he threw for 4800 yards, but he's just a product of the system." is stupid. If that's the case, why don't more people do it? That's a lot of points. Points = offensive success.

Hawaii coach June Jones created controversy a few days ago by referring to Tebow as coming out of a system. Jones, attempting to clarify his remarks, said he had no intention of demeaning Tebow, whom he called "a great quarterback who'll probably win [another] national championship."

But Jones said Tebow is more of a system quarterback than Brennan.

"My quarterback [Brennan] has been labeled a 'system quarterback' for three years," Jones said Monday, according to a transcription on the school's Web site. "He is the best passer in college history. He is. There is no question about it. Tim Tebow is in a system. … Colt Brennan plays in an NFL passing game. You can dial it up and see that it is not a system. Tim Tebow's system is a college system."

Now, of course I loved this part of the article for reasons other than its insight and intelligent analysis of football. I happen to hate Tim Tebow and love (no homo) Colt Brennan. But it really does astound me that more people can't see this. A lot of people may read this and say "No NFL team throws the ball 95% of the time like Hawaii does!" The thing is, the plays they call are NFL plays. He runs an NFL-style passing game. The way Tim Tebow runs the offense wouldn't cut it in the NFL. Tebow runs the ball over 20 times a game. That would kill a quarterback in the NFL. Colt Brennan doesn't have to do much to adjust to the NFL. It's not hard to go to a quarterback who threw it almost all the time and say "Okay, now you're going to do the same thing, only hand it off to the running back sometimes." He's not going to look at him and turn his head, wondering what that is. He just gives it to the running back.

Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville's roots are in defense. His Tigers limited Tebow to 201 passing yards, his second-lowest total this season, and held McFadden to 43 rushing yards, his lowest total of the season. Tuberville said all quarterbacks are system quarterbacks.

"Look at Gino Torretta," said Tuberville, referring to the 1992 Heisman-winning quarterback from Miami. Tuberville coached the linebackers on that team. "He was the product of a system he ran for five years. He learned how to run it. Tebow was the old single wing quarterback. He just ran the ball and threw it. You can score 20 [rushing] touchdowns if, every time you get the ball inside the five, they call your number."

Apparently coaches are the only ones who get it. Why can't anyone else comprehend such a simple concept?

This all said, Tebow probably will win because his numbers, regardless of any system, are better. If you want to look at talent, McFadden or Brennan should win. Unfortunately, players like Michael Crabtree (WR Texas Tech) and Kevin Smith (RB Central Florida) aren't in the final group, because they deserve it more than any of the four finalists.

If the sophomore wins Saturday night, he will make history. He may also make "system quarterback" a term that can be used in polite company.

For some reason I feel that won't happen. I don't think enough people think of Tebow as a system quarterback, even though he's more of one than anyone else, as Hawaii coach pointed out. So it looks like the Heisman will continue to go to someone who is not as deserving as others. Oh well.

Can I Get A Taste Of Whatever He's Drinking?

2007-12-08T03:24:00.000-05:00

Ok, So even if you're not a hockey fan, I'm sure you've heard of Wayne Gretzky, through one form of media or another. And, if you've even so much as left Sportscenter on for the show's duration, you've heard of Sidney Crosby. This means that you probably know that Crosby is supposed to be hockey's next big thing, almost as big as Gretzky and interestingly enough, tonight "The Kid" is making his debut in Vancouver against the Canucks.

This little factoid led me to this article by some dude named Cam Cole. Apparently Cam Cole is a fan of the ol' double entendre. Cam Cole is also apparently unable to correlate headlines with the actual article's subject matter.

I'm gonna leave the actual reading of the article up to you this time, but I'd like to extract a couple gems I found to be worth sharing. First and foremost, this headline is just amazing: "Vancouver finally gets taste of Sid the Kid"... quite frankly, I'm speechless. I think Cam might be a little too into hockey if you ask me.

Alright, back to the actual article. Let's do a little word count on the amount of times that "Vancouver" shows up... A quick ctrl+F tells us that there are 5 uses of Vancouver in the article itself. Amount of times article references Crosby debuting in Vancouver? Once. No, ladies and gentlemen, that is not the spanish once, for eleven. It is once, as in a single reference... that reference you ask? The title.

Another quick word search and count shows that this article has also used "curmudgeon" twice. I have to admit, I've never heard or read the word "curmudgeon" before, so I was completely at a loss as to what it meant. I don't know if I should curmudgeon Cole for using this word, or if he is a curmudgeon... I mean, what part of speech does it even belong too? Dictionary.com says that a curmudgeon is "a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas" And suddenly I know why Cam Cole would know this word. Regardless of all of that, I do know that the word curmudgeon has been used too many times in this article.

Despite leading us in with his kinky headline, manages to say "A curmudgeonly Edmonton scribe, Dick Chubey, and a young one named Cole..." Does it make him feel cool to reference himself in the third person like that? Sounds a little pretentious there Mr. Curmudgeon Cole.

The article goes on to talk about Crosby missing some exhibition games and "hot-dogging" it. But I guess he's too much of a curmudgeon to relate to being a teenager with all of the talent in the world. Much the same as Andruw Jones used to try to be fancy making catches as a 19 year old rookie, and countless others try to show off their seemingly limitless talent. Not everbody has the maturity of a canadian hockey beat writer with the inability to write articles with a logical progression.

Anyways this article references former Colorado Rockies (hockey, not baseball) coach Don Cherry and his "public spanking", unhealed wounds and basically a ton of stuff that has nothing to do with Crosby debuting in Vancouver.

To Recap:

Crosby Debut in Vancouver references : 0
Amount of Sense this Article Makes Regarding Said Topic: 0
Amount of People that Care about Hockey enough to read this pointless article: 0
Amount of Times I used the word curmudgeon: 10

Take that Cole, and your curmudgeonly Canada-speak!

Stephen A Smith Discovers Athletic Indifference!

2007-12-08T01:43:00.000-05:00

Back in July, shortly after the National League found themselves losing another All-Star game, the hotbed issue wasn't pending trades, the wildcard race or regular-season awards races... no, it was this. Now, I typically don't have high expectations for Mr. Smith, but apparently he woke up that day ready to reaffirm why I feel this way.

La Russa is a great manager. He was a pleasure to talk to when I met him, but for years many baseball people have said he is not the greatest person. They include Ozzie Smith, a Hall of Famer for the Cardinals to whom La Russa doesn't even speak. The Cardinals once informed Smith he no longer was welcome in their clubhouse.

Ok, so, Ozzie Smith says that someone he doesn't talk to isn't the nicest of guys? I'm a big fan of the Wizard, but for all intents and purpose, just because LaRussa doesn't participate in the constant wordhumping that he's merited as a Hall-of-Famer doesn't mean LaRussa doesn't respect him. Last time I checked, LaRussa is a major league manager, not some St. Louis fan-boy that lives in awe of other players, remember, LaRussa has watched many stars come and go in his career, so I'll give him a pass for not being star-struck. Instead, LaRussa focuses his energies on managing his team, albeit his in-game strategies do leave a lot to be desired.

Also, even though Ozzie Smith may have a key to St. Louis in his back pocket or something, it doesn't mean that he should be able to actually use said key to just come and go as he pleases. I mean, it's not like he left his wallet in the third locker from the left back in 1987 and suddenly remembered it was there. I mean, he hasn't worn out his "welcome" in other places, so he can just hang out there.

"He can do what he wants," Pujols told reporters after another American League all-star victory. "He does whatever he wants. If I wasn't expecting to play, I wouldn't have come [to San Francisco]."
La Russa responded: "If he wants to get upset, he can get upset. Whatever he wants to do, he can do. It's America. That wasn't the most important thing tonight."

Ok? So, Pujols says he wanted to play in a game, in which his selection to be on the team was based on the respect of his peers in the league and rival managers. A professional baseball player wanted to actually play baseball? Whoodathunkit? Then we see that LaRussa stoically responds that Pujols has every right to feel such a thing? I don't really see what's so wrong with that... I mean, that's like you reading this article and calling me an idiot for supporting LaRussa and my not caring because I know and understand the first amendment rights. I'd imagine a conversation between Smith and LaRussa would go as follows:

Smith: You know Tony, I consider myself a big-time writer, and I totally disagree with your handling of the whole Pujols/All-Star game thing, and I'm totally gonna write about it and make you look like you're some stubborn, inconsiderate jerk!

LaRussa: Ok, you have every right to do that...

Smith: How dare you sir! I'm insulted by your neglect of care for doing what I'm paid and constitutionally defended to do!

He also goes so far as to say that it wasn't the most important thing of the night. *Gasp* One non-existent at-bat isn't nearly as important as actually losing the game that determines home-field advantage in the World Series? An at-bat in which the player that didn't bat would have failed to record a hit 2/3 of the time? (If you follow his career numbers). I mean, if Smith were attacking his overall strategy for the game, such as bringing in Chris Young in the 5th, instead of , say, Jose Valverde or something... He would have a decent, albeit subjective, argument.

There's a trend here, however, that should be more alarming than anything else. Again, it wasn't just La Russa's decision during the All-Star Game that raised eyebrows, but his seemingly apathetic response to any thought of Pujols' being upset over it.

Is it really such a bad thing that LaRussa doesn't dwell on things that have already happened and can't be reversed? I mean, I thought it was the trait of a true professional to forget the negatives and keep chipping away. Big league pitchers don't let giving up a homerun irk them, or if they do, they turn into Brad Lidge. Quarterbacks forget about throwing interceptions and focus on the next play. But I guess a manager should remember making a mistake and let it totally effect the way he manages games. I'm really wondering if Smith is cognizant of the fact that if Aaron Rowand got that hit, would he be writing about this right now? Actually, yeah, he probably would... either that or he would be yelling at us through our TV sets in an effort to confuse us into thinking what he is saying may actually be coherent. Smith also ignores the counter-argument that Rowand was already keyed into game-speed pitches after facing closer extraordinaire Jonathan Papelbon. Pujols would be coming off the bench to face a pitcher he had faced once on July 2 of 2004 in JJ Putz. Sometimes you go with your gut and sometimes you get burned for it.

Rank-topped Fence-off?

2007-12-07T15:46:00.000-05:00

I knew this article was going to be a fun one right when I first saw the title:

Pats' top-ranked defense takes on Steelers' top-ranked offense

...What? Does this article take place in a parallel universe where that statement is actually true, or is the guy who wrote this just really dumb.... Let's find out!

If there was a team equipped to end the Patriots' streaks, the Steelers (9-3) may fit the bill. After all, Pittsburgh ended New England's league-record 21-game winning streak -- 18 in the regular season -- on Oct. 31, 2004, when it was in the midst of winning 16 in a row. The Patriots returned the favor on Sept. 25, 2005, stopping the Steelers' streak with a come-from-behind win at Heinz Field.

At no point in this paragraph is there any evidence for why the 2007 Pittsburgh Steelers could end the Patriots' current streak. Which makes it completely irrelevant to your already stupidly titled article... But let's just say there was a stat for things like this... let's call it Moxie Gained From Previous Successes. We'll say that the Steelers' victory in 2004, since it ended a 21 game winning streak, was worth 43.847 Moxie Points. As for the Patriots, well, their victory only ended a 16-game winning streak! What losers! They only get 28.993 Moxie Points. Obviously, since this means the Steelers would have a higher Moxie Points Gained Total (MPGT), they gain a definitive edge in their game against the Patriots. And let me make it absolutely clear that any edge the Steelers may or may not gain here is definitely decided entirely by how many Moxie Points they have gained - definitely not by anything that makes sense, like by how well their defense plays, or the fact that lately Willie Parker must be dunking his mitts in grease jars before he suits up for games. That would be stupid as hell!

Even though the Steelers are heavy underdogs this time heading into Foxborough, their top-ranked defense has allowed the fewest points, total yards and passing yards in the NFL. New England is No. 1 offensively in each of those categories.

Oh! I see what you did there! You tricked us! No, wait... you just made the absolutely moronic mistake of getting the teams mixed up in the goddamned title of your article. Honestly, who would employ a writer with dyslexia? The AP would! That's who!

Facing a Ravens team that hadn't found much of an offensive pulse this season, Willis McGahee ran for 138 yards and the Patriots were trailing 24-20 when they got the ball with 3 1/2 minutes to play. Like he had done 26 previous times when tied or trailing in the fourth quarter, Tom Brady delivered a game-winning drive.

Statistical evidence in the area of "Career Comeback Wins" is proving decidedly difficult to uncover, but I've located several different sources that indicate 27 is disputably not the correct number of game-winning drives. One website listed him with 24 comeback wins at the start of the season, which is bumped up to 27 if you include Indy, Philly, and the Ravens. I also remember ESPN putting up a stat on Monday night that cited Brady as having 21 CCs (Career Comebacks), which of course would become 22 after that game ended. In retrospect, it's probably best if we just forget about how many games Brady's won in the fourth quarter and just say he's really good at it. All you do by posting a definitive number of comebacks is make yourself look stupid. Are we developing a theme here?

Though he didn't put up his typically eye-popping statistics against the Ravens, Brady is still on pace to break Peyton Manning's single-season touchdown record of 49, and has a shot to break Dan Marino's record of 5,084 yards.

Peyton Manning, 2004, through 12 games: 44 TDs
Tom Brady, 2007, through 12 games: 41 TDs

How is that "on pace"? I know he dropped 6 on Miami and could very well do that again against Miami OR the Jets, but really, Brady is currently behind the pace. He needs to pick up the pace! As for the yardage, he actually has about 20 more pass yds than Marino did through 12 games that season, so he's just barely on pace to break that record, and one thing you can say about Brady, regardless of TDs, is that he usually puts up a ton of passing yards every week.

New England's problem the last two weeks has been its defense. Though the Patriots are third in the NFL in total defense, giving up 289.4 yards per game, they allowed an average of 383.5 yards against Philadelphia and Baltimore.

Uh... no. The SuperPats' problem in the past 2 nail-biters has not in fact been their defense. It played humanly, maybe a tad worse than they have for the large part of the season, but not horrendously. The problem in these games has been a) the Patriots' special teams unit, and b) The opposing team's defense. In the last two weeks, the Patriots faced two very complex zone blitzing schemes designed by two very talented defensive co-ordinators. The defensive backs jammed Brady's receivers at the line, so his timing with them would be off, and the Ravens' players even went so far as to boldly hang off of Welker, Stallworth and Moss for much of the game - they were lucky they didn't get flagged more than 13 times. As if it wasn't bad enough that Brady had nobody to throw to, each team designed special blitz packages to use against the Patriots, packages that would confuse linemen as to who had who. This led to Brady being under more pressure than he'd faced all year, and as a result, the Patriots gave the ball to the other team (without scoring) more often than they had all year. This brings us to the other problem, special teams coverage. I can't really pinpoint what it is, but the Patriots have been getting beaten on special teams the last two weeks. Maybe they need more Moxie Points. The point is, because they had a harder time getting to their assignments and making the tackle on punts and kickoffs, the ST unit gave the Ravens' and Eagles' offense shorter fields to cover for scores. This, along with a key injury to their youngest linebacker, Rosy Colvin, contributed to their statistically weaker defensive games. The defense has played well enough to keep the Patriots in both games, especially in the 4th quarter.

Pittsburgh lost its only visit to Foxborough -- in 2002 -- since winning there on Dec. 13, 1997.

Oh! Wait! This changes everything! If we factor this game into the Moxie Gained From Previous Successes stats we analyzed earlier, we find that New England has a new Moxie Point total of 53.13. These 5 Moxie Points are sure to be a pivotal advantage in the teams' rematch come Sunday. Before I found that out, I wasn't sure who to pick. But now I know for sure: the Patriots are going to win on Sunday, because they earned more Moxie Points in the last 10 years. And you thought I would pick them because they're a good team!

Only smart people do things like that.

(Note: This article appeared on NFL.com without credit given to any one writer, so sadly, I had to blast that person anonymously. Anonymous stupid and dyslexic person out there: this one's for you.)

Happy Birthday Rusty

2007-12-07T05:49:00.000-05:00

It's Rusty's birthday today, so I thought I'd share some commentary he had from a Jays/Sox game from a couple of years ago or so...

During a Sox-Jays game last year in Toronto Youk comes up to bat, a bunch of Sox fans start chanting "YOUUUUUUUUUUUU" and obviously they do it every time he comes up to bat right? But see the Toronto fans they are le drunk and this wordhumping of an opposing team's player, IT ANGERS THEM FIERCELY, so using their keen, canadian, bobble-headed intellects, they devise a counter-chant, the next time Youk comes up to bat thousands of drunk Toronto blokes start screaming "YOU SUCKS! YOU SUCKS! YOU SUCKS! YOU SUCKS!" and grammar everywhere takes a blow to the chest...

Still one of my favorite baseball stories, love ya Canada, Happy Birthday Bro!

Tools You Don't Find In a Wood Shed

2007-12-07T01:05:00.000-05:00

Ok, so, Steve Phillips decided to enlighten us on the best tools in the game before the start of this past season here.

Baseball is built on five tools: hitting for average, hitting for power, throwing, fielding and running. Here's a look at the players whose skills, or lack thereof, in each area could make or break their teams. Plus, to wrap everything up, there's a sixth category -- chemistry -- on the guys who have a sixth sense for creating it.

Very nice, for those who have no idea about the "tools" reference, let's give them that... But, in all my years of following baseball... and seeing scouting reports... I've never seen Chemistry. Average is obviously measured by batting average, power by slugging percentage, and throwing, fielding and running are all subjectively rated on a 2-8 scale, which amazes me, because I wonder if guys like Mo Vaughn are actually rated as 2 in running, or maybe they just let him roll around the bases... But what is "Chemistry" measured in? "Value over Replacement Eckstein?" Ahh, the rare VORE stat, gotcha Stevey, we can move on to the actual article now...

Sticks

Joe Mauer, C, Twins
OK, so you were the best hitter in the AL last year, at age 23. And you play the most physically and mentally demanding position on the field. But what have you done for us lately? The Twins got career years from Justin Morneau, Torii Hunter and Michael Cuddyer. That won't happen again, so they need even more from Mauer.

Went .347 /.429 /.507 and combined over the past three years only Victor Martinez (154.4) and Jorge Posada (135.8) boast a higher VORP total than Mauer's 129.6, if you use VORP to quantify such things, so it's good to see Steve start us out with a strong pick for one of the "best sticks" in baseball. But really, you already acknowledge that he's playing the most demanding position, has been the best hitter in baseball before actually being old enough to rent a car... yet he's supposed to play better, lofty expectations sir...

Howie Kendrick, 2B, Angels

He doesn't have great power or speed, but this 23-year-old was one of the best pure hitters in the minors. The Angels desperately need him to hit like that in the majors, because after missing out on key free agents and trades, this team is starting to feel ordinary. Kendrick could change the Angels' entire perspective on themselves.

Hmm, maybe it's the Marlin fan in me speaking, but having a team that's always battling for the postseason hardly qualifies as being "ordinary". Went .322/.347/.450, which qualifies for a good bat I suppose, but I'm sure better picks could be made. Also, call me crazy, but how can a team with such a deep and thriving minor league system "miss out" on trades or free agents... if their front office felt they needed a player, the Angels could pretty much trade for anyone if they needed them that badly...

Adam Dunn, LF, Reds
One of the most complex hitters in baseball, Dunn led the NL in K's, was second in walks and hit the seventh most home runs in 2006, yet he batted only .234. Of his 194 K's, 46 were called. If he focused on contact, he could hit 50 homers and drive in 150. Dunn has 12 sacrifice flies in five full seasons; Justin Morneau had 11 last year.

Ok, now we're just going nuts Steve... You're saying Dunn is one of the best hitters for average and say "yet he only batted .234"... C'mon Steve... you even take it further by saying almost 75% of his strikeouts were of the swinging kind... meaning they required improper use of the bat. Or maybe it's because he was using a stick... maybe that's it... maybe that's the hole in Dunn's game. Also, his lack of focus on contact is keeping him from hitting 50 homeruns and driving in 150 RBIs? Steve, c'mon, if he focused on contact alone, he wouldn't hit as many homers because he wouldn't be swinging for the fences, hence an increase in battin average, there's a reason you don't work in real baseball anymore... Also, quick thing here... Dunn is supposed to be that teams RBI guy, and you're giving him a hard time about Sac Flies... really, he's really pretty good at driving in runs without the conditional out... but maybe on his RBI singles, he should just round first and get caught going to second, maybe it's like a Sac Fly? Steve... Why?

Muscle

Alex Rodriguez, 3B, Yankees
He can't seem to find love or happiness in the Bronx. He was MVP in '05 but hasn't "earned his pinstripes" due to playoff failures. He was Player of the Month last May; by June 5 he was getting booed. A-Rod needs to hit homers, lots of 'em, every month, especially October. It's the one way he can distinguish himself from Derek Jeter.

Im gonna leave the whole "playoff failures" thing to FJM... it's what they do.. but really, I can't sit idly by and listen to the last half of that. Well, I didn't actually have to listen to it, except for that time I read it aloud, just to make sure it did indeed sound crazy... First off, A-Rod does distinguish himself from Derek Jeter in that A-Rod is one of the best players to ever play the game in every facet of offense imaginable. He's hitting homeruns at a record pace, puts up good to great batting averages and on base percentages, steals bases pretty well, though it isn't a huge part of his game (remember, he is a 40/40 guy) and hits the bajeebus out of the baseball, even when it doesn't leave the ballpark.
In terms of hitting homers in October, why does A-Rod only catch flak for this, why not Posada, or Jeter, is this like some sort of lame fraternity iniation... like Jeter and Posada already "earned their pinstripes"... so, they don't actually have to hit well in October, but A-Rod does... because he wears a pseudo-striped uniform... they're not actually "real" stripes... they're made in Taiwan.

Adam LaRoche, 1B, Pirates
In addition to the 30-plus dingers LaRoche will hit, the Bucs benefit from the residual impact he'll have on their best player. Jason Bay has put up great numbers without lineup protection the past two years, and now opponents can't pitch around him with LaRoche's big bat behind him. We'll finally find out just how good Bay can be.

Right, lemme start by saying it's a good thing Steve isn't being paid to predict things... well, wait... he is. Now, while I don't have a particular problem with LaRoche, the person... LaRoche, the muscle is another story. His career OPS+ after this season is 112... and not much better sans the 130 season with the Braves. Aside from that... he touts how good Jason Bay is in this... why not just put Jason Bay here? I mean, he hits as many if not more homers than LaRoche... and he's Canadian... so, I guess this is just Phillips picking names out of a hat or something...

Scott Rolen, 3B, Cardinals
The champs can't rely on "all Albert, all the time" this season because they don't have enough pitching. On many days they'll need to outslug opponents. That means Rolen, who hit just eight homers after the break due to his balky shoulder, has to give the Cards more power if they're going to repeat even as NL Central champs.

Ok... wait... Rolen is big on power... but hit just 8 homeruns after the break, is physically breaking down and you expected him to be the muscle on the Cards, pointing out that you're skipping Pujols... guess he's too trendy for you to pick, but A-Rod wasn't earlier? I really don't see the logic in the names you picked, I guess you just have a really big hat and lots of free time.

Arms

Ben Sheets, RHP, Brewers
In 2004 he showed the power of Clemens and the command of Maddux, fanning 264 and walking 32 in 237 IPs. Now Sheets is working his way back from injuries, and control is usually last to come. But he K'd 45 in September and walked just four. He's the difference between the Brew Crew winning the NL Central and finishing fourth.

Alright Phillips, I see your game, lead me into each section with a pretty obvious choice for each "tool" and set yourself up for failure at the end, ok, gotcha! I'll give you Ben Sheets 110% for this one, and look... no gripes!

Joel Pineiro, RHP, Red Sox
With major money invested in the rotation, the Red Sox signed failed starter Piñeiro to close. They thought his fastball would have more life in short stints, but his spring work didn't inspire, so Jonathan Papelbon went back to the pen. With Mike Timlin opening on the DL (oblique), the Sox now need Piñeiro for vital setup help.

Joel Pineiro? Ok.. we're not gonna pick Joel Zumaya, or heck Matt Lindstrom, who had a chance to close for Florida at this time and both of which hit 100mph quite often. We're not gonna go with Lincecum who was making rounds on highlight films during spring training with his heat, we're gonna go with Pineiro a guy who already lost the closer job before a real save opportunity... You know what, Im not going to dignify this one.

Scott Olsen, LHP, Marlins
Organizations try to protect young arms from big jumps in innings, but when you have an entire staff of kids, like the '06 Marlins did, you can't protect them all. Aníbal Sánchez and Josh Johnson are already hurting, so Florida needs another workhorse to take the load off Dontrelle Willis. The fiery Olsen could emerge as an ace.

Olsen, he's a head case. Can't seem to screw that thing on right when he wakes up in the morning. Regardless, we're not gonna pick his own teammate, Lindstrom, for a better arm, we're going to try to be cool and pick the former Baseball America top 100 for best arm. Also, I know it's become commonplace to call young players kids, but kids can't vote... or smoke... legally... and everyone that played for the Marlins, and MLB, in '06 could do this, and therefore were legally adults.

Gloves

Carlos Beltran, CF, Mets
Andruw Jones owns many more Gold Gloves, but Beltrán's defense is far more important to the Mets than Jones' is to the Braves. Why? Beltrán plays between Moisés Alou and Shawn Green. At this point, their range is a step and a dive. The patch of grass Beltrán has to cover is much bigger than any other centerfielder's.

Beltran's defense is more important to his team, so that gives him a better glove in the ever logical mind of Steve Phillips. Don't get me wrong though, Beltran is one of the top fielders in the league, Im just waiting to be let down by the next two picks.

Victor Martinez, C, Indians
With his 18 percent rate in throwing out runners, teams will send everyone. His improvement is critical because at the start of every game, Martínez gives the Indians a major offensive advantage at catcher. He projects at .300/20/95, which would make him the top AL catcher but only about the seventh most productive first baseman.

The first thing you say about your pick for a top glove is that he's defensively weak? Next please?

Tigers pitchers
A lasting memory from the 2006 Series is of Tigers pitchers throwing wildly to first and third bases. As isolated incidents, the errors aren't a big deal. In the Series they were huge, like Tony Romo's dropping the snap in the NFL playoffs. We'll know the Tigers are over it only when the pitchers make several plays after an error.

Realizing that Steve Phillips now decides to use the "lack thereof" argument, Im gonna have to take a different angle on this on. First of all, way to go turning the "Tigers Pitchers" into one entity, but really, if there defense wasn't a liability throughout the regular season, who's to say it wasn't just bad luck; e.g. Tony Romo's (Man I'm jealous of him) dropped snap? Also... WTF is up with saying that they'll be over it only after several plays after an error. Manny Ramirez makes several plays after an error, and sometimes they're errors too... and when they're not, he's still a poor fielder.

Wheels

Carl Crawford, LF, Devil Rays
There was talk in Rays camp of batting Crawford second and Delmon Young third. Young walked only once in 126 ABs in '06 and, according to STATS, swung at 68.7 percent of the pitches he saw, the highest percentage in a decade. That's like giving Crawford, just the eighth player in history to steal 200 bases before age 25, a stop sign.

Alright, obvious choice first, you're getting predictable on me Steve, but you gave me something to work with. First of all, Stolen Bases doesn't mean you're not fast, or a poor baserunner. Look up Eric Reed of the Florida Marlins. One of the fastest guys I've seen, BP rates him very highly in that too... but he doesn't get on base often enough (In the majors, at least) to steal many bases. So Carl Crawford, keep stealing bases and being fast. And Steve? In baseball, there are times when coaches can tell batters to take a pitch if they want a player to steal a base.

Rafael Furcal, SS, Dodgers
L.A. hit the second fewest homers in the NL last season, then lost J.D. Drew and his 20 jacks. That makes Furcal even more important in manufacturing runs. He thinks about the extra base every time he makes contact, which puts pressure on the defense. Furcal's game defines the Dodgers: feisty, aggressive and very fast.

Feisty-ness... that's how we define the Dodgers... not great pitching, great prospects, but feisty! Also, last time I checked, 20 homeruns aren't that big a deal, but 20 HRs guarantee at least 20 RBIS, taking an extra base does not.

Alfonso Soriano, CF, Cubs
Sure, he could steal 40 bags again, but this year Soriano's speed is essential on D. The ex-2B doesn't get good reads or breaks. Plus, center-fielders handle the ball more than corner guys, and Wrigley Field, with its sun and wind, isn't the Friendly Confines for outfielders. Add it all up, and Soriano will need to outrun his mistakes.

Well, Soriano is fast, and speed is usually essential for CFers. But this seems more like Phillips just wanted to throw in a big free agent signee name that was floating around. Apparently he wants to be trendy now.

Chemistry

Bob Wickman, RHP, Braves
Because they sit in the bullpen and work one inning at a time, it's not often that closers are team leaders. But there are many things about Wickie that his teammates admire. He cares more than most, he knows more than most and he makes sense when he speaks. Plus, he has overachieved with mediocre stuff.

Whoa! A crappy pick first! I'm astounded Steve, I zigged when I should have zagged, that was a real knee-buckler you threw me there. On a more satirical note, I admire Wickie's ability to carry that weight with him to the mound without running out of breath. But really, if being a leader meant "making sense when... speak(ing)" then I guess my local second grade class just metriculated a bunch of leaders. Also, what does Bob Wickman know more than most? The calorie content of cheeze doodles? VORE: 0.21*

Eric Chavez, 3B, A's
Last season, forearm problems sapped Chavez's strength and power. Many players would have opted out of the lineup to protect their stats, but Chavez knew the team needed his D, leadership and whatever offense he could provide. The A's made the playoffs by taking on the personality of their gritty and determined third baseman.

I don't know what to think when I read that. Personally, I can't think of many players that "protect their stats". Also, if forearm problems sapped him of his hitting ability, would it not be reasonable to assume it hurt his D too? Using simple logic, I would figure that Chavez knew he could play, and was better than anything else the A's had to replace him, injury or not. Also, the A's made the playoffs because they were a good team, not because they somehow managed to co-op the personality of Eric Chavez. VORE: 0.50*

Ron Washington, manager, Rangers
He's considered the best teammate ever by those who played with him and the best coach ever by those who have played for him. He makes each person feel special and is a master at uniting a club. Look for the type of impact in Texas that Joe Girardi had as a rookie manager in Florida. Just expect Washington to be around longer.

He makes each person feel special? Is he a major league coach or a kindergarten teacher? I don't pick my managers based on how "special" they make people feel, I pick them based on game management skills. No beef with Ron Washington, just sayin' VORE: 0.67*

*VORE is measured in fraction of a whole unit, because nobody can bring the grit, determination or chemitry boost of a David Eckstein.

Steve Phillips, former general manager of the New York Mets, is a regular on ESPN's Baseball Tonight.

WHY?

The Associated Press is the MVP of stupid

2007-12-07T00:27:00.001-05:00

Granted, the AP is obligated to just report what happens in sports. It's not like they're paid sums of money to analyze or offer opinions on things. But I'm still bored enough to write about this.

Rollins won the National League MVP award Tuesday, edging Matt Holliday in a close race after propelling Philadelphia to its first playoff berth in 14 years with his speed and steady all-around play.

Yes, and after Matt Holliday propelled Colorado to a 14-1 record in their last 15 games, giving the Rockies their first playoff berth in 12 years with his hitting and being very good at baseball.

"I don't know what they look at," Rollins said, "but being a shortstop, that's No. 1. Defense is first. Defense is always first."

Ahh...that makes sense. There's no award currently in exisitence in baseball that rewards players of each position for being the best defensive player. So they just give the MVP to the best defensive player. That's how baseball works, right? Rollins would know more than me.

Rollins batted .296 with 30 homers, 94 RBIs and 41 steals from the leadoff spot, helping Philadelphia rally from a big September deficit to win the NL East. He led the league in runs (139) and triples (20), becoming the second consecutive Phillies player to win the MVP following Ryan Howard last year.

"I was like, if he can win it I can win it. The only thing he can do better than me is hit home runs further than me," Rollins said.

Things Ryan Howard does better than Jimmy Rollins: hit home runs, walk, get on base, not hit into double plays, drive in runs, work deeper counts, and for what it's worth, strike out.

Holliday, the NL championship series MVP, hit .340 with 137 RBIs -- becoming the third player since 1967 to lead a league in both categories. He also had 36 homers and topped the NL in hits (216), total bases (386) and doubles (50).

Sounds like this guy is pretty good.

The first player in major league history to have 30 homers, 30 doubles, 30 steals and 20 triples in one season, Rollins was durable, too. He became the first NL shortstop in 34 years to play in every game.

Okay. I'd be willing to bet Brad Wilkerson in 2003 was the only player to ever have 78 runs, 135 hits, 34 doubles, 4 triples, 13 stolen bases, and 13 tears per game shed from playing for the Expos. He won the MVP right?

And when the Phillies needed him most, he was at his best. Despite being booed vigorously in New York all season, Rollins batted .346 with six homers and 15 RBIs against the Mets. That helped the Phillies go 12-6 in the season series, winning the final eight meetings with their NL East rivals.

Jimmy Rollins was second in the MLB only to Alex Rodriguez in New York Boos ignored per plate appearance. He had a Boo Negation Index of 13.4. (A-Rod's was an unprecedented 147.9!)

Fielder also was impressive. In his second full season in the majors, the 23-year-old first baseman led the league with 50 homers -- becoming the youngest player to reach the plateau.

He ranked second in slugging percentage (.618) and batted .288 with 119 RBIs, but his MVP candidacy probably was hurt when the Brewers blew their NL Central lead and missed the playoffs.

"I can't imagine hitting 50 if I was 43 and had every advantage in the world," said Rollins, a switch-hitter generously listed at 5-foot-8, 174 pounds.

Why not? I thought it was common knowledge that 43-year olds hit 50 home runs with ease. Am I misreading this?

New York Mets third baseman David Wright finished fourth in the balloting and Howard came in fifth. Braves slugger Chipper Jones, the 1999 winner, was sixth and Padres ace Jake Peavy, who won the Cy Young Award unanimously last week, finished seventh.

It's unfortunate that players such as Miguel Cabrera and Hanley Ramirez (who by the way led the NL in VORP, second in the majors only to A-Rod) don't get mentioned because they play for a terrible team. But it's understandable. This is the Most Wins for Team Played For award, not the Most Valuable Player or anything.

New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez won the AL MVP on Monday, his third.

The honorable mention at the bottom of this site goes to: that selfish choker A-Rod. He didn't do anything worth writing about.

To Kick at Hester, or Not To Kick at Hester

2007-12-06T23:09:00.001-05:00

That is the question posed by Vic Carucci. The better question is, should that even be a question?

For nearly two seasons, every Chicago Bears opponent has grappled with the same questions:

Kick to Devin Hester and risk a touchdown return?

Kick away from Hester and risk giving the Bears' offense a short field?

Fair enough, Vic Carucci. The ball is in your court, explain to us why the NFL has been stumped by this dilemma: Do we give the Bears 7 as a freebie, or make them earn it? Hmm...

The Denver Broncos ... chose to kick to Hester and he returned a punt and a kickoff for touchdowns.

Ok... that makes sense, if you kick to Hester he scores touchdowns.

Hester has 10 scores on punts and kickoffs in 28 regular-season games, which is remarkable considering that Mitchell’s all-time leading total of 13 was achieved in 223 games.

So what you're saying is, Hester has already almost matched the all-time record in about 1/10th of the games the other guy played in to do it. Great point, Vic!

Hester's greatest attribute is incredible speed, but it isn't the only reason he causes opponents to lose sleep in the week leading up to a game against the Bears. Hester also creates problems with his ability to set up his returns by knowing when, where, and how to change directions to dodge would-be tacklers.

Right, he's really fast, he cuts back well, and he has good vision. You are correct, Vic, these are all great qualities for a returner to have.

Hester has returned line-drive deep kicks, the easiest for him to handle because the coverage doesn't have enough time to get downfield, but he also has returned kicks with excellent hang time. He has returned squib kicks that are supposed to be difficult to field and intended to be returned by one of his much slower blockers. You name it, and Hester has returned it.

All good reasons to avoid putting the ball in Hester's hands on a punt or kickoff, right?

Yes, Vic, that is an extensive and detailed list of why you should never kick to Devin Hester. Now, I'm sure you've got an equally compelling argument as to why you should kick to Hester, right? I mean, after all... what's the point of asking a question that has an obvious answer?

Although many NFL analysts, including former Bears coach Mike Ditka, have said the game plan should be not to kick to Hester under any circumstance, that is much easier said than done.

For instance, punting out of bounds is a challenge because, for one thing, it involves kicking the ball at an angle that adds 7 or 8 yards to the distance it must cover and creates the likelihood that it will be shorter than usual. Some punters struggle with that more than others.

It's hard to punt out of bounds, so we should kick to Hester... Well, I'll accept that one, but only because I'm sure you have better reasons that you're just saving for last.

A second problem is that once the punt is in the air, outside blockers establishing the width and depth of the punter's pocket have to worry about the added burden of running as quickly as possible toward one of the sidelines, rather than going straight upfield, to cover the punt.

Huh? Vic, if the gameplan is to kick the ball out of bounds, there's not necessarily a great rush to cover a return. Obviously you don't want to be caught napping if the ball somehow stays in bounds and Hester catches it, but I don't think this counts as a reason. Rejected.

On kickoffs, there are no protection concerns, but putting the ball out of bounds before it reaches the end zone results in a penalty that puts the opposing offense on its 40-yard line.

Oh, I see what you're getting at, Vic! You're saying that kicking the ball out of bounds gives that awesome Bears offense a shorter field! Well, let's take a look at that there scoring machine then.

2007 Chicago Bears, offense:
301.0 yds/game (24th)
217.2 pass yds/game (14th)
83.8 rush yds/game (31st)
19.8 PPG (20th)
28:28 Avg. ToP/G (29th)
35% 3rd down efficiency (28th)

And just for kicks and giggles, let's look at their defense too.

2007 Chicago Bears, defense:
355.9 yds/game (28th)
225.1 pass yds/game (25th)
130.8 rush yds/game (27th)
22.7 PPG (T-19)

It's not like you'd be handing the ball to the New England Patriots at their own 40. We're talking about a team that doesn't control the clock well on offense, can't convert on 3rd downs, has extreme difficulty gaining yards on the ground and a veritable circus at quarterback, which just does wonders for the passing game (as a matter of fact, giving the Bears a short field would do one thing for them: when Grossman eventually coughs it up, it actually gives your team worse field position). And to top it all off, the defense is porous like a sponge. So, in the rare event that you actually need to punt the ball away against the Bears, not only should you probably already have a sizable lead (unless your team's defense is as bad as theirs), the fact is that even with a short field, the Chicago Bears will do most likely do one of three things on offense:

a) Rex Grossman interception
b) Rex Grossman fumbled snap
c) Stalled drive, ball is punted back to you

But, maybe you have another reason, Vic... something that trumps all of this evidence?

Another dilemma when punting to Hester is deciding whether to have members of the coverage unit disregard their lanes and simply swarm to the ball. The problem with that is he can bounce to the outside and find clear sailing. If members of the coverage unit remain in their lanes, a key block or two could allow Hester to break free up the middle.

Tell your guys to tackle Hester, and he runs around them... Tell your guys to play zone coverage and they'll get blocked. This is not exactly the right way to argue a point, Vic. In fact, I'd label this as counter-intuitive to your over-all point in the second half of the article: teams should kick to Hester.

Teams also must consider Hester when attempting a long field goal because if the ball falls short of the uprights, he can return it. For most Bears opponents, the decision to try such a field goal would likely only be in a make-it-or-lose situation when trailing by three points or less at the end of the game.

You might have something here, Vic. You're telling me that, if my team is in a position to score points by means of a field goal of considerable distance, me and my co-ordinators should pause and take thought to the matter that, if the field goal falls short of the cross-bar, Hester could totally burn us for a TD. Well, I guess we should give up on field goals past 50 yards, Vic! Wait, our kicker's got a weak leg, let's agree to just kneel it on 4th down unless we're closer than 45. Honestly, who would sacrifice the opportunity to score points just on the possibility that your kicker, the guy who is paid to kick footballs, can't even kick the ball as far as the crossbar? If your guy can't do that, get a new kicker, because for most teams in the NFL, every score counts, and not a single team, with the likely exception of the SuperPats, would pass up the chance to kick a FG on fear of that. Rejected.

Of course, regardless of whatever tactic a team uses against Hester, chances are he will find a way to go the distance.

Except for the tactic where you... don't kick him the ball... Wait, is this the end of the article? Because I think somewhere along the way you edited out the part where you gave your reasons for kicking to Hester.

Wait, you couldn't have. THERE AREN'T ANY.

DON'T KICK TO HESTER.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION.

And thus ends the inaugural post.