I'm sorry I've said many times that Bill knows the NBA, I was completely wrong (part 3)

I blacked out for a minute there.  What happened?  Did I miss anything?  Better get back to it, because this is one of Bill's worst articles since Grantland started.

So could Carmelo morph into 2011 Dirk if you gave him the right situation? We don’t know because he’s never been in the right situation. 

Emphasis Bill's.  Holy shit, this man has the logical powers of a goldfish.  Having done an absolutely piss poor job of convincing anyone with a brain that the 2011 Mavericks had a way better supporting cast than the 2009 Nuggets, and conveniently ignoring Melo's many many playoff failures, he is doubling down.  Why wouldn't he?  He gets six emails a day from people in Wisconsin who want him to GM their team!

Why do you think his agents frantically tried to shoehorn him into Chicago’s cap these last few weeks? 

Because people in New York are starting to realize he's a ball stopping shoot first do nothing else later volume scorer, and you're not going to sniff a championship while he's your best player?

The money couldn’t work unless the Knicks agreed to a sign-and-trade with Carlos Boozer’s expiring deal (no thanks!) and some future picks (thanks anyway!). As a last gasp, they used the Lakers as negotiating leverage (you better sign-and-trade Melo to Chicago or you’ll lose him for nothing!), only Jackson smartly sniffed it out. That left Carmelo with three choices:

THREE AND ONLY THREE CHOICES.  IF YOU THINK THERE WERE TWO OR FOUR YOU PROBABLY KEEP PLAYING BLACKJACK WHEN THE TABLE IS HOT AND THEN THE STUPID PIT BOSS CALLS IN A SCARY ASIAN DEALER.

Choice No. 1: Grab $122 million over five years from New York, play with another inferior team, miss the Finals for his 12th straight season, 

Excellent framing there--Bill may be auditioning to be Melo's agent/spokesman.  Miss the Finals for the 12th straight season?  Oh, that's a given.  The real question is if he'll miss the second round for the tenth time in twelve seasons, or if he'll miss the playoffs in a pathetically terrible conference for the second straight season?

and pin the rest of his prime — which he’s never getting back, by the way — 

Wait, you're telling me there's no way to reverse the aging process?  How smugly witty of you.  

on Jackson’s promise that “We’ll Have Gobs of Cap Space in the Summer of 2015!!!”

Which they will.  And they probably won't be able to spend it on anyone better than Rajon Rondo or Al Jefferson.  But still.

Choice No. 2: Grab $97 million over four years from the Lakers, become the new face of the second-greatest NBA franchise ever, 

FACK YOU LAWS ANGELUS!  WE AHHHHHH BETTAH!  THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DEBATE IF YOU ARE 9 YEARS OLD AND LIKE ONE OF THESE TEAMS, OR NAMED BILL SIMMONS!  6 FOR 24!

move to Southern California, dabble in the whole Hollywood thing (yes, his wife is an actress), 

"Actress."  Not the most robust resume.

pick his own head coach, convince Pau Gasol to re-sign there, 

ANTHONY WOULD HAVE MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE!  KOBE WASN'T ABLE TO DO IT, BUT GASOL DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE WANTED TO STAY AND PLAY FOR A TEAM FEATURING TWO BALL STOPPING SHOOT FIRST GUYS INSTEAD OF JUST ONE!

hope Kobe spent the summer training with Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong and A-Rod, 

Nice setup here.  If Kobe is bad in 2014-15, HAW HAW FACK YOU KOBE.  If he's good, AWBVIOUSLY STAHHHHROIDS!  BOOOOO!

hope they can flip Nash’s expiring contract into one more asset, make some noise next spring and hope the Kevins join him in 2015 and 2016. That’s a lot of hoping, by the way.

Just like the Knicks are doing a lot of hoping that they can build a championship team around Melo.

Choice No. 3: Sign a four-year deal in Chicago for less money (starting around $14-15 million), become the crunch-time guy for an absolutely loaded Bulls team, and answer every question anyone ever asked about him.

Except for the one about whether he can win a title on his own, which is still asked by dunces like Bill Simmons.  However, I do agree with what Bill is about to say--it would have been fun to have Melo go to Chicago, have Rose get hurt again, then watch the Bulls limp to the 8th seed as Melo scores 27 a game on 25 FG attempts.

I wanted him to sign with Chicago for less money — a wildly unrealistic outcome that was never going to happen. 

Lololololololol

Even typing the sentence “For God’s sake, Carmelo, you’ve made over $135 million in salary already, not counting endorsements and whatever this next deal pays you, so it’s not like you’re a candidate for Broke II — 

Awesome reference!  If you're a fucking loser who thinks bad movies are good!

why wasn’t it worth giving up some dough to play for the right team???” looks dumb and naive. I don’t blame him for grabbing the money. He can always force a trade if he’s not happy, right?

Oh, indeed he can.  Indeed he can.  He can do it if his wife is unhappy too.

At the same time, I wanted to know once and for all. I wanted to know how good Carmelo Anthony is. Because, right now, I believe the following things:
1. He’s one of the best natural scorers I’ve ever seen.

And Bill has seen every natural scorer who's ever played for the Celtics!

2. He’s one of the NBA’s eight or nine best players and has been for some time.

LeBron Durant Davis Aldridge Dirk Westbrook Cousins Noah Griffin Curry.  Nope.

3. He could win you a title on his version of the 2011 Mavs.

Good try.

Again, those are just opinions. But what am I about to present to you? All facts.

You only have to wait until fact #1 to find something that's not a fact.

1. His best team ever was the 2009 Nuggets. (Covered above.)

Perhaps true, but I like that this college-educated man does not know what a fact is.  Anyways, I'll stop splitting hairs on this since most of the rest of these are also not actual facts.  What's important is that the 2009 Nuggets minus Melo are more or less equal to the 2011 Mavs without Dirk, and meanwhile, let's not forget that the 2010 Nuggets were essentially the same team as the 2009 Nuggets, and that 2010 version didn't get out of the first round.

2. His best teammates ever: Chauncey Billups (post-Detroit version), Allen Iverson (post-Philly version), Andre Miller, Marcus Camby, Amar’e Stoudemire (post-Phoenix version, right as his knees were going), Tyson Chandler (post-Dallas version), Kenyon Martin (post-Nets version), Nene (never an All-Star — not once) and the one and only J.R. Smith.

Love the recognition for Camby here (assuming these are in order), who was always underrated.  Anyways, this is true, so good for Bill.  Doesn't change Melo's career long string of playoff failures, or his inexcusable failure to get the Knicks into the playoffs last season.

3. He never played with anyone who made an All-NBA team except for Billups (third team, 2009), Chandler (third team, 2012) and Amar’e (second team, 2011).

Hey look!  A fact fact!

4. He had only four teammates make an All-Star Game: Iverson (2007, 2008), Billups (2009, 2010), Amar’e (2011) and Chandler (2013).

Wow!

5. He had five head coaches in 11 years: Jeff Bzdelik (never coached again), Michael Cooper (became a WNBA coach), George Karl (coached 1,887 games, only won two Finals games), 

HAHAHAHAHAHA.  Go fuck yourself, you fucking asshole.  

Mike D’Antoni (sadly, he coached again) and Mike Woodson (now a career assistant). Meanwhile, Dirk had three coaches in 15 years: Don Nelson (Hall of Famer), Avery Johnson (made a Finals and also won 67 games in a season) 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  Yes, that was all Avery!  Definitely not him inheriting a loaded team at just the right time!  That's why he's currently very very available to any NBA team that wants to hire him.

and Rick Carlisle (future Hall of Famer).

If Carlisle is a HOFer, so is Karl.  We covered this already.  But let me reiterate, just to be crystal clear: for saying George Karl "coached 1,887 games, only won two Finals games," he can go die in a fire.

6. Dirk has spent his entire career with the same owner — the lovable and influential Mark Cuban, who didn’t always make the right moves, but built a state-of-the-art organization and spent as much money as anyone. Carmelo spent seven years in Denver enduring multiple front-office power struggles, 

Source?  Citation?  Where is one of those cheeky little Grantland footnotes when you really need one?  The reason there isn't one here (I usually delete them, btw, but I didn't do that here) is because this is patently false.  But don't let facts get in the way of your narrative, asshole.  Full speed ahead.

then had multiple Knicks GMs in four years (not counting CAA’s brief takeover last season). Oh, and he had James Dolan calling the shots.

And he had the chance to get away from Dolan... and didn't take it.  

(The real irony here: Carmelo had only one truly competent front-office mind in 11 years. Who was it? Masai Ujiri … who traded Carmelo to New York in 2011 once Carmelo made it clear he was signing there anyway. Carmelo = not blameless. By any means.)

That's not irony.  Ujiri trading him to New York and him now playing in New York because he wanted to be traded there so he could play there is... pretty unironic.

7. He suffered bad luck two different times — when an already loaded Pistons team unbelievably picked Darko over him in 2003, 

Yeah, had he played on that 2003-2004 Pistons team that knocked off the Lakers in the Finals, the question would finally have been answered: can you win an NBA title if Carmelo Anthony is your 8th man, playing 12 minutes a game?

Yes.

Yes you can.

and when his agent didn’t follow LeBron’s and Wade’s lead by putting a three-year out into Melo’s first contract extension (with Denver). 

That's because Melo signed his extension almost a week before LeBron and Wade did, you fucking fuckhole.  Try doing some fucking research you horsefucker.

In the summer of 2010, Melo could have stolen Bosh’s spot in Miami or jumped to the up-and-coming Bulls, only he couldn’t get out of his deal for another year. Those were his two best chances to find a true contender. 0-for-2.

One inconsequential to the current argument, the other never actually existed.

8. Here’s how much Carmelo’s teams have relied on him since 2003 — right now, he owns the fifth-highest career usage rate ever (31.7 percent), 

Chicken/egg--yes, his teams have relied on him, and yes, he's a ball stopper who loves to take long twos and other ill-advised shots.

trailing only Jordan (33.2 percent), Wade (31.9 percent), Iverson (31.8 percent) and Kobe (31.8 percent). In the playoffs, he has the fourth-highest career usage rate ever (32.6 percent), trailing only Jordan (35.6 percent), Iverson 34.3 percent and T-Mac (33.5 percent). 

And nearly a .350 winning percentage!

On the other hand, he has played with only two 20-point scorers (Iverson in 2007 and 2008, Amar’e in 2011) and three guys who averaged more than 15 points (Billups in 2009 and 2010, Amar’e in 2012, and J.R. in 2013). I mean, didn’t someone have to shoot?

You know nothing about basketball.  Fucking... nothing.

I'll Tell You This Much-

Usually when I see previews for a new movie, I think "Meh. I probably won't see that. Doesn't look like anything special." I mean, movies are expensive these days. I have to be picky about which ones I see in the theaters. I'm not dropping $11 on something that doesn't look completely awesome. With the possible exception of "Hotel for Dogs," I haven't been convinced to see any movie in the theaters by a preview anytime in recent memory.

BUT- but- there's an exception to this rule.

If you splice some sports highlights into said previews, all bets are off. All of a sudden, my desire to see that movie skyrockets. I mean, I like sports. So if you make a ridiculous advertisement for something not even remotely related to sports, but include sports clips in it, it only makes sense that I will now want to purchase that product. Marketing 101! I tell you, whoever made this is a fucking genius.



No, but seriously, whoever came up with the idea for these cross-promotions is the biggest asshole alive. Bigger than Brett Favre, you ask? Yes. Bigger than Brett Favre. Sports/movie cross promotions should be legally classified as hate crimes against people with brains.

OMG! Who Would U Want 2 B Ur New BFF?

Sportscenter continues its downward descent into retardery. I understand turning this kind of thing into a simple internet poll, but how insulting is it to make the lead story on a Thursday night edition of the nation's premier sports news program: "TO, A-Rod, or Manny- who would you want to be your teammate?" Because that's what happened tonight. Here's my answer to that, anonymous ESPN program director: who gives a shit? What is this, an "Us Weekly" poll? How about instead of asking dumb and meaningless questions like that, you instead just report the news (the relevant news) and show some fucking highlights. Now, I'm not saying that those three guys aren't all relevant stories right now. They are. But why must they all be packaged together, in an invitation to the masses to pick which of the three would make the best teammate? That's the worst possible way to present those stories. The absolute worst. Sportscenter is quickly becoming worse than chlamydia.

The sad part is, there are millions of cable viewers out there tonight who thought this was a totally relevant and fun way to look at the stories surrounding these three guys. These pinheads thrive off of comparing apples to oranges to bananas, particularly when there's absolutely no need to make the comparison in the first place. Fuck this country. I don't mind our politics, or wealth disparity, or any of that stuff a lot of people cite as reasons for disliking us. I just hate 90% of the people who live here. Jesus fucking Christ, people. Stop pandering to this shit. SAVE US, LE ANN SCHREIBER. Dear Lord.

Oh, and for what it's worth, if I had a vote, I'm going for Manny. He seems like a cool dude! TO and A-Rod are selfish, and more importantly they aren't "winners!" Yay for useless polls!

TMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Has Apparently Been Huffing Spray Paint Again

You get the feeling that he lived under power lines as a kid or something. He's kind of like an unfunny version of Tommy Boy who writes instead of selling auto parts for a living.

I don't think it would be an efficient use of time for me to cover the dumbest part of this week's TMQ line-by-line. It's about the viability of a college football playoff system. I'll summarize it instead- the distastefully named Gregg spends about 1,000 words breaking down why it would be a bad idea. His thesis is that there are only three possible ways to make it happen, and none of them work for logisitical reasons. If you hold the playoffs before the bowls start (and why the fuck would you do this... the national champion would be crowned before the season ended) then you have to shorten the regular season to get the playoffs underway in November. If you hold them instead of the bowls (seriously, I'm not making this up, he considered this to be one of only three possible scenarios under which a playoff system could exist... eliminating every single bowl) then you just knocked out the postseason opportunities of about 60 teams. And if you do it after the bowls, the season would extend too far into January. Not only are all three of these reasons poorly conceptualized in and of themselves, but he has also failed to consider the possibility that YOU COULD MAYBE HAVE AN EIGHT TEAM PLAYOFF RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF OTHER TEAMS PLAYING BOWLS. THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. YOU COULD DO BOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY, IT WOULDN'T BE THAT HARD.

The only tough part would be deciding what to do with the bowls which traditionally pit conference champs against each other, like the Rose Bowl. There are two options- first, you can just call one of the first round playoff games the Rose Bowl and hold it in Los Angeles. This messes pretty heavily with tradition and means you can't have the national title game until two weeks after New Years, so I don't think it's ideal. The better choice would be to tell the Rose/Orange/Sugar bowls, "Hey, it's too bad that we have to do this, but it's in the name of having a playoff. You're still going to exist, but you're no longer going to have conference champs. You'll have second and third place teams from your traditional conferences. Sorry, this is the way it has to be." This option messes with tradition too, but to a lesser extent. So that's what I'd do if I were in charge. McWorrrrrrrrld!

Why am I wasting all this time with my bullshit ideas for how to have a college playoff? Now I just sound like a less retarded version of Gregg. The point is, he is a zilch for thinking that "eliminating every single bowl" is one of only three ways a playoff system could exist. Let's just get to the rest of the article in actual cut-and-paste format.

In 2003, NFL teams averaged a combined 42 points per game; this year they're averaging 45. One additional field goal per contest just does not seem like a monumental change. (Excuse me -- the average is 44.7 points per game this year. Everybody's using the pseudo-precise decimal place.)

There is no pseudo-precision involved in decimal points. In fact, that couldn't be more false. Decimal points are all about actual precision. You want an example of pseudo-precision? Well, you could just say that NFL teams are combining for 45 points a game when that isn't actually true. That would be pseudo-precision. Why are you so afraid of any number that's not an integer, Gregg? What dark secrets from your past could explain why tenths of a second and tenths of a point twist your panties so much? What are you not telling us? Did your father run away with a decimal point when you were a small child, leaving your mother to raise you and your 1.5 siblings all by herself?

Re: Minnesota's 99 yard touchdown play on Sunday night against the Bears, which happened because Chicago CB Charles Tillman incorrectly thought he had safety help with Vikings WR Bernard Berrian:

Tillman made a killer mental error about the coverage scheme. Usually mental errors result in short gains; this one resulted in a 99-yard gain. Reader Mario Salazar of Monterrey, Mexico, suggests Tillman's boneheaded play was an example of TMQ's Law of the Other Shoe: When something bad just happened (Chicago getting stuffed on fourth-and-goal), beware that something even worse will happen on the next down.

Gregg has outdone himself in his relentless pursuit of anecdotal bullshit. The Law of the Other Shoe. Wow. You know, that law definitely makes a lot of sense. Except when it doesn't, like when a team forces a turnover but then subsequently turns the ball right back over. Or when a team gives up a touchdown, but then takes the ensuing kickoff back for a touchdown. Or when... or when... or when..., etc.

In this year's NFL draft, three Arkansas running backs were chosen: Darren McFadden and Felix Jones in the first round, Hillis in the seventh. Hillis has outgained Jones this season, 285 yards to 266; he is on pace to outgain McFadden, who has 405 yards.

It's well known that Gregg loves... nay, is fucking obsessed with players that were drafted late or not drafted at all. So this little stat is the kind of thing that gives him (at bare minimum) a partial erection. Only problem with it: if Denver hadn't lost five other running backs to injuries leading into week 12, Hillis would probably have less than 100 yards. And if McFadden or Jones played for the Broncos, they would probably have somewhere in the 500 to 800 yard range. But hey, why get bogged down in thinking or using your brain when you can just be really excited that a relatively untalented guy is benefiting from other players' injuries and getting a lot of reps in a good offense.

Also- did you know that there are some players in the NFL who are really good, but have been cut at one point or another for various reasons? The horror, the horror.

More college football baloney-

If Boise State gets no FedEx envelope from the BCS, a fantastic matchup would be Boise State versus Ball State in the Humanitarian (although as the likely MAC champ, Ball State is committed to the Motor City Bowl). Both are currently undefeated, and to the football purist, such a game might be more attractive than several possible BCS pairings.

Why would a purist rather watch this game than, say, Penn State/USC or even Utah/Texas? Why? And what does being a purist have to do with it? Because both these teams are undefeated, that makes the game better than the BCS games? If you want to say some fans (not purists... again, what the fuck does being a purist have to do with anything other than style of play) would find this game equally attractive as some of the BCS games, that's fine. Where does the "more attractive" label come into play? Here's a brief list I've assembled of how to get into Gregg's heart (and pants, if you're into that kind of thing):

1) Be an NFL player who was undrafted or got cut at some point, even if the cut was purely for salary cap reasons
2) Be a college team that isn't that well-known or heralded for a variety of reasons, including (and especially) if you play in a weak conference
3) DO NOT BE PASS WACKY. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT BE PASS WACKY. THAT SHIT IS WORSE THAN MURDERING KITTENS. ONLY TRADITIONAL, BALANCED OFFENSES THAT ARE NOT IN ANY WAY "WACKY" ARE ACCEPTABLE.
4) Oh, and the same "worse than murdering kittens" standard applies for punting. At any time, in any game situation. Do not punt. Ever.
5) And if you're losing by more than three, you're not allowed to kick field goals. Down 7-0 with ten minutes left in the first quarter, facing a 4th and 15 from the 30? And you're running out the field goal unit? Wow, you might as well forfeit right now. Clearly you're not trying to win. You're just trying to avoid the shutout. Pussy.

Absurd Specificity Watch: In the Chicago at Minnesota collision, it wasn't clear if Minnesota tight end Jim Kleinsasser got the ball across the plane of the goal line. Referee Bill Leavy huddled with the replay assistant and announced, "The ball will be spotted at the quarter-yard line." A quarter of a yard is 9 inches.

Let's play a game called "Fill in the blank to complete the popular cliche that is for the most part true and valid." Are you ready? Here goes:

Football is a game of _______.

Do you need it again?

Football... (pause)... is a game of _______.

Think about it. Is there really actually any space between the one yard line and the goal line? If you stare at a field long enough, Gregg thinks you will conclude that there is not. There is the one, the goal line, and an untouchable void between them which cannot be understood or discussed for any practical purposes.

Why, Gregg? Why are you so terrified of small measurements? Can you imagine him trying to follow a receipe for baking a cake? "Two and a half teaspoons of baking powder- that's ridiculous. What a bunch of pseduo-accuracy. I'm just going to dump a couple scoops in and see what happens. Three quarters of a cup of oil? What are you, fucking nuts? Does anyone actually think there is an amount of oil that can exist which is greater than zero cups but less than one?"

Seriously, fuck this guy with a parking meter.

Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk No. 2: With Baltimore leading 13-0 on the final play of the first half, Cincinnati kicked a field goal from the Ravens' 4, rather than use the final snap to try for a touchdown. The Bengals went on to be clobbered 34-3. Cincinnati entered the game 1-9-1. What do you have to lose? Go all-out to try to win! It was obvious bumbling coach Marvin Lewis was more concerned about keeping a shutout off his résumé than trying to win.

No. That is not obvious at all. You just made this up, because you hate punts and field goals. There are literally hundreds of coaches at all levels of football that would have done the same thing, for a wide variety of reasons. Maybe a handful of them would do so because they wanted to avoid a shutout. I would contend, however, than a much larger number of them would do it BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT GAVE THEM A BETTER CHANCE OF WINNING THE GAME IN THE SECOND HALF.

When the Cincinnati players saw their coach quit on the game, they quit too.

I don't think the problem was whether or not Lewis quit. I think the problem was that the Bengals are really, really bad and are depending on the worst QB in the league.

Sportsmanship Watch: Taking possession in New Orleans territory with a 23-20 lead, 1:30 remaining and the Saints out of timeouts, the Buccaneers simply knelt to end the game. Taking possession at the Bills' 14 with a 10-3 lead, 1:30 remaining and Buffalo out of timeouts, the Niners simply knelt to end the game.

Apparently we're now equating "being ahead by one score or less, and then doing that which guarantees you will win the game with little to no risk" with sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is kneeling out the clock when you're winning by 30, you clod. Not when you're winning by 3.

Weasel Coach Watch: When Auburn was "only" 4-2, Tommy Tuberville fired offensive coordinator Tony Franklin; the boosters were in an uproar because Auburn was not winning by huge margins. Auburn went 1-5 for the remainder of the season, its sole win over cupcake Tennessee-Martin. TMQ predicted the Weasel Coaches of 2007, Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez -- acquired by their schools at substantial cost in money and lost prestige -- would not combine to go .500. They didn't come close; Arkansas and Michigan combined to finish 8-16. Considering the incredible advantages in recruiting power and gimmick schedules possessed by these programs, a couple of orangutans could have coached Arkansas and Michigan to a combined 8-16 record.

Much as I hate weasel coaches, especially Rodriguez, I think it's worth noting that these coaches were not hired to win a national championship in 2008. They were hired to build successful programs, something they have both done before. Maybe we should wait and see where they are after more than 12 games before being sure that they're both total and abject failures.

On an extremely closely related note, I don't hear TMQ shitting on "Little Nicky Saban" at all this year. Strange. I wonder why not? About a year ago, he was saying the same thing about Saban that he is about Rodriguez and Petrino here. Again, I hate weasels like Saban, but Alabama didn't hire him to win a national championship in 2007. They hired him because he is good at what he does, and is relatively likely to lead them to a national championship at some point during his tenure. Like maybe even as soon as a month from now.

Hey, speaking of being good at what you do, you know who isn't? Gregg Easterbrook!

Alright, That's It, E-FUCKING-NOUGH

I don't remember if I put up a post about this last fall. I remember starting one, but I don't think I finished it because it got too complex and didn't drive home my point as efficiently as I wanted. So this time around, I'm going to keep it simple.



Dear (Football) Announcers,

You don't fucking need to fucking use "football" as a qualifier/quasi-adjective every fucking five fucking seconds when you're calling a fucking game. Let me explain-

You don't need to say things like "There's a lot of hard hitting going on today in this football game." You can just say, "in this game." We'll know what kind of game you're talking about.

You also don't need to say "And here you can see the training staff helping the injured player off the football field." You can just say, "off the field." We'll know what kind of field you're talking about.

Finally, and most importantly, you don't need to say "He's the best player on this football team." You can just say, "on this team." WE'LL KNOW WHAT KIND OF TEAM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Sorry for yelling. It's just that I'm at the end of my rope with this bullshit. It's un-fucking-necessary. It's become so distracting for me that I can barely watch games with the sound turned on anymore. Your cooperation with my requests would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

A (Football) Fan

P.S.- This goes for studio analysts as well. Mike Ditka, I'm looking at you in particular.

FUCK FUCK FUCK! No! All Wrong! Bad!

But....but this is the OPPOSITE of what we wanted to happen!

Mariotti signs Sun-Times contract extension

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jay Mariotti has agreed to a contract extension that will keep the award-winning sports columnist at the Sun-Times through May, 2011, Editor-in-Chief Michael Cooke said today.

Or alternatively, they could have saved money and just reprinted the same 5 columns over and over again

"The Sun-Times sports franchise is a robust, influential brand locally and nationally. It's the one place for independent, politically unimpeded sports commentary in Chicago," Mariotti said. "The Sun-Times provides for a strong base from which to connect with readers

You don't allow reader comments. How the fuck do you "connect" with readers?

while I continue my television work

You call yelling at Woody Paige work?

"Chicago is a die-hard sports town, and Jay is a focal point of our strong, award-winning team that produces simply the best sports news in print and online anywhere," Cooke said.

I'm sorry, NEWS??? You think THAT'S what Jay has been printing all these years? Let's just take this totally random and not cherry-picked excerpt from some column Jay wrote last October.


GREEN BAY, Wis. -- What a dope, that Ashton Kutcher. Didn't he have better things to do with his life? A lifelong Bears fan from Iowa, he and wife Demi Moore ventured from Hollywood to Cheesewood to see his team play the Packers. They even brought their friends, lovebirds Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake -- the same Timberlake who participated in an infamous wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl.

I would have predicted a franchise malfunction Sunday night.

NEWS!

"We are excited to continue working with Jay, and for him to continue to pull no punches when it comes to his exceptional sports commentary."

Exceptional. Right. Here is the exceptionally genius method with which Jay writes.

Step 1) Find a scapegoat. It can be anyone who screws up majorly and deserves it, anyone who screws up minorly and doesn't deserve it, or someone you just plain don't like.

Step 2) Harp on that person's faults relentlessly for 10-15 paragraphs. Relevance is unnecessary. Avoid talking about sports at all costs.

Step 3) Repeat. And I don't mean repeat the process. Repeat with the same scapegoat and same irrelevant criticisms.

Congratulations, Chicago Sun-Times. This is truly a proud day for you.

Let's Make A New Rule

[3/10, 1:00 AM: Editing note- deleted all the complaining I did about Kalma referencing non-NBA championships in response to Webmaster's comment below. I was going to leave it all in and confront the fact that from time to time I make hideous mistakes... but nah. Decided against it. I would rather just pretend like it never happened. Everyone OK with that? Look, I'll admit it- I'm a dumbass. But I'd rather not have the evidence laid out for all to see.]

How about this- no more articles about potential Hall of Fame candidacies... relating to any sport... ever. I know, I know, it's a little extreme. There are certainly plenty of not terrible (well, maybe not plenty, but at least a handful) HOF candidacy-related pieces that get published every year that don't need to be restricted. But I think we're better safe than sorry in this case. Because it starts with some guy making a case for olde-timey greats like Alan Ameche and Ken Stabler. Then someone else wants to start looking at more recent guys like Bert Blyleven or Ron Santo. Then people start talking about where guys who just retired, like Reggie Miller and Scottie Pippen, might one day fit in. And eventually, once we follow this slippery slope of growing recency all the way down to the pool of shit it feeds, we find garbage like this. NBA TV's Rick Kalma, you're embarrassing yourself. (Thank you to Erik for this tip.)

The finalists for the Hall of Fame Class of 2008 were announced over All-Star weekend, with Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, and Pat Riley all up for the first time. Other big names who could get the Hall call are Adrian Dantley, Chris Mullin, Dennis Johnson, and Don Nelson. To me, all of those guys are Hall of Famers,

Steady now... careful...

and the HOF chatter got me thinking about which active players are on their way to the Spingfield.

Oops. You fucked up.

And this is where I need to write a sort of second intro, to let you know why this article is so remarkable. I always forget that shit like this even exists until a new example of it pops up every month or so. See, this is what I call a double-terrible article. The first terrible is for choosing a stupid topic. Does this kind of thing really add to anyone's appreciation of the sport in question? Christ, I hope not. If we absolutely have to start pissing contests about HOF guys, let's at least have them be eligible for election within the next 12 months, you know? Except in special cases like Bonds/Clemens, why worry about something that's not even going to happen for X years? So that's one aspect of it that sucks.

But the thing is, even when they choose a dumb topic like this, most writers manage to isolate their awfulness to strictly that choice. They say: "Darrrrrr, hey, Ken Griffey Jr. and Greg Maddux sure look like Hall of Famers to me! I'm gonna go eat some more Play-Doh." And that's the end of things. Fine. I can deal with that. Maybe their deadline was rapidly approaching and they didn't want to write another Eckstein article. Who knows? These kinds of articles usually don't make FireJay because we have bigger fish to fry.

But when a double-terrible article comes along, something special happens that takes things the extra mile. Not only does the writer choose a miserably boring topic; they manage to screw up their designated choices as well. Look, if you go down this road, just stick with the basics. The Jeters and Madduxes. The Favres (Did you hear he recently retired?) and the Tomlinsons. The Kobes and the Shaqs. Other than to make me yell at you, why in fuck's name would you choose the players you're about to choose? Why? It's poppycock. It's insanity. It's probably the fault of a missing chromosome. It's like doing a really bad job on an assignment for school, and then deciding to top things off by writing "Go fuck yourself, Mr./Mrs. Teachername" at the bottom. Don't exacerbate the problem! Just put your nonsense down on the paper and move on. I guess I'm putting the cart before the horse a little bit here. Step into my office and let me show you what I mean.

[Editor's note: Before reading this list of probable Hall of Famers, please understand a few things. One, I'm a laid-back, tree-hugging Dead Head who tends to be liberal, or inclusionary, when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

Read: One, this is at best a miserable choice of topics for someone like me.

Two, I take the RING very seriously.

Two, I think Mark Madsen needs to be in the Hall.

Third, defense does not get enough respect (Marcus Camby's career total of zero All-Star games is case in point), so I am here to defend the most dominant defenders over the past 20 years.

Third, the fact that Marcus Camby with his complete and total lack offensive game happens to have played most of his good seasons in a conference with several great, well-rounded centers who have kept him out of the All-Star game really means something to me. Because I am stupid.

Finally, this is one man's opinion...a man who does not have a seat on the HOF selection committee...a man who never will have a seat on the HOF selection committee.]

Finally, I would like to clarify that no one gives a shit about my opinions.

Atlanta Hawks

Josh Smith: This 22-year-old SuperFreak possesses the most unique skillset in NBA history. Who goes for nine dimes and nine blocks in the same game, and then drops nine and five in the same cats the next game? Did I mention he's 22?

That's right, you read it correctly- first of all, incredible hyperbole about a category so abstract you could basically define it any way you choose. And second, this guy had a really good game against some cats once, and then had another really good game the next time he played those same cats. When's he posing for his bust? Is he going to go in as a Hawk, or a Nothing? HE'S AT LEAST TEN FUCKING YEARS AWAY FROM RETIREMENT. HE COULD BLOW OUT HIS KNEE TOMORROW AND HE'D BE FORGOTTEN BY 2010.

Basically I'm about to do that like twenty more times in a row. So if it didn't entertain you... might be time to head on over to www.knockknockjokes.com or something.

Al Horford: Going out on a limb here,

You think? By nominating a guy with 50 NBA games under his belt?

but I'm sticking to my pre-draft opinion that this 21-year-old horse will develop into a perennial 20-10 guy.

Kalma's standards for Hall probability: his own pre-draft opinions.

Cleveland Cavaliers

LeBron James: I stuck the Hall of Fame label on this monster after his first NBA game and he's given me no reason to alter that opinion.

This obviously isn't that dumb of a pick, but I included it for the comedy in the "hey, I was on the cutting edge of scouting, I knew about this guy way back when he was a rookie" angle. I mean, who really had Bron pegged for superstardom back then? I bet Rick also wants to take credit for knowing Tiger Woods would be a star way back in 1999.

Bill Russell and Michael Jordan are wondering if LeBron is the Tiger Woods of their sport. Tiger is gaining on Jack Nicklaus, and LeBron is morphing into an unstoppable force before our eyes.

There you go.

Ben Wallace: A lot of you think I'm crazy, but hear me out.

You are crazy. I will not hear you out. You point out the fact that Wallace will likely clear the 11,000 rebound plateau before his career is over, and then claim that everyone in NBA history who has done that is either in the hall or "a lock" to be there one day. Well, there's a guy who probably compares pretty well with Wallace on that list by virtue of also having no offensive game whatsoever- Dennis Rodman. According to basketball-reference.com, Rodman's likelihood index for hall induction (which isn't exactly equivalent to a percentage, but is close- here's the explanation which links to the career list) is .179. Only 4 players with a lower index have ever made it, and most of them played decades ago. Only 13 players with an index below .5 have ever made it. The list includes active players, too. Ben Wallace's index? .002. You are crazy.

(I understand that index doesn't do justice to the skill set of a guy like Wallace, because it doesn't even include blocks, steals, or the nebulous concept of "good defense." But it's not like he's at .300, and then, you know, you can make the case that defense is going to take him the rest of the way to the hall. He's at .002. Zero zero two. His offensive numbers, rebounding, MVP votes and 2004 RING don't even have him in the neighborhood of the general area of being able to really go out on a limb and be in the discussion for possible longshot consideration.)

Dallas Mavericks

Dirk Nowitzki: He will go down in history as a great player, a Hall of Fame player, and perhaps the greatest shooting 7-footer of all-time...but he'll also go down as a player who wasn't quite great enough. He shall join the list of non-championship greats like Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Charles Barkley.

Reason those guys didn't win championships? Not being great enough. Reason Hakeem Olajuwon won two championships, totally coincidentally while Jordan was temporarily retired? Being great enough.

Golden State Warriors

Monta Ellis: I'm not crazy, freaks. It's just that Monta is crazy good.

What a deft turn of phrase!

At 22 years of age, Monta is already averaging 19.2 points on 53 percent shooting.

At 22 years of age, Monta is only 22 years old. That means he only has to play really, really well for about 10 to 15 more years to get into the Hall. We're talking no major injuries, no turning into a slightly smaller version of Shawn Kemp when he gets his first big paycheck, an ability to sustain his offensive stats even if he doesn't always play on a fast-paced team like the Warriors, and not too much decline in his game as he ages. Barring all those things, he's in.

Electric Ellis is unstoppable because he is athletic enough to blow by and crush...and talented enough to smack ya from 18.

Thank you, Jemele Hill.

He's not going away.

Given all the random things that could derail him that I listed above, and the amount of time he has yet to play before his status as a future HOFer becomes legitimate, there's a pretty medium possibility he goes away.

(I did not forget about Chris Webber, who is currently at 17,182 points and 8,124 rebounds--and NOT counting. He's out. Get a TO, baby!)

Thank you, Dickie V. Also, for what it's worth, basketball-reference.com's HOF index has Webber at a .659. Only 11 players with a higher score are not in the hall, and for most of them that's just because they're not eligible yet. Jordan, Stockton, Robinson, Olajuwon, Malone, Pippen, Ewing, Payton, Mitch Richmond, Jo Jo White, and Adrian Dantley. So yeah. He's probably in. With or without a TO, baby!

Houston Rockets

Dikembe Mutombo: Deke was the NBA's first four-time Defensive Player of the Year and he's been to eight All-Star games. He's second all-time with 3,245 blocks and 18th all-time with 12,184 rebounds. And dig this logic. Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, and George Gervin made it to the Hall of Fame on the offensive end, topping 20,000 points while playing occasional defense. So why can't defensive specialists who gave you occasional offense, like Deke, make it to the Hall from the defensive end?

I'll take a shot at that question. An effective offensive player puts points on the board every time he scores. In that sense, every time he does his job (scores), he has a direct and tangible impact on his team's chances of winning. The scoreboard shows the impact directly. Conversely, when a great defensive player does his job (blocks a shot, creates a deflection, gets a steal, guards his man well) he simply decreases the opposing team's odds of scoring. Except in the case of a steal, there's still a chance the other team scores on that possession. If they check their man, he can pass. A deflection or block can end up in the offensive team's hands. And obviously, the defender can't take points off the scoreboard. Therefore, I'm forced to conclude that when all other variables are accounted for, a great offensive player does more for his team than a great defensive player. Let me put it a different way- a team with two great offensive players and three above average defenders will have much more success than a team with five great defensive players. Although the overall talent level on the second team might be higher (in terms of players that would catch a scout's eye at an open workout), the first team will win more games. The cliche might be that defense wins championships; but offense puts points on the board, and you can't win without that.

I'm sure there are at least three commenters ready to jump all over me for that. Let me just re-put it this way: probably a better pick than Ben Wallace (due to longevity and better offense), but not by a lot.

I should have published this hours ago, and the rest is pretty easily summarized. Let's just quickly run through the highlights and finish big.

Amare Stoudemire: You need stats to get to the Hall. Amare's nickname is Stat. Get it?

Boooooooooooooooooooooooo. Boo. Boo. Everyone gets it. Whoever made up that nickname did so specifically so that everyone would get it.

Andre Iguodala
Brandon Roy
Kevin Durant
Chris Paul
Deron Williams

You've got to be kidding me.

Greg Oden

No. Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck.

O.J. Mayo
Kevin Love

Ok, I made those up. But not Oden. That was all Rick.

Hey, I've Got A Great Idea

Good Guy At Sports already wrote about this, but it infuriates me so much that I'm throwing my sarcastic hat into the ring as well.

Scene: An ornately decorated boardroom in Bristol, CT

Alright, everyone sit down. Are you ready for this? I have an idea that's going to knock your nuts off.

We've reached that always-boring gap between the Super Bowl and March Madness. So we here at Sportscenter need to keep things boo-yeahed for the viewers despite the relative lack of athletic action going on these days. Now, keep in mind that we tried to address this problem last July during the gap between the NBA Finals and the start of NFL training camp. But no one really liked "Who's Now?" because it was too much style and not enough substance. For some reason I can't possibly comprehend, people don't want to hear about what parties athletes go to and what fashion designers they're friends with. Isn't that what sports are all about? Well, fuck it. Anyways. We now understand that fact, and will never do a "Who's Now?" tournament again. Not for the next few months, anyways.

Therefore, we need to come up with a different tournament thingy that's all substance and all awesome. So you know what fits that description pretty well? How about something involving a bunch of famous highlights? The Cal-Stanford thing, Kirk Gibson, and of course, the greatest highlight ever- Doug Flutie throwing a 42 yard Hail Mary that's somehow a thousand times more significant than any of the other many Hail Marys that have won regular season NCAA football games. They can all compete against each other until we crown a champion. Yeah? Yeah? Does that sound like a fucking genius idea? Of course it does.

Shut your fucking mouths, I'm not finished.

If we just ran the tournament and announced the results, that would be like an artist leaving a canvas half-blank. People might enjoy that... but we want more. We want them chomping at the bit. We want them watching our programming with raging erections. We want them to say to themselves, "God, I'm so glad Disney bought ESPN." How are we going to accomplish that through this tournament? I've got two words for you: Berman... Voiceover.

That's right. Fuck Al Michaels, fuck Jack Buck, and especially fuck that "THE BAND IS ON THE FIELD!" guy. Males aged 18 to 34 don't care about those crusty old geriatrics. They want someone who's hip and with it. Does anyone actually think that in many cases, the original audio is essential to how enjoyable the highlight is? Yeah, right. And I'm stepping down next week so I can take a job as assistant co-producer for Fox Sports. So we'll do this tournament, but we'll have Berman re-call all the plays as they happen. How could that possibly go wrong? I'll answer that question for you: it won't. Christ, I'm a genius. Why do I even pay you people? Get out of my sight, and don't come back until you've either got a solid plan for this Greatest Highlight bit or some more news about whether or not A-Rod wants to be a Yankee.

Oh, and be sure to rig the vote so Flutie wins. Don't you just love that guy? He was David Eckstein before David Eckstein was David Eckstein.

Why Bother Supporting Your Claims With Evidence or Explanations? That Takes Too Much Time

CNNSI.com's Stewart Mandel is mad about this year's BCS bowl matchups. He's sure they're all going to suck. I strongly disagree, as I think every game except USC/Illinois will be close and entertaining. (See below for some probably-going-to-blow-up-in-my-face predictions vabout them.) But that's not why I'm writing this. I'm writing it because Stewart flagrantly violates arguably the most basic rule of analytical writing. I'm pretty sure I learned it in 4th or 5th grade: if you're going to write about your opinion, you have to say why you hold that opinion. See, that's the format. First you make a point. Then you give some kind of evidence that justifies that point. Mandel gets lost somewhere between those two steps, and the result really pisses me off.

Meanwhile, you'd be hard-pressed to find too many fans who would describe this year's other BCS matchups (besides the title game) as "compelling."

Virginia Tech, No. 3 in the final BCS standings, is playing Kansas, the No. 2 team in the Big 12 North. No. 4 Oklahoma's reward for beating the No. 1 team in the country Saturday night (Missouri) is to face a West Virginia team that lost to 4-7 Pittsburgh the same night. No. 5 Georgia went from an anticipated title date with Ohio State in New Orleans to the undercard a week earlier against Hawaii. And do you think USC's Carroll, whose teams have made mincemeat out of their previous Big Ten Rose Bowl foes, is losing much sleep over those Illinois game tapes?

Little to no analysis is given as to why these games supposedly won't be good. Apparently because Kansas lost to Missouri they are terrible. Meanwhile VaTech's disastrous performance against LSU is conveniently ignored. Sure, it was like three months ago. It was also by 41 points! Forty fucking one! West Virginia lost to 5-7 Pitt, so they're ostensibly unworthy of lining up against Oklahoma. Sure, OU lost to 6-6 Colorado. But that's totally different. Georgia/Hawaii is going to suck, uh... because... Georgia thought they were going to play in the title game, and now they're not. (Nevermind that just like Kansas is the #2 team in the Big 12 North, Georgia is the #2 team in the SEC East.) The USC/Illinois matchup, well yeah, he's got me there. Probably will be a blowout. Still, that's three cheap shots taken at three BCS games with absolutely no justification. None.

But wait, there's more. Mandel then has the nerve to conclude his diatribe with this completely outrageous endorsement of the "plus one" quasi-playoff plan. (I have no problem with the "plus one," I just have a problem with this shitty, unexplained logic.)

Imagine, if you will, the potential bowl lineup if such a format existed. Right now, rather than lamenting the colossal letdown of this upcoming postseason, we'd be salivating over, say, an Ohio State-Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl and an LSU-Virginia Tech rematch in the Sugar Bowl -- with the added excitement of knowing two of those teams would meet each other the following week.

Oh, OK. Ohio State-Oklahoma, unlike West Virginia-Oklahoma, would be making us "salivate." Because apparently to him, it's abundantly clear that OSU is way better than WVU. Or they match up more salivation-inducingly with Oklahoma. Or something. How are are we supposed to know if he can't take the time to explain? Same for LSU-VaTech. Earlier in the article he described the OSU-LSU championship game matchup in this fashion:

Whichever team, Ohio State or LSU, wins the Jan. 7 title game, there will be a significant faction of the public that questions its legitimacy.

Now, we just add two more two loss teams and one more game and everyone should magically feel 100% better about the legitimacy of whoever ends up being crowned champion. Sounds totally reasonable. Not only that, but the matchups suddenly go from being boring to "thrill a minute," "plan your evening around this," "be careful not to shit your pants" exciting. Huh.

Is all this crap self-evident, and I'm the stupid one for not being able to see it? Or is Stewart Mandel just full of crap, and trying to make an argument for the plus one game without utilizing any logic or support whatsoever?

Oh, and before you accuse me of hypocrisy because I'm ripping Stewart for not explaining himself while failing to provide my own explanation for thinking the actual BCS games this year will be exciting: (Obviously these are outrageously simple at best but at least it's better than what Mandel does)

USC/Illinois: Yawn. Stanford over USC gets more ridiculous every time I think about it. Illinois beat Ohio State because no one could tackle Juice Williams. USC won't have the same problem.

LSU/Ohio State: Stewart never says this game won't be exciting, just that it won't definitively settle all debates about who should be #1, so I don't think I need to say much. LSU's loss to Arkansas exposed some of their weaknesses, but Beanie Wells is hardly Darren McFadden. They're clearly going to be the underdogs, but OSU's defense is pretty awesome. Should keep things interesting.

Georgia/Hawaii: This is exciting on the surface because just like last year's Fiesta Bowl, it's a high scoring WAC team matching up against a traditional powerhouse. So I'm excited about that (as anyone should be, at least on some minimal level) no matter how imbalanced the matchups on the field look. In any case, Georgia is probably going to win, but I'm not sold at all on Mathew Stafford. He misses a lot of open guys. Colt Brennan is the shit and he showed it against Boise State. Knowshon Moreno and Thomas Brown should rack up big yards, but the game will be played indoors and on fieldturf so the Warriors will be moving the ball as well. If Brennan has time to throw Hawaii's going to put up at least 35. Can Georgia match?

Kansas/Virigina Tech: Obviously, Kansas is really going to struggle to score much. Fortunately they have a very underrated defense that's going to hold VaTech's offense in check as well. Kansas CB Aqib Talib is a bad man and future NFL starter. I've seen four Hokie games this year and they don't seem to have much at the offensive skill positions. Tyrod Taylor gets a lot of snaps considering he sucks. Brandon Ore crumples as soon as he gets touched half the time. If Kansas makes too many mistakes early, it could get out of hand, but I think Todd Reising is capable enough of not coughing up the ball that it should be interesting well into the second half.

West Virginia/Oklahoma: Since they seem to be on national TV every single weekend, I've seen WV absolutely embarrass several teams this year. Sure, they haven't played a team like Oklahoma, but as long as Pat White is healthy their offense can move the ball on anyone. Oklahoma is, of course, dangerously good in their own right. Stupid Bob Stoops. Stop looking so smug already. I can't explain WV's meltdown against Pitt other than to say it was a rivalry game, Pitt got up for it, and Westy choked. But like I already mentioned, I also watched Oklahoma absolutely shit the bed against Colorado in October. Bad games happen. If Westy doesn't have a hangover from the Pitt disaster (which is likely given that they have a month to forget about it) they're more than capable of beating the Sooners. Will they? Probably not. But it's going to be a good game as long as White doesn't get knocked out.

I will probably look back on this and laugh at myself 6 weeks from now, after LSU blows out OSU, Georgia blows out Hawaii, Oklahoma blows out West Virginia, VaTech beats Kansas like 4-0, and Illinois/USC turns into a triple OT thriller. Sigh. Such is the wonderful world of sports predictions. That's why we here at FireJay like to stay away from anything that resembles original ideas and instead spend all our time hating. I'm really going out on a limb here, I hope it doesn't come back to bite me too hard. Remember, all I'm claiming is that these games will be interesting and fun. That shouldn't be too much to ask for.

MLB.com: Just as Bad as ESPN.com

This is the lead article on MLB.com. It's awful! Someone named "Jason Beck" wrote it. He sucks at writing; he sucks at choosing non-sensationalist topics; he sucks at respecting decent baseball teams.

CLEVELAND -- The wounds haven't even been measured from what the Indians did to the Evil Empire. Now they have a chance to overthrow Red Sox Nation.

Hold on, Jason. This is your first sentence. You don't want to screw it up. Wait - "The wounds haven't even been measured"? What the hell? Who measures wounds?

No team has beaten both the Yankees and Red Sox in the same postseason,

That's because nobody ever could until the Wild-Card in 1995. Since the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry only heated up in the last 4-5 years when both teams were actually good, this comes to no surprise.

a feat that has only been possible in the dozen years of Wild Card postseason play

Oh. You even knew that. And you still wrote the article. This doesn't bode well.

But as the Indians head into Wednesday's scheduled off-day, they can see an opportunity to add that to their place in postseason history.

More like a place in the "media-invented Red Sox and Yankee obsession" history. What the hell? As the winningest team in the AL and the team that is controlling the AL playoffs, don't the Indians deserve respect in their own right, not just because they happened to beat the two teams that garner the most media attention?

With a 3-1 series lead entering Thursday's Game 5, they have three chances to finish off the ultimate twin-killing. But there's little doubt they'd much rather do it in front of their home fans at Jacobs Field.

The only other team to face the Red Sox and Yankees in the same postseason was the 1998 version of this Cleveland club,

Oh. So, Jason, you recognize that this "postseason history" the Indians are creating is actually something that you are "adding undue importance to because writing a story about the Red Sox and Yankees will add more readers/generate more interest than a story just about the Indians".

an 89-win AL Central champion that dispatched the 92-win Red Sox in the Division Series by winning back-to-back one-run games at Fenway Park. The Indians had a 2-1 series lead on New York in what had the makings of an ALCS upset before the 114-win Bronx Bombers won three straight, including two in Cleveland.

Number of wins equates with relative dominance of teams. I see. That '98 team sure was full of True Yankees.

These Indians aren't upset-minded, having tied for baseball's best record with 96 victories in the regular season.

So, this season, it would've been an upset for the 94-win Yankees to beat the Indians.

If that weren't enough, with a 3-1 series advantage, they've established themselves as the team to beat heading into two games for their workhorse starters. They only need one win.

I'm glad you reminded us that you only need four wins in the ALCS, Jason.

"I'm excited that we've taken it this far," manager Eric Wedge said. "But we still have a lot of work to do."

I'm glad you included this quotation, Jason.

And if any team knows about overcoming series deficits, it's the Red Sox. If anything, they're a win ahead of where they stood the last time they reached the brink of the elimination in the ALCS.

Though it certainly was an exciting baseball moment, I'm getting tired of the massive popularity that resulted from the Red Sox' AMAZING 2003 PLAYOFF RUN!

More than a half-dozen players remain from the 2004 team that made history by overcoming a 3-0 series deficit to beat the Yankees and go on to the World Series. Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett weren't with them then, but they were on the 2003 Marlins squad that overcame a 3-1 NLCS deficit by winning three straight over the Cubs.

Playoff experience means nothing. See: Rockies, Colorado. I'm sure Theo Epstein is happy to have this guy and his career 88 OPS+ on the 2007 postseason roster because he sat the bench on the 2003 postseason roster. Note to Jason Beck: just because Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett's team happened to win three games in a row four years ago gives them NO ADVANTAGE IN THIS POSTSEASON!

"I think what [the experience] does," Lowell said, "is you realize it can be done. It's not something that's impossible.

I, dan-bob, did not play in the 2003 ALCS. Kevin Youkilis did not play in the 2003 ALCS. Is Mike Lowell implying that Kevin and I don't "realize it can be done"? I think he is! Mike Lowell realizes it can be done because Mike Lowell was on the team that did it.

"There's only one must-win game, and that's the one two days from now. That's the only one we've got right now on our agenda, and we have to look at it that way."

I'm glad you included that quotation, Jason.

Considering how much the Indians, who'll start co-ace C.C. Sabathia, would rather end this here than go back to Fenway Park and the atmosphere that awaits them, they're undoubtedly thinking one game at a time, too.

Here's a writing tip: the subject and verb in your sentence shouldn't be the 31st and 32nd words. MLB.com has a staff of awful writers.

They don't have to think about the math, but it's in their favor. Since 1985, when the League Championship Series expanded to a best-of-seven format, 10 of the previous 13 teams to hold 3-1 leads in the ALCS have gone on to win the series. Eight of them finished it off in Game 5. Eleven other teams held 3-1 leads in the NLCS, and nine went on to win the series, though five of them lost Game 5.

It's an example of how much momentum means to the team in front, but it also shows how much it can change with one win from the team on the brink.

No, it doesn't. It shows overwhelmingly that a 3-1 lead is nearly insurmountable, even if the losing team does CHANGE THE MOMENTUM with one GRITTY WIN.

That's why both teams have to take it one game at a time.

Jason, whenever this line appears in one of your columns, it should appear in quotes. This is an acceptable line to print when uttered by a player or manager, who is paid to play or manage the game. This is not an acceptable line to print when you are being paid to comment on the game, because it's stupid and offers no insight.

Only three teams -- the 2000 Yankees, 1997 Indians and 1992 Blue Jays -- lost Game 5 with a 3-1 ALCS lead and went on to win Game 6. Three others went on to lose the series.

Jason, you forgot your conclusion! You started talking about the POSTSEASON HISTORY that the Indians were about to create, and ended up talking about the 1992 Blue Jays. You forgot to finish your article! You forgot to actually talk about the Indians' team! You suck!
___________________________________________________________________

After I read this article, I said to myself: shit, I just wasted a few minutes of my life. Now that I spent the last twenty minutes writing this, I say to myself: shit, I just wasted that twenty minutes. Still, I feel I've done my part to indicate my growing distaste at the two growing trends in sports that we at FireJayMariotti hate most:

1. National media's obsession with sensational stories and large-market myopia
and
2. shitty writing and analysis.

This article had both. I do feel a little better now!

Ed Hardiman Needs to Drink a Bottle of Antifreeze

Again, as I've announced before, there's no way that Jay Mariotti is my least favorite writer. It's this guy, Ed. Ed is a man who pretty much sits at his computer trying to be funny about twice a week and fails miserably (not that his idiot commenters ever take note -- I bet he filters them). Here he draws up a hilarious passage about The Gipper being exhumed!

The Associated Press reports Notre Dame legend George Gipp was exhumed yesterday. Gipp, famous for inspiring Knute Rockne to coin the phrase "Win one for the Gipper" and launching Ronald Reagan on the road to the Presidency, was driven to the South Bend campus of Notre Dame where he gave a rousing speech exhorting the one-win Fighting Irish to win at least two.

While several players admitted they didn't know who George Gipp was an equal number admitted they didn't know who Ronald Reagan was either. George Weiss admitted bringing in the corpse of a former player was a desperate act but, "...The only other dead legend, Knute Rockne, was booked solid until 2010."

HAHAHHAHAHAHA! Notre Dame athletes are stupid! What a fucking retarded school, they'll just let in ANYONE if they can play football! Those MORONS don't even know who Ronald Reagan is!

But seriously, can anyone tell me if there has been any pressure on Notre Dame to lower academic admission standards in an effort to admit better football players? Has this ever been an issue before? No? Cool. Didn't think so. What a school full of retards.

Gipp gained 2,341 yards on the ground for the Fighting Irish over 3 seasons before succumbing to strep throat weeks before being named Notre Dame's 1st All American in 1920. His deathbed declaration to Knute Rockne might be the best ever given, even if its apocryphal;

"I've got to go, Rock. It's all right. I'm not afraid. Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys — tell them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, Rock. But I'll know about it, and I'll be happy."

Bob, an offensive lineman, had this to say "Yeah, um it was hard to tell what he was saying and at one point his head fell off and rolled around on the floor but it was inspirational, though I think ending the speech "Win one for the Swiffer" or something like that was kind of confusing..."

How can you possibly accuse anyone else of being stupid? I think you have the IQ of a grapefruit. And just for future reference, if you want to say college football players are stupid, try not to confuse "it's" and "its" or forget commas before quotations.

When Father Ted McGuiness-Stout was asked if bringing the dead back to life conformed to the theological mission of the school he angrily retorted "Go to @#$% you Protestant @#$%."

ZOMG priests swearing!

Wendy a perky cheerleader, or nubile enthusiasm generator as Don, the school information assistant hastily pointed out, said Gipp was "Dreamy." She later admitted she "...liked older guys cause they're way more mature and Gipp was really old." so old in fact, "...he lived in a box under the ground." After being asked if she knew what "being dead" meant she admitted it sounded a lot like what happened when her pet cat Fluffy went away forever when she was in the 2nd grade.

And those Notre Dame cheerleaders! What stereotypical ignoramuses! They're trim blonde girls with huge tits who just sleep around constantly and once performed sexual favors for the admissions dude just so they could get into the fucking school! Nothing but flies inside their heads! Hell, they don't even know what "dead" means! Isn't Notre Dame some sort of community college?

The overall impact of this desperate measure won't be known until this coming weekend. As for Gipp he plans to remain dead and has no immediate plans, though ESPN has offered him a reality show called "Fourth and Dead with George Gipp."

Wow. "Fourth and Dead?" That's the best fucking play on words you could come up with?

I have to be up early tomorrow. Now I'm too pissed off to sleep.

To recap: Jay Mariotti is someone I want to yell at a lot and just explain to him how dumb and wrong he is about everything. Ed Hardiman is someone I want to hit with a crowbar.

Perpetua-blog

Jay Mariotti has started writing "exclusive online columns every day". Basically he pumps out like 4 new briefs a day onto the Sun-Times web site.

Hooray!

This is more of just an ironic/funny thing than a bad article. I thought it was worth pointing out because it makes me very, very angry.

Sox-paganda exposed!

Gee, I think this is the proudest day of my career. A piece in Columbia Journalism Review says professional sports franchises, such as the White Sox, orchestrate specific campaigns against sportswriters they don't like based on smear strategies derived from -- drum roll, please -- the Bush administration and political public-relations firms.

Let's take a minute for Jay to change his pants.

OK. Good. On we go. (I couldn't find the article he's talking about online, but if anyone does, please post!)

Let me get this straight: You mean to say a baseball team is so obsessed with what I'm writing that it would resort to using Bush-like tactics against me?

This really puts writing on a blog called "Fire Jay Mariotti" into context, eh?

Is that why Hawk Harrelson is always drooling over his flower shirt to say something about me 10 times every telecast -- because he's being told to follow the Dubya handbook? The CJR piece lists me and Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star among organized targets.

Yeeesh.

I'm asking for a raise. I had no idea I was this important.

This is the reason that this situation pisses me off.

I also had no idea the Sox were so petty and devious. Actually, I did have an idea, but between covering major stories involving the Cubs and Bears, starting this perpetual Web column, writing my regular column for the paper, doing five ESPN shows a week and making plans to cover the Beijing Olympics, I kind of forgot the Sox were still around.

Forgot? I wasn't aware you knew anything about them at all besides:

1) Ozzie Guillen is an embarrassment and the reason the White Sox suck
2) Their record, up to the minute, since July 2, 2006
3) They are, on average, less popular than the Cubs

Of course, fans are smart enough to see through any silly Sox-paganda attempts. The franchise should stop worrying about the media and try to dig out of its monstrous hole since July 2, 2006, a period in which the Sox have gone 105-133 and fallen back into their irrelevant two-hole on the local baseball food chain.

There it is.

it pisses me off when people want to praise someone's milestone by saying no one will ever reach it again

from a cnnsi.com article by jack wilkinson re: tom glavine and his pursuit of 300 wins. i'm being a little nitpicky, because the quotes i'm about to complain about are just that; off-the-cuff quotes given by guys that didn't exactly think deep and hard about what they were about to say before they said it. but i don't care. it makes me mad. how can people say these kinds of things? really? you can be 100% sure that even if major league baseball is around for another 100 or 200 years, this feat will never again be accomplished? and if you don't literally mean what you say in a situation like this, don't say it at all. because it comes off as being very literal, at least to a-holes with blogs like me.

As for Glavine's renewed pursuit of his 300th victory Sunday evening in Wrigley Field, before a capacity crowd and national TV audience, Schuerholz deemed it, "A great accomplishment. It might be the last in modern-day baseball."

"Ever. Tommy will be the last 300-game winner ever," insisted Glavine's old manager, Bobby Cox. "If Randy Johnson doesn't make a comeback, I don't think anybody will do that."

based on what? being 100% sure, or at least reasonably sure, that jake peavy/c.c. sabbathia/johan santana/cole hamels/some kid who hasn't even been born yet won't be able to average 15 wins for 20+ seasons? i mean, don't be me wrong, it's a incredibly tough thing to do. but it's not like it's completely inconceivable. it just bothers me when people, rather than complimenting someone like glavine in a normal way, decide to talk about how awesome he is by boldly predicting the unpredictable.

same concept from a more general angle:

Pete Van Wieren, a Braves broadcaster since 1976 and one of the most learned men in the game, said, "Tommy is the last of a breed. He had a misson his whole career. He never missed a start. Never complained. Just went out there every fifth day. When you're putting a team together, you want a guy like that on your side."

yes. the last of a breed. no major league pitcher will ever have those characteristics again. it's funny- if you just take out the first sentence of the quote, it's reasonably insightful and still very complimentary. but van wieren had to throw that "he is totally un-recreatable" thing in there just because... i don't know why. because even though it makes no sense and is completely unsubstantiated, people feel the need to say stuff like this when their friends/teammates/guys on the team they follow do great things. boggles my mind.

i will admit, in some cases, this kind of statement is more justified than in others. for example, i doubt anyone will ever touch the number of complete games guys used to throw back in the deadball era. the game just isn't managed the way it was back then anymore. and sometimes, a rule change might make a record unreachable. unless they raise the pitcher's mound back to where it was when he was playing, i'm not sure anyone will ever touch bob gibson's 1.12 ERA from 1968. but i don't think too many people will argue with me when i say this is not one of those situations.

look, the point is: when someone accomplishes something and a journalist asks you about said feat, you want to praise them. good! that's a polite, professional, and just a general feel-good-ish thing to do. but it's very easy to do so without claiming you know exactly what's going to happen in the unforseeable future. please, interview subjects of america, try to stay away from that.

also: a funny, stupid side quote from the same article:

"It's all about pitching," Clint Hurdle said of reaching 300. "And Glavine can pitch. He's flat-out pitched for a long time."

great point, clint. it IS all about pitching. as opposed to being about hitting, or playing shortstop, or making your free throws, or reading the cover 2 properly. i know he was probably referring to the always-overanalyzed "throwing vs. pitching" distinction. but seriously... coooooooome ooooonnnnnn.

All Right HatGuy: Your Gross Abuse of Your Job is now Personal

"Carroll Could be the next Rockne"

In this article, HatGuy compares Pete Carroll to Knute Rockne. In this article, HatGuy makes outlandish claims based on nothing. In this article, HatGuy states 'facts' that are patently false. You might think it about par for the HatGuy course. Except this article is about Notre Dame and USC, which means I hate you even more, HatGuy.

Let's get down to business:

When I think about Pete Carroll, the name that keeps jumping into my head is Knute Rockne. I keep telling myself that there have to be better analogies, and there probably are. But my brain won’t cooperate. It keeps whispering “Rockne.”

This isn’t an opinion based on careful analysis. It’s a gut feeling. If it were anything else, I’d flippantly fling it in the recycle bin and move on.

Focus on that last paragraph. Actually, re-read those three sentences. Do it again. I'll wait.

...

I believe HatGuy just claimed that if this concept for an article WERE ANYTHING BUT A NONSENSICAL FEELING OF HIS PROBABLY-CIRRHOTIC GUT, HE WOULD PLACE IT IN HIS RECYCLING BIN AND MOVE ON. OSTENSIBLY IF HE CAREFULLY ANALYZED SOMETHING, HE WOULD THROW IT AWAY. MIKE CELIZIC BASES HIS JOURNALISM ON ITS CONSISTENCY WITH HIS DAILY GASTROINTESTINAL ISSUES, WHICH ARE PROBABLY SEVERE BECAUSE HE IS OLD.

Picture me using a Norm McDonald voice for this one:

"Yeah, hello REAL READERS? Yeah it's me... dan-bob... Listen, there's this fake HatGuy going around pretending to be a real HatGuy and offering carefully analyzed opinions... he just stole a bunch of readers from firejaymariotti.blogspot.com.... so DON'T BE FOOLED!"

Also, I like the line: "If it were anything else, I’d flippantly fling it in the recycle bin and move on." I figured that the moment a vague connection floats into HatGuy's addled head, he flippantly flings it onto MSNBC.com and then moves on to the next hat store or something.

It shouldn’t be hard to do. Carroll isn’t anything like Rockne, college football’s first celebrity coach. Rockne was born in Norway and worked in the U.S. Post Office in Chicago before enrolling at Notre Dame. He was a star end at the age of 25 on the team that beat Army in 1913 and introduced the nation to the forward pass.

On graduation, Rockne became a chemistry teacher at Notre Dame. When he took over the football team in 1918, it’s doubtful that many people outside of Notre Dame either knew exactly who he was or cared.

HatGuy's dedicated readers might think that Notre Dame is the sort of shit-lucky place that can pull chemistry teachers out of the lab and chuck them onto the football field and turn them into college football legends. I don't really want to disabuse anyone of that notion; I find it kind of endearing. But, HatGuy readers, anyone who cared about college football in 1918 would've realized that Rockne had been an assistant coach for the Irish since 1914. But that wasn't an important fact, was it... HatGuy? HatGuy?

It took him six years to win his first national championship and five more years to win the first of back-to-back titles in 1929-30. By then, he had transformed himself into a coaching superstar, the darling of Hollywood and the syndicated columnists like Grantland Rice who were to Rockne’s world what ESPN is to Carroll’s. When Rockne died in a plane crash in the spring of 42, it was like the death of a president.

1. Don't mention the fact that his 1919 and 1920 teams are also in some books considered national champions, inasmuch as they finished the season undefeated and untied both years.

2. Fact check: Rockne's plane crashed in the spring of 1931, immediately after his teams won those back-to-back titles. About par for the HatGuy course: at least one completely incorrect fact that could be proven wrong with three seconds of googling. I imagine he looked up a bio of Rockne for this, but somehow managed to get one of the more critical dates utterly wrong. I suspect HatGuy has Mad Cow disease or something.

I have an idea! We take all of HatGuy's future articles and play HatGuy Golf - seeing how much under par or over par he is for his pitiful standards. Anyone want to play a round later?

HatGuy goes on to illuminate Pete Carroll's string of loserness in the NFL. Apparently he made the playoffs in no fewer than HALF the seasons that he coached in the NFL - including a stint with the Jets in which he coached a single season before getting the axe. A vintage bit:

A three-year stint with New England from 1997-99 saw a 10-6 record and a 1-1 record in the playoffs, then two years of decline before he collected his second pink slip.

Fact check: in 1998, Pete Carroll's 1998 Patriots MADE THE PLAYOFFS at 9-7. His record in the playoffs is actually 1-2! I guess that was decline! You are a lazy piece of shit!

He came by the USC job by default when all the candidates ahead of him, including Dennis Erickson, turned down the job.

This is probably true.

But here’s where I start thinking Rockne again. The reason is because both he and Carroll basically came out of nowhere — one from the chem lab and the other from the scrapheap. One was a funny-looking immigrant kid, the other was just funny. Rockne took over a program that had had a taste of glory and wanted more. Carroll moved into one that had been at the heights of the game and wanted to get back.

National titles at ND before Rockne: 0
National titles at SC before Carroll: 5 (or so).

So basically Rockne took off his chemistry lab goggles, rolled up his smock and commandeered an institution that had never been regarded as a football power and turned it into the most significant single institution in college football even 77 years after his death.

Pete Carroll is a great coach. He rescued an admittedly moribund program and has returned it to incredible heights. Pete Carroll was already a famous person - since one normally gets famous when one coaches in the National Football League.

The basis of this article is patently false: Carroll's unique story is not really comparable at all to Knute Rockne's unique story.

Most of all, both are heavy on charisma and self-confidence; Rockne didn’t care what everybody else thought, and neither does Carroll. And those qualities are what made Rockne the best in his day and Carroll the best in his.

Rockne's Winning Pct: .881
Carroll's Winning Pct: .844
Rockne's Charisma and Self-confidence Pct: 100%
Carroll's Charisma and Self-confidence Pct: 100%

I almost wish he would've supported this claim with some anecdotal evidence. Maybe Rockne's self-confidence was noted by the fact that he was willing to take the Irish to LA to start playing SC. Maybe Pete Carroll's self-confidence is noted by the fact that his players complain about the length of the grass.

A big difference is that Carroll has gotten to the top faster than Rockne did. After going 6-6 in his first season, Carroll went 11-2 in his second, and then won 37 of his next 39 games, including 34 in a row and two national championships — the AP title in 2003 and both the AP and the BCS crown the following year.

Let the record show, FatGuy, that Rockne went undefeated in his second AND third year at ND. As a matter of fact, he only lost two games in his first three years! As a matter of fact, Pete Caroll lost two games in his first three games!

After finishing 11-2 last year, Carroll’s record for the past five seasons is 59-6. His overall winning percentage is 84.4 percent, just a couple of ticks behind Rockne’s all-time Division I-A record of 88.1 percent. He's expected to move closer to that mark this season as the Trojans are likely to start No. 1 in the preseason polls. And his recent recruiting classes have been second to none.

Pete Carroll is a very good coach of very good football teams. Let the record show that even after all those accomplishments he still has to win 24 straight games to pass Rockne.

Then HatGuy goes on to compare Carroll to some other college coaches like Wilkinson and Bryant. I imagine there are egregious errors there, but I don't care. I've had enough of your shite, HatGuy. Your offenses to sports are encouraging me to compile your errors, contact MSNBC.com, have you removed from your job, and force you to enter a profession where people tolerate this shit. Like maybe political journalism.