Shit like this just makes me happy that spring training is 11ish weeks away

I wanted to post something extensive about the BCS title game mess but sadly I couldn't really find anything worth wholeheartedly attacking. My stance: it's annoying that the game is a rematch, I would rather have seen Oklahoma State, but it's not the greatest injustice in the history of sports. (What is that greatest injustice, you ask? Easy. Jimmy Rollins over Matt Holliday for 2007 NL MVP.)

Anyways, the two closest calls came over at CBSSports, where Dennis Dodd wrote a piece titled "Blame voters -- not SEC -- for having LSU, 'Bama in title game." A bold stance to be certain. What? Voters (and really, you can call the people who organize the computer rankings voters too given how screwed up some of their results are and the fact that they don't have to disclose their formulas if they don't want to) are responsible for the championship game matchup? I was ready to blame greedy Wall Street bankers, illegal immigrants, and the moon. But then the article had some good points; Okie State had the better resume, but the SEC has a lot of street cred and voters are influenced by that. It also pointed out that most SEC fans are insufferable cunts--can't go wrong with that one. (Not you, Biggest Ruckus. You're cool.) So Dennis is off the hook this time.

Troll extraordinaire Gregg Doyel wrote a similar piece about how Okie State got screwed simply because they don't play in the SEC. He wandered all over stupidland to make his points, my favorite part being:

Because Alabama is in the SEC, and the networks love the SEC. They have reason to, given the top-dollar TV contracts given to the SEC, but it's more subtle than that. Familiarity breeds appreciation, which explains the unfathomably bad songs that make it into the Top 40. Why are they there? Because the radio plays them. Why does the radio play them? Because they're in the Top 40. It's a vicious cycle that has resulted in Katy Perry in your eardrums, and Alabama in your favorite bowl game.

LEAVE KATY PERRY ALONE! SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! But like Dodd, Doyel had some points. So yeah, it is what it is. The whole BCS hierarchy continues to be at best fucking worthless and at worst a corrupt money-funneling scheme for big bowl and big conference execs. I bet we have a playoff system of some kind within ten years, because any time the season doesn't end with two and exactly two undefeated teams, there's going to be a shitstorm. But it'll take a while for people (execs of the non-AQ conferences, powerful coaches, NCAA execs who aren't greedy assholes oh wait there probably aren't any) to get angry enough to actually do something about it.

Really, I'm just pissed that LSU won and Houston lost this weekend. Because of one or both of those things didn't happen, man, we'd have really seen some quality (and justified) bitching and moaning today. Sigh. Maybe next year. In the meantime: TEBOW TEBOW RODGERS PACKERS NFC EAST LOGJAM STEELERS RAVENS TEBOW JIM HARBAUGH PEYTON MANNING'S BABYNECK SAINTS TEBOW WILD CARDS GRONKOWSKI BRADY TEBOW TEBOW!!!!! And that, plus a little NHL and NBA regular season ACTION ACTION ACTION have to get us through until mid-February. No, I will not acknowledge regular season college basketball.

Expert geniuses offer double top secret insider brilliant MLB free agent predictions

Let's take some time to appreciate this, shall we? After all, CBS doesn't just pay their baseball analysts to sit around and look good (although the analysts certainly do that!). It pays them to formulate informed and insightful baseball analysis. And so we have this lovely chart:

We have ringleader Gregg Doyel, troll extraordinaire, claiming the Yankees and Red Sox will sign every single one of these players and that the Yankees will end up with both Rollins and Reyes. BUT WHAT OF THE CAPTAIN?????1111?11. That's some nice trollin', Gregg. As Chris W says, "Gotta love Gregg for being the Skip Bayless of the internet." Then we have Vice Shithead Scott Miller saying the Pirates will shell out cash for Beltran and Buehrle will end up in Miami. We have a presumably pretentious dude named C. Trent claiming the Marlins will come up with the cash for Pujols and that Buehrle will somehow end up with the Cubs. We have three experts who say the Padres will decide overpaying Heath Bell is a good idea and in line with their organizational philosophy. Not be left out of the fun, Miller thinks the A's will the team that gives Bell the $8 MM per season it'll take to get him. We have Matt Sndyer thinking Prince Fielder will say "Yeah, Baltimore, THAT'S where I'll spend the rest of the prime of my career." We have Larry Dobrow thinking the Marlins will say "What's the one thing we definitely don't need? Starting pitching. So let's give C.J. Wilson the $14 MM a season he's asking for, why not." There's plenty more, too. The hits just keep on coming. This might be the most spectacular display of WRONG I've ever seen in graphical format. Here, I made it slightly less stupid (and I'm being generous about the Beltran to the Marlins, Reyes to the Brewers, and Rollins to the Mariners entries):

You're welcome.

Make an immediate run for the Canadian border if Gregg Doyel is ever elected president

Bask in the glow of Gregg's mind-bogglingly stupid stance on how we should form public policy.

In the case of The United States v. Roger Clemens, the government thinks it's helping somebody. Not metaphorically or symbolically, but literally. The government thinks this is good. This is something we want.

No, the government thinks it's something the government wants, because the government really doesn't want people to perjure themselves in front of federal authorities.

This is helping.

Yes. A conviction will help, because the next time some asshole like Clemens is in front of Congress or a grand jury they'll be less inclined to be like GRRRRRR I AM ANGRY AND I LIKE LYING SO I WILL LIE NOW AND THEN I WILL THROW THIS PIECE OF A BROKEN BAT AT ORRIN HATCH BECAUSE HE'S AN ASSHOLE.

The government thinks this trial will remind everyone -- that's you, and that's me -- that lying under oath is wrong.

Assuming Clemens is found guilty or pleads to something, will it not? Will that result make you say "Nah, fuck it, I'm going to keep on perjuring myself anytime I get a chance. It's a fucking rush."

The government also thinks this trial will serve as a lesson for all you kids out there that steroids are bad. Don't take them, little Johnny Ballplayer. This is your reminder. That's what the government thinks.

Here's what I think about The United States v. Roger Clemens: I think the government's case is run by idiots.

Ohhhhh snap

This isn't a Tea Party rant about Big Government sticking its nose into our affairs. And this isn't a liberal plea for compassion toward Clemens, because he has been through so much already. No. This is neither of those.

I don't think you could find 10 people in the entire country with knowledge of the basic facts of this case who hold that "liberal" opinion.

This is steroid fatigue. That's all this is.

I see. The government's interest in showing people that lying to Congress will not be tolerated bores you. Hey everyone, Gregg is ready for something new- can we get some fresh news going on here? Can't the government just let this go and do something awesome like bomb the shit out of North Korea or give free money to everyone?

I'm tired of the whole issue, and I'm preaching to the choir because I know you're tired of it. And the irony doesn't elude me, because here I am complaining about steroid fatigue even as I slog through another set of steroid-story dumbbells.

I'm not tired of it. I want blood! Let's see this fucker get strung up! Eat a penis, Clemens. You're the worst.

Maybe I'm the dumbbell.

Yep.

Nah. The government is the dumbbell, because this is stupid.

No, you were right the first time. Also- what's with the government worrying about all this terrorism stuff? Ugh, it's been like 10 years. Can't they busy themselves with something else? Terrorism this terrorism that. BORING.

Christ. What a fucking asshole.

Gregg Doyel Tries to Write about Sports; Chaos Ensues

This is one of those great articles that has, like, ten layers of wrong. (Don't click on the link unless you're really, really concerned that I might have fabricated something in this post; I don't want to give him any extra traffic.) The concept behind the article is ridiculous in the first place. As Chris W put it when he linked me, it's about a controversy which doesn't actually exist. Then Gregg takes that ridiculous concept, which should be pretty easy to make a coherent article about- like how murdering people is bad or how eating food is a good way to stay alive- and somehow fucks it up. It's fascinating. Really fucks with your head when you try to parse it. Reading stuff written by Gregg Doyel is like sitting in an asbestos-enclosed room with a slow gas leak while drinking lead paint.

Recognize LeBron's greatness now... or your own stupidity later

Hmmm, you think? I don't know. Being in the neighborhood of averaging a triple double for a season makes you pretty good- but great? I don't toss that word around lightly. If we're willing to call LeBron "great," who else do we have to include for consistency's sake? Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

In any case, now you see what I mean regarding the ridiculous concept here. That being: LeBron is good! And don't you tell Gregg otherwise! Now, you'd think it would be really easy to write an article about this topic. And yet, you'd think wrong. Because Gregg immediately tries to leap across a gaping void of logic by implying that people who are tired of hearing about LeBron don't think LeBron is really badass at basketball. And thus the diaster.

All of you silly people who are tired of LeBron James, do me a favor. Maybe you're a sportswriter or a blogger and you've written something like my friend at the Orlando Sentinel, Mike Bianchi, wrote on Monday.

Go read that article if you have time- although it contains a bunch of lame Reillyesque pop culture references, it's pretty well reasoned and takes one great cheap shot at NBA players and their propensity for fathering a lot of children. Take that, Shawn Kemp! It's 2009, but we're far from being done with making fun of you! But anyways, for the purposes of this post, Mike makes its clear in that article several times over that he thinks LeBron is awesome. Really, really awesome. Mike is just sick of the hype surrounding LeBron (and specifically his buzzer beater from game 2 of the Cavs-Magic series). That's his thesis. He also tosses in some stuff about LeBron not having won a title, which is a bit of a criticism; but the majority of the article is just about hype.

Being unable to separate someone's distaste for the public's/media's treatment of a subject from that person's public/media-independent opinion of that subject is something most high school graduates should be capable of doing. This makes me wonder if Gregg is capable of other basic thought processes. Does he always remember to put his pants on before his shoes, or just sometimes? Can he open a tightly sealed jar without resorting to temptation and smashing it against the counter to get at the delicious pickles inside?

Maybe you're a reader and you've gone onto a message board and nodded along with something like you'll find here at CBSSports.com on Monday.

Among all the moronic sports columnists out there, only Gregg is a big enough dumbass to actually complain about what random internet commenters say. I honestly feel bad for the guy.

Here's the favor I need: Print out whatever you wrote. Print out whatever you read. The story, the message-board post, whatever. Print it. And save it. And 20 years from now, go back and read it.

You'll be humiliated.

You'll mostly be humiliated for actually following through on a stupid and pointless task Gregg Doyel assigned to you twenty years ago.

Because by then it will be obvious: The game's greatest player was right in front of your eyes. And you missed it.

Somehow, by being annoyed by all the coverage LeBron is getting, you'll have missed all the coverage about how great LeBron is. Quite the paradox.

The same thing is happening in golf. Tiger Woods is the greatest player in that sport's history. He hasn't played long enough to wipe every last vestige of Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer from the record book, but he will. He'll get there. And when he does, when Tiger Woods is officially and not just subjectively recognized as the greatest golfer of all time, who will you be? Will you be one of the people who recognized his greatness -- I don't care if you appreciate it, just recognize it -- or will you be one of the people who didn't?

1. So people like Mike Bianchi, who clearly recognize LeBron's greatness (odds that Gregg didn't actually read that article: pretty good) but are tired of hearing about him, have failed to recognize his greatness?

2. Wait, which athlete are we talking about again?

This is like being alive in the year 25. If Jesus was really around back then, healing dead people and turning water to wine, imagine being one of the negative knuckleheads who didn't believe.

Boy, would your face be red in the afterlife!

Did I just compare LeBron to Jesus?

Looks like I did.

At least I didn't compare LeBron to Tim Tebow. That would be blasphemy.

If you didn't read Mike Bianchi's article, he made several jokes about the similarities in treatment received between LeBron and Tebow. So apparently Gregg agrees with that sentiment- that the media's gladhanding of Tebow is (also) incredibly tiring at times. But for some reason Gregg is still mad. At someone. For something. I guess that straw man over there must have looked at him funny.

This story isn't just about LeBron. It's about you. Take some personal inventory and try to decide, if you're one of the growing number of people sick of LeBron James, why that is.

Because the star-obsessed 24 hour sports media cycle won't stop fucking talking about him and analyzing every single thing he does?

OK, at this point Gregg goes into how a discussion about how the fact that LeBron hasn't won any titles is not a legitimate reason to not acknowledge his greatness. It's still a bit of a straw man, as anyone who brings that up as a detriment to LeBron's credentials obviously understands that it's a "wait and see" situation. No one is saying "he hasn't won a title AND HE NEVER WILL, EVER." They're pointing out that he hasn't won one- yet. It's not like we're comparing Karl Malone or Charles Barkley to other all-time great PFs. We're comparing a guy who is still in the prime of his career with guys like Jordan and Magic who are done. But in the interest of not repeating myself 50 times about what a mental midget Gregg is, I'm going to pick and choose pieces of tardery from the rest of the article.

Put it this way: Tim Duncan won four NBA titles. Wilt Chamberlain won two. Does that make Duncan twice the player? Please. Chamberlain is the dominant big man in NBA history. Duncan is a very good player, maybe one of the top 25 at any position, ever. But between the two, there is no comparison.

I like his use here of a simple multiplier to determine who is "X times" better than someone else. As if anyone is saying "Jordan won six titles, and Duncan has won four- therefore Jordan is 1.5 times better. But if Duncan wins another one Jordan will only be 1.2 times better."

Imagine this. Imagine LeBron switching places with Los Angeles' Kobe Bryant. Give James a frontcourt of Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol. LeBron and those Lakers would have gone 78-4.

Wow. The Lakers won 65 games this year. So now LeBron is worth 13 more wins than Kobe over the course of a season? Man, I among all people think Kobe is an asstwat, but I think that's a little much.

The greatest player in college basketball history, Pete Maravich, never won a title.

Hmmm. You can't really just say that Maravich was objectively the greatest player in college basketball history. You can make a case for Lew Alcindor and Oscar Robertson, among others.

The greatest quarterback in the NFL, Dan Marino, never won a Super Bowl.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. You also can't objectively say that. You're can make cases for Montana, Elway, Unitas, and, dare I say it, that guy who used to play for the Packers. It's just not that clear cut.

The greatest baseball player, statistically, of all time -- Barry Bonds -- never won a World Series. You can argue Bonds' legitimacy, what with the steroid question, but you cannot argue that he was the best player in baseball for almost 15 years. By a large margin.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Again, no. Not to this extent, anyways. I'm more of the opinion that Bonds was probably the best player in the game for about 10 years. I mean, he was pretty amazingly ridiculously super duper awesome. But even if you want to extend the window to a full 15 years, presumably from about 1990 to 2004, you fucking definitely cannot say he was the greatest, over that whole time period, by "a large margin." No. You can't. You have to factor in his declining defense, especially during his four best offensive years (2001-2004). You have to factor in the presence of other all-time greats whose peaks coincided roughly with Barry's, like Greg Maddux, Sammy Sosa, and Jeff Bagwell. Was he better than those guys? Almost definitely. (Maddux has the best case against him, but it is obviously tough to compare pitchers and hitters. Whatever.) By a large margin? No. And not for all 15 of those years.

Look at where this article has gone. From simple and obvious premise, to tragic use of the straw man to make an argument unrelated to the premise, to mildly relevant side argument full of outrageous and completely batshit-crazy claims. How did we get here? It's staggering to think about. Again, I worry about the problems Gregg encounters while trying to write coherently seeping over into other parts of his life. How often does he set his house on fire pouring himself a bowl of cereal? What's it like to go somewhere in a car he's driving? How many pedestrians does he usually hit? Does he ever reach his intended destination before the car runs out of gas or the engine block explodes? It really seems like anything is possible with this guy. He's a fucking train wreck. A complete and total fucking train wreck.

So here we are. LeBron James. An annual threat to win the NBA scoring title, as he did last year, and one of the best passers in the game. And the second-leading vote getter for the 2009 NBA Defensive Player of the Year. He does it all, and he makes it look easy.

And you're sick of him?

Great as he is, yes, some people are. And because I have a brain I can understand why.

Or, more galling, you don't even understand what you're watching?

No one you've mentioned or referred to has said this. At any point. Ever. This isn't even a straw man, it's an air man.

Maybe the problem isn't LeBron. Maybe the problem is you.

Sounds like a line you'd use during an alcoholism intervention.

Try watching lacrosse. Because you can't handle basketball.

Burn! Burn burn burn burn burn! On everyone who doesn't love hearing about LeBron all the time! But especially on lacrosse! Out of the way, NASCAR and pro wrestling. According to Gregg Doyel, lacrosse is taking your place at the top of the "sports for dummies" list. Presumably for some LeBron-related reason.

Sociology and Sportswriting Don't Mix: Gregg Doyel on Notre Dame's Decline

Gregg Doyel takes on the state of the Irish and the decline in the program. I realize that this article is designed to prompt a response, but I'm going to respond to it in a thoughtful and reasoned manner, without trying to initiating some kind of yelling match, but rather making a calm presentation of several places where Gregg goes horribly wrong.

Here's his basic thesis:

Once upon a time, Army was Notre Dame.

Soon enough, Notre Dame will become Army.

Right - Army football was dominant once, and is irrelevant now. Notre Dame football was dominant once, and mediocre now. Ok, I see the connection; let's see how Gregg's going to work this out:

It's not Notre Dame's fault, so if there are any Notre Dame fans out there feeling angry -- assuming there are still Notre Dame fans out there at all -

Ok, let's see: Notre Dame, for six straight seasons ending in 2004 (I couldn't find more recent data), was voted the most popular team in all of college football. In other news, Forbes magazine ranked Notre Dame the "most valuable" college football program. (1/2/2007).

There are Notre Dame fans out there.

- don't be mad at me. Notre Dame hasn't screwed up. Notre Dame hasn't changed.

Actually, Notre Dame *has* changed; the real answer to the problem about Notre Dame's institutional decline has as much (or more) to do with internal (but not heavily covered by sports media) changes at the school.

The world has changed around it, much as the world changed around Army 50 years ago.

Well, sure, but there's really no reason Notre Dame can't be competitive right now.

Just like with Army football, the evolution of America is killing Notre Dame. The most influential person in the world is no longer the Pope.

What? Who cares? Is there some correlation between the power of the papacy and Notre Dame's winning percentage?

The Catholic Church is no longer dictating how our country acts,

What? This country has had one Catholic president in its history. While Catholics in the country have a significant political presence, they're still only approximately 1/4 of the nation, by self-identification (and it's sure that a good chunk of that 1/4 aren't active or practicing enough to dictate anything).

so what chance does it have to influence where our best young football talent plays? It has no chance.

Huh. I wonder how the hell Notre Dame's enrolled class of 2008 managed to rank... first? on Rivals.com's ratings. Notre Dame's 2009 class

The number of Catholic kids is dwindling, and their draw to Notre Dame is dying.

Apparently that didn't matter last year.

I wish I knew what percentage of ND football players in the past were Catholic, but this is still pretty irrelevant. It's still the most storied program in college football program, they still have pretty good facilities, the only national-tv contract, and a reasonably-good shot of making the NFL. There are a lot of reasons kids might go to Notre Dame.

You don't have to like it, but don't pretend it's not a fact.

Actually, in using actual facts, I have demonstrated that several of your premises are absolute bullshit, Gregg. And it took me four minutes with Firefox to do it. I don't much like any of this decline, but I don't have to pretend you're any kind of knowledgeable authority on it.

It's no coincidence that Notre Dame football was at its best before the integration of college football. According to Gallup polling research, there are 33 million Catholics in the United States -- but only 7 percent are black. What does that tell you? It tells you that back in the day when college football was mostly white, and the Catholic church was in power, that the best (available) recruits would naturally take a hard look at Notre Dame.

And yet, last year, a lot of the best available recruits did look at Notre Dame. This is the sort of stupid bullshit that gets spouted by people like Paul Hornung. Who knows what "competitive advantage" Notre Dame might had by getting this mythical "Catholic athlete" before... but Notre Dame isn't at a competitive disadvantage in getting most athletes right now. You know what Notre Dame sucks at? Getting the dumb athlete.

Tradition only lasts so long, and for Notre Dame it's fabulous tradition carried into the 1970s and seeped somewhat into the '80s thanks to Lou Holtz's creative interpretation of the NCAA rulebook.

Or maybe the early 1990s, where for the first four seasons, the Irish went 40-8 and culminated a streak of finishing in the AP top six five out of six years?

__________________________________________________________________________

tl;dr:

Notre Dame football is mediocre right now. Notre Dame football, except for a few momentary flashes, has been utterly mediocre since 1993. Yet there's really no reason to believe that this is the result of some sort of pseudo-sociological argument about the decline of the Church in America. More useful might be some thought about why ND has become so mediocre: it's NOT because they haven't gotten recruits - in fact, the talent level has remained (mostly) excellent. It's because their coaches have been objectively mediocre. The changes at Notre Dame that have resulted in this string of reasonably-poor coaches are at the higher level.

Doyel's is a stupid, un-reasoned article. The basic premise is completely illogical:

1. The Catholic church has declined in America over the last 50 years - and isn't coming back.

2. Notre Dame football has declined over the last 20 years.

∴ Notre Dame football isn't coming back.

The funny thing is, Gregg might be right. Notre Dame football might never make it bacl to the upper echelon of college football. But if ND never does, it has itself to blame, not some bullshit sociology.

For The Last Time, America: Baseball Still Isn't Dead

For those of you scoring at home, this is my record-tying third straight post about the same goddamn issue. Sports media just cannot stop themselves from writing more and more whiny claptrap about how bad this World Series was and how baseball is dying and about how cold those players looked. Gregg Doyel chimes in on the "OMG WORLD SERIES IMPLOSIONS" issue. Even more amusingly, Gregg drew an air of intelligence by citing this mind-blowingly idiotic article by a "Bill Livingston" living in "Cleveland".

Since I already hate Sportsline and Doyel has been a target here before, I'll stick to his crap. Warning: idiot typing and stale ideas ahead. The whole article is basically a rewrite of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s claim that "Baseball is dead, nobody plays it, it's too boring". It's just found a new place to spawn. And it's still the same old tripe. Let's look at some of the worst claims.

The truth of the matter is ... baseball just isn't that important anymore.

As I previously cited in this post last February, MLB's revenues indicate that quite a lot of people still care. For example, for 2007 (figures not available yet this year) MLB's revenues approach the oh-my-god-best-professional-league-ever NFL's. Besides money? I don't see appreciable decline in other metrics which might measure the lack of baseball importance. Yes - before you comment - the lousy ratings for this year's World Series are hardly a useful metric.

In 2008, MLB had its second highest attendance ever: "The total of 78,614,880 fell short of 2007's record of 79,503,175" (source).

Baseball purists and constipated gripers -- same thing, if you ask me --

Sportsline.com journalists and uninformed self-aggrandizing windsocks - same thing, if you ask me --

want to blame the 2008 World Series' tepid television ratings on the schedule and the network and the weather,

Or the one small-market team?

all of which they sum up with the words "Bud Selig." And they're complaining that next year it will get worse, what with the World Series starting in late October and ending in early November and WHIP and VORP and the world coming to an end. Not to mention on-base plus slugging.

Yes! Now we get to the real problems! WHIP and VORP and OPS! That's why baseball is too irrelevant: it has a small core of actually intelligent fans! Again with the eschatological overtones: clearly baseball stats are bringing recorded time to a standstill!

Thesis: baseball's core of intelligent fans distinguishes it from every other sport, which is comprised almost exclusively of hordes of morons. Discuss.

But the truth is, baseball just isn't that important anymore in this country,

Six billion dollars suggest otherwise. Lotta tax dollars going to lotta communities. At a fairly-conservative 5% sales tax, that's 300 million tax dollars... and that's not even counting the income tax, which probably runs about 9 million a year for Alex Rodriguez alone. *shrug*

and there's no going back. I'm not sure how many people, other than the purists and the owners and (maybe) the players, even want to go back.

Actually, as a card-carrying purist, I kind of like the present. I really do. Except for the fact that the Reds haven't had a winning season since 1999, a record or two is steroid-tainted and the American League still has the DH, I'm just about fine with the present. And I don't mean that with any sarcasm whatsoever.

We like baseball where it is, behind football and ahead of soccer and log-jammed in there with basketball, golf, auto racing and combat sports.

That must be the royal "we" of smarmy assholes who write for Sportsline and like to think baseball is doomed when it isn't. Seriously: combat sports? COMBAT SPORTS?

What an idiot.

... regarding the (obviously idiotic) idea of a neutral-site Series:

Only in football are tens of thousands of fans willing to spend a small fortune to traipse across the country to watch one winner-take-all game.

I am not sure of an exact stat here, but I once read somewhere that some huge percentage of SB tickets go to corporate sponsors and interests, with another percentage available to the public of the host city. Readers?

Oh, right, like people who "traipse" (traipse?) across the country to go to the Super Bowl go there to watch the game.

Football is passionate. Football is fun.

Apparently eighty million turnstiles clicked this past summer to go to events that were not fun. I think this is a sign of national depression. Why the hell did people go to baseball games eighty million times in order to not have fun? Put America on suicide watch.

Later:
With baseball, that means wrapping up the 162nd game and then looking back and studying the statistics, seeing which players got better or worse (or, like Adam Dunn, both).

Besides being a blatant and pointless baseball homer, you're uninformed to boot! As far as writers go, this year you got worse!

I think this is a joke? Like maybe Adam Dunn somehow got better or worse? Even though he had exactly as many homers as he's had for each of the previous three seasons, or that his OPS+ was exactly his career OPS+?

Gregg doesn't know his head from his ass. I wish Dunn would start hitting Gregg Doyel instead of 40 home runs a season or his wife after games in Chicago.

[Note: this is an inside joke between me and two other bloggers. I am not actually suggesting that Adam Dunn commits domestic violence.]

***********************

Baseball isn't dead. Baseball isn't dying. The World Series isn't dead. The World Series isn't dying. Can we all just get over the ONE RAINOUT in the ONE HUNDRED YEARS of World Series baseball and go back to debating about something useful, like how many DHs can dance on the head of a pin?

Seriously, people have been whining about how baseball is dead for the last thirty years. I once read a Charlie Brown comic strip from like 1974 or some shit where Linus declared baseball to be dead. It's not true, it hasn't been true, and no useful metric suggests that it's going to be true.

No Jokes Here--This is just an Incredibly Tasteless Article

I'm gonna wait a bit to post this so Larry's excellent Easterbrook send-up doesn't get buried, but this is just an incredibly tasteless piece of journalism.

As you may know, Gene Upshaw, the head of the NFLPA players' union died on Wednesday. The next day, Gregg Doyel had this article ready.

You may agree or disagree with Upshaw's policies and opinions*. A lot of people did. Mike Ditka for instance. But I hope you'll agree that publicly excoriating a man for something relatively trivial--like the fact that his policies as NFLPA were slightly conservative--the day after his untimely death is more or less appalling. Read the whole article, if you have a chance. If you don't, I hope these first 4 paragraphs will suffice as an example of the garbage contained beyond

This is going to seem callous, but at some point you have to get past the emotions surrounding a man's death and understand what his death means. And in the case of Gene Upshaw's death, what it means for the NFL is potentially catastrophic.

You think the world was a better place with Gene Upshaw in it? Fine. I'm sure it was. He was a great player, a tough guy, a man of integrity. The world was better with Gene Upshaw in it. That's a nice, happy thought.

Here's a counter thought:

The NFL owners' world was a better place with Gene Upshaw in it ... and in charge of the NFL players union.

With Upshaw gone -- figuratively and, sadly, literally -- the NFL owners' world just took a turn for the terrifying.

Just ridiculous. "At some point you have to get past the emotions surrounding a man's death and understand what his death means?". Sure. Agreed 100%. But most of us wait till the body's cold






*I would elaborate a little more on my personal feelings about the NFLPA but that would be somewhat hypocritical, no? And really quite irrelevant to this post

Gregg Doyell: The Extra "G" Stands for Grotesquely Mismanaged Metaphor

Ok, so while the point of this post is to point out the world's worst execution of a poker metaphor in this Gregg Doyel column:

Pau Gasol? I know who he is. He's Craig Counsell.

Wrong sport, I know. But Counsell is my ace in the hole. If we were playing poker over the concept of Pau Gasol's greatness, and you led with the 18.8 ppg he averaged this season, I'd see you with Mike Dunleavy (19.1 ppg) and I'd raise you Gerald Wallace (19.4 ppg). You'd respond by noting the Lakers became this season's NBA front-runner only after acquiring Gasol. Fine. I'd counter by slapping down a Craig Counsell baseball card and laughing in your mystified face

I also want to point out how much respect the editors for Sportsline seem to have for Gregg, as evidenced by this bit of copy:



I guess they really bought into this column whole-hog

We Have an "articles that didn't need to be written" Label, Right?

Just checking

I'm so sick of the coverage of Barry Bonds blanketing the baseball pages at all the major sports web sites (at least msnbc.com has the decency to divide the news into two distinct sections titled "Baseball" and "Barry Bonds"). Every article's the same. Gregg Doyel decided to write some sort of piece on the guy that fills in for him.

SAN FRANCISCO -- They came for Barry Bonds.

They dragged a kayak into the Bay, dumped it into the water and paddled a mile to McCovey Cove. They got in their car in Carson City, Nev., and drove 300 miles to AT&T Park. They fought rush-hour traffic in downtown San Francisco, paid $30 to park in a dirt lot, walked a quarter-mile and paid $25 or more for a ticket.

They came for Barry Bonds. They came for history.

They got Fred Lewis.

My problem with anyone with complaints about this situation is that anyone who follows Bonds closely enough to care that much about seeing him play already KNOWS that he's not an everyday player, and that they run the risk of not seeing him play when they go to a Giants game.

"I never thought of it that way," Fred Lewis tells me, "until you mentioned it."

See, this is an idea that never needed to be developed, Doyel.

That's me. I am buzzkill. Or rather, Fred Lewis is buzzkill.

Right the first time.

Nobody came to AT&T Park on Wednesday night to see Fred Lewis play left field for the Giants, but there he was in left against the Atlanta Braves.

Fine, screw you Fred Lewis, it's all your fault, you uninteresting bag of nothingness.

Of course it's not Fred Lewis' fault. He plays when and where he is told to play. Bruce Bochy is the manager, and he's the one who draws up the lineup card. He drew it up Wednesday with Lewis in left and Bonds on the bench.

Hey yeah, nevermind, screw you Bochy, it's all your fault....don't you understand what the fans want to see?

Of course it's not Bruce Bochy's fault, either. Bonds is the 43-year-old behemoth whose torso is too big for his legs. When Bonds was put together -- by God, by Victor Conte, by someone -- he wasn't built with 240 pounds of skull and muscle in mind. His legs cannot take the grind of playing every day, and certainly not playing every day at such an unnatural weight.

So he needs more days off than the average ballplayer. Last week he took three consecutive days off. This week with the Giants at home for seven games, he might play five of them. After playing all 13 innings of San Francisco's 7-5 loss Tuesday night, he rested Wednesday.

Hey yeah, nevermind, screw you Barry, for being so big, which is the whole reason you became this interesting in the first place.

I'm REALLY missing the point, if there is one, of all this.

This came as a downer to me, since I flew across the country Wednesday to start what could be a four-week vigil. Until Bonds hits home run No. 756 to pass Hank Aaron and become baseball's all-time leader, I will follow him. I will follow him from San Francisco to Los Angeles to San Diego, then back to San Francisco, then to Pittsburgh, Atlanta and Florida if it takes that long.

Wednesday was my first day in town, first day on the Bonds watch, and he's off. Terrific.

So this is just one giant (no pun intended) Gregg Doyel complaint. This is not a blog. This is a sports column.

Could be worse, though. Imagine being Fred Lewis, the guy nobody wants to see.

Could be worse. Imagine being a professional baseball player being paid six figures to play a baseball game, in front of a lot of people, with the painful drawback being: you aren't famous.

Imagine being the guy in the orange kayak in McCovey Cove. He's wearing a bright orange rain jacket with the words BONDS NAVY in big, bold letters. He paddled across the Pacific two hours before the first pitch to get the best spot in the cove, just in case Bonds hits No. 754, 755 and even 756. Those balls could be worth six or seven figures. A man could retire on that kind of money.

Again, he's there by choice.....

I walked out to right field, leaned over the railing and yelled to the guy, "Barry's not playing!" The guy looked like he wanted to flip me off. Maybe he did flip me off. I didn't wait to see because I'm not here for a conversation. I'm a journalist, a deliverer of news, and I'm heading to center field and down the steps to the ballpark's marina entrance. At least 200 people are standing in line, maybe 50 of them wearing Bonds' No. 25. I walk through the crowd whispering the news.

Barry's not playing. Barry's not playing.

Much like a 13-year old girl whispering to all her friends who she has a crush on.

I love the triumphant-sounding proclamation: "I'm a journalist, a deliverer of news". I'm about to whisper something to a bunch of people who will find that thing out anyway in less than an hour. But I'm special, because I'm the first one to tell them! I'm a gossip queen! I mean uh...journalist...

And if you're a deliverer of news, what the hell is this column? So far the only "news" you've reported is "Fred Lewis took Barry Bonds's place in left field Wednesday, and myself and other baseball fans weren't happy." What insight, what genius!

I hear some groans. One person literally gets out of line and walks away. I almost feel bad, like I've ruined the ending of the final Harry Potter book. But this isn't my fault. I'm like everyone else here. I didn't come for Fred Lewis. No offense, Fred.

I love the "this isn't my fault" defense. First he "saves" Lewis and Bochy with it, now he acts as if someone is blaming him for Barry not playing.

"I understand what you're saying," he tells me, "but I don't care about that. I'm a rookie, and I understand nobody is here to see me (in left field), but one day that will be my position."

I love how in an "imagine how bad it would be to be Fred Lewis" column, Fred Lewis is quoted twice saying he doesn't even care.

Last week Kevin Frandsen was the guy nobody wanted to see. The Giants were at Wrigley Field in Chicago and Bonds was off. Frandsen played left. The bums in left serenaded him for three hours: "Bar-ry's back-up ... Barr-ry's back-up."

"I thought it was funny," Frandsen says. "I'm thinking, 'Yeah, I guess I am today. But there are worse jobs.'"

Thank you, Kevin Frandsen, for telling Doyel that there are worse jobs than one involving playing left field in a major league baseball game. I think he's the only one that needed to know (and he still doesn't seem convinced).

Worse than Fred Lewis' job Wednesday night? I'm not sure. It's a cold, windy night. The Giants are 16 games under .500. The Braves aren't the draw they used to be, certainly not when someone named Chuck James is pitching. But still there are roughly 30,000 people here.

The Braves didn't even sell out for some of their playoff games back in the 90's. They have a notoriously indifferent fan base.

They came to see Barry Bonds in left, but five minutes before the first pitch the Giants lineup was posted on the big scoreboard, and after a few seconds, when it became clear to everyone that Bonds' name wasn't up there in lights, AT&T Park deflated.

A murmur went through the crowd.

It didn't sound like, "Let's go, Fred Lewis!"

You essentially said this 6 different ways already.

Tough being Fred Lewis. On the left field wall is a mural shaped like a U.S. highway sign, with the words "Road to History" and a picture of Bonds inside the sign. In right-center field is the official Bonds home run count, with "Bonds 753" next to "Aaron 755." Down the right field line is the counter for "splash hits" into McCovey Cove, the count up to 44. Bonds has accounted for 34 of them.

Bonds is everywhere tonight. Everywhere but left field.

Make that 7.

Jason and Diana Albright drove from Carson City for this game. Husband and wife are wearing Bonds jerseys, and they're not thrilled when I tell them two hours before first pitch that Bonds isn't in the lineup. They don't leave, however. They came 300 miles for this. Maybe they'll see Bonds pinch hit.

"Don't forget," I tell them. "You'll get to see Fred Lewis."

"Who?" Diana Albright says back.

She makes a great point.

Fred Lewis isn't famous. This is Doyel's opinion of what a great point should be.

Again, to recap,

I'm not here for a conversation. I'm a journalist, a deliverer of news.

Then deliver some next time.