OK, I will take Mitch Albom's bait

Undoubtedly someone has already linked you to this, and it's possible you've already seen someone make fun of it.  Still, I've got to take a crack at it.  It's just too fucking awesome to pass up.

The eyes have it.

That pun, which he will go on to repeat in his final sentence, is probably the best part about this whole article.  Not because it's clever or insightful (or even sensical--it's not like the MVP vote is a yes/no proposition like HOF voting is or something); just because it's not as offensive as everything else this cretin writes.

In a battle of computer analysis versus people who still watch baseball as, you know, a sport, 

It is a well-known fact that people who like computer analysis watch baseball as a romantic comedy.

what we saw with our Detroit vision 

Detroit Vision (patent pending): from the company that brought you Cleveland Smell.

was what most voters saw as well:

Cabrera won the Triple Crown and happened to play for a team that wasn't in the same division as Texas and Oakland.  I, too, saw all that.

Miguel Cabrera is the Most Valuable Player in the American League this year.

Shouldn't have been.  Chris W put it best: he was a deserving candidate, just definitely not the most deserving candidate.  I think that's a very levelheaded and fair way to describe his credentials.  Now let's watch Mitch work his magic.

"It means a lot," he told reporters over the phone from Miami. 

(Between rounds of shots)

"I'm very thankful. ... I thought it was gonna be very close."

So did everyone. But the debate ended Thursday night when the results were announced, with Cabrera earning 22 of the 28 first-place votes from the Baseball Writers' Association of America. It reinforced what Tigers fans have been saying all season: This guy is a monster.

All season long, Tigers fans have been trying to convince other fans that a guy who has a career triple slash of .318/.395/.561 was having yet another awesome offensive year.  But those other fans wouldn't listen!  They were too busy doing computer nerd things on computers, and refusing to watch any baseball.  Finally, some vindication for those Tigers fans, in the form of acknowledgement from the always-credible BBWAA.

It also answered the kind of frenzied cyberspace argument that never shadowed baseball 20 years ago but may never stop shadowing it now.

Wasn't life so much better when we had less information?  That's how I feel.  It's so annoying that the rise of the internet and the computer age has allowed us to expand our baseball analysis knowledge base.

Statistics geeks insisted Cabrera was less worthy than Angels rookie centerfielder Mike Trout. Not because Trout's traditional baseball numbers were better. They weren't. Cabrera had more home runs (44), more runs batted in (139) and a better batting average (.330) than Trout and everyone else in the American League. It gave him the sport's first Triple Crown in 45 years.

The funny part is, if Trout gets 3 more hits and see his BA go up to .331, ruining Cabrera's Triple Crown, you can bet that Trout would have won the MVP.

But Trout excelled in the kind of numbers that weren't even considered a few years ago, mostly because A) They were impossible to measure, and B) Nobody gave a hoot.

A is correct.  B is not.  We've been keeping track of errors for decades because people wanted to have a way to quantify defensive ability.

Today, every stat matters. There is no end to the appetite for categories -- from OBP to OPS to WAR. 

"There is no end to the appetite for categories" -- guy who gets paid a generous salary to express thoughts through writing

I mean, OMG! 

LOL

The number of triples hit while wearing a certain-colored underwear is probably being measured as we speak.

It probably is not.  But highest OBP while wearing certain colors of underwear?  That is most definitely "being measured" (again, Albom is a professional journalist) right now.

So in areas such as "how many Cabrera home runs would have gone out in Angel Stadium of Anaheim" or "batting average when leading off an inning" or "Win Probability Added," Trout had the edge. At least this is what we were told.

DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE TROUT-RUN LIBERAL MEDIA TELLS YOU, SHEEPLE.  KOOKY STATS LIKE "BATTING AVERAGE LEADING OFF AN INNING" ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.  JUST STICK TO RBIS AND DETROIT VISION APPROVAL RATING.

I mean, did you do the math?  I didn't. 

Why bother when people around Detroit had already concluded that Cabrera "was a monster?"  CASE CLOSED

I like to actually see the sun once in a while.

PARDON YOUR ZINGER

Plus he has intangibles

That's a subheadline, not an editing mistake, but I think he should have just ended the article there.  What would the computer people be able to say in response?

Besides, if you live in Detroit, you didn't need a slide rule. 

The best part about jokes like that is that the defensive metrics that showed Trout to be an awesome CF and fuel his enormous WAR total cannot exist without extremely diligent viewing of actual game footage.  That's not to say I'm some UZRophile or something--I think most defensive metrics are crappy.  But I'd still rather have them than not have them, you know?

This was an easy choice. 

So far the only ways in which you've compare the two guys are BA, HR, RBI (all numbers which can be trusted and which favor Cabrera), how playing in Anaheim would have affected Cabrera's HR total (favors Trout, supposedly), batting average leading off an inning (favors Trout, but not a number to be trusted, apparently) and win probability added (WHAT THE HELL IS THAT?).  You haven't talked about defense or stolen bases, which are traditionally the kind of things that the I LOVE ME SOME PLAYERS WHO PLAY THE GAME THE RIGHT WAY crowd loves, and which are more or less the reason Trout's WAR total was so much higher than Cabrera's.  I know I'm simultaneously preaching to the choir and shouting into the void here, but holy dogshit, if you're going to make the case for why A was better than B, simply saying "A was great" isn't a very good way to do it.

People here watched Cabrera, 29, tower above the game in 2012. Day after day, game after game, he was a Herculean force. Valuable? What other word was there? 

Defensively inadequate?  Can I use two words like that?

How many late-inning heroics? How many clutch hits? And he only missed one game all year. 

That last stat really makes Justin Verlander's 2011 MVP look silly in hindsight.  Guy didn't even play 75% of the time!

"During the season, a lot of guys tell me I'm gonna be the MVP," Cabrera said, laughing. "But they said the same thing to Trout."
Yes, it's true, Trout is faster, Trout is a better defensive player, 

Here we go!

Trout is a leadoff hitter, and Trout edged Cabrera in several of those made-for-Microsoft categories.

4 WAR is not really an "edged him out" margin, but OK, go ahead.

But if you are going to go molten deep 

Again, this man is paid to use the English language effectively.

into intangibles, 

Like playing defense and stealing bases?

why stop at things like "which guy hit more homers into the power alleys?" (A real statistic, I am sorry to say.)

Still not an intangible.  But in any case, who wants to stop there?  This is the most bizarre and confusing straw man I've ever seen.  "ALL YOU INTANGIBLES LOVERS OUT THERE WHO WANT ME TO CONSIDER TROUT'S DEFENSE AND SPEED, JUST STOP PUSHING HIS POWER ALLEY HOME RUN TOTAL ON ME ALREADY!  WHO CARES ABOUT THE INTANGIBLE THAT IS POWER ALLEY HOME RUNS?"  What?

Why not also consider such intangibles as locker-room presence? Teammates love playing around -- and around with -- Miggy. He helps the room.

When he's not being a total distraction because his wife beat him up and he got a DUI, yes.

How about his effect on pitchers? Nobody wanted the embarrassment of him slamming a pitch over the wall. The amount of effort pitchers expended on Cabrera or the guy batting ahead of him surely took its toll and affected the pitches other batters saw. 

Surely!  Meanwhile, Trout spent the whole season giving opposing pitchers scouting reports on his teammates in exchange for an agreement that those pitchers would throw him BP fastballs.  Hardly a team player.

Why not find a way to measure that? (Don't worry. I'm sure someone is working on it as we speak.)

Why not take three seconds to realize that Trout did the exact same damn thing all season, while batting leadoff?

What about the debilitating power of a three-run homer? How many opposing teams slumped after Cabrera muscled one out? 

Clearly all of them, as evidenced by Detroit's 88-74 record, obtained while playing in the same division as the AL's two worst teams.

How about team confidence? You heard everyone from Prince Fielder to Justin Verlander speak in awed tones about being on the same team as Cabrera. Doesn't that embolden teammates and bring out their best?

I sure don't remember seeing any articles about how Trout energized the Angels and was more or less the sole reason their season turned around the time he was called up.  Anybody else catch any of those?

How about the value of a guy who could shift from first to third base -- as Cabrera did this past season -- to make room for Fielder? Ask manager Jim Leyland how valuable that is.

Yeah, nothing like playing a fat guy out of position so you can add another fat guy to your infield.  True value right there.

How about the fact that Cabrera's team made the playoffs and Trout's did not? ("Yes," countered Team Trout, "but the Angels actually won more games.") 

No response to that completely valid argument is provided.

How about the fact that Cabrera played the whole season while Trout started his in the minors? ("Yes," said the Trout Shouters, "but the Angels won a greater percentage with Trout than Detroit did with Cabrera.")

I like how he thinks that this is a knock on Trout.  Sure, he hit 30 bombs, but he only played in 139 games!  Totally invalidates everything!  /fart

How about this? How about that? The fact is, voters are not instructed to give more credence to any one category than another. Twenty-eight sportswriters, two from each AL city, decide, in their own minds, what is "valuable" and who displayed it the most.
They chose Cabrera.

By an overwhelming majority.

In the end, memories were more powerful than microchips.

I believe that was the original pitch for Forrest Gump.

Which, by the way, speaks to a larger issue about baseball. It is simply being saturated with situational statistics. What other sport keeps coming up with new categories to watch the same game? 

Basketball (PER, +/-)  Hockey (Corsi, Fenwick)  Football (QB Y/A, WR Y/Tgt)?  But wait--are those actually SPORTS, or are they computer games?  Hard to tell.

A box score now reads like an annual report. 

I'd love to be a shareholder of AlbomCorp.  Its annual reports would be awesome, they'd be like THINGS ARE GOING PRETTY GOOD, WE'RE DECLARING A DIVIDEND OF $1,000,000 PER SHARE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SOME NERD COMPANY THAT USES NUMBERS.

And this WAR statistic -- which measures the number of wins a player gives his team versus a replacement player of minor league/bench talent (honestly, who comes up with this stuff?) 

People who like to know which baseball players are good?

-- is another way of declaring, "Nerds win!"

If you'd prefer the nerds to win after completing a series of athletic and talent show challenges, like in Revenge of the Nerds, I'm sure that can be arranged.

We need to slow down the shoveling of raw data into the "what can we come up with next?" machine. It is actually creating a divide between those who like to watch the game of baseball and those who want to reduce it to binary code.

To the extent such a divide exists, it's entirely the result of the needledicked insecurities of people like you, Mitch.  Your antiquated way of thinking is being challenged by people who like baseball just as much as you do, and have said to themselves, "Hmmmm, stats like RBIs really don't tell us that much about who's good and who isn't.  Maybe there are other, better ways to measure performance.  As someone who likes watching baseball, I'd like to discover/learn about those ways."  Since (most of you) know that you can't make the argument that old stats are more illuminating, of course you and your ilk instead attack the new stat people by saying they don't like to watch baseball, which is elephant shit.  Go read a book, then go fuck yourself, and follow that up by giving the Detroit Free Press your two weeks' notice.  You're a fucking loser and I hope you catch Crohn's disease.  

Christ, I tried to keep it lighthearted, but eventually I got worn down.  Mitch Albom is the fucking worst. 

MLB on XM's Jeff Nelson takes a dumb subject (baseball's unwritten rules) and makes it sound ten times dumber than it usually does

You know what I mean when I refer to the unwritten rules. What methods you're allowed to use when you're trying to steal signs, when and how you can retaliate if the other team's pitcher throws at your team (answer, if I were in charge of baseball: IT IS MANDATORY. YOU WILL BE EJECTED IF YOU DON'T DO IT), and whether or not spitting on John Hirschbeck is permissible.

I find that most people in the media who like to talk about baseball's unwritten rules are morons. This is probably the case because most of those people are former players, and nearly every pro baseball player has an IQ below 60. Anyways, earlier today former overrated relief pitcher Jeff Nelson raised the stakes in the long-running competition for "stupidest opinion ever held by anyone on Earth at any point in time."

Scene: Nelson is doing a live update-style show with some other co-host dude. The show involves the two of them talking about baseball news (lots to cover during this particular show because of the trade deadline) while mixing in live updates from ongoing games and a little analysis of those games. At the time I was listening, Justin Verlander had a no-hitter through 7 innings against the Angels. For reference the Angels came into the day 2 games back of the Rangers in the AL West- very much in the playoff race.

At the time they came to bat in the top of the 8th they were trailing 3-0. That's trouble when you're facing Verlander to be sure. Erick Aybar led off the inning, and with the game still within reach, he decided that the best possible way for him to reach base was via a bunt attempt. He didn't get a good one down, but Verlander made a throwing error trying to get him at 1st and he would later come around to score. The Angels got another run in that same inning, and as a result, trailed only 3-2 in the top of the 9th and managed to get the tying run to 2nd before the game ended.

So what about Aybar's bunt attempt? A pretty savvy way for him to jumpstart his team's offense, no? When you're in the thick of a divisional race on the last day of July, and you're only trailing 3-0 in the 8th, anything goes, right? Not if you're Jeff Nelson. Now I get that because Nelson is a former pitcher his perspective is probably going to be slanted towards that side of the argument. But good ghost of Ty Cobb. In expressing his disgust towards Aybar's decision to try to break up the no-no with a bunt, he said all of the following things or something very close to them. (I'm going off memory 10 hours after I heard the segment in question, people. Work with me here.)

You don't do that.

That's bush league.

Detroit's fans were right to boo Aybar for that.

That's just absolutely inappropriate.

And my favorite, this one verbatim:

If you want to break up a no hitter, you get a hit the right way.

Seriously, he sounded like Joe Buck after Randy Moon pretended to moon Green Bay's fans. The indignation in his voice was noticeable. You don't DO that. Why, it's unsporting! It's like a play action fake! Or intentionally fouling in basketball when the other team is ahead and trying to run out the clock! Fuck trying to win- obey the CODE, people. The secret set of nonexistant rules that morons like Jeff apply arbitrarily from their ivory towers. THAT'S what's important. Playoff spot? Pshh. What good is it if you got there by bunting to break up a no hitter? What a zilcheroo.

Now I can understand if some people think it's inappropriate to do what Aybar did if you're down like 10-0, or if you're the Cubs or some other team that has no shot at making the playoffs. Neither of those fact patterns applies here. So at this point I'm starting to think that Jeff Nelson is not actually a human, because no human could be as dim as he sounded today.

In conclusion Jeff Nelson is a poorly programmed robot.

Derek Jeter Derek Jeter Derek Jeter DEREK JETER JETERJETERJETERJETER!!!!!!

He's been in the news lately I guess. The best part about it (by which I mean the only non-stupid part about it) is that everyone has something to say about him, and they're all wrong. Join me for a brief tour of all opinions unsupportable, inane, or both.

Zilcharoo blogger 'Duk from Blig League Stew has some thoughts about whether or not Jeter should play in the All Star Game.

But considering Jeter has been healthy enough to play each game since returning from his rehab stint, I don't think it's asking too much of Jeter to put in some face time, both for the good of the sport and to thank his fans.

Yeah, I know, right? I mean, he's been healthy for five whole games. What a vajayjay. Don't worry about your rehab, dude. Truck yourself off to Arizona and smile for the cameras. Not that it isn't a little weak for him to bail on the game- but seriously, the fact the he's been healthy for about a week is a good reason to fly six hours for an exhibition game? Better arguments could have been made, people. BETTER ARGUMENTS. Chris forwarded me that article, and my snarky response was "Nah, if he skips the game, it'll be a move of pure class." Little did I know how right I unintentionally was (according to some).

"Derek Jeter is as great an ambassador for this game as we've seen in a long time," Weiner said.

That's players' union chief Michael Weiner. Hehehehe. Weiner.

"I don't think anybody can really question Derek's commitment to the game or, frankly, to being an All-Star."

Well the thing is, you can. He's not going to the ASG. Therefore he's not really committed to it. I don't blame him for his decision. I don't think it was wrong. But it shows that he's not committed to it. Also, how has he been "as great an ambassador" as anyone has seen in a long time? Is he super involved in charity work? If he is, he's doing it under the radar. The Google indicates that he's no more involved than the average star (and a lot less involved than many). By being a super popular player on a super popular team? If that's the case, then why doesn't anyone call Fish Fillet-Rod a great ambassador? Maybe it's because Jeter bangs lots of hot, famous women. Nope, that doesn't seem like enough. Well he's never been arrested in the aftermath of a bar brawl. Gotta hand him that.

Long story short, he's just your average run-of-the-mill Hall of Famer (and I don't say that as a backhanded compliment). He's played somewhere from good to amazing for about fifteen years. He's got rings. He's super popular. But he hasn't done anything more than the other 50 or so superduperstars with whom his career has overlapped. Why does he get this praise? Why? Whatever the reason is, I'm sure it has something to do with classy classiness, something I've heard Jeter has in spades even though no one can explain what that means or why he gets the label with any level of clarity.

Well in any case I'm sure baseball commissioner Bud "face like a catcher's mitt" Selig can bring some sanity to this fracas.

"There isn't a player I'm more proud of in the last 15 years than Derek Jeter," Selig said. "He has played the game the way it should be played, and he's been a better human being off the field."

What the fuck is Bud alluding to? Is Jeter secretly pulling off Clemente-esque feats of amazing generosity and somehow not being recognized for them? He's obviously a great player. IN WHAT DISCERNABLE WAY IS HE A GREAT HUMAN BEING, OR ANY GREATER A HUMAN BEING THAN ROY HALLADAY OR ALBERT PUJOLS OR DAVID ORTIZ?????? It's insane. He is immediately given full credit for being the second coming of Gandhi regardless of what he does. At this point he could go all OJ and murder his wife and a waiter in cold blood, and people would be like "See, that's just pure class right there. Pure class. Those two had it coming." It fucking boggles my mind. I can't get past it.

Maybe it is all the famous/hot women he's banged. And if FireJay was Barstool Sports, this is where we'd have links to Maxim photoshoots of all of them.

A Mixed Bag of Silly Baseball Comments

Dayn Perry's overly stilted introduction to his article on disappointing baseball players and teams:

Great expectations -- so much more than a heavy-handed Dickensian romp! In this case, we're talking great expectations unmet.

What? I guess when you dial up Dayn Perry's articles, you can expect a nickel's worth of baseball insight as well as a nickel's worth of literary criticism.

___________________________________________________________________

An article regarding several recent disputes between batterymates:

"The very best pitch a pitcher can throw is the one he throws with his heart," said Brent Mayne, a veteran of 15 seasons and author of the book "The Art of Catching."

I think I know what Mr. Mayne is trying to say here... but (*&^ the heck, Brent, you can't throw baseballs with your heart!

_________________________________________________________________

From a pretty pointless article where MLB player Ron Hunt, famous for being hit by a pitch a lot, was asked for his perspective on several recent mound chargings:

"I don't understand what is happening with all of this stuff," said Hunt from his home in Wentzville, Mo. "Maybe it's a case of me being 'old school' but it seems like they don't play the game the right way anymore."

I wish someone would take a poll of retired major leaguers and ask a simple question:
Do players today play the game the right way?

Hunt didn't establish himself as a player noted for being hit by pitches until he was traded by the Los Angeles Dodgers to the San Francisco Giants after the 1967 season.

"It was so cold in that ballpark in San Francisco that we had to wear everything we could under our uniforms to stay warm," recalls Hunt. "We bundled up so much it was hard to get loose and swing the bat. I just decided that I was going to crowd the plate, not give in, and hit the ball up the middle and do whatever it took to get to first base."

Apparently "playing the game the right way" means having such little confidence in one's hitting skill that it requires crowding the plate and hoping to get hit by a pitch.

That's playing the game the right way.

Let's See, How Can We Cram More Sponsorships Into the Broadcasting of Sports?

Oh, I know. We'll invent this little segment/thingy called "Keys to the Game," in which we come up with something totally irrelevant and confusing that the teams playing today are allegedly focusing on. And then we'll get a corporation to pay for the right to attach their name to it. Ahhhhhhh. Life is easy as hell when you own a major TV network.

Last night's Ford/Miller High Life/Viagra/Cialis/Just For Men/Wrangler KsTTG for game three of the NLCS on FOX-

Phillies: Change of venue- same winning menu?

So basically, can the Phillies win the game? This isn't even a statement, it's a question. And it's the most generic question you could possibly ask, other than perhaps "Phillies: are they a baseball team?" And it's been shoehorned into one of the most awkward analogies I've ever seen. Sure, playing sports is just like ordering food at a restaurant. I think that's pretty self evident. The best part of this was listening to Tim McCarver read it.

Dodgers: Remember August 30th (when they beat Dan Haren)

Yeah, that's perfect. Dan Haren is starting for the Phillies tonight, right? No? Well, surely the Phillies are starting someone who pitches like him. A RHP with a good sinker who throws in the low 90s. No? Jamie Moyer's nothing like that? O....K. Well, I can definitely see why this would be a key to tonight's game.


As I see them, here are the ever-present "Keys to the Post" for us here at FireJay:
1. Use computer?
2. Fat people jokes
3. Sports, or maybe other stuff
4. Rip off other blogs, as fun as playing with POGS
5. Very outdated references

I'm Busy These Days

But I think enough random clutter has accumulated in my brain from the past few days to justify a post.

1) Besides my dream girl Le Ann Schreiber, E:60 might be the best thing ESPN has going for it. No, it's not perfect- I realize not everyone is going to agree on the quality of the reporters. Some people hate Jeremy Schaap, others don't care for Lisa Salters. Whatever. I for one like all of them in this particular capacity, especially Tom Farrey. (I think we can all agree that Rachel Nichols is an absolute disaster when she's doing pregame reports on Sportscenter. But like I said, she does alright for herself here.) The stories they cover are almost always entertaining, and I don't mind the cheesy "production meeting" background setting. Consider me an E:60 fan. If it's on, I'm watching it. Without complaining. Which, as you may or may not be able to guess, is a pretty rare occurence.

2) Fuck. Ing. Hell. Tony Kornheiser- you are the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, biggest piece of poop, worst TV commentator of all time. The worst. I can no longer watch Monday Night Football with the sound on because of you. (Which is unfortunate, because Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski are reasonably good together.) You're OK on PTI. Actually, I think PTI has been getting a little stale lately, but it's still a good forum for you. And your writing ranges from above average to below average. But your MNF performance... oh my God. Just shut up. You're atrocious. STOP ASKING RHETORICAL QUESTIONS. (Re: Reggie Bush: "Wow, how good is this guy?") THAT DOESN'T WORK WHEN YOU'RE COMMENTATING A LIVE SPORTING EVENT. Jesus leghumping Christ. ESPN- get someone else. Anyone else. I don't care if it's Joe Morgan. Just get this clown out of the booth.

3) I'm really looking forward to the ALCS as televised by TBS. You know why? Because Buck Martinez will be in the booth. I don't know if you watched much or any of the Angels/Red Sox ALDS... but the guy is even worse while calling a game than he is on XM. I didn't get a chance to liveblog any of those ALDS games, but please believe I will block out at least one evening this time around. The guy is too awful to miss.

4) Speaking of which, I am pooping in a cardboard box and mailing it to the next writer or announcer who points out that player X "doesn't care if he goes 0 for 5, as long as his team wins!" Oh yeah, you fucking think? In the playoffs, especially? You're trying to tell me that these guys would rather advance closer to a ring and a hefty World Series bonus check than bloop in a couple singles and go home after the first round? Fuck you and your crazy brain. That's bonkers. Here's a list of players who would place individual accomplishments over team success in the playoffs: Ricky Davis. That's it. (Note: two shits in two separate boxes if the player referenced by the writer/announcer in the above situation is Dustin Pedroia. He's small, he's white, he plays for the Red Sox, the media loves him, WE FUCKING GET IT.)

Have a nice Wednesday! TMQR forthcoming sometime tomorrow. Hopefully.

Welcome to the national stage Joe Posnanski! Now you should be fired

Know who Joe Posnanski is? Neither did I until reading his wikipedia page which includes these entries:

"Thanks to his wit, observational humor and interest in both the human and analytical side of the game, many consider him one of the finest baseball writers working in the mainstream media. In 2003 and 2005, Posnanski was named the best sports columnist in America by the Associated Press Sports Editors...On August 19, 2008, he announced that he was joining the staff of Sports Illustrated.He currently writes a weekly online column for Sports Illustrated, and his blog is reprinted on www.si.com."

A fellow blogger, eh? Maybe we should cut him some slack? No, never, not after this article:

Favre is a throwback to what great quarterbacks used to be

So, before the article even begins, we're to assume that there's something inherently wrong with the way every QB except Favre plays the game. This should be informative.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York; Joe Ferguson was more Buffalo than the wings; Bert Jones had this amazing arm in Baltimore; Pittsburgh's Terry Bradshaw used to hold his index finger on the point of the ball when he threw; Dan Pastorini loved to throw deep in Houston; Brian Sipe was my hero in Cleveland even though his passes wobbled in the wind (even when the wind was behind him); Kenny Anderson never seemed to miss a pass in Cincinnati; Dan Fouts piloted Air Coryell in San Diego -- I loved the way he shuffled back into the pocket; Craig Morton was ancient in Denver; Jim Zorn used to duck under and spin away from defenders like Shaggy and Scooby Doo running from ghosts; Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

That would be a list of every starting quarterback in the AFC in 1979. I was 12 then and didn't have to look up any of them. Twenty-nine years later and their names all come back as easily as the number nine multiplication table.

I can name the entire starting lineup of the 1993 Baltimore Orioles. Lotta characters on that team. They didn't win shit, but man did I enjoy watching them play. This has nothing to do with modern day football, but neither does anything you just said.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities...The only two things I knew about Tampa was that DisneyWorld was there and that Doug Williams was the quarterback, and only one of those two things turned out to be correct.

I can't tell you anything about Minnesota except that they have lakes and Tavaris Jackson is their quarterback. I have proved absolutely nothing about the quarterback position.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination--

I don't know what you're trying to say, but you're probably hitting too close to home for Peter King's liking.

with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

We hold these conclusions to be self evident after WEEK 1 OF THE REGULAR SEASON.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.

New York fans would prefer to boo Eli Manning, than for him to be successful and win them another Super Bowl.

You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

And therefore, no one associates the current Eagles team with McNabb despite the fact that he threw for about 1,200 yards on Sunday.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

Or he could just keep on being a celebrity, which was your original desire for NFL quarterbacks at the beginning of the article.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

They should be out stumping! November 7th is less than 2 months away!

Finally, there's Brett Favre.

Ah yes, because when you think of Green Bay, New Jersey, New York, you immediately think "Brett Favre."

He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed.

In Soviet NFL, pass flings Brett Favre.

But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

It's called being inconsistent; most people aren't lauded for it.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26).

Terry Bradshaw is also the only quarterback ever to receive more undeserved praise than Brett Favre. Take away that defense and his receivers and you've got Joey Harrington 1979.

The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

And it was a truly dreadful year that most Packers fans would like to forget. That's not to say that it was Favre's fault, but seriously, that's absurdly bad.

In 1979 Grogan led the NFL in touchdown passes, but he completed only 48.7 percent of his passes. You know how unthinkable it would be now to have an every week starting quarterback who completed fewer than half his passes? And he wasn't the only one. Williams completed 41.8 percent of his passes that year (a quarterback should be able to hit that many passes at night with the lights out) and took Tampa Bay to the NFC Championship Game.

You're complaining that NFL quarterbacks are now held to a higher standard in completion percentage?

In 1979 quarterbacks threw deep. The yards per completion numbers were significantly higher then (12.7 yards) than now (11.3).

Here's a funny fact, Brett Favre has averaged 12.7 or more yards per completion all of 1 times in his career.

That meant quarterbacks dropped back deeper, got sacked more, and they turned the ball over like crazy. That's probably why America loves Favre so much, he's the last of the throw-hicans, he's up at the top of nearly every quarterback category, good and bad, most touchdowns, most interceptions, third most fumbles, seventh-most sacked, he's been thrilling fans and driving them crazy for 17 years now.

I can't believe this needs explaining. The object of football is to score more points than your opponent. By throwing interceptions, fumbling, and taking sacks that lead to punts, not only are you surrendering an opportunity to score, but you are allowing your opponent the chance to gain points. Therefore, turnovers/sacks= bad = something you don't want your qb doing.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game.

What a crying fucking shame that NFL quarterbacks have been forced to accept that pro football is a team game, and every team is much better off if their quarterback doesn't throw interceptions in attempt to play the game like it used to be played.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

You know who's probably also a bit peeved? Jacksonville fans because their team now has a statistically worse chance of winning.

Peep this # of interceptions to % chance of victory chart (this is for playoff games in the Superbowl era):

0 = .790
1 = .567
2 = .318
3 = .161
4 = .037
5 = .000
6 = .000

So let me close by asking, if you were at Lambeau Field on January 20th, 2008, which of the following were you more likely to hear a Packers' fan say after Favre threw that second interception:

A. Man, I just love watching Favre play the game like it used to be played.

B. We are totally fucking boned right now.

There Is Something Fundamentally Wrong With America

This post started as an attempt to debunk Dustin Pedroia's AL MVP candidacy. Because he plays for the Red Sox, and I hate short white people (because I am a quasi-tall white person), and blah blah blah. Disappointingly, however, my extensive research revealed that he would be an OK choice for the award. Maybe not the best choice, mind you; but a decent choice. And now that Carlos Quentin is hurt, possibly the best choice from a playoff bound team. But anyways, that was how this post started.

How did it finish? With me realizing that many baseball writers, players, and fans in this country have a problem. A problem that infuriates the likes of me. They simply can't acknowledge that some players are MVP candidates because they are good at the fundamental parts of baseball- hitting, pitching, and fielding. They can't do it. That would be too simple/boring/unfulfilling. Instead, they have to resort to the kind of bullshit that fills up the vast majority of this article.

The Dustin Pedroia-for-MVP bandwagon continues to fill up, with comments over the weekend by Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen providing a big push in momentum.

It's true, sometimes sound bites have an impact on these races. Jimmy Rollins pretty much won the 2007 NL MVP by making his famous division-winning guarantee. A little bit different, because that sound bite came straight from the player's mouth, but you know what I mean.

Guillen went on and on about the Red Sox second baseman, saying:

What's he going to say? That Pedroia's OPSing almost 1.000 since June 1st? That he's got a WARP1 of 8.6 and an EqA of .301? OK, it's probably unfair to expect Ozzie to delve deeply into this kind of analysis. However, did he really have to say-

“I’m a big fan. I love the way he plays. If 90 percent of the players played the way he does, I would pay for a ticket to watch baseball. The way he plays, this kid, that’s the way people should be playing every day.”

What. The fuck. Are you talking about. I guess if I had to cull that sentence down to something slightly less confusing, it would be: he plays the game the way it was meant to be played. Fantastic. There's your MVP, right there.

Suddenly the chants of “MVP, MVP,” heard at Fenway and from Sox fans on the road seems like more than just cheerleading. The possibility of Pedroia actually winning the award seems more and more real.

Like I already said, I guess so. Too bad. Tragic for the likes of me, but certainly fair to say.

“I told him that I’m going to paint an ‘S’ on his chest,” Sox outfielder Mark Kotsay said.

More strange than annoying.

Pedroia’s opponents likely wouldn’t argue with the Superman analogy.

“I think it’s well deserved, I think he can win it,” Baltimore first baseman Kevin Millar said of the MVP possibility.

Please elaborate.

“I think he’s a hell of a ballplayer. He plays bigger than he is.

And this was the point where I started to realize: we have a problem. We can't just say that guys are good. We have to talk about meaningless bullshit. We can't stay away from it. We need the Ecksteins, we need the Erstads. Even when a player is legitimately great, we have to find ways to turn it into feely-good shitpie.

He plays Gold Glove defense.

Points for trying.

He does everything you can ask anyone to do on the baseball field.

Who, besides maybe Milton Bradley or Carl "Jurassic" Everett, doesn't fit that description? How many guys are in the Major Leagues, among the top .00001% of baseball players in the whole world, and don't do everything asked of them? This is useless. Tell me something about how good he is at baseball.

Pitcher Paul Byrd has been dazzled by Pedroia during his brief time with the Sox. “This guy in my opinion is the MVP of the league,” Byrd said.

Because...

“He’s unbelievable. I didn’t know he was that good when I came over here. The guy plays hard, he dives, he plays great defense.

He plays hard. He dives. Stupendous. He hits the ball too, you know. He bats. Usually four or five times a game. And he's pretty good at it.

I feel like I’ve got two guys playing second base.

I wanted to make a joke about a baseball player with multiple personality syndrome here, but I couldn't think of any. Wrong sport, but Herschel Walker, anyone? Too soon?

“He gets the big hit when it counts. (He is a) clutch player.

His 2008 OPS with 2 ours and RISP: .689. (He has been extremely good in "late and close" sitiations, for what it's worth.)

I just can’t say enough about him.

Maybe if you keep going, you'll say something substantive.

As he goes, we go.”

You forgot to point out that he plays larger than he is.

For teammate Alex Cora, that’s what drives Pedroia and best defines his quality as a player: Everything he does is aimed at helping the team win.

That selfish A-Rod never does anything like that. Not even Jimmy Rollins is that unselfish. In fact, you might be surprised to learn this, but the vast majority of baseball players don't give a shit whether or not their teams win. They're just out there, collecting paychecks and scanning the crowd for floozies. (Especially if they are taller than 5'10" and/or not white.)

“The bottom line is he shows up every day and plays,” Cora said.

Grady Sizemore rarely makes it to the ballpark anymore these days. Even when he does, he usually just sits in the clubhouse and plays with a Rubiks Cube.

“He doesn’t care how many hits he gets. All he wants to do is anything he can to make a difference and help us win a game.”

Probably the best way for him to do that: get hits.

“You thought Roberto Alomar was an MVP-type of player?” Cora said of the former Blue Jays star, who received MVP votes in seven seasons.

Is... is that rhetorical? Are you asking the interviewer, or the reader?

“That’s what were talking about right here. What we saw when Robbie was in Toronto, that’s what we’re seeing here from Pedroia. Same type of player.

This is another one of the disappointing parts of the article. I was going to blow this assertion out of the water. Then I looked up the numbers, and... yeah, it's a mildly fair comparison. Not quite the same player, but close. Alomar was generally better in his near-MVP seasons, but not by enough of a degree to make me make a big deal out of it. Crap. Well, let me get back to making delicious ballpark lemon Squishys (tm) out of lemons.

“But you know what? If you ask him, would he trade this MVP talk for us being in first place right now in the East and all set for the playoffs, that’s what he’d want.

On the other hand, if you told Cliff Lee (who leads the AL in WARP1, for what it's worth) that he could either have the MVP or a playoff berth, I think it's totally obvious he would opt for the former. Playoffs? Who the fuck wants to go to the playoffs?

Winning, that’s all that important to him.”

Not like that self-important guy playing 3rd base for the Yankees. No sir. SOMEONE TALK ABOUT HIS HITTING, PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK- HE'S A GOOD HITTER.

Yeah, but he better get used to the MVP chants. They aren’t going to stop anytime soon.

Since the article ends on this point and I haven't done so yet, this is where I have to make fun of the no-name staff writer for a no-name publication who wrote this article. Nice conclusion, asshole. I hope the Boston Herald fires you and you have to go back to writing for a shitty blog like this one. You stink. Here's my slightly less awful conclusion:

Dear America,

Really, I promise it's OK to praise a short, white baseball player for being good at baseball. You don't just have to say he plays hard, or always has dirt on his uniform, or would kill a man with a butter knife just for the chance to lay down a sacrifice bunt. You can just say: hey, he's a good hitter. It's not that fucking hard.

Sincerely,

Bitter and Unfunny Parents' Basement Guy

The Rules of Baseball Have Been Changed

Breaking news from Bristol, CT. ESPN anchor Tim Kirkjian sings the praises of Phillies 2B Chase Utley:

He plays the game the correct way; he gets hit by a pitch three times in one game, he runs over the catcher on plays at the plate.

Tim then went on to clarify that effective immediately, the winner of any baseball game will be the team that is hit by more pitches and runs over the other team's catcher more times. Actually, he didn't. He just wanted to point out that Utley is a gritty, hustlerific, catcher-plowing pitch magnet. That's what makes him so great.

(Edit: I should have clarified, this was particularly offensive because it was the very first thing Kirkjian talked about after introducing Utley as the NL's leading All-Star vote getter. Not Utley's power numbers, or BA, or plus defense. No. The grittiness is much more important.)

Three Columns Into His ESPN Tenure, Rick Reilly Begins Producing Mindless Drivel

The first article he wrote for his new employer? About his dad's alcoholism. Ok, fine. There are some things that even I won't jump on. His second article? A boring but reasonable plea for golf fans to cheer for Phil Mickelson over Tiger Woods during the U.S. Open. (It bothered me a little because of its Yankees-or-Red-Sox-and-no-one-else dichotomized type of approach to fandom; what if I want to cheer for someone besides those two? Whatever.)

But his third? Let's just say it's the kind of garbage I expect him to be writing at the WWL for years to come. In fact, it's worse than garbage; it's in the same vein as what someone like Nancy Grace does. You know, a news story that's totally and utterly meaningless, but contains a shocking/offensive/tragic element, thereby making it effective for sucking in the self-righteous masses. Oh my goodness! Someone did something bad! Doesn't that make you feel good about yourself? Not only would you never do this, but better still, you have an accurate moral compass that tells you these people are bad! Thanks, Rick/Nancy. Without you I would've never been exposed to stories like the one I'm about to unveil, and would subsequently not feel nearly as good about myself as I do for simply being less of an asshole than most.

Sigh. Fucking people. Anyways-

Brushing back a batter? OK. But this? You have to be kidding.

Get ready to be shocked and appalled, people.

You've heard of Kill the Ump, Lynch the Ump, and Strangle the Ump, right?

I'm going to open myself up to criticism here- I played organized baseball for 14 years, and I have no fucking idea what that is. But go on.

Well, get ready for the latest thing—Bean the Ump.

It happened on May 31 in the Georgia high school Class AAA championship game. Stephens County was losing to Cartersville 9-1 early, partly because nine straight SCHS batters had struck out. The last ring-up so hacked off superstar shortstop Ethan Martin—who had just been drafted 15th overall by the Dodgers—that he threw his helmet in protest.

My goodness- Scandal!

But that figured. Martin and his brother, Cody, who was pitching, reportedly had been complaining about balls and strikes the entire game.

What a fucking setup. Thanks, Rick, for telling me in advance who the villains are. You know, this is exactly what Nancy Grace and other bottom feeders of her ilk do. They're constantly hoping to invoke a reaction out of you along the lines of: "I'll tell you one thing right now- it sounds like those boys weren't raised right! If I had been their parent, you'd better believe they would have learned some respect. This whole country is going to hell in a handbasket. You know what's to blame? Violent video games, that's what."

Honestly. Fucking people.

OK. Sorry.

So now it's the bottom of the fourth, with Ethan playing short and Cody on the mound. The catcher is Matt Hill. There are no outs. The count is 0-1. Cody winds up and flings a very high, very hard fastball. Hill comes out of his squat, puts his glove up to catch it, then does a very funny thing.

He doesn't.

Instead, the YouTube video will show, he drops to his knees before the ball gets to him. Doesn't even try to catch it. Just flops to his knees, with his head looking down at the plate. Never looks up or back. The ball, meanwhile, conks umpire Jeff Scott square in the face mask. Rocks him back. Then squirts up the third-base line.

Yup, that's a good synopsis of what happened. That catcher is pretty much the worst actor of all time, and obviously the pitcher or whoever told him to do that is a little bit crazy.

But here's the thing about this incident- IT'S NOT RELEVANT. It's a story about a few shitdick kids who don't know how to control their anger. Off-the-field variations of this incident happen all over the country, 24 hours a day. Kids vandalize shit. They steal shit. They break shit. They assault people. They do unspeakable things because they don't see any other way to deal with their problems. But it's not newsworthy. The fact that ESPN considers it to be so is a sign of the times and a reflection of a tiny-brained audience. It's not a correct or appropriate decision.

Look, if I were writing a graduate thesis about unhealthy attitudes taken by some kids towards sports these days, or about odd examples of juvenile delinquency, this is the kind of incident I'd want to learn about. If enough investigation goes into the matter to draw some significant conclusions about the circumstances that caused it, I'd hope you could read about it in some kind of scholarly journal or something. But... I'm not writing that made up graduate thesis. I'm just a sports fan, who came to this sports site hoping to read an article about something relevant happening in the world of sports today.

I'm not picky. I don't care if it's a heartwarmingly sappy human interest piece. I don't care if it's about a sport most people ignore, like bowling or sailing or pole vaulting. Fuck it- I don't even care if it's about the Celtics or Red Sox. Just don't show me something that belongs in a fucking tabloid. Stop trying to titillate me with stories of people behaving badly and show me something that's primarily focused on, you know, SPORTS.

Jiminy fucking Christmas. It's never easy, is it?

Scott Singer, who videotaped the game from behind the plate, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "I don't know what was going through their heads but … it's like, good god!"

Good God indeed! Scott, you've played directly into the media's hand on this one. That's pretty much what they needed you to say, in order to invoke an identical reaction from their readers. I'm very disappointed in you. If you actually had a brain and a pair of balls, you would've told the reporter something like "What really offends me is how poorly the catcher tried to play it off. Jesus, who did he think he was going to fool?" or "Hey, the ump had it coming." Better yet, "I think it's pretty obvious that those kids are assholes. But really, do you need to be writing a story about this? Isn't there some news going on somewhere that needs to be covered?"

After the game, Hill explained that he'd been expecting a curveball, instead got a fastball and just didn't catch it.

Yeah, surrrre. I used to catch a little. Happens all the time. You're expecting a curveball and instead you get a fastball so you say, "Boy, didn't see that coming. I'll just drop to my knees and wait for the next one."

Yeah, actually, that does happen. But not in the way you see in the video. Even when Rick's right, he's wrong.

What's worse is that Hill's coach, Mark Gosnell, believed him! Right, Coach. And remember that time you found the school mascot tied up in a locker with a sock in his mouth? That was definitely terrorists.

Wow. Hey Rick- not to shit too messily on your embarrassingly bad joke, but this is not a PG-rated Disney comedy about how a ragtag band of unathletic misfits beat the well-coached and heavily favored varsity baseball team in a competition to see who would get to represent the school in the state tournament. (The reason I'm making this clarification is because that's the only situation I can imagine in which someone would bind and gag a school mascot, shove him/her into a locker, and then blame the incident on terrorism.)

If indeed this was premeditated—take a look for yourself and decide—then maybe Cody Martin should be drafted too. Say what you want, but that's pretty good aim.

Anyway, now the ump has to get back behind noncatcher Hill, who may very well have just schemed to remove his noggin from his neck. Wouldn't you have loved to have heard the conversation as they awaited the next pitch?

Ump: Uh, any chance you might catch this one, or should I duck now?

Hill: Depends. Is it going to be a strike?

I guess Rick was being honest in his chat last week when he insisted that he and Bill Simmons were getting along just fine. Apparently Bill's writing jokes for him.

Isn't it enough for an umpire to endure all the blind jokes—Hey, ump, what's it like to get your checks in Braille?—without two players actually trying to blind him?

If you want to hear an awkward, douchechilly silence, just go to a baseball game and shout "Hey ump, what's it like to get your checks in Braille?"

Cartersville wound up winning the game 13-1, and when state athletic officials saw the tape, they snapped. "The catcher did not intend to catch the pitch," says Ralph Swearngin, executive director of the Georgia High School Association. "I didn't see the eyes of the catcher tracking the pitch." He put Stephens County on "severe warning" and fined it $1,000.

Now Rick/Nancy is turning the story. Up until this point, they've wanted us to be worried that whatever criminals they've been talking about were going to get away with whatever it was they did. You're supposed to be on the edge of your seat- are you? Oh my goodness! Please don't tell me this awful act went unpunished!

Then some payback came for Hill, who was planning to walk on at Gordon College in Barnesville, Ga., next season. He got the word from Gordon coach Travis McClanahan, who said, Forget it, we don't want you. "I've seen catchers get crossed up before," says McClanahan. "But he appeared to be blocking a curveball in the dirt. I was shocked. I've never seen that happen. I've never heard of a player even suggesting doing that."

And NOW comes the part that really gives the reader the warm fuzzies. You like that, don't you? Good has triumphed over evil. Better than that- like I already mentioned, the reader gets to feel like they're a good person because they saw what the bad person did and that the bad person got punished.

I bet Hill didn't see that one coming. Don't know, though, since neither Hill nor Martin is talking.

As for umpire Scott, he had a headache after the game and went for an MRI. Then he decided to get himself a lawyer. And I'm guessing there are two things that lawyer is checking out: the health of his client and the health of Hill's dad's wallet.

Awesome. A lawsuit. God bless America. I hope the judge throws a baseball at Scott's face when he arrives at court for his first hearing.

Good god, what's becoming of us?

Track star: Well, yeah, I've always hated that official, but I sure didn't mean for my javelin to go right through his spleen like that!

Announcer: But you're a sprinter.

See, because a sprinter would normally not have access to javelins, nor would they be throwing them for any reason. I'm going to re-write a better punchline for this joke. Here goes: Sprinter? I hardly know her!

I hope Scott does ask for damages, and that the players have to pay in a way they'll never forget: by being forced to umpire Little League games. They'll be amazed how vile parental vocabulary can be, how far little brothers can spit and how many pitched balls wind up hitting them in the thorax.

But at least the 8-year-olds won't be doing it on purpose.

That's deep, man. I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Rick Reilly has won like a million awards for his writing. With conclusions like that one, you can see why.

Sometimes I wonder if, in the course of writing this blog, I get too tied up in obviously horrible writing like this. I mean, people like Simmons, Jemele Hill, Gene Wojceichowski, Reilly... everyone knows they suck. They're low-hanging fruit. There's no real challenge in picking them apart. Even the least discerning of our readers should be able to see without much help why most of what they write sucks. I mean, maybe I should spend more time finding articles with a little more depth to their awfulness. There are plenty of writers out there who actually have a decent grasp on their subject matter but still produce work that deserves to be criticized. I've done it before, and it's felt pretty rewarding. For every Bill Simmons, there are three baseball writers who think stolen bases are more important than walks and three football writers who don't understand that an offense depends on more than a quarterback. Yeah, maybe I should make fun of more stuff like that!

At least, that's what I say to myself about once a month. Shortly thereafter, I'll casually surf over to ESPN.com and check out what's linked on the front page. Something like this Reilly article will come up. And I'll realize that my intentions to branch out are, well, nothing more than intentions. As long as Reilly/Wojceichowski/Simmons/Hill keep doing what they've been doing, I'm not going to be able to change a damn thing about how I blog.

Maybe that's the way it should be.

(Did you like the format of my conclusion? Guess who I stole it from!)

If David Eckstein Played NCAA Basketball, Which Current Duke Blue Devil Would He Be?

Small. White. Really White. Frail, at least in appearance. Comically overexposed and overhyped. Considered by millions to be good at his sport. Not actually very good at his sport. And the real clincher- when confronted with facts about his inadequacies, his defenders immediately fall back on the intangibles he allegedly brings to the field/court/surface/area. Hmmm.... who could it be? Come on, keep guessing. You'll get it eventually. Think overrated. Really overrated.

Give up?

Thank you, Gary Parrish of CBSSportsline, for helping me establish the validity of this comparison with one of the worst puff pieces I've ever seen.

Never asking for comparisons, Paulus just wants to be Paulus

You're off to a puffy start- already making excuses for the guy before the article even starts.

Greg Paulus cannot do a lot of things other people can do.

That's not really true if taken literally. If you replace "people" with "college basketball players," however, it's definitely true.

He cannot run like Ty Lawson. Or jump like Derrick Rose. Or see the court like D.J. Augustin. Or lock down an opponent like Darren Collison.

Oh God, no. No no no no no. Combined together, all these things are the equivalent of saying that Woody Paige cannot win a Pulitzer Prize.

And I could spend a long while writing about what Paulus can't do, but hasn't that been done enough already?

As long as people like you keep writing articles like this? Absolutely not. Before I really start trashing on him, let me take this opportunity to explain to the potentially uninformed masses what kind of player Paulus is.

We'll start with his defense, which is sub-mediocre. Then we can get into his offensive numbers. I'll round when possible for convenience's sake. In 2005-06, amidst levels of preseason freshman hype that matched anyone in recent memory save Greg Oden, he went for 7 points, 5.2 assists, 3.3 turnovers, and 37% shooting (!) from the floor in 32 minutes a game. In 2006-07, he went for 12 points, 3.8 assists, 3.1 turnovers (look at that A/TO ratio), and 46% shooting in 32 minutes per game. This year, as a junior, he's putting up a line of 11 points, 3.5 assists, 1.7 turnovers, and 46% shooting in 26 minutes a game. That's paltry at best for a starting PG. I won't list the stats of the four other guys Parrish listed above, but you can look them up if you want. Rose is already marginally better and he's only a freshman. Collison (jr.), Lawson (soph.), and Augustin (soph.) are so much better that it's not even worth comparing them to Paulus.

Who else can we throw into the discussion? Sean Singletary is better. A.J. Price is better. Levance Fields is better. Taylor Rochestie is better. Mario Chalmers is better. Dominic James is better. Kyle McAlarney is better, and he's probably playing high half the time. Do I need to keep going? My guess is that Paulus is somewhere around the 40th or 50th best PG in the country. Does it seem like a guy in that range should get the press he gets? How many of these guys I listed come even close to his level of hype? I know, I know, it's because he plays for Duke. But that's the whole point of this rant. This. Guy. Isn't. Very. Good. Please, if we must talk about THE DOOKIEEEEEEEESSSSSS, can we talk about someone else on their team? Someone who's actually good?

I mean, we've spent the better part of two-plus years discussing Paulus' deficiencies, which is only natural when dealing with the person who plays point guard for the premier brand in college basketball. Paulus gets that. And though it's easy to point out how he's not the second-coming of Bobby Hurley-

This is where the nonsense starts.

it's worth pointing out he never actually staked that claim, never asked for the comparison or the criticism that comes with it.

That's so very relevant to the discussion as to whether or not Paulus is good. Thanks for bringing it up. Let's make some comparisons from other sports. Maybe Ryan Leaf didn't end up being that good. But did you ever heard him claim to be better than Joe Montana? And I'm so tired of hearing people trash on Cedric Benson. Has he ever explicitly said he would be as good as Walter Payton? Everyone can laugh at what a flop Corey Patterson has ended up being. I don't remember him telling the media he was going to make everyone forget about Willie Mays! No, Danica Patrick has never won a race. (And yes, she is much less attractive than advertisers would lead you to believe.) But as far as I know, she doesn't consider herself to be as good as Mario Andretti in his prime. And blah blah blah.

Honestly, that might be the worst puff piece defense ever. A really hyped up player... has never told anyone they were great... and this is supposed to be a big point in their favor? Wow. Just, wow.

"Comparisons will be made," Paulus said. "But if you stay true to yourself and don't try to be something you're not then everything will take care of itself."

"Admitting the obvious. But cliche about being mediocre and cliche about being mediocre, very untrue cliche about results."

Duke entered the Dean Dome with doubters Wednesday night and exited with an 89-78 victory against North Carolina that should finally convince everybody the Blue Devils are the favorites in the ACC.

Despite not being quick enough on the perimeter or big enough on the interior -- those were the thoughts in the preseason, weren't they? -- the Blue Devils will head into their game against Boston College on Saturday with a 20-1 record and a two-game lead in the league standings, and among the reasons is that Paulus character everyone (except Duke fans) loves to hate.

In the sense that he is on the team, gets significant minutes, and plays well about once every four or five games, yes. He is "among the reasons" Duke is cruising though the unusually crappy ACC. Don't forget their impressive non-conference schedule, which included Wisconsin and Marquette (their only quality wins besides UNC), Pitt (their only loss), and... uh... mid-major darling Davidson? Albany? Princeton? New Mexico State?

No, he's not up for All-America honors.

Probably won't make all-conference either.

Nor should he be, and nor should he.

But Paulus is a key component on this team, a veteran part that makes things work.

And heeeeeeeeeeeere cooooooooommmmmmmmmme the intaaaaaaaaaaangiblesssssssssss!

And the wild thing is that while he's generally despised by opposing fans, he's really everything we claim we want our sports figures to be.

You mean, like good at sports? We've been over this. He's really not.

He plays hard and plays hurt.

Oh, I see. You mean he's gritty.

He maximizes his ability, claps his hands and cares.

And gutty.

He laughs when things are great.

He plays the game the way it was meant to be played.

He cries when things are bad.

He's not a robot? He's like Dwyane Wade?

He doesn't get arrested at clubs or suspended for missing workouts.

He is able to maintain his scholarship by not committing crimes or doing things that would get him kicked off the team.

He loves representing Duke while performing for his coach, and you get the sense there is nothing he'd rather do than play college basketball forever and ever and ever.

He brings his lunchpail to the arena every night. He takes the extra base. He gets his uniform dirty. He's a dirtbag. The fans love him because he is small and white like they are. See how the Eckstein comparison works?

So why am I writing this column now?

Because you <3 Duke? Because Paulus reminds you of yourself back when you were playing on your high school's JV team? Because mediocrity intrigues you?

Because it occurred to me while watching Paulus make six of eight 3-pointers to finish with 18 points against North Carolina that the outside expectations on him have always been unfair,

Hooray for small sample size! Furthermore, re: outside expectations. Think back. Way back to November 2005. Do you know what people were saying about this guy? Gatorade National High School Player of the Year. Not for basketball. For everything. (Partially because he was a 2-sport athlete, admittedly. But that's obviously not 100% of the reason.) Um, I think it's probably fair to expect a guy like that to be pretty good in college.

and that the second I typed any kind words about the former two-sport star I would get a dozen e-mails explaining how he's overrated and an arrogant little prick.

I have no idea what his personality is like, but he's beyond overrated. He's basketball's answer to Torii Hunter. Actually, that's an insult to Hunter. Paulus is more like basketball's answer to Juan Pierre.

That's what Paulus can do to your inbox, case you didn't know. He's a polarizing figure. And if the past year has taught me anything it's that when I write something unpleasant about him Duke fans will defend him, and when I write something nice about him everybody else's fans will criticize the point while calling me stupid and insisting Paulus isn't one of the top players in the nation.

Are you implying he is? He isn't. Unless you mean, like, one of the top 250 players in the nation.

But guess what?

You think Greg Paulus is just swell.

He never said he was!

We already went over that. Exactly as relevant to a discussion of Paulus's value or perceived value as what his favorite Beatles album is. (Mine is Revolver, but if you want a dark horse candidate, I'd go with Rubber Soul. See how sophisticated I am? Ooooooh, look at me.)

And that reminds me of a story about Ryan Adams, the acclaimed singer-songwriter from the state of North Carolina, oddly enough.

Ryan Adams? The guy who for some reason bothered to cover "Wonderwall?" Why are we talking about this?

When Adams first broke into the scene in the mid-1990s he was a critic's darling, just a brilliant young performer who wrote smart songs that connected with fans, particularly fans who had ever experienced a break-up.

Becoming the first musical artist in history to endear himself fans in such a way. Poison tried so hard, but they just couldn't quite get it right.

The guy was really, really good. But at some point the perception turned, and the same critics who hailed him were suddenly calling him overrated, insisting he wasn't the next Bob Dylan or anything else.

Adams addressed the criticism in a 2004 magazine interview.

His reaction: "I never said I was any good."

Great anecdote, really. But here's the problem. Ryan Adams doesn't have any statistics. He doesn't have a good song per album average, or a clever lyrics to cliched lyrics ratio. You might think he sucks, but you couldn't really do much to objectively prove it. You might think he's the greatest artist ever to lay hands on a guitar, and you also couldn't objectively prove that.

But Greg Paulus does have statistics. You can see, very clearly, that he's an inefficient point guard. You can see that while he's become a better shooter than he was his freshman year, he still doesn't bring much to the table offensively. And although there aren't any solid raw defensive statistics, you can tell objectively from looking at game film that he's not very good at that. See how that works? You can't compare the value of athletes to the value of performing artists. It's not allowed. Unless that artist is Foreigner, which is objectively the best band of the 80's. Yes, better than Guns n' Roses, The Cure, or REM.

Which brings me back to Paulus, Wednesday night and the verbal assault he endured. It started early and lasted late and included words I will gladly relay as soon as I get a show on SIRIUS Satellite Radio and am thus free of FCC regulations. I cannot repeat them here. The whole thing was nasty and typical, just a bunch of people telling him what he can't do even though he has never spent a minute trying to tell people all the things he can do.

You mean the verbal assault he endured from the fans of his school's most bitter rival? Shock. Flabbergastion. Confusion. Where do those North Carolina ragamuffins get off booing Duke players? How dare they. That is so rude. This reminds me of the time I heard that Texas fans and Oklahoma fans are often less than cordial to each other. What is wrong with the world? It's just a game, people!

"He's not Bobby Hurley," Duke freshman Taylor King said in an attempt to set the record straight. "He's Greg Paulus."

"Two part cliche," said teammate who of course isn't going to say anything bad about player.

Yep, he's Greg Paulus.

Just Greg Paulus.

Just a pretty mediocre and comically overhyped player.

And with any luck, one day that might just be good enough.

Well, he's a junior right now. He's more than halfway though his college career. He probably has less than 50 games left. He might want to get around to being "good enough" to somewhat match expectations reasonably soon.

Or did I take that too literally? I guess when he graduates from Duke and goes into the real world, maybe he'll become an excellent salesman or consultant or something. And in that case, being Greg Paulus would probably be good enough.

Reader Extra Participation Friday: That's Worth a Few Bonus Points, Right?

Who will dethrone JD after his win last week? If he wins again, does that make him a dynasty? (USC fans would definitely think so, even if he finishes second. OH! PWNED!!!1111!11) Will he remember to show up to defend his title? Come on now, everyone join in.

Jerry Crasnick serves as our template this week, as he writes about some MLB free agents who have yet to find a team to play for in 2008.

[Sean] Casey's lack of power clearly works against him. He's posted slugging percentages of .433, .388 and .393 in his past three stops. But he knows how to work a count, and he has a higher career batting average than Lance Berkman and Bobby Abreu. And when Sports Illustrated surveys 464 players and they overwhelmingly anoint you the "friendliest player in the game,'' that's worth a few bonus points, right?

I actually don't mind Crasnick most of the time. As long as he's not writing about players who hustle and "play the game the way it was meant to be played," he's tolerable. This isn't even a flagrantly bad passage; first, it's partially tongue-in-cheek, and second, clubhouse chemistry actually does matter a little. But I still think this makes for a good Reader Extra Participation Friday topic. What other traits can you assign to a struggling player that have little or nothing to do with their ability to play a sport well in an effort to make them sound more desirable? As always, please use Jerry's voice.

"Maybe Joey Harrington just blew his last chance at starting in the NFL by preforming poorly for Atlanta this past season. It's a real shame teams are hung up on his disastrous stats- they seem to forget that the guy knows how to do that thing where you raise only one eyebrow really high."

"After he screwed the pooch during the '06 Olympics, everyone was talking about how Bode Miller was washed up. But his recent return to the winner's circle is no surprise to me. It was pretty much inevitable, given how much he enjoys getting high and going to zoos."

"Sad to hear that no one wants to give former Diamondbacks and Braves pitcher Russ Ortiz a shot during spring training this year. Have you ever seen the guy water ski? He's a maniac out there."

"It's fair to say that former NBA center Oliver Miller has struggled with his weight. But should his career really be over already? Any playoff contender looking for big man help off the bench should give him a call. He's a huge Nickleback fan."

"Sure, Rae Carruth is in jail for conspiracy to commit murder. But if he somehow is paroled or escapes, teams should think about giving him a tryout. The guy can burp and fart on command."

Those five examples took me three and a half hours to develop. I'm sure you can all do better.

Without Players Like Darin Erstad and GMs Like Houston's Ed Wade, Blogs Like This Probably Wouldn't Exist

I did a quick search on the Houston Chronicle's website to see if anyone there had written something funny and long winded about the 'Stros recent acquisition of Mr. Nails McFormerpunter. Unfortunately, the answer turned out to be "not really." But their general blurb about the signing did have a great quote from Wade (widely regarded as one of baseball's worst decision makers).

"Darin is one of the prototypical professional baseball players," Astros general manager Ed Wade said. "He's made a career out of playing the game the right way. Darin is a veteran who brings a lot to our club and will really help us."

That last sentence is a real doozy. Hopefully they're not counting on him to "bring" anything that resembles an offensive skill set, or "help" them win games. Maybe he's really good at throwing batting practice, or setting up the postgame spread, or something.

The article also mentions that Erstad

will provide depth behind outfielder starters Carlos Lee in left, Michael Bourn in center and Hunter Pence in right.

If your definition of "provid[ing] depth" is literally having someone who's played pro baseball before available to take over for one of your starters should they suffer an injury, then yeah, I guess he will. On the other hand, if your definition of "provid[ing] depth" is having someone who will be productive in his role as a 4th outfielder who gets 200-300 ABs, then no. No he will not.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

I usually don't like arbitrarily constructed lists about sports. The classic example is the ever-present "power rankings" columns that permeate every major sports website. Other than providing hilarious user comments sections on a weekly basis (seriously, check them out sometime if you haven't before. ESPN, Fox Sports, CBS... doesn't really matter), those couldn't possibly be a bigger waste of time.

But I have to admit, some topics are best discussed in list format. Foxsports.com's Jeff Gordon (no, not THAT Jeff Gordon! LOL! NASSSCCCCCAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!!11111) has assembled a kind of sort of interesting one. For your reading pleasure, he has listed what he considers to be the 10 best free agent signings in baseball history. And I have to concede that this is one of those rare topics that works better as a list. So take a look at his selections, and see if you can figure out why I'm blogging about his column right now instead of just silently nodding in approval and moving on to something else.

David Ortiz, Red Sox, 2002
Andre Dawson, Cubs, 1986
Reggie Jackson, Yankees, 1976
Greg Maddux, Braves, 1992
Roberto Alomar, Indians, 1998
Barry Bonds, Giants, 1993
Roger Clemens, Blue Jays, 1996
Kevin Brown, Marlins, 1995
Ichiro, Mariners, 2000
David Eckstein, Cardinals, 2004

Did you catch it? Go look again. In order, we have (all stats were acquired by candidates while playing for the new teams they signed with):

-A guy who has hit 241 HRs in 5 years
-A guy who won an MVP and OPS+ed 130 or better 3 out of 6 years
-A slam-dunk hall of famer who hit 144 HRs in 5 years
-One of the greatest pitchers ever and winner of 3 straight Cy Youngs
-A guy who in 3 years with his new team OPS+ed 139, 114, and 150 while playing unbelievable defense at a premium position
-One of the greatest hitters ever and winner of 4 straight MVPs (5 total with new team, 7 overall)
-One of the greatest pitchers ever and winner of 2 straight Cy Youngs (7 overall)
-A guy who recorded ERA+es of 216 and 150 in 2 years with his new team
-A guy with 7 straight seasons of 200+ hits, who may one day reach 3,000 despite not entering the league until age 27
-A guy who in 3 seasons with his new team OPS+ed 99, 81, and 93, and who plays bad defense at the most important defensive position on the field

Is it any clearer now? Let's let Gordon defend that final inclusion in his own words:

When he signed his three-year, $10.25 million free-agent deal after the 2004 season, some experts ripped the Cardinals for giving him too much money and too many years.

They were right.

After all, Eckstein was really a second baseman playing shortstop. He didn't possess great fielding range and his arm strength was famously poor.

Like I said, those critics were right.

He was a decent hitter,

He had just put up back to back OPS+es of 75 and 79. So, no. He was not. (Although it's fair to note that in context with those numbers from 2003 and 2004 in Anaheim, Eckstein's had a huge resurgence in St. Louis!)

but he had no power and little speed on the basepaths.

Absolutely right. All this for the low, low, low introductory rate of 10 million over 3 seasons.

But Eckstein was the perfect fit in St. Louis, where he moved into the lead-off spot.

Where he did not belong.

He earned two trips to the All-Star Game

Proving to fans everywhere that the All-Star selection process is a joke.

and became the MVP of the 2006 World Series, on the strength of his three doubles in Game 4 against Detroit.

He certainly had a great game 4 of the 2006 World Series. Can't take that away from him. He also went 0 for 5 in game 1 and 0 for 4 in game 2. He was also a complete anchor for the Cards that year overall, OPSing .696 in more than 550 plate appearances from the leadoff spot. It's a minor miracle St. Louis managed to limp into the playoffs at all considering what a shitbomb of a season he had. His 2005 and 2007 campaigns, although worth nowhere near what he was paid for posting them, were positively Bondsesque/Ruthian by comparison. Oh, did I mention he plays bad defense and the most important defensive position on the field? That's right, after all this, you're looking at what Jeff deems to be one of the 10 greatest free agent signings ever.

In many ways, he is the anti-A-Rod —a low-budget, low-glamour signing that produced maximum results.

Given this statement, I have to wonder what Gordon would consider "maximum results" from things or events in his everyday life. Say he told you he recently bought a used car, and was getting "maximum results" out of it. Would you be surprised if it didn't have an engine? Or wheels? What if he went on a date and came home reporting it ended with "maximum results." You couldn't really assume anything from that description other than that the girl didn't punch him in the face. "Maximum results" from a new appliance in Jeff's kitchen? As long as his house hadn't yet burned to the ground, that's probably how he would describe the situation.

David Eckstein. "Produced" "maximum" "results." Wow. The lunchpail alert is now at red. Bright, vibrant, red.

Look at what was left off so Gordon could squeeze Eckstein onto this list. Randy Johnson to the Diamondbacks in 1998? Overrated. Vlad Guerrero to the Angels in 2003? Yawn. You want to talk about truly great free agent signings? Look no further than America's favorite 4'7" white guy and his amazing ability to sprint from home to first on a ground ball.