NBA WHO SAYS NO Rankings - Part 2

Deeper down the rabbit hole we go.

GROUP H: “Stop It, He’s a Young Stud, No Way!”

There's got to be a less sexual way to word that.

30. Bradley Beal
29. Jimmy Butler
28. Andre Drummond

Beal is under contract for next season while Butler is not, but boy, there is a very wide gulf between those two guys in terms of ability.  Very wide.  Granted, Beal is still young after spending just a year in college before being drafted, but he has not improved at all since his good-not-great rookie year.  He's still a deadly three point shooter and not much else.  The Wizards will have a difficult decision to make with him in two offseasons if he's still just a 15/3/3 guy next season.  Meanwhile, Butler has turned into an all star, and does everything better than Beal does besides shoot 3s.  I don't think the fact that Beal has another cheap year on his rookie deal really accounts for that.

UPDATE: We need to find the right teammates for Drummond soon. I’m convinced that SVG traded D.J. Augustin and Kyle Singler for Reggie Jackson as a stealth tanking move. And if he did, congratulations. It worked.

Huh?  Jackson is going for 17 and 9 (plus 5 boards) since joining the Pistons.  Augustin is somewhere between has-been and never-was.  Singler is terrible.  I'm getting to this article quite a while after Bill published it--maybe Jackson wasn't meshing with Drummond in his first few games in Detroit.  For what it's worth, Drummond is averaging 16 points a game since the trade, compared to 13 before.  So as usual it sure as hell sounds like Bill has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

GROUP G: “Sorry, Too Many Karmic Implications”

Bill's constant references to karma: more or less obnoxious than Gregggggg's incessant references to the Football Gods?

27. Tony Parker
26. Tim Duncan
25. Dwyane Wade
24. Dirk Nowitzki

Well hey, lookie there, it just so happens that four veteran superstars with titles who have never changed teams all have EXACTLY the same trade value!  Go figure!  Actually, I kind of sound dumb making that point since they really DO have the same trade value--their current teams are never going to trade them unless it's at the player's explicit demand.  Still though, come on.  

23. Paul George

What's he doing in this group?  I guess Bill was like "He's probably not going to play this season... fuck it, just throw him in with the aging superstar group.  WHO SAYS NO?" while talking to a houseplant.

UPDATE: Parker is starting to look like Parker again. Oh God … oh no …

Parker has always looked like Parker.  He's 32.  His points and assists have taken a dip this year, but so have his minutes.  I assume in the original rankings he was like "PARKER IS FINISHED--HE'S DONE."  And now he's acting like it's some revelation that he's not done.  Exact same thing happened with Wade (who is 33) a couple of years ago.  Bill has the cognitive capacity of a goldfish.  

GROUP F: “Hold On, I Have to Finish Guffawing”

22. Andrew Wiggins
21. Giannis Antetokounmpo

UPDATE: I blew it with Wiggins. He’s a top-12 trade asset. 

Given who you put in the next group down, sheesh, I have to say you blew it with the Greek Freak (hate that nickname but not going to type out Antetokounmpo more than once) too.  

(Stop looking at me like that.) I don’t know what else to say. (Seriously, stop shaking your head.) We’re moving on. We’re moving forward.

Wiggins, of course, is having a great season.  Greek Freak just turned 20 in December, is 6'11" (so he's probably still growing into his frame and learning how to maximize his athleticism) and is good for an efficient 13 and 7.  If he were a Celtic, Bill would have put him in the top five.  Meanwhile...

GROUP E: “Well-Priced Impact Stars”

At least there's positional, contract, and experience variety here.  Lowry, Conley, Horford and Ibaka are all signed at least through 2016 and for roughly $10-$12 million each.  That security is nice, and they're all good players, but I would be shocked if more than just a few "win now" teams value each of them over Wiggins (which Bill admits), Greek Freak, Paul George (who's on an expensive deal, but is locked up through 2018) or Jimmy Butler.  Meanwhile, Lillard is 1) awesome and 2) locked up on a cheap rookie rookie deal through 2016.  Definitely right to have him at the top of this group, but I think he'd go above the guys in the next group too.  Leonard is also awesome, but more of a question mark, and he's an RFA this summer meaning he's about to get expensive.  I don't think he belongs here at all.  But enough of this levelheaded analysis.  Let's see what Bill manages to fart out onto his keyboard about these guys.

20. Mike Conley
19. Serge Ibaka
18. Kawhi Leonard
17. Al Horford
16. Kyle Lowry
15. Damian Lillard

UPDATE: I’m not rattled by having Lowry too high after his January-February offensive swoon. He’s too good. 

OK.  Good for you.  Way to show conviction, dumb person who is often wrong (although not here, necessarily).

I’m mildly rattled by Ibaka’s mysterious knee injury, along with the fact that I wouldn’t let OKC’s medical staff help me with a head cold at this point. 

And since that was written, Kevin Durant has started falling apart.  Hardly the fault of the OKC training staff, though.  Or so I'd think. 

Kawhi’s electrifying two-way showdown with LeBron on Thursday made me wonder if I ranked him too low, 

As Bill so often says, CONTRACTS MATTER BLAH BLAH BLAH

but man, when are those 3s coming back for him? How bad is that mysterious hand injury? This isn’t a normal trend for 3-point shooters: 37.6 percent (2012-14 regular season), 41.6 percent (2012-14 playoffs) … 32.2 percent (2014-15 season). 

Actually, that's really not that weird.  The playoff number is great, but even with all the playoff games the Spurs have played while making the Finals two of the last three years, that 41.6% is on fewer than 200 attempts.  The 2012-2014 regular season vs. 2014-2015 regular season comparison is more valid, especially since Leonard is also shooting worse on his twos and worse at the line this year.  But a dip from 37.6% to 32.2% isn't catastrophic, especially for a stretch 4 type guy who, as Bill knows, might be hurt.  Anyways, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth as well as his ass.  Suffice to say that Leonard is going to get paid this summer, whether by the Spurs or someone else.  But at this year's trade deadline, I'm not sure he'd be an asset on par with a cost controlled Horford or Ibaka.

San Antonio can’t win four straight playoff rounds and realize their ’69 Celts destiny 

LIKE I SAID IT AWL COMES BACK TO THE FACKIN' C'S.  

if Kawhi’s 3s don’t come around and defenses start leaving him wide open. It’s true.

Thanks for arguing with no one ("It's true, DON'T DENY IT") about something no one fucking cares about ("AHHH THE SPURS AS GOOD AS THE '69 C'S????????").  I'm sure they'll be just fine come playoff time.  They only have the best (ageless) PF ever, an elite point guard and the best coach of his generation to back Leonard up.  I don't think the difference between Leonard shooting a sub-average but still acceptable percentage on a handful of 3s per game versus him shooting the lights out on a handful of 3s per game is going to make or break them.

GROUP D: “The Mega Free Agents”

THEY ARE EQUALLY VALUABLE!  Actually, you know what, after looking at their lines--these two really do probably belong together.  They're about the same age, are both UFAs this year (who will probably look for short term deals due to the big salary cap bump that's on the horizon), and they do post pretty similar numbers while kind of sort of playing the same position.  Aldridge has the sexier raw stat line, but he also plays for a faster-paced team and doesn't share big man responsibilities with anyone as capable as Z-Bo.  Fine.  They deserve to be in "Group D" together.  Thank you for not calling them "young studs."

14. LaMarcus Aldridge
13. Marc Gasol

UPDATE: No regrets. 

NONE!  I DID IT ALL BY MYSELF, AMERICA!

Although it’s bizarre that Aldridge (23.3 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 22.3 PER, playing hurt for two-plus months, carrying a possible no. 2 seed) has been left out of the MVP race. It’s almost like the national media ignores Portland or something.

Well, first of all, fuck you and your own personal biases that cause you to ignore anything in baseball that's not BOS/NYY or relevant to your fucking AL-only keeper league full of zeroes.  Second of all, sure, Aldridge is having a nice season, but that PER is only good for 11th in the league.  He's not exactly within shouting distance of Davis, Westbrook or Curry, either.  But good job kissing babies and winning hearts and minds in RIP CITY.  I'm sure you appreciate all the dumbshits from there who will write you emails praising that blurb.

GROUP C: “No Offense, But I’m Hanging Up”

12. John Wall
11. Klay Thompson

Here again we have two guys who are almost the same age, with nearly identical contract situations (both locked up for big money through 2019), with similar PERs.  But in this case, I think the value comparison falls apart pretty quickly.  Whereas Bill overrates Bradley Beal pretty heavily, I think he's probably underrating Wall (or rather, overrating Thompson).  Thompson plays on the league's best team, alongside either the best or second best point guard in the league (who creates tons of wide open shots for Thompson every game), with a bunch of other very strong role players/semi-stars who make the team hum like a well-tuned engine.  Meanwhile, Wall carries the entire burden on offense for his poorly-coached team of good-not-great overpaid players (Nene, Marcin Gortat) and dinosaurs (Paul Pierce, Andre Miller until the Wizards cut him).  

He leads his team in scoring by a good margin while also handing out ten assists per game (second only to CP3 in the league) and grabbing a not-insignificant five boards.  He's the only guy on that team that can create his own shot and he plays 36 minutes per game.  It's a bit of a weird exercise since it would be chaotic to play Wall alongside Curry, but imagine switching these two guys and I think the Warriors come out way, way, way ahead on the deal.  In fact, better exercise--switch Beal and Thompson.  I think their numbers probably switch too.  Thompson is nothing special.  He also looks like he's probably an asshole off the court.  There, I said it.

UPDATE: If I had to do it over again, I’d give Wiggins and Kawhi these two spots and bump Wall and Thompson back a few spots. We’re stuck with those first two parts for eternity. Without further ado, the 10 most untradable players of 2015.

Yeah, people are really going to be looking back at these rankings five years from now.  You'll rue the day you improperly valued Wiggins in your bullshit rankings until you're in the ground, Simmons.  Totally.

GROUP B: “The Untouchables”

10. Kyrie Irving

Covered in detail in Friday’s 1,900-word “sneak peek” of Part 3. I can’t even pull off a sneak peek correctly.

I'm impressed you're even able to maintain your job at ESPN without being curb stomped by someone there who has actual knowledge and charisma yet makes 20% of your salary.  Don't be too hard on yourself.  Also, everyone go read this again.

9. Boogie Cousins

Hard to critique this part since I'm a DeMarcus Cousins fan, for reasons beyond his game.  Just kidding!  (Not about being a fan, but about this being hard to critique.)

In Part 2, I mentioned the smartest non-trades in recent NBA history — 

An easy set of non-events to compile, since we know all of them that have ever occurred, and teams definitely would never leak incorrect information about non-trades in order to further shape the market, affect free agent salaries, placate angry fans, etc.

including the time Houston dangled Hakeem Olajuwon for a Godfather offer (Steve Smith, Glen Rice AND Rony Seikaly), got turned down, then rejected Miami’s counteroffer (Seikaly, Grant Long and Harold Miner). How on earth was the window ever open to steal one of the NBA’s 12 greatest players ever? Because you are what you’re worth. 

Gee Bill, thanks for answering a question no one asked.  Let's see.  Kareen was traded in his prime.  Shaq was traded as he entered his prime.  Barkley was traded in his prime.  Kevin Garnett was traded at the tail end of his prime.  Could the answer to the question be one that every sports fan already knows: "These things fucking happen?"

For the previous five seasons, an increasingly unhappy Hakeem had been stuck playing with so many past-their-primers, never-made-its and never-got-theres that everyone inadvertently forgot that the Dream was unfreakingtradable. 

No.  Go fuck yourself with scissors.  No one "forgot" that.

Had the Heat countered with Rice (a top-15 trade asset that summer), Seikaly (averaged 16 and 12 in ’92) and either Miner or multiple no. 1 picks, then the deal would have gotten done 

WHO SAYS NO

and we would’ve had a different champ in 1994 and 1995. Instead, Houston won the ’94 and ’95 titles and Hakeem unleashed one of the NBA’s most iconic three-or-four-year runs of the past 35 years: 

I'm glad we are evaluating the trade value of DeMarcus Cousins right now.

the short list includes Jordan from 1989 to 1993 and 1996 to 1998, Bird from 1984 to 1987, Magic from 1987 to 1990, Shaq from 2000 to 2002, LeBron from 2012 to 2014, Hakeem from 1993 to 1995, and Kobe from 2008 to 2010 

Great.  Cool.

(and probably in that order).

THAT ORDER AND ONLY EXACTLY THAT ORDER.  NO ONE SAYS NO.

Maybe 2015 Boogie isn’t 1992 Hakeem, 

So, thanks for the tangent, then.

but he is definitely on pace to earn the same level of career-related empathy. In less than five seasons, he’s played for six coaches, two GMs and two super-shaky owners. He lived through consecutive seasons in which the Kings were moving … and then weren’t … and then were … and then weren’t. 

The Kings had the worst owners in the league (yes, worse than James Dolan).  Then those guys sold the team to some other asshole who doesn't know what he's doing.  I'd feel worse for their fans if they didn't live in the only part of California that 1) is close to cool shit 2) doesn't have THAT much meth and 3) is not outrageously expensive.

When I asked him during All-Star Weekend 

I HAVE ACCESS!!!!!  EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME MY OPINION MEANS MORE NOW!  Bill is really stealing a page from the Peter King playbook there.

how many starting point guards he’s played with, he couldn’t remember everyone off the top of his head. Maybe he took much-deserved Internet heat for a variety of foolish young-guy mistakes, and maybe he could have been a better teammate at times. (I’m being kind.) 

More King-isms.  SHAME ON YOU, BOOGIE.  WHY DO YOU GO BY BOOGIE?  THAT'S CHILDISH.  I'M GOING TO CALL YOU BOOGIE FROM NOW ON BECAUSE I FIND IT AMUSING.

But ever since he got himself into terrific shape last year, everyone has HAD to double-team him. I mean …

Boogie, last two seasons (123 games): 33.0 mpg, 23.1 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 48% FG, 25.5 PER
Duncan, ’01-’02 and ’02-’03 (163 games): 39.9 mpg, 24.4 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 51% FG, 27.0 PER

Maybe he isn’t Apex Duncan, especially in the defense/teammate/leadership/intangibles/getting-thrown-out-of-games-for-wonky-behavior categories, 

I'm glad someone taught you the word "wonky."  It should never be used, ever, but if you're going to use it that is not how you do so.  WHICH IS THE WONK TEAM?  Remember that horseshit?  That was also not a correct usage.

Boogie HAS improved. Did you know his rim protection numbers are slightly better than DeAndre Jordan’s numbers this season? And with the spacing that Boogie creates and the numbers he’s putting up, you could absolutely run a world-class offense around him. Only you can’t … because he’s wasting his pre-prime playing for Jackass Central on a perpetual lottery team in a stacked conference.

Haha.  No sarcasm, that last one is a good line.  "Jackass Central."  That's pretty good.  Bill does induce one chuckle from me about every six months or so.  HE'S STILL GOT IT!

So if you were Boogie, what would make you feel good about playing in Sacramento other than the city’s fantastic hoops fans? George Karl? Too soon to say. 

Yeah, the guy only has like 1,000 wins as an NBA coach, all in mid-sized or small markets.  Probably not a good fit in Sacramento.

Ben McLemore? Too soon to say. 

I don't think he belongs on this list.  I'd hate to be a guy picked 7th overall in a super thin draft and have someone be like OUR BEST PLAYER IS COUNTING ON YOU.  GET IT DONE.  That would suck.  McLemore left Kansas after just a year, and wasn't even the best fucking player on the team for that one year.

Cap space this summer? Crap, they don’t have it. 

Dang, now they don't have a chance to get turned down by Gasol and Aldridge, whose styles of play wouldn't mesh with Cousins's at all, or to overpay Goran Dragic!  Nuts!

Their next lottery pick? Crap, it’s headed to Chicago unless Sacramento finishes in the bottom 10. 

Which they are almost mathematically assured of doing at this point, so, let's not shit our pants just yet.

This is bleaker than bleak. 

No, that is your narrative that you are constructing because Hakeem once almost got traded or something.  In fact, watch this: Knicks, Lakers, Nuggets, Pistons, 76ers, Nets, Heat, Thunder (very suddenly on this list), Magic, Timberwolves (even with Wiggins).  There's a list of teams with bleaker futures than Sacramento's.  Fuck, the Knicks might not be a playoff team again until like 2020.  That's hard to do in a league with 16 of 30 teams making the postseason.  I'll bet you a shiny nickel the Kings get there before all the teams on that list that aren't in the playoffs already this year (i.e., the teams on that list that are also rebuilding right now).

My advice to Kings fans: You better keep showering Boogie with love. Because the moment he checks out and says to himself, “I cannot play for these jackasses anymore,” there’s no going back. (And we’re damned close.)

He's under contract through 2018.  They'll be fine.

Last Boogie note: Check out these names: Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, Pettit, Duncan and Elgin. That’s the complete list of players, along with Boogie, who averaged 23 and 12 with a 25-plus PER in their fourth and fifth NBA seasons combined. 

HOLY SHIT DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS????  It means that when a player is really good, like Cousins is, you can concoct a moderately complex set of criteria and show that only that player a few other all time greats have met all the criteria.  Very cool stuff. 

Boogie isn’t THAT good. 

Jesus, whose side are you on, here?  I thought we were all in the DEMARCUS (I hate people like Bill who over-embrace nicknames) fan club together.  He has a good chance of being every bit as good as Barkley, Kareem and Baylor.  The other three, maybe not so much.  But still.

But he’s really, really good. And he’s saddled with Vivek and the Bumbling Vivikettes. 

Forced.  Just stick with Jackass Central.

We’re well past the point of using New Owner Syndrome as a viable excuse. Too much has happened. We wasted five years of Boogie’s career. Next year, we’re probably heading for a sixth. Might be time to get Liam Neeson involved.

"We" haven't wasted anything.  You're not the center of the universe, you cunt.  You're not in charge of basketball.  You're not in charge of anything other than a vastly overrated "sports" (ok, it's really like 25% sports, but who's counting?) content mill and a shitty TV show that ESPN airs at 4 AM.  Just stay in your lane and come up with funny nicknames for dysfunctional franchises.  Christ.

More next week.

Jon Heyman: still way better at shilling for Scott Boras than writing

This is more of a blog post than it is a full, formal article. (BTW I provided the link so you could go take a look at Jon doing his best "Hey, this is what I would do if I were on a baseball card!" pose. Worth your four seconds, I promise. What a zilcheroo he is.) Makes me wonder how much worse it would be if Heyman had done more research for it and added a few more paragraphs. It's dumb on several levels, most notably the bumblefuckarific "I developed a premise before I wrote the article and the facts don't match that premise so fuck it I'll just contradict the hell out of the premise and then call it a day" one.

Everything that could go wrong for the Braves this spring has gone wrong

There's the premise. Aaaaaaaand...

CLEARWATER, Fla.--

...there's the spot where he begins undermining it.

In the competition for worst spring in Florida,

I'm several years and tens of thousands of dollars away from earning my online masters in journalismness from DeVry, but I'm pretty sure "If there were a competition for worst spring in Florida," would work better. And with that imaginary competition in mind, let us take a moment to laugh at/about A.J. Burnett. *doink* /ball embeds itself in eye socket

there is a runaway winner: the Braves.

"There are also two MYSTERY TEAMS in the running, but I can't tell you who they are lest I reveal that they don't exist!"

"Everything that could go wrong for them has gone gone wrong,'' remarked one competing executive.

CBS assistant junior editing intern in charge of coming up with titles: "Yup. That'll work."

Th Braves have followed their September collapse by beginning spring 2-10. But their troubles started even before the games began. Young starting pitcher Tommy Hanson suffered a concussion in a one-car accident on his way to spring.

The ol' Tony La Russa special. Nice. Anyways that's one player with a mild injury. What else has gone so depressingly wrong?

Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez is trying to look on the bright side. "I've seen a lot of good things,'' Gonzalez said.

A+ journalism right there. A++. Tell manager you've heard things are going down the shitter. Get boring, uninspired, mostly non-responsive response. Insert in article. Light cigar with $50 bill (bill and cigar both provided by Boras).

Gonzalez did concede that the record isn't what they'd want, especially coming off a September swoon.

Oh! The tension in that interview! It's like Frost/Nixon! Things are bad... but there are bright spots.... BUT THINGS ARE STILL SOMEWHAT BAD

"We want to win, believe me. Winning is contagious,'' Gonzalez said.

Losing: also contagious. Hepatitis: science doesn't know just yet.

"But in spring training, I think health takes priority.''

Perhaps an insightful and meaningful quote, except that Jon has presented it with no context or background so we have no idea what Fredi is talking about.

Still, others are wondering aloud whether the Braves will be themselves this year.

Fill in the blank if you know what that means. _____________. If you filled it in, you're lying, and you also have ink on your computer screen. Now email me what you wrote.

Only one team that's spent less on players over the last three years has won more games (the Rays). But their cost cutting may finally be catching up to them. They signed only one major league free agent this winter, and that was utilityman Jack Wilson for $1 million, and Wilson immediately blew out his Achilles.

So by usually not spending much, and continuing to not spend much this season, they are... still being themselves? Also, something about health, and a poor spring training record, and oh man Jon Heyman gets paid to write about baseball?

One N.L. scout said he believes the Marlins and Nationals have now surpassed the Braves

I was going to put another Mystery Team joke in here but I figured you were going to do it in your head anyways so why bother with the specifics.

and that they look like a fourth place team,

So far we have 1) pitcher got a concussion 2) all-glove utility guy out for season 3) they "look like a 4th place team." Conclusion: ALL THINGS THAT COULD GO WRONG DID. BRIAN MCCANN IS ANGRY AT SOMETHING, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT, BUT HE HASN'T SHOWN UP TO SPRING TRAINING AND NO ONE HAS HIS PHONE NUMBER.

and a star player from the difficult division said the same thing.

In keeping with a theme I've been pushing these past few months, I certainly hope it was Ryan Howard, saying it as he cashed the first of many many paychecks to come at his $25MM/year salary.

Although, there have been two silver linings in the Braves' ultra-rough start to spring:

A start which, no matter what the headline of this piece may have led you to anticipate, you still know basically nothing about.

1) there have been no new season-affecting injuries, and

You mean after all one of them (to the guy who would have been 24th or 25th most important on the opening day roster) you've described so far?

2) young prospects like pitcher Sean Gilmartin, shortstop Andrelton Simmons and third baseman Joey Terdoslavich, have played well.

But NOT WELL ENOUGH! Oh, wait, probably well enough, considering those guys are 21, 22, and 23 respectively. Also: TERDoslavich heh heh heh

But it's more than the losses.

Wait, what were we just talking about?

The disappointments and concerns are adding up, such as ...

This is high school newspaper level writing. Premise: things are really bad for the Braves. Provide support: a little evidence, none of it convincing. Repeat premise. Contradict premise. Rerepeat premise.

-- Braves icon Chipper Jones suggested after starting 0-for-8 that he may be nearing the end. While he retracted his comment the very next day, Jones (now 1-for-11) hasn't looked like himself.

JUST LIKE HIS TEAM! Or so we've been told, with essentially no further explanation, except for the fact that as usual they didn't break the bank in free agency this year.

His demeanor also hasn't reflected his nickname.

Ho ho hoooo! Pulitzer committee, you're about to receive a link in your inbox.

Gonzalez said, "Chipper will be fine. He'll get it going. I'm not concerned about that.'';

Heyman's response: "That's gold! Straight into my 'the Braves are fucked' article!"

-- Hanson finally pitched Sunday, but he appeared in a washed-out monsoon, lasting just one-plus inning;

The weather was bad. Therefore: Hanson's return, somehow disappointing/concerning.

-- Young lefthander Mike Minor has pitched brilliantly, with nine scoreless innings,

Nine DISAPPOINTING scoreless innings?

but he needlessly dusturbed camp by suggesting he'd prefer to be traded if he isn't in the rotation. EARTH to Mike: You are in the rotation;

A young pitcher said something dumb to someone with a microphone. Spring training: ruined.

-- Kid shortstop Tyler Pastornicky was basically given the job to start spring, but he is threatening to make a race of it by starting 3-for-30. Simmons has outplayed him, and they are now saying the choice won't be made until the end of spring.

There's a competition for the SS spot. One talented guy has struggled in a tiny sample of PAs, and another talented guy is applying pressure. I know I'm beating this into the ground, but...

Simmons is the flashier defender, but one N.L. scout said, "I see them both as utlity players."

A MYSTERY scout with no known identity.

-- Former phenom Jason Heyward inspired worries with a slow start (he's at .194) but he's coming on now and had two extra-base hits vs. the Nats' pitching phenom Stephen Strasburg on Wednesday. Gonzalez said that while Heyward would have one good at-bat every "four or five'' at-bats early in spring, now he has four out of five productive at-bats;

Disappointment? Concern? SANITY?

-- Top young righthanded pitching prospects Randall Delgado and Julio Teheran are locked in a battle for the fifth rotation spot with ace Tim Hudson (back) out until May. But so far neither has dominated. Delgado has a 9 ERA, Teheran 11. Teheran had a game against the Tigers where he allowed six homers in two innings. That was one more home run than he allowed in 150 innings in Triple-A last year.

Yeah, that's pretty disappointing and concerning, although that outing against one of the league's three best offenses happened on like the second day of spring training games and (allegedly) with an insane wind blowing out to center. But anyways, now we're starting to get into the good stuff. Stuff that might lead you to believe that the Braves are about to cancel the season, sell off all their assets, and disband as a franchise. The truly "it could have gone wrong and it did" stuff. OK Jon, lay it on us.

Oh, you're done. That was the whole article. Well, back to holding your baseball bat and grinning like an idiot then. Seriously, go click on the link if you didn't before. Looking at that picture of Jon is much more fun than reading this blog.

WMTMQR: Somehow, Gregg Actually Understands Less about NCAA Football than NFL Football

And that's really saying something. Hooooooooooooooo BOY. This one is a DOOZY.

Charlie Weis and Bobby Bowden had to go -- Notre Dame and Florida State weren't winning every game! Get rid of the bums! All we heard from sports commentators, and from alums and boosters, was get rid of the bums, we gotta win, win, win.

Well yeah. When you have plenty of talent, as FSU and ND did, winning is certainly expected. Both teams went 6-6 this year. Notre Dame lost its last four games, and had embarrassing close call wins over a few bad teams. Florida State opened 2-4, and eked out wins over a couple terrible teams.

Sorry to interject,

You're not. You're writing this column.

but why? Why does Notre Dame or Florida State or any university need to win every game?

They don't need to win every game. They need to win more than 6 of their games. They need to beat Navy, UConn, and South Florida. They need to not almost lose to Maryland, NC State, and Purdue. It's not asking too much of teams that consistently have top 20 recruiting classes to do so.

Is it now official that big colleges care more about sports than education?

No. It might appear that way if your only analysis of big colleges came from a sports website. But to suggest that the firings of 105 year old Bobby Bowden and can't-coach-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag Charlie Weis are a result of that made up phenomenon would be dumb.

Don't get me wrong. I attend way too many college football games, and I always like it when the school I'm rooting for wins. But I am not so misguided as to think that a college's winning games means more than a college's educating students, including athletes.

Let's start by getting a good chuckle at the straw man TMQ has built here. Let's build up to a mild laugh by considering his assertion that schools can't care more about educating their students than winning games, and still want to win a lot of games. And then let's just go ahead and let all our inhibitions go, laughing at the idea that firing a bad coach means a school cares more about winning games than educating its students.

Maybe the sports artificial universe won't face the uncomfortable reality that the NCAA system uses football and men's basketball players to generate revenue and great games -- then tosses way too many of these players aside uneducated.

That's very true. That's a real problem; something worth writing about. Unlike, say, complaining about schools which fire their coaches are somehow betraying their students by doing so.

Perhaps you're thinking, first, football players at big colleges are not being taken advantage of because they are being prepped for the NFL; and second, academics-oriented "smart schools" don't do well in sports, so if a college wants to win, standards must be low.

No one with a brain is thinking either of those things. No one. In fact, Notre Dame is specifically not thinking the second one. They want something which is very difficult to obtain- winning a lot, while staying academics-oriented. It's going to be hard to get that, especially in the current era of college football. But should they be criticized for trying? Fuuuuuuuuuuck no. As for FSU, it's a little less serious about its academic standards. But whatever, you can tell TMQ is mostly attacking ND here.

This generated a recruiting disadvantage -- and a recruiting disadvantage caused by high standards, not Weis suddenly forgetting how to coach, is the reason for the recent records of Notre Dame football. Notre Dame alums and boosters should have been proud that high standards keep the school from going 12-0!

OK. Everyone take note of this claim- that ND's recent lack of success is not due to Charlie Weis's lack of coaching ability, but their recruiting disadvantage (which is only a disadvantage against big football schools like Texas, USC, Florida, etc.; ND still has a huge recruiting advantage over 95% of the rest of the FBS). Now, take a deep breath. And read this:

What about the other commonly heard claim -- that "smart schools" can't win in football and men's basketball? Cal, Georgia Tech, Navy, Nebraska, Northwestern, Stanford and TCU -- all academics-first colleges where football players are more likely to attend class -- are on their way to bowl games. Most of them have been in the top 20 nationally this season, and Georgia Tech and TCU even made BCS bowls.

HOLY SHIT. YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID. YOU ARE THE STUPIDEST PERSON ALIVE. NO ONE ON EARTH, NOT EVEN RICKY DAVIS OR JEREMY SHOCKEY, IS STUPIDER THAN YOU. YES, TCU AND GATECH MADE BCS BOWLS. GREAT POINT. YOU THINK NOTRE DAME, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RECRUITING ADVANTAGE THEY HAVE OVER BOTH THOSE SCHOOLS (or at least TCU), MIGHT BE CAPABLE OF DOING THE SAME THING? YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF THEY HAD A COMPETENT HEAD COACH? YOU FUCKING DUNCE. NOTRE DAME WENT 6-6 THIS YEAR BECAUSE THEY HAD A BAD HEAD COACH. IF THEY HAD A GOOD HEAD COACH, THEY MIGHT HAVE GONE TO A BCS BOWL. LIKE TCU AND GEORGIA TECH, TWO OTHER SCHOOLS WITH HIGH ACADEMIC STANDARDS. HOLY SHIT, AGAIN. DOUBLE HOLY SHIT. DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU WRITE AFTER YOU WRITE IT?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Notre Dame would be headed for a bowl game too, if it weren't for athletic director Jack Swarbrick's bizarre notion that winning "only" six games is something to be embarrassed about.

Notre Dame would be heading to a bowl game, barely, if its own players hadn't voted to not attend one. And yeah, when you have arguably the best QB, two of the ten best WRs, one of the best TEs, an experienced OL filled with heralded recruits, a defense which returned six starters from 2008 and is also filled with heralded recruits, and a fairly soft schedule, winning six games is something to be embarrassed about. At least in an athletic context.

Smart schools dominate the Directors' Cup standings of the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics. For Division I sports, Stanford has won the Cup 14 times;

No one is arguing that it's hard to get athletes who play volleyball, water polo, cross country, tennis, field hockey, etc., and also want to go to class and get a good degree. No one.

A college can field winning football teams and still have strict academic standards for players;

YES. YES MOTHERFUCKING YES. YOU HORSE'S ASS. THAT'S WHY NOTRE DAME IS FIRING CHARLIE WEIS.

Why does the sports universe shy away from discussing these core points?

Because, right or wrong, the sports universe (and media) only really cares about sports on the field. The NCAA is a terrible organization; many schools exploit their athletes, no question; college sports has a large number of problems which should be addressed immediately before they spin even further out of control. Bringing these issues to the attention of the sports universe is an important pursuit. But it's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

We're supposed to believe that every year for 75 years, the best player in college has been a quarterback or running back -- that a lineman has never been the best player?

This is from a section complaining about the Heisman. And while his general point is correct, even casual NCAAF fans know that Charles Woodson won the award primarily as a CB and KR. (Note: this is something that even casual fans know, or would say "Hey, yeah, that's right!" if they didn't know offhand but were reminded of. Unlike which bowl Notre Dame attended in 1993. Dan-Bob, looking at you.)

And speaking of TV ratings records, what if 18-0 Indianapolis meets 18-0 New Orleans in the Super Bowl? A few people would watch. Tuesday Morning Quarterback continues to think both teams are better off losing a regular-season game -- getting the monkey off their backs, while renewing their competitive drive. A Colts loss could give the starters something to play for down the stretch -- otherwise it'll be a month before the next Indianapolis game that means anything to the Colts.

They have homefield advantage locked up for the AFC playoffs. How does a loss "give them something to play for?" It certainly gives them nothing tangible to play for, which would be the case if they hadn't clinched yet. And I think that they have a lot more to play for at 15-0 trying to go 16-0 than they would at 14-1 trying to go 15-1.

For the final Indianapolis touchdown, also from in close, the Colts had linebackers Glenn and Gary Brackett in as extra blockers. The result was a play-fake, and again no one covered Clark on a simple down-and-out.

When a talented, quick, tough-to-cover player like DeSean Jackson or Dallas Clark gets open, it doesn't mean no one tried to cover them. It means they got open. Which is what happened on this play. But don't tell Gregg that- he's busy trying to establish that everyone in the league (or THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, for all you Dilfer/Jaworski enthusiasts out there) except guys who were undrafted out of D-III schools are too dumb to play.

The CBS announcers gushed about the tackles made by San Diego linebacker Brandon Siler, a well-known player who went to Florida, a glamour college.

They did. Because on San Diego's goal line stand against Dallas, he made some great tackles right at the goal line.

The key to the three stops was that undrafted defensive tackle Jacques Cesaire of Southern Connecticut State perfectly "submarined" the Dallas offensive line, driving underneath to knock down blockers so the linebackers could move in.

That was one of the keys. The other key was the tackling of guys like Siler. It's not that hard to understand.

As for Dallas -- the same play was called four consecutive times.

No. It was not. There were four runs called for Marion Barber, but all four were different plays. All had some kind of misdirection (which Gregg has been claiming for weeks is the key to picking up 3rd and shorts or 4th and shorts), including the 4th and goal play where Barber lined up at fullback and was given a quick handoff as Tony Romo faked a pitch to the guy lined up at halfback. Why do I know so much about this sequence of plays? Because that useless piece of shit Barber is on my fantasy team, and hasn't done shit in about seven weeks. AND I'M UPSET ABOUT IT.

On the San Francisco side, the Squared Sevens tried an interesting defensive trick -- barely rushing the passer.

They also rushed the passer pretty intensely on several downs, bringing five or six guys. But blitzing is always bad (except when it works, and then Gregg doesn't write about it), so Gregg didn't write about it.

many of the NFL's officials, who unlike MLB and NBA officials are not full-time, haven't memorized the rulebook.

They may interpret the rulebook oddly at times, but on the whole they're miles ahead of MLB and NBA officials in terms of quality. The favoritism shown by both those groups to star players is flat out embarrassing at times. Oh yeah, and isn't there some kind of gambling problem swirling around the NBA officials these days? I feel like I've heard something about that.

Shameless Self-Promotion: My next book, "Sonic Boom," about the pluses and minuses of the evolving global economy, is in stores on Dec. 29.

Buy it any of your friends who happen to be both braindead and huge elitists.

Robert Goetz of Bend, Ore., notes Major League Baseball's annual winter meetings ended on Dec. 10 -- 11 days before the solstice that marks the beginning of winter in the northern hemisphere.

CREEP! SUCH CREEP! They should be called the late fall meetings! That's so much more accurate, we should totally change it. Actually- better yet- let's call them the Christmas meetings.

Football snobs may look down their noses at the Wildcat -- it's not "real" offense like constant passing!

No one looks down their nose at the Wildcat. No one. No one on TV, no one on local sports radio, no one in the blogosphere, no one I've talked football with in the last year. No one. It seems Gregg's stupidity is in part fueled by his vivid imagination.

Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk: Trailing Baltimore 10-0, and coming into the contest on a 2-26 stretch, Detroit faced fourth-and-goal on the Ravens' 3. Detroit coach Jim Schwartz sent in the field goal unit, and TMQ wrote the words "game over" in his notebook -- even though it was the second quarter.

Ah, interesting. Trailing San Diego 10-3 late in the second quarter, Dallas went for it on 4th and goal from the 1. As described above, they failed (BECAUSE OF A GUY FROM SOUTHEAST RHODE ISLAND STATE! ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT ONE GUY! NOT BECAUSE OF ANYONE ELSE ON THE DEFENSE!), and went on to lose by 3. Hmmmmmm. Innnnnnteresting.

Trailing 19-0 in the third quarter, City of Tampa punted from the Jersey/B 42. Still trailing 19-0 in the third quarter, City of Tampa kicked a field goal on fourth-and-5 from the Jersey/B 25. The Bucs went on to lose 26-3 -- but kept a shutout off the résumé of Raheem Morris.

It's back! Yes! He must've noticed I complained about this a couple weeks ago! The accusation that coaches kick field goals when they're being shut out stictly to "keep shutouts off their resume"- as if anyone cares how many times their team has been shut out vs. how many times they've been held to three points- is back! Finally! I may be wrong but I don't think he's used it this season until now.

I derided LaRon Landry for wearing a wristwatch on the field -- the zebras should make him take it off, and how can the Redskins' countless assistant coaches not have noticed that he wears a watch on the field? John Martin of Dallas reports that the Redskins' many assistant coaches not only know Landry wears a watch, they encourage this. Supposedly the watch reminds him that "it's time to shine." After the New Orleans game, he should wear a wristband that says in bright letters, "It's time to cover the deep man."

No sarcasm- probably the best line I've ever seen from Gregg. Just wanted to give some credit where credit is due.

There can be fantastically well-played, hard-hitting football games in which no harm occurs to any player. Boxing is about causing harm. The sport is barbaric, and the sooner it's banned the better.

Hooray for paternalism! Also to be banned when Gregg takes over as Supreme Commander- rugby, cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, staying up late, and watching TV.

The Lakers (a Division II NCAA football team, not the NBA team) exchanged a roughly 50 percent chance of a touchdown (at the fourth-and-2 point) for a roughly 10 percent chance of recovering an expected onside kick. Football coaches at all levels typically make the wrong decision in this situation, kicking from point-blank range and then facing a length-of-the-field problem at the end. TMQ thinks coaches do this -- even in championship games! -- because they are more concerned about being able to say the final score was close than going all-out to win.

Right. Coaches in championship games, with their legacies and pride on the line, not to mention potential contract extensions or more lucrative jobs, are more concerned with the potential margin of defeat than winning. Winning a championship game. Welcome to the mind of TMQ. It's like smoking peyote while eating asbestos.

Special Bonus Gregg Easterbrook Self-Contradiction

Don't know how I missed this while making the post that appears below. From that post:

Scoring to pull within one point with 23 seconds remaining at San Diego, Kansas City did the manly man thing by going for the win. About 60 percent of deuce tries succeed, whereas taking the game to overtime is strictly a 50-50 proposition.

About six paragraphs earlier in the exact same TMQ column:

As for running rather than passing, the play was essentially a two-point conversion attempt -- and about 45 percent of passing deuce attempts succeed, versus about 60 percent of rushing deuce attempts.

Unless no one ever passes when going for two, which I'm pretty sure is not the case, something about these two statements does not add up. I'm far too lazy to look up the actual numbers and see which statement (if either) is correct, but there's no way they both are. Gregg Easterbrook: adding layers to his own idiocy on a weekly basis.

FireGreggEasterbrook.blogspot.com

This is not a WMTMQR; I'll try to put up a TMTMQR tomorrow. But I need to make a post tonight, and one part of this week's TMQ is so flagrantly bad that it's worth its own post.

First, the setup: from his September 15 column, written two days after the Broncos scored a late touchdown to pull within one of the Chargers and then went for two and the win rather than kicking the extra point and playing for overtime:

Sweet Play of the Week No. 3: What play did Denver use for its winning deuce? Almost exactly the same play it employed a moment before to score the touchdown on fourth-and-goal. Tight trips left, rookie receiver Eddie Royal ran a "stutter in" -- stopping and chopping his feet for an instant, then cutting over the middle. Stutter moves are chic this year; they seem to hypnotize defensive backs for about a second. Plays that just worked, and plays that just failed, are the ones defenses don't expect to see on the very next snap. Denver called the play that just worked -- sweet.

Emphasis mine. So let's move on to this week's column. The Chiefs found themselves in a completely identical situation last Sunday. Trailing the Chargers by seven, they scored a late TD and decided to go for two and the win rather than play for OT. Gregg's thoughts:

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Scoring to pull within one point with 23 seconds remaining at San Diego, Kansas City did the manly man thing by going for the win. About 60 percent of deuce tries succeed, whereas taking the game to overtime is strictly a 50-50 proposition. Plus, deciding the game then and there meant fans would have to watch less of the woeful Chiefs. So the Herm Edwards decision to try for two was sweet -- though not exactly a profile in courage, considering Kansas City had botched a regular PAT kick attempt earlier in the contest.

TMQ is not a fan of Herm Edwards, as regular readers well know. Now, here's the part that proves Gregg is a self-contradicting douche:

Here's the sour part: Kansas City's touchdown to pull within one with 23 ticks remaining came on a pass to Tony Gonzalez in the middle of a trips set. The deuce attempt was also a pass to Gonzalez in the middle of a trips set. This time three San Diego defenders were covering the Kansas City tight end. Not only was the Kansas City second play predictable, somebody else must have been open.

Emphasis mine. Anyone see the problem here? So a good idea is a good idea, except when it's not. Or more specifically, calling the same play twice in a row on a touchdown and game winning 2PC is a great idea, except when it doesn't work, in which case it was a bad idea.

Oh, and then there's this, which I will complain about again tomorrow. Easterbrook has a new item:

Wacky Wine of the Week

I wish I were making this up. I can almost feel the pretentiousness oozing across the internet and into my apartment.

WMTMQR Part 1: Wouldn't it be Cool if Gregg Easterbrook Went Away and Never Came Back

Here's your political joke: I'd like to "vote" (see what I did there?) that Gregg be deported to Siberia.

In this spread-offense empty-backfield era -- I don't wish to alarm you, but pass-wacky Arizona leads the NFL in scoring --

Why is that supposed to alarm me? Because Arizona is never good? Because passing teams don't usually lead the league in scoring? Because Gregg is just being polite?

Tuesday Morning Quarterback longs for some old-fashioned ground-based football. On Saturday night, Texas and Texas Tech combined for 768 yards through the air and 185 yards on the ground. Will all of football turn into the Arena League? What a relief Sunday was, with old-fashioned rushing and good offensive line play dominating many games.

This never happens in the NCAA. Certainly not, for example, last weekend when Florida clowned Georgia while rushing and passing for essentially equal yardage. Or when Utah won a potential trap game at New Mexico while doing the same. Or when Georgia Tech upset Florida State by rushing for 288 yards while passing for a whole whopping 55. (These are just three random examples from top 25 games last week. Feel free to look up a few more of your own.)

Here's my prediction: The next big innovation in football will be the rediscovery of the power run. Consider:

Here's a prediction: the next big new thing will be something that already exists. Think about it. So crazy it just might work.

Tennessee remained the NFL's sole undefeated team by rushing for 178 yards against Green Bay.

Difference between the Titans and, for example, the "pass wacky" Cardinals: the former has Kerry Collins and a bunch of WRs no one has ever heard of. The latter has Kurt Warner, Anquan Boldin, and Larry Fitzgerald. Hmmm, perhaps the Titans are adjusting their game plan to fit their personnel, no?

The defending champion Giants humbled the ship-taking-on-water Cowboys on the strength of 200 rushing yards, culminating with Derrick Ward's run for 17 yards untouched on a draw for the score that iced the contest.

True, but be careful. The Giants are averaging almost 50 yards per game more through the air than on the ground. That's approaching wackiness.

Atlanta rushed for 252 yards behind some tremendous offensive line performances; see more below.

They were playing the Raiders. You can't prove anything by citing the stats of a team that played the Raiders. Plus, they were up 14-0 after a quarter and 24-0 at the half. I'm not going to look up how many passes they threw in the second half, but I bet it wasn't very many.

Detroit was leading -- that's not a misprint -- Chicago 23-20 in the fourth quarter when Bears tailback Matt Forte had old-fashioned off-tackle runs for 13 and 19 yards on a drive that set up Chicago's game-winning touchdown.

The Bears had 2 good run plays in the 4th quarter- therefore, power running is back! Fun hidden fact: the Lions were a few plays away from winning the game, in spite of passing for 280 yards and rushing for 53.

With Miami leading Denver 19-17 and facing first-and-goal on the Broncos' 2-yard line in the fourth quarter, Ronnie Brown went into the end zone standing up for the icing points.

Someone ran for a 2 yard touchdown- therefore, power running is back!

Stat of the Week No. 1: The Oakland Raiders, at 2-6, are two games out of first place in the AFC West.

A 4-4 division leader. Lunacy. What is the world coming to? Oh yeah- three other divisions have a 5-3 leader.

Stat of the Week No. 5: From the fourth quarter of their previous game through this week's game against the Jets, Buffalo had these possession results: interception, fumble, safety, fumble, muffed punt, touchdown, fumble, interception, turnover on downs, punt, field goal, missed field goal, interception.

Since July 2, 2006...

Stat of the Week No. 6: Jacksonville has lost in consecutive weeks to teams that are a combined 4-13; next week, Jacksonville plays 0-8 Detroit.

Not a stat.

Stat of the Week No. 7: Of the NFL's top four sack-producing defenses, two are from Pennsylvania (the Steelers and Eagles) and the other two are from New Jersey (the Giants and Jets).

Based on stats, but also not a stat.

Stat of the Week No. 9: Pittsburgh is the sole team whose defense has not surrendered a play of 40 or more yards.

Also not a stat.

From Cheerleader of the Week:

NFL franchises are rolling in money -- around $200 million in revenue per club per year -- and glamorous cheer-babes are part of the entertainment appeal. Why isn't there a movement to organize pro sports cheerleaders and pay them fairly?

Parading your body around in front of the ugly, unwashed masses and hoping it's a good enough resume booster to get yourself a job in a Vegas show is its own reward.

Sweet Team of the Week: In Michael Vick's happier days, the Falcons led the NFL in rushing; this stat was dismissed by the sports-yak world as a mere byproduct of Vick's runs, as if quarterback rushes somehow did not count. Be that as it may, the No. 1 rushing team in the NFL right now is the Atlanta Falcons, averaging a sparkling 163 yards per game and 4.7 yards per rush. Obviously Atlanta's running backs are playing well, but rushing success begins with the offensive line -- can you name a single Falcons blocker?

Yeah, you selfish reader- can't you name anyone who starts on the Atlanta Falcons' offensive line? (I'm a huge NFL fan, and I don't think I could name more than 20 linemen league-wide who don't play for my favorite team or in their division.)

Sour Teams of the Week: Two weeks ago, Jacksonville was entering perhaps the softest schedule stretch any NFL team has ever enjoyed: 2-4 Cleveland, followed by 0-8 Cincinnati (citing their records at that point), followed by 0-8 Detroit. The Jags have managed to lose the first two of these three gimme games. Yes, this shows nothing is easy in the NFL. And yes, Jax has injuries. But in football, everybody always has injuries. The Jaguars seemed overconfident and "played down" to their opponents;

Based on what? Based... on... what? If there's one thing I hate about Easterbrook (which, surprisingly, there are several), it's his "Team A lost because of this anecdotal reason and I don't need to prove it because you can't disprove it" bullshit. I should make this his fourth Pillar of Idiocy. That's a reference to something dumb I wrote a few weeks ago- if you don't get it, don't worry about it.

Sunday they didn't wake up until the fourth quarter, when they outscored Cincinnati 16-0, but missed the decisive two-point conversion try at the end. And why wasn't the deuce try a power rush, by this team that specializes in power rushing? Instead it was a rinky-dinky pass attempt that fell incomplete.

Remember this. It will be important later.

And what of coach Dick "Cheerio, Chaps" Jauron? Two weeks ago, when Buffalo was 5-1, the Bills' management gave Jauron a lavish contract extension -- despite Jauron having a career record of 55-68 on the day the extension was agreed to. Now he's 55-70. Has Jauron been paying more attention to his purse than his team? Since the contract extension, the Bills have played two stinker games, and in both seemed poorly prepared.

So they have had turnover problems, and allowed some sacks. That's a better explanation than nothing... but not by much.

Sour Play of the Week: Kansas City led City of Tampa 24-3 in the first half. But at the end of regulation, the Bucs scored to cut the lead to 27-25 and lined up for a deuce try. In very sour fashion, Kansas City rushed only three, dropping enormous defensive tackle Glenn Dorsey into coverage, where he did nothing but stand around. Pass complete, and Kansas City lost in overtime.

Remember that bit about Jacksonville I told you to remember? Well, the Jags are actually only the 17th best team in the league this year in rushing yards per game. How dare they not attempt a run on a 2 point conversion! Oh, but the Bucs, who are 9th best in rushing yards per game? No complaints when they throw when they go for two. Gregg Easterbrook: letting the ends justify the means and relentlessly contradicting his own logic since 2003. Also, if the pass had been knocked down and KC had won, please believe this call by the Chiefs would have been mentioned positively in a "Stop Me Before I Blitz Again!" segment.

Time for me to pass out. More to come tomorrow, including (here's your teaser) Gregg still not understanding how time works! The more things change, the more they stay the same.

No, I'm Not Dead, Part II

I've been more vigilant than you guys probably thought this past week and a half or so. The problem is that Jay Mariotti is over in China writing about the Olympics and such, and besides the fact that I think Michael Phelps is a complete toolbox (seriously, who rides around in a car with a stack of T-shirts, puts each on one at a time, takes it off, and throws it to the crowd? Maybe I'm just jealous that he can pound 10,000 calories per day and look SO GOOD!), I really don't have anything to say about those events.

Anyway, let's do a JerryChat. You see, he's not highly regarded enough to be limited to insiders.

Tuesday's topic, courtesy of John in Herndon, Va.:
'With the Twins taking three of four from the White Sox over the weekend, and Chicago's ballooning ERA, who will win the AL Central: Chicago, Minnesota, or possibly Detroit?'

I can hear you all groaning. Yes, it's more crap about the White Sox. AL Central stuff. I know. Riveting. A little-known fact* about me: I'm a Toronto Blue Jays fan.

THE CASE FOR THE WHITE SOX

They have a bunch of veterans still around from the 2005 World Series season, so they know what it takes to fight through the tough times.

Delmon Young, on the other hand, has never faced any adversity ever.

The bullpen is strong (in theory) with Octavio Dotel and Scott Linebrink in the seventh and eighth innings and Bobby Jenks in the ninth. Jose Contreras is about to come off the disabled list and rejoin the rotation, and Linebrink has begun a throwing program in his recovery from a shoulder problem.

I just copied this to give everyone a nice timeframe for this article.

THE CASE FOR THE TWINS
After hearing for more than a month that they're destined to fade, the Twins are starting to believe they're for real.

I can imagine an early July discussion between Joe Mauer and Carlos Gomez.

Joe: We can't keep this up. Our batting average with runners in scoring position is insane. We're getting by on 4 overperforming #3 starters and the ghost of Livan Hernandez. Sure, Liriano might come back, but who knows if he'll be good? There's very little chance.

Carlos: Plus, don't forget what that PECOTA thingy said. Oh shit, I'm fading, man!

Fast forward to today:

Joe and Carlos (together, holding hands, frolicking through a field of posies): We're starting to believe in ourselves! We're better than before!

That's exactly how it happened. I promise. And it's the best argument possible for why the Twins will win the division.

Despite hitting only 79 homers -- a little more than half Chicago's total of 154 -- the Twins have scored 553 runs, exactly the same as the White Sox.

And this doesn't scream "fluke" to you? The White Sox even have a slightly higher OBP!

Yes, Minnesota's rotation is young and inexperienced, and the Twins' inability to replace injured setup man Pat Neshek could come back to haunt them. The schedule also works in Chicago's favor.

Pretty irrelevant, fairly important, VERY important. Followed up by....

But there's something to be said for

Oh God...

karma

What?

fresh legs

No no no...wait. Stop. Go back to that other one. The karma thing.

What???

Karma???

Are the White Sox notoriously evil and the Twins notoriously a bunch of kind-hearted souls? What are you driving at here, Crasnick?

Okay, I've reacted enough. Next stupid thing!

fresh legs

Is having 2 injured starting position players as opposed to one for the White Sox a good case for this? "Fast legs," maybe, but fresh? Paul Konerko's fresher than Mentos, he's just fucking slow.

and good arms

White Sox ERA: 3.91
Twins ERA: 4.27

How do you measure good arms, Jerry?

and the Twins have the edge in each of those commodities

No, they absolutely do not. This is an irrefutable fact. The one they're most clearly behind in is the last one, which is probably the only important one.

This is one of those 51 vs. 49 percent calls, but we'll go with the underdog and take Minnesota.

pnoles: Hey Jerry, who's gonna win the Central?

Jerry Crasnick: Well eh...the White Sox have the best chance of winning, so I predict Minnesota.

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Hey guys, Everybody knows about the Midwest bias here at ESPN. Today it's all about the American League Central. Let's get started ...

I hope to God that was a joke. I'm thinking it probably was (and if it was, good one), but can you imagine if he really thinks there's a midwest bias at ESPN?

Tim (Lawrence, KS): Who would win a Prince Fielder-Manny Parra smackdown?

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Tim, I'd have to put my money on the big, power-hitting vegetarian at first base.

I'm printing this because it's the one correct answer that Jerry gives.

Matt (Syracuse): This one is a no brainer. Minnesota has inexperienced pitchers, while the White Sox hold one of the most powerful offenses in the league. With the addition of Griffey in the lineup, the White Sox will gel and pull away from the Twins in the AL Central, eventually winning the American League.

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Matt, The White Sox might have one of the most powerful offenses in the league, but they've scored 553 runs -- exactly the same as the Twins (who've played one more game).

We've been over this. Pretty damn lucky.

Chicago does it with power and Minnesota has done it with speed and timely hitting.

"Chicago does it with a skill thing, Minnesota does it with a skill thing of lesser value and a luck thing."

Which one do YOU think will hang on?

Everybody keeps saying the Twins are a mirage with that .317 average with runners in scoring position.

What morons....

But we've been saying it for weeks now, and they're still hanging around.

Easy schedule, still good luck, etc. Only one road series in the past 4 weeks that wasn't against one of the 3 worst teams in the AL.

Pablo, Los angeles, CA.: I am a White Sox fan(I don't know Why) but I agree with you The Sox don't play with the heart the Twins do. And unless they get another pitcher and speedy player, the Twins will teach The Chisox another lesson, and break our hearts AGAIN.

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Pablo, I thought I'd get savaged by White Sox fans for picking the Twins, but I've had a few people post the same sentiment as you -- that some intangible ingredient is missing from this year's White Sox. And if things don't get better, you have to think the pressure will be ratcheted up in Chicago. The Twins, on the other hand, have every reason to be loose. Nobody expects them to be here.

Oh yeah, every expert was picking the White Sox to take the Central before the season. Everyone totally expected this. Twins play loose, White Sox play under pressure. Provable. Intelligent. Analysis.

Matt (IN): How much do you think the Twins road trip due to the national convention will come into play here? Thanks

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Matt, I asked Ron Gardenhire about it a month ago, and he said it would be great because the Twins would get "a lot of meal money.'' Let's put it this way: He's not going to let it become an issue.

Oh, so that's how you determine whether a long road trip will negatively affect the team. "Hey Ron Gardenhire, is your team gonna crash and burn on your road trip?" "Oh yeah, Jerry, totally! We're screwed! We suck on the road!"

Since the Twins are such a young club, I think it might have less of a negative impact than it would on an older club.

Oh. My. Giddy. Aunt.

This is quite possibly the biggest double-standard in baseball journalism. If you want to argue for a young team, say that they'll get by on their energy. If you want to argue against a young team, just claim their inexperienced! Why can't I just say, "Hey Jerry, if the Twins were a little more experienced, wouldn't that lessen the negative impact of the road trip?"

You owe me the biggest fucking explanation of all time for this one. HOW DOES THE AGE OF THE TWINS AFFECT HOW THEY PLAY ON AN EXTENDED ROADTRIP, YOU FUCKING ASSHAT?

Dustin,(Moore, ok): Everyone has said all year ...The twins will fade, they are a year away, this is a rebuilding year, ect...When will people realize that talent and good coaching are a part of this as well, and actually give the twins credit instead of waiting for them to fail?

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Dustin, It makes sense that a team that's middle-of-the-pack in OBP and slugging is going to have a hard time producing runs by continuing to hit .317 with runners in scoring position. But now that we're in August, it's time to acknkowledge that the Twins aren't a fluke.

So there have been zero fluky teams in history to still be in contention in August. Huh. Makes sense. Kind of like the 2007 Mariners. They were in it this late, and they weren't a fluke, and all they had to do was add Erik Bedard and Carlos Silva for their tremendous 2008 World Championship run. Because they weren't a fluke.

Ted (Minneapolis): Do you think that Ron Gardenhire should have some say as the manager of the year? Since he has taken the Twins this far without one of the best pitchers of the game in Santana?

I would like to point out that the manager of every contending team in baseball except Jerry Manuel has accomplished this feat.

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Ted, He should get some consideration, but Joe Maddon of Tampa Bay is still the frontrunner.

Make that two correct answers. Even if Joe Maddon is kind of stupid.

Daniel (Chicago, IL): It seems to me that the Sox's inability to score runs without the long ball is a real red flag that will hurt them immensely if they get cold down the stretch. You could argue that a team with so many power bats is immune to that, but that argument's been made and disproven for dozens of teams (see Chicago Cubs, 2004). The Twins, on the other hand, don't hit a ton of home runs but can still knock one out when they need to. Just my two cents.

Daniel seems to think that the Twins can hit a home run whenever they choose.

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Daniel, We'll see. Three run homers are great, but it's hard to rely on them. The White Sox are a station to station team and they're going to be prone to fallow stretches when they're not hitting the ball out of the park.

April: 33 HR
May: 28 HR
June: 48 HR
July: 37 HR
Half of August: 19 HR
May record: 16-13

Seems pretty rock solid to me! Here's another theory. When you have tons of guys that hit tons of HR, including the top 2 guys in the league, you're pee-robably not going to go through that kind of stretch. Sound good? Good.

Patrick, Chicago: Jerry, im sorry to disagree with you and others who have said this team has no fight... We had a bad stretch in Minni and in KC, but do you not recal the dramtic (and crucial) come from behind wins IN DETROIT JUST LAST WEEKEND?? We have been doing it all year, this team does fight. The unsung key in all this is Javier Vazquez, who has the stuff to be a top flight starter, and has shown glimpses. His last start against the Royals was very good... if he gets on track with Danks and Floyd, the Sox will win the division.

This man just derailed Crasnick's entire fluff-based argument. Your response, Jerry?

SportsNation Jerry Crasnick: Patrick, Glad to see some spunk from a White Sox fan. That's the spirit!

Beeee-youtiful.

*definition of "fact" is the sole discretion of me, myself, and I.

Idiocy, Thy Name Is Jemele Hill

Life's been dealing me some lemons lately. It's been rough. My parents' basement is developing a mold problem, my Super NES isn't reading cartridges right now, we're out of Pop Tarts, and worst of all, my Kate Beckinsale poster fell off the wall and somehow got ripped in the process. Sigh. That's just the way it goes sometimes, I guess. But whenever I hit a rough patch like this, there are two truths I can always lean on to make me feel better:

1. "No matter how bad life gets, there is always beer." - Norm MacDonald
2. No matter how bad life gets, Jemele Hill will always be the perfect balance of entertaining and ignorant.

There was one particular hand gesture that came to mind when I heard the NFL will be intensely scrutinizing players' hand signals for possible gang signs next season. And let's just say the response I thought of is the same gesture Michael Vick gave Atlanta Falcons fans.

Let's just say that since you recently decided to compare rooting for the Celtics to being a Nazi sympathizer, you might as well just directly say that the NFL can go fuck itself. Go ahead, let it out.

I'm usually not opposed to a league being proactive, but in this case not only has the NFL gone too far, it has successfully insinuated to the public that the league is full of Doughboys and O-Dogs.

The second clause and the third clause there are redundant. That's like saying "not only are you ugly, you're also very unappealing to look at." Unless, of course, Jemele thinks there's another aspect of the policy that takes things too far, which is doubtful. Also- easy on the hyperbole, champ. The league is not insinuating that it's "full of" gangsters; it's insinuating that it's worried about the possible presence of some level of gang affiliation.

Sports leagues have a right to protect their image. Doing so often rubs players the wrong way, but sometimes it's what is best for the league and its players. NBA players rebuffed the league dress code, but ultimately it was for their own good. An undying allegiance to Phat Farm and Jesus pieces was costing the league and the players money at the box office. When corporate sponsors are uncomfortable and reluctant to spend, the players don't make as much as they possibly can. Besides, with any job, there is nothing wrong with instituting a standard of decorum.

Remember this- it will be very, very important.

But the NFL's latest move is not about decorum or even petrified sponsors.

The "Paul Pierce incident" (the impetus for this idea) is less than 2 months old, and no NFL games have been played since it happened. How do we know how sponsors would respond? How do we know how much negative media attention might develop over the first incident that resembles Pierce's that happens this fall? We don't. Thus, the league is being proactive. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

It's just a league overreaction, and a reminder to the players that they -- and not the coaches and owners -- are under the rule of a stern commissioner.

I think pretty much everyone involved in the league is aware of Goddell's personality and iron-fisted rule at this point. I don't think any coach or owner is happily parked on their ass, saying to themselves "Ah, good ol' Rog. I know he's on my side. I should be able to do pretty much whatever I want."

An NFL official told the Los Angeles Times this week that the league was focusing its attention on players' hand gestures because of an overblown incident involving Paul Pierce during the NBA playoffs. After a scrum with Atlanta's Al Horford in the first round of the playoffs, Pierce flashed what the NBA deemed "menacing gestures" toward the Hawks' bench and was fined $25,000. Pierce vehemently denied making a gang sign.

That makes it overblown, I guess. Now, no one's definitively saying that Pierce runs with a gang and would have shot and killed the Hawks if he could have. But what he did was certainly strange, needless, and overaggressive. The fine might have been excessive, but I'm not sure if I'd call the incident "overblown." It wasn't that huge of a story to begin with, and gesturing at an opponents' bench in the way Pierce did probably isn't within the bounds of good behavior.

(Side note- this is why I hate Boston sports- check out the video of the incident. Then check out this video from a local Boston sports station, which tries to get Pierce off the hook by documenting non-threatening hand signals he uses during pregame celebrations that are absolutely nothing like the ones from the incident. Now, maybe any city's local sports station would make a claim like this if one of their stars did something sketchy. But I doubt it. Just my opinion. Go fuck yourself, Boston fans besides those who read this blog.)

According to the Times, if a game officials sees a "suspicious hand gesture," he must alert the league, which will be hiring gang experts to review game tapes.

Right. Exactly. It's not like they're throwing down personal foul penalties or taking points off the board during the actual game. They're just looking into suspicious incidents to make sure there isn't anything overly negative going on.

"We were always suspicious that [gang-related hand signals] might be happening," Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, told the L.A. Times. "But the Paul Pierce thing is what brought it to light. When he was fined … that's when we said we need to take a look at it and see if we need to be aware of it."

What a normal, expected reaction from a business as powerful and profitable as the NFL. (No sarcasm)

Being more aware is generally a good thing, and I'm certainly not suggesting the NFL look the other way on something as serious as gang violence.

Except that by bitching about a new policy that will simply involve the league reviewing any suspicious signals, you're basically implying that they should be looking the other way. We have a label for this.

But by responding to a situation in another pro league, the NFL successfully planted a stereotype about its own -- namely, that the league is filled with Bloods and Crips.

Damn you, NFL, for being proactive! You know, I don't really think any given sport should start a steroid testing program until its athletes are breaking records at a furious pace. By instituting a program before any of its own athletes are caught, that sport is insinuating that steroids are a widespread problem. We all know that's not the case.

The next time a player throws up an ode to his fraternity in the end zone, Johnny Consumer is going to be thinking: "Drive-by."

Based on the Pierce incident, it's somewhat probable that that reaction would have happened whether or not the league instituted this policy.

The last thing the NFL should want to do is add to the perception that players are out of control.

Yes, it would be much better for them to bury their collective heads in the sand and insist that their sport couldn't possibly have any problems.

We can get that idea without the league's help, even though NFL rule breakers are the exception, not the rule.

This is one of the most batshit crazy things I have ever read. Let me simplify Jemele's stream of logic for you: Paul Pierce did something sketchy and got fined for it ==> Paul Pierce doesn't play in the NFL ==> Therefore, it's dumb for the NFL to institute a policy that responds to Pierce's incident ==> People already think the league is full of out of control players anyways

Don't read that too many times. You might get dizzy. I'm not 100% happy with the way it turned out, but I think that's Jemele's fault rather than my own.

Maybe the NFL decided now was a good time to reiterate its tough-on-crime stance because of some of the criminal shenanigans that have taken place the past week. Jaguars wide receiver Matt Jones was charged with felony drug possession, former Viking Darrion Scott received a three-game league suspension for putting a plastic bag over the head of his 2-year-old son, and Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw was released from jail after serving time for a probation violation.

You are not helping your case. (Again.)

Time to show everyone who's the boss.

Yeah, actually, maybe it was.

What's lost is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gang affiliation was even an issue for the NFL.

Jemele is still struggling with the concept of proactivity (sic?). Hey, why worry about a potentially dangerous problem until it's a really legitimate problem?

When asked on Friday if the NFL had a gang problem, league spokesperson Greg Aiello quickly issued a strong denial.

What the fuck else is an official spokesperson going to say?

So why is the NFL creating smoke, when it's adamant there's not an actual fire?

You're absolutely clueless.

"What they've done is publicize the solution without giving us any information on the problem," said David Cornwell, an Atlanta-based sports attorney who once served as the NFL's assistant general counsel.

That's because they probably don't know much about the problem, but want the public to know that they're being proactive. Do you see a trend developing here?

All this does is ease a path to stereotyping. Even if a game official witnessed a "suspicious hand gesture," how exactly could the NFL prove intent?

They don't need to. They need to investigate and see if there really is a problem or not. If it seemed like there was a problem, they would probably discipline (or at least have a discussion) with the player in question. Shouldn't be too hard to fix.

In my old Detroit neighborhood, kids and adults use hand signals all the time, but they represent neighborhood pride, not gang activity.

That's fine, but maybe they represented different things to different people. Some of them probably were/are open for interpretation. And remember how Jemele approved of the NBA's dress code, because millions of dollars from sponsors and fans was at stake? Hmmmmm. If you really stretch your brain, you should be able to envision a scenario in which the same issues come into play for the NFL.

These days, players are so creative they invent their own signals. Doug Christie, possibly the most whipped man in the history of professional sports, used to send hand gestures to his wife, Jackie, after made shots and free throws. Jason Kidd did the same on foul shots as an ode to his ex-wife, Joumana. Steve McNair put up his fraternity sign on touchdowns.

All of these are perfectly acceptable. If these incidents happened in the NFL after the institution of this policy, the league would probably review the tapes, consult with the players, decide whether or not the signal was harmful to the league's imagine, and then either let them slide or ask the player to please stop. Not that difficult.

And sometimes, players merely copy what they see from hip-hop videos, unaware of what those hand signals mean. It's naive, but imitation is the root of pop culture.

Were the players to accidentally use gang signs they saw in music videos, the league's paying customers and sponsors would probably not care where or how said signs were learned.

The NFL's heart is in the right place, but there are times when even the most well-intentioned rule can be harmful. Case in point: David Dicks, the police chief in Flint, Mich., has come under fire for ordering officers to arrest people who wear their pants too low and expose what we'd rather not see. Personally I detest seeing young men "sag," because they're copying prisoners. But even I can't argue that Dicks' directive is unconstitutional and provides a convenient way for cops to racially profile.

I for one don't know what Dicks' (haha.... "dicks") motives were. But I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and suppose that this policy is actually about indecency rather than race. Just like this NFL policy is about protecting the image of the league, rather than race. Oh wait, this is a Jemele Hill column. I almost forgot. Everything is about race.

"I do understand what they're trying to do [in the NFL], but I don't think it's a move in the right direction," said Carl Taylor, a senior fellow at Michigan State University who has studied gangs, violence and youth culture for years and is the principal investigator for the Michigan Gang Research Project.

Why is that, Carl? Please explain your position.

"I also understand why they don't want guys doing [gang signs].

Oh, OK. You're not going to clarify. You're just going to contradict yourself.

It's also interesting because you open that Pandora's box. A lot of people don't know the Ku Klux Klan has signs too. Are you going to police all signs?

You definitely should. All signs linked to violent, hateful organizations, anyways.

"The mere fact that they've done this, we're looking at black and Latino athletes. It does have the undercurrent of racial stereotyping,

1. People of all races are members of gangs. There may be a disproportionate number of non-whites in gangs, but it's not like some kind of uniquely black/Latino thing.
2. If that is the case, it's not the NFL's fault. Not wanting to appear to be racially stereotyping is not a good excuse to overlook a issue like this. (Sorry about the double negative.)

but also youth culture stereotyping."

Hiding gang activity behind the pseudo-intellectually protective umbrella of "youth culture" is disgusting.

The NFL wants to make money and have a clean league.

And this is not a good way to achieve that goal, because....

But it has to be careful. In its thirst to appear tough, fans can be left with the wrong impression.

Remember when you said this?

The last thing the NFL should want to do is add to the perception that players are out of control. We can get that idea without the league's help...

You're fucking stupid.