We Always Give The Readers What They Want

And right now, they want us to continue using Jemele Hill as a punching bag. Just glanced through her recent Patriots/Belichick article and found one particular segment that was juuuuuuust offensive enough to make me want to fire up the computer and complain mindlessly about it on teh ol' blogowebs.

Ever hear the story about how the real Suge Knight allegedly dangled rapper Vanilla Ice from a 20th-floor balcony to coerce Ice into signing over royalties from "Ice, Ice Baby"? If someone else calls Belichick classless, I'm afraid he might do the same thing to LaDainian Tomlinson, the first to publicly make that statement because New England players stomped on the Chargers logo after disposing of them in last season's playoffs.

The attacks on the Patriots' character are certainly amusing and highly hypocritical. Naturally, Tomlinson failed to mention what teammate Drayton Florence reportedly told fans at Gillette Stadium following San Diego's 41-17 win in 2005. "[Expletive] New England and their team," Florence said, according to the Providence Journal. "Get that look of shock off your faces. Don't be shocked. We beat your ass."

So let's apply Jemele's reasoning here to the real world. Basically what she's saying is that if you have ever worked or gone to school with someone who did anything wrong, you're not allowed to complain about anyone else who does something wrong. That would be hypocrisy! How dare you criticize the white collar criminals who make the evening news- aren't you the one whose third cousin once stole a six pack from 7-11? And don't be so quick to get angry about that guy who backed into your tail light in that parking garage and didn't leave his insurance information. It was your college roommate that got a speeding ticket that one time. Haha! Shoe's on the other foot now, it's it, bitch?

Yes, I know that in both those examples the imaginary stranger's crime is worse than the imaginary person you know's crime. But I also think stomping on the opposing team's logo is much worse than talking trash to some dumb, drunk fans who chose to hang around near the visiting team's tunnel after a game. The first is meant to humiliate and anger your opponent and every single one of their fans. Although this is not necessarily the case when a newspaper reports the quote, the second is originally intended only to humiliate those previously mentioned fans (who I'm sure were acting like total angels in the situation and not instigating any conversation with Florence what so ever). Everyone, including both players and fans, is either going to see a logo stomp as it happens or hear about it later on. But unless a newspaper somehow gets ahold of the quote and feels the need to turn it into a story, only like 50 random people and some of their friends are going to hear postgame trash talk aimed by a player into the stands.

All this babbling aside- when is ESPN.com going to fire Jemele Hill? She's somehow making Page 2 look even worse than it normally does, which is saying a lot.

Jemele Hill Check...

Unfortunately she hasn't been fired, and to the joy of our five readers, she's still writing piece of shit throwaway garbage.

A-Fraud: Give me Kobe over A-Rod any day

Pay-Rod, Slappy McSlapperson, Me-Rod, Gay-Rod, and now this???? How did Hill come up with A-Fraud? I can just imagine her sitting at the typewriter:

"Pay-Rod? Nah that's been done before. What rhymes with 'A?' Hmmmmmmm. Play? Pay? Gay? Nay? Nope. Let's try two syllables. Cache? Dismay? Buffet? Dang. What about three syllables? Disarray? Fish Filet? Puppet Play? Well, Fuck. Oh I know! I'll keep the 'A' and Rhyme something with 'Rod.' Facade? Nah... let's see..... AHA! I'll call him A-Fraud because he's not the real deal!"

Say what you will about Kobe Bryant, but at least he's not a mercenary who wants all of the money, but none of the pressure, and doesn't perform in the playoffs.

In other words, at least he's not Alex Rodriguez.

According to this, last year Kobe Bryant made 17.7 million in salary, 16 million in endorsements, for a grand total of 33.7 million. In the same time frame, A-Rod made 22 million in salary and 6 million in endorsements, totalling 28 million. And that's not even considering that A-Rod plays in an uncapped league and plays in twice as many games per year as Kobe.

Both players are generally viewed as selfish, whiny divas. But as we approach the unusual sports phenomenon of having the best player in baseball head to a new team and arguably the best player in basketball also potentially on the move, understand that A-Rod and Kobe are two very different creatures.


I'll take this Ford F-450 work truck over that Yamaha Crotch Rocket any day. But am I a Construction Foreman or a Yakuza henchman? Who cares?

A-Rod's decision to opt-out of New York is far more self-absorbed than Kobe's finagling to get out of Los Angeles.

Here's where the comparison completely falls apart. Yes both players are guys who seem to be consumed with padding their stat lines. Kobe is notorious for throwing up low chance lopsided jumpshots while being tripled covered. Even if Kobe has a %50 chance of making said shot, he's hurting his team by shooting instead of passing to an open player with an opportunity to make a higher percentage shot. A-Rod just gets lots of walks, hits, and plays above average defense. When he makes a play (which happens A LOT), he's helping his team every single time.

Or to quote this anonymous internet poster:

Baseball is great partially because it's the only sport where, on the field, every single player can be completely greedy and do what maximizes their personal value every single play and it's to the team's best interest. Every other sport is a zero sum game, where every shot you take is one your teammate doesn't--in baseball, every hit you get provides another opportunity. There's no clock besides individual failure. If Ayn Rand and Adam Smith fucked, she'd give birth to a baseball

Despite Kobe's flaws, we at least know he is consumed with winning championships. A-Rod is consumed with being A-Rod.

Maybe A-Rod wants to get out of New York because they have an aging, below average pitching staff on a team who made the playoffs this season entirely because of the merits of A-Rod and his 14 wins above replacement.

And what the fuck does "A-Rod is consumed with being A-Rod" even mean?

Kobe doesn't always demonstrate his aspirations maturely. It also can't be ignored that a key aspect of his championship ambitions is that he has to be the guy in the lead role. But if the worst you can say about Kobe -- whose competitive streak was cloned from Michael Jordan's -- is he no longer wanted to play alongside a once-dominant, but injury-prone center, it's not exactly a sign of the apocalypse. And considering some of the things that Lakers owner Jerry Buss has said about Kobe in recent weeks, we've seen that Buss is his own man -- if he really wanted to keep Shaq, he would have kept him. Buss' main concern was dumping another $100 million into the fourth Fu-Schniken.

Are you serious? Last time I checked, Shaq went on to win another title with Miami. "Hey don't fault the guy because he drove the other player who was largely responsible for all those championships out of town. He just wants to win. And also sell Nutella"

But does anything in A-Rod's history or demeanor suggest he's remotely obsessed with winning the way Kobe is? A-Rod seems more obsessed with being loved than winning. He wants all the perks, but none of the responsibility. He wants 100-plus RBIs, and to eventually be the home run king. Just don't expect him to bring any of the necessary intangibles it takes to win something meaningful.

This argument has been beaten into the ground. A-Rod has shown up in the playoffs. Several times before. It's not him out there pitching meatballs to David Ortiz and Travis Hafner. Give me Yadir Molina or David Eckstien any day. They know how to win!

Sounds like a perfect fit for the Chicago Cubs.

Get it? Because they haven't won a World Series in a really long time. The Cubs and their 100+ million payroll also definitely don't care about winning it all. Just like Buffet-Rod!

A-Rod isn't a leader, comes off as insecure and teams mysteriously seem better off when he's gone.

I'll take a 177 OPS+ hitting infielder over a "clubhouse leader" any day.

Also no mystery here:

2000 Mariners: Lost in ALCS (with a 101 Team ERA+)
2001 (post A-Rod) Mariners: Lost in ALCS (with a 118 Team ERA+)

2003 Rangers: 69 wins (team ERA+ of 88)
2004 (post A-Rod) Rangers: 87 wins (team ERA+ of 111)

So I guess A-Rod causes pitchers on his team to suck. That means we should expect a 120 ERA+ season from the 2008 Yankees.

The only thing Jemele has proved here is that she is mystified by the impact pitchers have on the success of baseball teams.

Kobe? The three-time champion thrives under pressure and the low opinions some people have of him.

How many championships has Kobe won since the rape accusations? Oh, none?

Kobe was criticized for brutally assessing the Lakers' lack of progress. But when A-Rod was a Yankee, the only thing that seemed to bother him was his own personal slumps.

Wouldn't you prefer a player who gets upset about losing more than a player who seems fine with it as long as he can stare at his pretty statistics and pay stubs? Can you blame Kobe for complaining about any plan that included passing on a skilled player who could help the Lakers in the present in favor of the long-term coddling of Andrew Bynum? Has A-Rod ever exhibited that kind of passion and determination? Has he ever given answers that didn't sound rehearsed?

I thought A-Rod said he'd take a pay cut to play for a winner? Once again, maybe he's sick of playing on teams who cannot put together a competent pitching staff. I think he's a bit greedy when it comes to his salary, but isn't the same true of Kobe? They're both the highest paid players in their respective sports.

Even if A-Rod somehow wound up playing for the world champion Red Sox -- and if you're listening Boston, adding this guy to your clubhouse is akin to putting Britney Spears on "Nanny 911" -- it would be difficult to interpret A-Rod's actions as that of a man driven to win.

Jemele made it three quarters of the way through this column without making an awkward pop culture reference. Of course it wouldn't be a Jemele Hill column without at least a couple of FOX reality shows/pet rock/Celebrity DUI comparisons thrown in for good measure.

A-Rod, of course, has the right to chase as much money as he wants. It's not his fault if the market dictates he earn an astronomical figure. There's no denying there were times he was unfairly brutalized in New York. The stalking by the tabloids was unacceptable, as was the fascination with his personal life. But the problems he had there will follow him into his next clubhouse.

I can't wait for two things:

1) The yankees finish with 80 wins in 2008 and miss the playoffs
2) A-Rod is appreciated in his new city for his eye-popping, guaranteed to improve whatever team he plays on performance.

It's fair to accuse A-Rod and Kobe of being types who can't operate in a locker room unless they control it.

The difference is, there've been signs that Kobe has outgrown some of that. A-Rod doesn't seem like he ever will.

One thing I can assure you, dear reader, is that Jemele Hill will never make a well written argument based on real facts instead of baseless accusations.

Add This Guy To the List of People David Eckstein Is Not Better Than

A quickie from JayBird's online column.

In signing the chubby and maddeningly inconsistent Juan Uribe to a one-year deal, Williams said something that blew my mind. ``Uribe is, and has been, one of the most consistent shortstops in the game,'' he said.

How does this statement blow your mind? Uribe's numbers don't vary ridiculously from year to year. I mean yeah, there's variation you can expect from every player there, but you know what you're getting. Low batting average, low OBP, decent-to-good power, high strikeouts, low walks. He does it every year. The problem isn't that Uribe isn't a consistent hitter there, Joe Morgan, the problem is that he's a bad hitter.

What's truly remarkable about Uribe are his FRAA for the past 6 years: 26, 19, 6, 14, 8, 19.

So, you win, Jay. I guess he is inconsistent in the field. You don't know in any given year whether you're going to get Uribe's pretty good glove or his awesome glove.

Consider it more proof that Williams is still in love with his 2005 title creation, even if the mission is 2008. Uribe hit .234 last season. His on-base percentage: .284. He fields well enough, but the Sox needed to part ways and upgrade the shortstop position. Free agent David Eckstein might be wearing down, but he's in shape, his winner's attitude is infectious and he'd have been a worthwhile gamble as a much-needed leadoff hitter.

David Eckstein, 2007 WARP: 2.4
Juan Uribe, 2007 WARP: 3.9

David Eckstein: winning attitude, skinny.
Juan Uribe: fat, kills people(?).

First comparison: Helps determine what a player is worth.
Second ocmparison: Pretty irrelevant to a winning team.

Granted, Eck can lead off because of his above-average OBP, and the Sox need that, but it isn't worth giving up anything more than they gave to Uribe.

Too much of the '05 everyday nucleus remains intact.

Problem with the White Sox: Too many guys who won the World Series together are on the team.

Williams will be forgiven if he trades for third baseman Miguel Cabrera

What the fuck could he possibly trade for Miguel Cabrera? He'd have to eat the salary of anyone that gets paid significant dough, and the Sox farm system isnt exactly crawling with prospects. (Maybe the Marlins will take Jerry Owens....PLEASE TAKE JERRY OWENS)

And, much as this will rile the ancient and ready-for-retirement Hawk Harrelson, won't a .500 season further relegate the Sox to No. 2 team status around here?

1) Who cares
2) Taking shots at the increasingly senile Hawk Harrelson shows such great professionalism.

As a final thought, it seems that Pittsburgh's new general management is going to use statistics to valuate players. We are now down to zero (0) teams in MLB that would be better off if a Fire Jay Mariotti writer took over as GM. Rats.

TMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Stoops To Several New Lows

Where to begin... where the ass to begin? After almost a month of filling his columns with relatively mild (by his standards) bullshit, let's just say the TMQ is back this week with a fucking vengeance. Oh my Jeebus. Record setting levels of pretentiousness? Check. Stupid nicknames? Check. Awkward/forced praise of cheerleaders who would probably incapacitate Easterbrook if he ever so much as made eye contact with him in real life? Check. But most importantly- Making numerous claims that demonstrate a total lack of knowledge about how football is played? Check. Let's begin.

Once, in Silicon Valley, I heard Joe Costello -- a founding light of "electronic design automation" and now CEO of the lowercase think3 -- give a talk about the difference between seeking success and avoiding failure. Studies of crashes during aircraft landings under difficult circumstances, he said, showed that pilots who made bad mistakes when approaching an airfield and crashed, but lived to tell the tale, reported that they had been focused on avoiding obstacles. Pilots who made difficult landings without incident reported they had focused solely on the runway. Business and artistic success, Costello continued, follow the same pattern. Setbacks result from constantly trying to avoid obstacles, worrying about what might go wrong. Achievement results from keeping your eyes glued to the prize and endlessly repeating to yourself, "I can do this." Or, as I once wrote, "Keep your gaze in the distance, and though you will stumble, you will reach your destination."

Are.

You.

Kidding me?

Who attempts to quote themselves like that? I don't think the ten biggest assholes I've met in my entire life could come up with something that outrageous if they combined their efforts and worked exclusively on this imaginary project of pure douchehead brainstorming for an entire year. Hey Gregg, hows the view from your tower? As I once wrote, "Easterbrook is comically pretentious."

These thoughts came to mind when Tiki Barber said on NBC's "Football Night in the Known Universe," or whatever its formal name is, that rookie Adrian Peterson of Minnesota keeps his eyes straight ahead, looking only down the field, ignoring tacklers. Watch tailbacks: Most are darting their heads from side to side trying to figure out where problems are. Peterson says he is always looking at the goal line and driving his legs, ignoring tacklers. His runs have this quality: maximum power toward the goal line, pay no attention to the obstacles. The great Walter Payton once said he could never remember the numbers of those who hit or missed him because he was looking down the field and the rest was a blur. (That's a paraphrase.) Peterson seems to have this same success-focused running style, plus he's bigger and faster than Payton was.

This paragraph really shows a smooth transition from pure own-fart-sniffing self-promotion to demonstration of a complete lack of knowledge about the sport of tackle football. See, this is how it actually works. If you are an offensive player carrying the ball towards the end zone, there is only one thing that will stop you from getting there: tacklers playing for the other team. You will absolutely, positively, not reach the end zone if you do not avoid them. Sure, you can run over or through a couple of them. But even a great RB like Peterson depends largely on not not getting anywhere near the other team's defenders. When they grab onto or run into the guy carrying the ball, it usually results in the end of the play.

I know Peterson says he doesn't think about avoiding tacklers. Excuse the double negative, but that doesn't mean he's not subconsciously doing exactly that! It speaks to his abilities that he (allegedly) doesn't really worry about any of the eleven guys who are trying to tackle him when he has the ball. But if he really, truly ran without regard for where defenders were, he would not be good. He would not be average. He would be a really athletic guy who sucks at football. He would probably be a track star or something. He would definitely not have set the NFL single game rushing record last weekend. Sure, he's not thinking about it. But I've seen him make enough devastating cutbacks this season that it's clear some part of his brain understands the concept of avoiding tacklers.

I can't believe I'm actually explaining this, as if any of the seven of you don't know how football works. Let's make it really simple. I have two friends named Chris and Alan. They're both more or less equally athletic. Whenever we get together with some other friends for a football game, they always have to play on opposite teams because they're easily the two best players and both are a threat to break a big play at any time. Next time one of these games goes down, I'm going to ask one of them to play the game like he normally would, and the other to "focus on the horizon/goal line" rather than the defenders trying to bring them down. I will bet everything in my parents' basement (there's a pretty nice coffee table down here, plus some old LPs and a record player) that the first guy has a really good game and the second horribly disappoints his teammates. Hell, to control for any variation in their individual performances, I can have them switch roles halfway through. I don't think I can overstate this: IT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT GREGG EASTERBROOK HAS NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT HERE. None.

Wow, that may be the longest rant I've ever delivered about a single paragraph of crapass sportswriting. But I'm pretty sure it was worth it. After Easterbrook reads this, I'm sure he'll print a retraction in next week's column. As long as he can squeeze it in between an update on space telescope technology and complaints about the lack of realism in Battlestar: Galactica.

Cheerleader of the Week (peace offering to Patriots fans edition): Reader Jim Hickey of Andover, Mass., nominates Jessica of the New England Patriots cheerleaders, whose swimsuit photo we can link to but not show for cleavage-based reasons. According to her team bio, Jessica is majoring in cardiovascular technology at St. Vincent's College, a specialized health care institution, and her career goal is echocardiography. Imagine the effect of Jessica administering heart tests on any traditional male patients: "You seem healthy, but your heart rate is a little high at 195."

Now, as a 23 year old guy living in my parents' basement, I don't have a lot of room to talk here. I haven't had a date since I took my second cousin to my senior prom. (Our parents set it up.) I don't think I've talked to a woman besides those related to me in well over a decade. But all that aside, that joke is awkward as hell. LAWLLLL! Hott gurlzzz make guys nervous! Ohhhhhhh noooooooo! I hope Jessica never needs to check my heart rate. It would probably be more like TWO hundred ninety five!

Sweet Play of the Week: With Buffalo trailing Cincinnati 21-19, the Bills reached first-and-goal on the Bengals' 8 in the fourth quarter. Marshawn Lynch had rushed on six consecutive snaps, and the Cincinnati defense was fixated on him. Lynch took a pitch right, accompanied by pulling tackle Langston Walker, and flipped a touchdown pass to tight end Robert Royal.

What? A trick play can be sweet? What happened to "just run the ball up the middle and everything will be OK," one of Gregg's favorite Greggisms? If this play had resulted in an interception and the Bengals had gone on to win, he'd be waxing poetic about how Bills coach Dick Jauron should be fired and deported to Iran. And that the forward pass should be made illegal during the 4th quarter for teams with the lead.

Sweet Series of the Week: Atlanta and San Francisco tied at 7, the Falcons reached first-and-10 on the Squared Sevens'

Math joke! Seven squared is 49. Clever.

19. Atlanta rushed on five consecutive snaps, scoring the touchdown, and went on to win. The football gods smile on this sort of thing!

And they also smile on halfback passes. So basically, hindsight is 20/20 and the football gods smile on anything teams do to win.

Untouched Touchdown Run of the Week: Carolina-Tennessee, scoreless, the Flaming Thumbtacks

That's what their logo looks like!

were facing third-and-goal from the Panthers' 3. Vince Young dropped back, scanned the field, saw the middle open and simply walked in for the touchdown. Note: Tennessee recorded seven sacks in the game, and Carolina has a total of seven sacks on the season. Didn't we used to hear that Julius Peppers was the new Fred Dean?

Clearly, any DE who isn't recording sacks must be terrible. Wait, what's that? There's such a thing as offensive schemes in which multiple offensive linemen block the same defender? To be fair, I guess my sarcasm there doesn't hold a ton of water because if Peppers is consistently getting taken out of plays that should theoretically open up other guys on the team for sacks. I can't explain why it's not happening. I can, however, explain Peppers' sack totals so far for each of his 5.5 years in the league:

2002- 12
2003- 7
2004- 11
2005- 10.5
2006- 13
2007- 1.5

There you have it- proof that Peppers is not good. Fred Dean, your legacy is safe.

Denver is barreling down the tracks toward a switch in the wrong position, likely to become the train-wreck team of the 2007 season. By Thanksgiving 2006, the Broncos were 7-4, had a highly ranked defense and held the inside track to win their division. Then Mike "The Ultimate Leader" Shanahan showed the door to quarterback Jake Plummer and began making wholesale changes on his defense, including firing his defensive coordinator. Since that moment, the Broncos are 5-8; their rushing defense is now the league's second-worst; and they just got punched in the nose by Detroit, last season's second-worst club.

There are two problems here.

1) Who gives a shit how bad the Lions were last year? It's pretty obvious that they're good this year. Should we crap all over anyone who loses to the 2007 Browns or Bucs? I guess we would if we wanted to be like Gregg Easterbrook and desperately pounded home our points with irrelevancies.

2) Three weeks ago the Broncos beat the Steelers. Now, this doesn't mean Easterbrook is wrong about Denver. They look absolutely awful (and I say that as a Bronco fan). But for the sake of not looking like more of an idiot, why would Gregg choose to immediately follow that paragraph with this one below?

Monday Night -- You're Surrounded: Will Dec. 9 -- Pittsburgh at New England -- be Super Bowl XLII.LXXV? The Steelers just blew Baltimore off the field. Not only did they win big, they held the Ravens to five first downs! Sure, the weather was bad. And sure, the homecoming-game atmosphere -- was there a dance afterward? -- was a factor. But it takes great defense to hold any team -- even the low-voltage Ravens -- to five first downs. Here are the Baltimore offensive possession results: fumble, punt, fumble, punt, punt, interception, touchdown, end of first half, punt, punt, punt, punt, punt, punt, punt. Pittsburgh has a great defense and a good offense. Unless the Chargers snap out of it, the Steelers are the only team besides the Colts that can threaten the Patriots. Circle Dec. 9 on your calendar now.

That great defense gave up 31 points to a Denver team that has trouble cracking 14 most Sundays. Also, here's who Pittsburgh has beaten: Cleveland (decent), Buffalo (bad), San Francisco (awful), Seattle (average), Cincy (awful), and now Baltimore (average). Oh, and they've also managed to lose to Arizona. Let's wait for them to beat someone besides the Browns before we decide these guys can hang with the Patriots. Speaking of which, here's my favorite part of Gregg's New England/Indianapolis breakdown:

For the Patriots' part, you saw that steely-eyed determination when, trailing 20-10 in the fourth quarter on the road at the house of the defending champion, New England looked more pumped and resolute than Indianapolis did.

Lunchpail alert!

Well, that's it. Exhaustion has set in. I have nothing left to form into a coherent conclusion. That rant about Adrian Peterson's running style really took a lot out of me. Um... do you want to go back and read it again? I mean, I really worked hard on it, and it would mean a lot. No? Wait, where are you going? Come on, you can at least stick around long enough to leave a comment.

Fine. See if I care.

How NOT To Convince Your Readers That You Understand Sports

CNNSI.com's Andrew Perloff is here to put on a little clinic for all the kids out there. Are you ready, aspiring young journalists? Like the title says, after reading this you will hopefully have an understanding of how NOT to be a good journalist.

Patriots won't go undefeated

Given the way I regularly demonstrate my hatred for New England, you can tell this article must really suck if I'm going to mock it even though it speaks negatively about their beloved Patriots.

The perfect season talk surrounding the Patriots will be kicked up a notch after their win over the Colts on Sunday. New England will be favored by more than a touchdown in each of its remaining seven games, so the quest for 16-0 seems reasonable.

I don't think the Pats can do it and I'll argue with any FanNation user who disagrees. Here are my key reasons.

OK, so like I was saying, pay attention, kids. When you say you're going to provide "key reasons" to back up a point, you might want them to not resemble what you're about to read. At all.

1. The Patriots will sit starters. If they go 15-0, they visit the Giants in Week 17. New York will almost certainly be playing for playoff position, and New England will have nothing at stake. As heartless as Bill Belichick is, he won't risk injuries for a record that is insignificant if they don't win the Super Bowl. Belichick has benched starters in similar situations through the years.

WRONG. WRONG. First, Belichick has (seemingly) never been as mad at other teams and willing to stop at nothing to humiliate them as he is this year. Second, he's never had a 15-0 team. Do you really think he'd pass up a chance to knock those smarmy '72 Dolphins down a peg or two? I hate the guy and I hate his team. But the reality of the situation appears to be that they're pulling out all the stops in an effort to beat the shit out of everyone. I'm 99% sure a chance to go undefeated would entice the Patriots into playing as hard against the Giants in week 17 as they did against the Colts last weekend.

2. They face the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked defenses in the NFL: Baltimore and Pittsburgh. The Colts proved you can get to Tom Brady, and they didn't need to blitz much to do it. The Ravens and Steelers will come up with creative ways to rush the passer and they'll try to rattle Randy Moss with big hits. Brady led Moss into some dangerous territory against Indy. Moss bounced off smallish Indy defenders like they were gnats. Not sure if he'll have the same luck against Baltimore and Pittsburgh.

Well, those two teams just played, and Pittsburgh hung 38 on Baltimore. So it may be time to stop thinking the Ravens are some kind of elite defensive team. The Steelers? Christ, they let the Broncos put 31 on them. These are the same Broncos that have cracked the 20 point threshold exactly two other times this season, and have finished with less than 16 points a whopping 5 times. Furthermore, look at who each team has played. The Ravens' list of opponents (minus the Steelers) resembles a SEC school's non-conference schedule. The Steelers' isn't much better. In short, BAL and PIT's defensive rankings are a crock of crap and New England would probably put 45 on either of them.

3. The target on their back is even bigger. On paper, none of these teams should beat the Patriots. But emotionally, you have to give New England's opponents an edge. How long can Belichick convince his team everyone is against him because of Spy-gate?

I'm guessing all season. Have we seen anything that would indicate otherwise in 2007 so far?

The Pats are now the evil empire. They're the new New York Yankees or Duke Blue Devils.

So, everyone hates them. Therefore they will lose a game. God, if only it were so simple. This is the definition of terrible analysis. Please, children. If you somehow make it big in the sports journalism world, and are one day trying to talk down an obviously dominant team in one of your articles, saying ANYTHING but what Andrew said here.

4. Injuries. They haven't had many. That will change. It always does.

Also, don't say this. Not in these words, anyways. Or with this complete and total lack of context or depth.

5. Strange things happen in the NFL. Not a great reason, but for my money, it's the most compelling. The Patriots were vying with the Colts for homefield last season and got shut out by the Dolphins in Week 14. Explain that. Other teams that have gone late into the season undefeated have lost games they shouldn't have. New England won't prove to be an exception.

And you might want to avoid basing your "most compelling" reason entirely on A) the fact that strange things happen in sports sometimes and B) the fact that at other times in history, teams have lost games they shouldn't have. This is not how people that get paid money to write about sports should go about their jobs.

OK, so going back to the kids and the lessons I was trying to help them learn, what did we cover today?

1. Andrew Perloff = a pile of elephant poop
2. If you want to write about specific teams, try to have at least a basic understanding of them first
3. Injuries: they usually occur during the season
4. The existence of "strange happenings" is a compelling reason to go against all reasonable logic

The Long-Awaited Sequel to $%*# the Heck!

Courtesy of your friend and mine, Ed Hardiman

I lied. Ed Hardiman is not my friend. He is a douche. He is a douche that should have all of his writings e-burned. He should have made like that mysterious 3rd sibling on Family Matters and disappeared into the pornography business after several seasons of providing absolutely no value to anyone. But no, he writes on. And therefore, so do I. I apologize, but this post is a little outdated (let's pretend the World Series hasn't happened yet! shhhhh).

Look the simple fact is nobody really knows who will win the World Series though the bookies pretty much say it will be the Red Sox faster than you can say Yorvit Torrealba.

Because the bookies have absolutely no interest in preventing their gamblers from making abnormal returns on their bets, I'm going to assume that their belief was completely arbitrary.

While slobbering SABR devotees are busy rounding up archaic theorems and equations to hyper-complicate the observable we can dispense with all that twaddle by pointing out when you call inaccurate predictions "over or under performance" you've essentially found a harder way to avoid admitting you were flat out wrong.

I'm starting to think Hardiman is aware of this blog somehow. He fixed his problem of spelling it "SABER", and I remember deriding him for that when he said some really stupid things about sabermetrics.

Spot on again, Ed. Over and under performance are completely illegitimate concepts, because there is absolutely no luck whatsoever in determining where a ball lands when someone swings a bat at a very fast speed trying to hit a ball traveling at a very fast speed, often with unexpected movement.

Nope here at the Fowl Line we use the soundest of all predictors, SWAG. Scientific Wild BLEEP Guessing is the bedrock of advancement in all fields of human endeavor. Considered only slightly less accurate than currency flipping, SWAG allows us to synthesize all the available data into an actionable conclusion.

I can only assume that the "A" stands for "Ass". Shouldn't it be hyphenated to "Wild", or like, attached to the end of it a la "wildass" or something? You know what, fuck it. No benefit of the doubt. It's tied to "guessing". Ed is describing a new thing called "Ass-Guessing". Wild Ass Guessing.....just doesn't click, does it?

What happens next, I have no answer for. It makes less sense than anything I've ever read in my life.

Take for example milk. At some point somebody asked the question, what would happen if we BLEEP ed on one of those udders? Their dumb as a bag of flint arrowheads buddy ended up getting gored by a bull after filling his mouth with warm milk. The bull of course was the 1st example of "cannot be determined from evidence given" which is a whole other blog.

Anyone want to try to decipher that? Anyone?

The World Series comes down to one simple question. Can a team playing at sea level beat a team that doesn't? Thanks to the All Star game we can answer that question in the affirmative. Yep, that useless as a third pinkie exercise in mid-season dullness provides us with all the information we need to have a 50% chance of being correct. The Red Sox will prevail by winning four games and the Rockies will win slightly less. This of course doesn't preclude the Rockies from winning the Series.

There are two options here.

1) Ed is being serious, and really feels like the winner of the All-Star Game has a bearing on the World Series. If this is the case, he's excited to announce that if we take it into consideration, we now have a 50% chance of being correct, or the same as just flipping a coin.
2) (more likely) Ed is joking about the All-Star Game being important, and claiming that using it we can have a 50% chance of being right, or no improvement over a random guess. Wasn't there some sort of big deal about the All-Star Game starting to count for something at some point in recent years?

That's the beauty of SWAG it leaves loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. Plus you can run other SWAG simulations like; who has the most foreign born players, the Red Sox have 9, the Rockies 7. Or you can do it by coolest name and there the Rockies Yorvit Torrealba edges Daisuke Matsuzaka by a hair.

Now I'm positive that Ed has no clue the All-Star game affects the World Series. He just compared it to picking a favorite by counting foreign-born players. Also Daisuke Matsuzaka has a better name than Torrealba.

There's also a SWAG cuisine angle you could use, unfortunately Rocky Mountain Oysters will never be as tasty as Boston's Oyster House Clam Chowder. You could go by mascots, the Rockies mascot is a dinosaur named "Dinger" while Boston's mascot is the cryogenically frozen head of Ted Williams, once again its advantage Sox…

Is there a SWAG Team OPS+/ERA+ angle or SWAG league-translated record angle or SWAG Pythagenport record angle we could use? I mean clearly, like those other methods, we're just ass-guessing here, and wildly so. I just like them better because they sound outrageously cool. There's no way to actually pick a favorite.

No matter how you slice it SWAG will get you to as a good a guess as any other system.

It will get you just as good a guess as:

1) Sleeping
2) Eating a Hamburger
3) Watching that episode of Home Improvement where the boys have to stay overnight at Al's house.
4) Playing a pickup basketball game.
5) Reading Lord of the Flies

Things it will not get you just as good a guess as:

1) Knowing one random stat about a player on either team
or
2) Vaguely paying attention to the game of baseball. My mother, who in November is still rooting for the Chicago Cubs to lose baseball games they aren't even playing, could tell you that the Red Sox were favored. People who hate baseball, and don't pay attention to it at all knew.

So drop the slide rules, break out an ice cold Bladderweiser® and enjoy the Series. I'll be covering the game from the press box and you know what? When the Series is over I'll mumble to myself, "I knew it all along…"

Nope. Fuck you. I sat through the World Series recalculating the odds on my computer of each team winning it all after every pitch. I ate prunes and listened to "White and Nerdy" on repeat thanks to YouTube during the games. It was one of the saddest times of my life seeing that 99.99834% chance for the Red Sox turn to 100%.

Hi, I'm Jon Heyman, And I Get Paid To Write About Sports

Why don't you read my latest "Daily Scoop" column, about baseball's offseason? I'm sure my mastery of the English language and razor-sharp analysis will convince you that I am a great journalist.

Okay, okay, you got me- I'm not really Jon Heyman. I'm larry b. Plus, I was being sarcastic- Heyman is a shitpile of a journalist.

Dodgers owner Frank McCourt never should have had poor Grady Little twist in the wind while he tried to find a better alternative. [...] Little's decision to step down was described as "mutual,'' and it may well have been, but the Dodgers definitely were not opposed.

I don't think it's possible to phrase the intended point of that sentence any more poorly. It's like saying "My friend and I's decision to get hamburgers at Wendy's was mutual, although he definitely didn't not want hamburgers from Wendy's."

[Dodgers owner Frank] McCourt is awfully slick. But shopping for a manager when you already have one is not something even an inveterate slickster can get away with. In any case, Little deserved better. It was like he was the third choice, or fourth, or fifth for his own job.

In professional sports- no, scratch that, in dozens of high profile businesses/industries all over the goddamn world- this happens ALL THE TIME. True, the way the Dodgers made their pursuit of Joe Torre public was a little classless. But the general concept of keeping an underperforming employee around as you're looking for their replacement is not "slick." It's "standard", "normal", and "not weird at all."

Torre, whose press conference is today in L.A. (I predict everyone will love him; no one gives better press), is bringing Don Mattingly as a coach.

It's going to end up being a very Joe Torre-ish week here at FireJay, and there's nothing wrong with that. Look at what's in the parentheses there... are you kidding me? So let me get this straight; you're predicting that a high profile manager giving his first ever press conference for his new team is going to be received positively? Nonsense. Baloney. Hogballs. Here's another bold one for you along the same lines- everyone in New York will love Joe Girardi if the Yankees win the World Series next year. Also, no one gives better press than Torre? Paging Dr. Pinella... Dr. Pinella to the media room, please.

On to some other general notes and thoughts from Jon's barely functioning brain:

[Tigers reliver Joel] Zumaya was told by doctors that he has a 90-95 percent chance at a full recovery after they rebuilt the AC joint in his pitching shoulder. Zumaya has said that he injury the shoulder when a box fell on it as he attempted to rearrange items in preparation for the California wildfires.

Injury is a noun, not a verb! Laughter Out Loud! I'm so much smarter than Jon Heyman, because I'm nitpicking his silly typo. That's right. It's what I do. If you don't find that kind of thing hilarious, this may not be the blog for you. Might I instead recommend this very popular and informative little number written by a former coworker of mine? (True story, our offices were right next to each other.)

That might seem like a bizarre and unnecessary aside. But stick with me and let me explain my line of thinking in terms of linking her. Since she gets about 100 times as many readers per day as we do (assuming all five of you are still out there), if she somehow finds out about this she might return the favor and link us. Boom, instant readership spike. That would be a pretty sweet deal. Then it would only be a matter of days until advertisers were beating down our doors with gigantic contracts, and we could finally think about moving out of our parents' basements. I mean, sure, there's probably not much overlap between our respective target demographics. The number of her readers who would find shit like this post funny or interesting is probably somewhere in the low single digits. But I'm dreaming big these days. If I can possibly get somewhere in life by riding on the coattails of people that are more popular than me, I'm taking that opportunity without thinking twice. God bless America.

Tony Pena, Kevin Long and Rob Thomson are expected back as Yankees coaches. Dave Eiland, who did a terrific job tutoring Joba Chamberlain, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes in the minors but is still best known by Yankees writers as the fellow who remained unknown to Rickey Henderson after he'd been in the Yankees' clubhouse for weeks, is expected to replace Ron Guidry as pitching coach.

Any way we can cram some more clauses into that second sentence? I think there might be a little room between "Rickey" and "Henderson."

Finally, the stunning conclusion to the column:

One rumor I'm believing is the Rangers and Torii Hunter. Makes plenty of sense to me. [End]

That's why Jon makes the big bucks- when something makes sense to him, he'll let you know that it's the case. Will he explain how or why it makes sense? Probably not. Don't worry about it. It's not important that you understand these things. You'd never be able to comprehend Jon's thought processes anyways. Just take what he says as near-fact and let it be.

Another rumor he's believing is Adrian Beltre to the Lakers for Kobe Bryant and the tattered shreds of Kwame Brown's career. (Facial!)

We're Back Like a Fucking Vertebrae

It's been a few days. Sorry about that. The Google Analytics shows that people definitely stop coming here when we don't post, so I'm here to fix that. Hopefully. And who better to make our first post in 96 hours about than our old friend Dayn Perry? He's here to talk about how awesome Joe Torre is. I'm here to make fun of his attempts to do so. Am I anti-Torre? Not really. Am I pro-Torre? Again, no. I'm just tired of bad sports journalism.

Torre signing a good first step for Dodgers

Obviously, landing a first-rate manager like Torre gives the Dodgers instant credibility and a steady hand in the dugout. There's no questioning Torre's credentials, and when it comes to leading a contender to greater glory, his track record is unassailable.

Like I said, I'm not anti-Torre, but I wouldn't call his track record "unassailable." Taking three straight 90+ win teams to the playoffs and subsequently winning a grand total of four games with them is a bit of a blemish. No, those losses weren't necessarily Torre's fault (because he is a a baseball manager, not a baseball player). But the Yankees' playoff successes in the late 1990s also weren't really of his doing either. If writers like Perry want to trump up Torre's credentials and claim that he's a proven winner or some such bullshit, that's fine. But they can't do so without acknowledging that his teams have stunk in the playoffs since th 2004 ALCS, too. You can't have it both ways. Torre's track record has some incredible successes. It also has some miserable failures. Really, I would say the most impressive thing he's done in his career was put up with Steinbrenner for as long as he did.

Torre's also a highly adaptable sort. During his tenure in New York, the Yankees had a reputation for larding the roster with high-salary veterans. That's certainly true to an extent, but Torre showed a willingness to work younger talents into the mix. For instance, on Torre's watch youngsters like Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada, Ramiro Mendoza, Alfonso Soriano, Nick Johnson, Robinson Cano, Chien-Ming Wang, Melky Cabrera, Philip Hughes and Joba Chamberlain all played vital roles. It's a skill that will serve him well in Los Angeles.

How lucky are the Dodgers right now? Wow... a manager that uses talented young players? Where else are you going to find one of those? Yes, I realize that overutilization of crappy veterans was one of Grady Little's downfalls. But among MLB quality managers, Little is the exception rather than the rule in that department. Managers of teams at every talent level across baseball utilize their up-and-comers. It's really not that unheard of. I don't see the fact that Torre managed like 10 good young players in 12 years in New York as reason to tout his abilities.

Overall, signing Torre means the Dodgers make a splash and position themselves as serious contenders in the down-cycled NL.

It means they have a different guy handing the lineup card to the umpires than they did last year. It does not mean they have any new players to add to that lineup card.

Specifically, the rotation figures to be a strength

Offensively, the Dodgers badly need better production from third base and center field

If LaRoche adapts as expected, he'll fill the third-base void

To that end, Andruw Jones, Torii Hunter or even the suspended Mike Cameron

Of course, with Torre comes the Alex Rodriguez speculation

Needless to say, he'd be a great fit in L.A

It's speculation at this point, but the Dodgers certainly have the coffers

If they do land Rodriguez, they'll immediately become

I'm no English major, but hey Dayn: you might want to think about varying your sentence structure a little but. Just a thought.

On the whole, nabbing Torre is a great thing for the Dodgers. However, they're not going to climb the standings in baseball's toughest division unless they're among the most active teams over the winter. Otherwise, Torre and his new employers are going to wind up disappointing one another.

What an awkward conclusion. Dayn is simultaneously implying that A) Torre will be mad at the Dodgers if they don't make some moves to improve their team and B) that the Dodgers will be mad at Torre if he doesn't help them win with the same players the team had last year. What?

He also admits that hiring a new manager doesn't do much to ensure that a team will become better, basically defeating the purpose of writing the article in the first place. I wonder if that was an accident.

Can YOU handle more Mariotti?

Sorry folks, I see that phrase every day when I check the Sun-Times for more Jayberrish from that guy. (You guys like what I did there? I pretended like I was Jay writing about Lou Piniella, and displaced Mariotti's first name into a place where it doesn't normally belong, but where it creates a nonsense word that is phoenetically similar to the original word I was spoofing! Isn't that clever? I deserve a raise...)

Anyway, just prior to a shameless plug in which Jay bragged about how good Around the Horn is (despite Mariotti and especially Paige's continued stupidity, it actually is pretty entertaining), he wrote this nonsense.

I don't know how to break this to Bears fans who make road trips, but you know what? You're not playing on the team, fellas.

That's kinda harsh. You could have let them down a little easier there.

It's nice that you spend your money, wear your replica jerseys and travel in support of a losing football team, but let's keep this in perspective.

You're fans, ticket-holders, spectators.

Yeah, everyone needs to relax a little. Maybe be a little bit more passionless and robotic about your football team. They're losing. You should act accordingly by supporting them less. That's what good fans do, right?

``We are going 12-4, Jay!'' a guy in orange and blue told me on the flight.

We? And isn't 12-4 now mathematically impossible?

Give me a break. Is this really the first time you've ever heard someone use the word "we" to reference a sports team and its collective community of fans? "We're gonna be good this year" and the like?

Once in Philly, things only got goofier. Outside a Center City hotel, some Bears fans throwing around a football saw a few Eagles fans. Next thing you know, they were challenging the homeboys to a tackle football game -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

ZOMG! Stop the presses! These fans are ridiculous! Why is this being printed in the online column and not the real thing!

6 months later....

"The traveling Chicago Cubs fans decided to play an intense game of catch outside Miller Park -- IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONGESTED PARKING LOT! Do they have no decency for people's cars or the security officers directing traffic????"

The Eagles' fans passed, showing a little more wisdom even in a town where Vince Papale soared from the South Philly streets to the Eagles and became a Disney movie.

Guy living in a city who rises from the streets and joins a pro football team and inspires the movie Invincible = something that indicates a lack of wisdom in that city.

``Why do you dog us all the time?'' a middle-aged fan in a Butkus jersey asked me. ``We're trying our best.''

No, you're drinking beer

Dumbasses!

tailgating

Insane morons!

and returning to reality Sunday night

Yeah, eat it, you fantasy-dwelling douchebags.

I should mention, of course, that most fans I know keep sports in its right place. I also should mention this identity-tranformation phenomenon isn't endemic only to Chicago. In Cleveland during the baseball playoffs, I was walking through Jacobs Field when an Indians fan stopped me and said, ``We're gonna win tonight. Wait, you hate us.''

This problem is becoming an epidemic! Everyone thinks they play for their favorite sports team!

No, I don't hate you. Nor do I hate the Indians. I picked them, wrongly, to win the American League championship series.

Sportswriters aren't the enemy, folks. We're just sportswriters.

We mean no harm, and we come to spread peace and tranquility.

The column is about how ridiculous and crazy Bears fans are. Here at the end of it, Jay has lapsed into self-defense mode. You can tell he's done his job.

Knee-Jerk NBA Reactions, Vol. 1

According to foxsports.com's Charley Rosen, it's pretty much over for Cleveland after tonight's 92-74 loss to Dallas. Who cares that it was the first game of the season? It's time to tell it like it is- the Cavs are finished.

From the get-go, Cleveland's interior defense was putrid — especially the total lack of communication between Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Drew Gooden. As a result, the baseline rotations were either late or non-existent, with Z showing to help on ball penetration and not being able to recover back to his man, and with Gooden nowhere in sight.

Last year's Cavs team, which reached the NBA Finals, never had a bad half of interior defense. Ever.

Not that the rest of the Cavs fared much better — especially in their inability to prevent the Mavericks' ball-handlers from penetrating deep into the lane. Nor was the Cavs perimeter defense any more efficient. For the game, Dallas knocked down half of their eighteen 3-pointers, with most of them launched under little (or no) pressure.

Also the first time this has happened to Cleveland since the 2005-06 season. It's looking bleak.

For sure, the Cavs did tighten up their defense in the second half,

Whoa whoa whoa! Don't backtrack, Charley! It's over and we all know it. Get those tickets and jerseys on EBay, Cavs fans. Get off the bandwagon while there's still time.

LeBron James was downright awful — 2-11, 4 assists, 5 turnovers, and only 10 points.

Trade him.

As the game progressed, the Cavs' "revised offense" was identical to last season's schemes.

How dare they play like that again! It's not like it got them anywhere. I'm surprised they didn't demolish their arena and build a new one in the offseason in an attempt to turn their fortunes around. Their zero season conference title drought is borderline embarrassing.

Daniel Gibson looked lost out there — 3-6, four assists, eight points.

Choke job.

He had difficulty staying in front of Devin Harris,

Cut him.

but doesn't everybody?

No. Only Daniel Gibson, only tonight.

Larry Hughes shot the ball like he was trying to join the bricklayers union — 2-13, seven points.

Get it? Bricklayers? As in, basketball players who frequently miss shots? It's a slang term- how cutting edge. This is the kind of stuff the youth today wants to read.

Devin Brown showed impressive quickness — 2-5, five points. But he did little else.

Donyell Marshall — 2-5, five points — was repeatedly chumped when Nowitzki took him into the pivot.

Damon Jones — 3-5, eight points — hit a pair of meaningless treys, and was toasted by everybody he tried to guard.

No sarcasm, these aren't very good. Still... it was one fucking game.

Okay, James is allowed to have bad games. Trouble is that when he's not brilliant, the Cavs are in deep trouble.

When (name of their biggest star) isn't brilliant, three quarters of the teams in the league are in deep trouble.

And except for frequently running LBJ into the low-post, the Cavs' offense looks just as stagnant as it did too often last season.

The situation is hopeless. It's almost like a horrible car crash; I want to turn away, but I can't, because it's too horrific. Cavs owners, have you considered moving the team to Canada?

Anyway, one ball game does not a season make.

That's a good poi- wait, WHAT? Are you serious? Losing to one of the top 3 teams in the league on opening night doesn't determine your entire season? Well, I'll tell you this- back in good ol' days of Wilt and Kareem, back when players called their own fouls and you were allowed to dive at your opponents' knees when they were cutting through the lane, things were totally different. If this Cavs team had put up this kind of performance in 1968, LeBron would have kneed Gibson in the balls after the game.

But unless something dramatic and unforeseen happens between now and next spring, the Cavs most relevant motto just might be: "Wait till last year."

I have a feeling something very undramatic and foreseen (at least by me) will happen to the Cavs. Stick with me now: They will eventually resign holdouts Anderson Varejao and/or Sasha Pavlovic, be basically the same team they were last year, play some games against teams that aren't nearly unstoppable in the regular season, and win 50ish games again. See how that works? It's called small sample sizes don't usually reflect season long performance. Use your brain, Rosen.

I realize this is a relatively low quality post, filled mostly with poorly written and unfunny sarcasm. I just couldn't help it. Let me explain it to you this way: when two 0-1 NFL teams are squaring off in week 2, and analysts make ridiculous statements like "This is pretty much a must-win for both teams... that sounds reactionary, but it's true" it absolutely infuriates me. No. No it is not a must-win. For either team. Same general idea applies here, only moreso, because there are 5 times as many NBA games as NFL games in a season. You can start 0-5 and still high step to the playoffs when you have Cleveland's talent (and more importantly, play in the Eastern Conference). Let's not go shitting ourselves just yet, even though the Cavs got blown out by the Mavericks on opening night. Please.