I'm Back With a Vengeance, Bitches

Sorry about that hiatus there, folks. No one in the media has seemed to care about baseball lately, and nothing egregious was really written about the few trades that have happened so far. But at least I've got my rock, my main dawg, HatGuy, to lean on.

Sorry, but Ramirez was NL's most valuable

No.

Pujols put up big numbers, but midseason acquisition carried Dodgers

Yes. This does not prove thing (1).

If I had an MVP vote in the National League, I’d have given it to Manny Ramirez.

This is one of the 23409234 reasons you do not have a National League MVP vote.

I don’t know how anyone could have voted differently.

1) Using stats
2) Using logic
3) Eliminating completely from consideration players who only played half a year for their respective team and didn't turn in the absolute greatest half season performance of all time
4) Thinking
5) Drawing names out of a hat, and not drawing Ramirez's name

I say this with full appreciation for the season that Albert Pujols had for the Cardinals

You said it with maybe 26% of "full appreciation" of that.

Albert Pujols is a future Hall-of-Famer, barring some disastrous injury. And he just turned in the absolute best season of his career. But here's the kicker, Mikey.

The 2008 Cardinals won more baseball games than the 2008 Dodgers.

If the Cardinals played in the cupcake-y AL West, you'd be preaching to the motherfucking world how Pujols carried his team to the playoffs. Now you're damning him because of the Chicago Cubs, Milwaukee Brewers, Houston Astros, and Jason Isringhausen.

and with awe for the power numbers of Philadelphia’s Ryan Howard.

Or, you know, the 30 or so other people in the NL who played better than Ryan Howard this year. But yeah...Howard...I guess Howard works.

(I am not exaggerating when I say 30. There is a very real chance that I understated it.)

But Manny put the Dodgers in the playoffs all by himself.

Quite a thing to say about a guy who finished 6th on his team in WARP.

(Actually, interesting factoid -- if you narrow the discussion to Ramirez and Ryan Howard, Manny takes the award if you go by WARP.)

There shouldn’t be an argument.

This is the first thing you've said that made sense. Yet here I am. And here you are.

The legend on the award says “Most Valuable Player.”

Ugh, I thought maybe you didn't know! This is difficult for me to figure out, Mikey! You know there's no question who should win the award, and you know what the award is for.....so where....where was this misstep in logic between the correct steps and the correct conclusion? I feel like you're so close....

It doesn’t say “Most Popular Player,”

That's why Pujols won. It was a fucking popularity contest! And Pujols is so popular, that's why no one shut up about how great a season he was having the entire year! Why couldn't people pay some attention to the true greats like Ryan Howard, Josh Hamilton, and K-Rod?

“Thumper of the Year,”

So, you're not taking Ramirez over Pujols for hitting reasons? I hope to God you don't want to talk defense with me.....

“Best All-Around Hitter,”

"Best All-Around Player" would do just fine.....

“Best Season”

STOP!

The award absolutely means "Best Season." You can argue for centuries about what constitutes having the "Best Season." But the award absofuckinglutely belongs to whoever people believe had the "Best Season." You are a fucking idiot.

or “A Really Nice Guy.”

You know, Sean Casey has been winning way too many MVP awards lately.....

It’s about value to a team’s success; nothing else.

And Pujols was more valuable to what success the Cardinals had than what success the Dodgers had. Period. Take Pujols off the Cardinals, they were never once in the playoff discussion. They lose more wins than the Dodgers would have without Manny, especially considering their outfield logjam (say what you will about Juan Pierre, but he's solid in the "4th outfielder" category.)

In my mind, players for teams that don’t at least contend strongly for the playoffs should never win the MVP. If your team finishes down in the standings, how valuable could you be?

If I think hard enough about this, I'm pretty sure if I took that paragraph as true, I could use it to disprove the most basic fundamentals of logic. Like, maybe that syllogisms were fallacies or something.

Okay, so I can't think of one, but check out this pair.

P1) Putting up a comparatively high OPS is valuable.
P2) Player A put up the highest OPS in the world.
C) Therefore, Player A is valuable.

P1) The same Player A plays for a bad team.
P2) Players who play for bad teams are not valuable.
C) Therefore, Player A is not valuable.

To me, the MVP is the player that a contending team could not have lived without.

Okay, fair. The Dodgers won the division by 2 games. There were 19 players on the Dodgers with a WARP of 2.0 or higher. We're going to have to make many copies of this award!

There’s no question that Pujols is the player the Cardinals can least afford to lose, but St. Louis faded from contention in the NL Central by mid-August.

Because their bullpen was the baseball equivalent of your writing. It was not Pujols's fault, so don't deprive him of the hardware, dude!

They finished third

They finished fourth.

(wow)

— a position they probably could have attained even without Pujols’ help.

Stop everything. I have no clue what the hell is going on here. There are a few possibilities.

1) HatGuy does not realize that the Houston Astros exist, and there are only 5 teams in the NL Central. He then believes (probably accurately) that without Pujols, the Cardinals still beat out the Reds.

2) HatGuy thinks that the two teams were actually tied for 3rd, and he also believes that without Pujols, the Cardinals would have wound up tied with the Astros anyway (i.e. Pujols is worth zero wins).

3) HatGuy mixed up the Astros and Cardinals while looking at the standings, and thought the Cardinals had the .5 game lead at the end of the year. This means he thinks Pujols was worth between 0 and 0.5 wins.

4) HatGuy wrote this sentence just so picky, angry nerds like myself would have their blood pressure raised and increase their risk of heart failure.

He's going to kill us all.

My God.....

Ryan Howard has a better claim to the award than Pujols.

Please, if I do not go into work tomorrow, please e-mail HatGuy's column to my boss. The first place he will look for me is the mental asylum, I know it.

The Phillies fought to the season’s last day to win, and Howard saved his best for last, carrying the team down the stretch. In any other year, Howard would be my MVP.

Your two favorite MVP candidates were not even one of the five best players on their respective teams.

But Philly has a powerful lineup, and Howard wasn’t the sole reason the team won.

I can't even try to be funny with this.

NEITHER WAS MOTHERFUCKING RAMIREZ.

Besides, there was a better candidate than Howard, Pujols or Brewer Ryan Braun, the third-place finisher.

Who?

That is Ramirez

Oh.

the only player who can be mentioned with Pujols in discussions of who is the greatest active right-handed hitter in the game.

But you...Yankees obsession...how did you forget.....

Huh?!???!??!?!?!??!?!?

Manny played for the Dodgers for just over two months, and some voters doubtless felt that mitigated against his candidacy.

I am still willing to watch baseball next season because of that fact.

But rather than arguing against his candidacy, the brevity of his service should have argued more forcibly for it.

My God.....

(I've had to say that far too many times in this post than is healthy for my emotional stability.)

The fact that Ramirez played only two months (that's 1/3 of the season) in the league in which you want him to be considered the Most Valuable Player....is an argument in his favor????

I just tried to think of a superlative form of the word "wrong". All I'm coming up with is FWAP. We'll go with FWAP.

FWAP, Mike Celizic! That is pure FWAP!

The facts are incontrovertible.

awh[p32[DIO32PFJ'A3W;FK'AWKLFNAW'EFLSEFASDF

Before Manny arrived in L.A., the Dodgers were fighting to play .500 baseball and stay in contention in the game’s worst division. After he arrived, L.A. started playing at a championship level that carried them to the playoffs.

Any player who has a (partially coincidental) positive impact on any team ever should discount anyone anywhere from any sort of any kind of consideration for anything ever.

His stats were absurd: 53 games, 53 RBIs, 17 home runs, 14 doubles, .489 on-base percentage, .396 batting average, .743 slugging percentage.

Those numbers are incredible. Chipper Jones hit .410 through two months. Give him the fucking MVP award.

(Please do not reply with angry comments explaining that Manny's August and September were better than Jones's April and May. I am well aware, and just wish to point out how 2 months can yield really fluky rate stats.....please....PLEASE don't kill me!!!)

If ever one player carried a team to the playoffs, it was Ramirez and the Dodgers. Without him they were a mediocrity. With him, they were division champs.

And....still kind of a mediocrity. They won 84 games in the NL West, which was not the NL Best, if you catch mah da-rift.

I don’t care that he played just two months.

Sentences like this are why you humiliate yourself any time you try to talk about anything.

I do care that he was the reason the Dodgers won. He’s the very definition of an MVP.

I don't want to continue with this. Anyone else notice that he's just saying the same thing over and over again? I'm....I'm actually fresh out of reasons why this guy's wrong! Fresh out!

My God....he wore me out. I thought I could sit here and be sarcastic and angry forever. But I can't! This article is a test of my endurance. I just don't have it!

Unfortunately, too many people think that the MVP should go to the player most responsible for a team’s success

Now there's a lunatic idea.

Haven't you been using this description of MVP to attempt to prove why Manny is the MVP the entire time? Now you're saying it's unfortunate people think like that?

I can't take it anymore. Don't care anymore. GREAT sentence, HatGuy.

— unless somebody has a really phenomenal year for a team that didn’t have much success.

Whatever. Not offensive at all. Don't care that Pujols had a phenomenal year. Let it go. Serenity. Can't let him make me blow a gasket.

Alex Rodriguez once won for being indispensible to the Rangers’ last-place finish, and Ernie Banks once won for distinguished service to another lousy Cubs team.

That's fine. Roll with the punches, logic. Just ride it out. He can't write forever. He'll get sleepy or hungry or something soon. Most likely hungry. For desserts.

The other factor voters consider that they shouldn’t is popularity.

Just....let it go that no one cared that Manny was a dick. Don't worry there Nolesy, hang in there. You don't need to mention that Manny being a jerk was as much a reason for people loving him as hating him by the end of the season.

Give them a chance to punish a guy they don’t like in favor of someone they do, and they’ll take it more often than not. Ted Williams twice lost MVP races to Joe DiMaggio because the voters liked Joe D. better than they liked the Splendid Splinter.

Stuff from the 1940's. Great. Don't worry about it. It's....it's ok. What people did back then is probably relevant, because baseball thinking hasn't advanced at all (at least I think it hasn't). Nothing can make me angry.

Also, the NL MVP award wasn’t about Boston or anything other than who meant the most to the success of his team. And there’s no question about it. Manny’s your man. The fact that he finished fourth is no discredit to him, but to the voters.

You know, even if I'm probably going to hell for writing on this blog and spending so much of my free time disparaging someone I've never met and has honestly caused me no harm whatsoever, it's comforting knowing that ol' Mikey will be right there beside me. He broke the 8th Commandment at least 400 times in this article, and I'm sure there was some adultery or whatnot thrown in there as well.

Come to think of it.....he also worshipped a false god (Manny), did not honor his mother and father (they'd be embarrassed of having a son that can't read the MLB standings and tell others in what place a team finished), stole people's time, coveted more qualified people's MVP votes, raped logic, murdered reason.....

Well heck, at least you didn't write it on a Sunday, didn't take the Lord's name in vain, nor did you make any reference to coveting a woman (interesting....). 3/10 ain't bad, Mike.

FMTMQR: Easterbrook Is Actually Much Lamer Than Jack Gives Him Credit For

Looking back on Jack's post from a couple days ago, I realized something. Although he has correctly identified TMQ as a pretentious moron, I feel his post didn't quite do enough to also identify him (TMQ) as a clueless jackass. So here I am, with my longest post in a while, to rant and rave about that. As usual it is unfunny, because I am unfunny. Read at your own peril.

Since I started subjecting myself to his drivel last fall, I've identified what I call Gregg's "Three Pillars of Dumbassery." He constantly bitches and moans about these topics despite being (almost always) completely wrong in his analysis relating to them. If you've been reading the blog for a while, you'll recognize them. They are:

1) His "I Don't Understand Technology" pillar- In which he (embarrassingly) insists that clocks in sports which are accurate to hundreds or tenths of a second are totally pointless. This pillar has finally stopped appearing in his columns this season; I'd like to think that maybe someone sent him this video about Olympic timing doohickeys and it got him to realize how fucking dumb he was being.

2) His "Tragic Oversimplification by Insisting that Changing One Event in the Distant Past Will Automatically Change a Final Outcome" pillar- (catchy name, I know) In which he insists that when team A loses to to team B on a last second field goal, team A should have run up the middle for no gain instead of throwing an incomplete pass at some point ten minutes earlier in the fourth quarter. This would have kept the clock running at that time and subsequently it would have run out before team B could later kick the deciding field goal. Although this claim is pure lunacy 99% of the time he brings it up, I don't ever expect it to disappear because unlike pillar #1 it cannot be proven objectively wrong. Too bad. It's like trying to convince Jemele Hill that the Feds are not picking on Barry Bonds because he is black. I mean, it should be fucking obvious. But since you can't show her a cool internet video that 100% disproves it, she's going to cling to it. (While also claiming that she doesn't defend Bonds just because he's black.)

And that leads us to the topic at hand...

3) His "Coaches Don't Care About Winning or Losing, and Fans and Players Don't Care About Getting Shut Out" pillar. (I'm on fire with these names, aren't I.) This is perhaps the most patently wrong of the three. The basic idea is expressed in one of two ways- either A) pretty much anytime a coach calls for a punt when his team is trailing in the second half, he's a total pussy who has no idea how to win a game, or B) anytime a coach kicks a field goal when his team is being shut out and trailing by a huge margin in the 4th quarter it's a selfish move that he made purely to keep said shutout off his record. Rather than expand upon the ways in which these claims are usually fucking stupid, I'll just provide you with a pile of examples (only from subpoint B because Jack already covered A) from this week's column.

In other football news, over the years, Tuesday Morning Quarterback has grown accustomed to timid coaching decisions.

This is the underlying premise of pillar #3- coaches, who remain employed by making their team look as good as possible (sometimes by trying to win, other times by reducing a margin of defeat when a win is unattainable) don't actually make decisions they think will make their team look as good as possible. No. They make decisions for some... other... selfish reason. Yeah! Selfish. That's a good word to accuse people with. And these accusations make sense when you think about them, as long as shortly before doing so you spent a good ten minutes huffing model airplane glue.

Trailing Chicago 48-31 with nine minutes remaining, Minnesota faced fourth-and-3 on the Bears' 5, and kicked a field goal.

So they were losing by three scores before the field goal... considered the likelihood of a relatively difficult conversion (getting three yards against a scrunched up goal line defense)... and instead did something with a high probability of success that reduced their deficit to two scores. What a bunch of pussies. Brad Childress, you should be embarrassed.

Needless to say, the Vikings went on to lose.

Needless to say, a team trailing by 14 with nine minutes left in a game almost always loses no matter what they do.

Forget the 17-point margin;

Actually, no. Look at the 17 point margin. Then consider the potential benefit of doing something easy that will reduce the margin to 14. Then consider the potential cost of going for the first down and failing to convert.

the hour was late and the Vikings were within view of paydirt. To have hope of winning, they needed a touchdown.

To have hope of winning, they needed to get the margin to two scores. To have better hope of winning, they needed to get the margin to ten. Weigh the costs and benefits. (Now, I'm also not saying the situation is totally obvious. I'm not saying I'm 100% sure the Vikings made the right decision. I'm saying you can't even come close to telling me they made the wrong one. I'm not hearing it.)

Trailing Houston 21-0, Detroit kicked a field goal.

Less defensible, as this keeps the margin at three scores. However, it happened in the 2nd quarter. It was probably a little early to worry about that kind of thing. It was also a 54 yard field goal, attempted on 4th and 10. The odds of converting a 4th and 10, and finishing the drive with a TD (rather than just ending up with a closer field goal that took longer to attain) are, NEEDLESS TO SAY, low.

Needless to say, the Lions went on to lose.

Needless to say, most teams that are bad enough to fall behind by 21 in a little more than a quarter are probably going to lose a lot of their games regardless of how many 4th and 10s they attempt.

Trailing Texas 35-0, Missouri kicked a field goal.

For what it's worth, that got their deficit from five scores to four. It also happened on the last play of the 2nd quarter, when Missouri was 16 yards away from the end zone. This is an even less likely conversion than Detriot's 4th and 10. Additionally, at some point when you're getting run up and down the field and have no points, you just kind of want to get on the board. I would be more critical of this if Missouri kicked a field goal when losing 56-21. Slightly.

Needless to say, the Tigers went on to lose.

Needless to say, a team trailing by 35 late in the first half is probably going to lose.

Fraidy-cat coaching decisions like these are intended to deflect criticism away from the coach.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and..... wrong.

In the first example, the decision was intended to bring the margin from three scores to two. If you can't understand that, you should definitely not be paid to write an NFL column for the largest sports website in America. It worked, and in fact, Minnesota ended up scoring again and getting the ball deep in their own territory trailing by 7 with a minute left. A touchdown there was very unlikely, but it would have sent the game to overtime. Granted, a field goal was less unlikely, and would have sent the game to OT had they successfully converted the 4th and 3. However, if they blew the 4th and 3, the game would have been over right then and there. Again, it's not an obvious decision.

The second and third examples also have nothing to do with deflecting blame. They have to do with taking a decent shot at 3 points instead of taking a very long shot at 7. Gregg's brainlessness in these cases is also manifested in his inability to think about the psychological impact of a huge shutout on people other than the coach. Do you think players like being shut out? Do you think fans like seeing their team get shut out? It's unquantifiable, of course. But I would bet good money that Missouri's players went into the locker room feeling a reasonable amount better about themselves just for the sake of not having a "0" next to their name on the scoreboard. Perhaps this was even the spark that led them to score 28 points in the second half and make the blowout slightly less horrific. (Oh, and they didn't lose 35-31. That would ruin my point if it were the case. Texas scored an extra three TDs themselves in the second half, making the final score 56-31.) Thinking that coaches will do anything other than what is most likely to enable them to keep their jobs (either by winning, or making their institution look less bad in losing) is fucking dumb.

Maybe they make a modicum of sense in college, where margin of victory counts in the polls -- as Missouri's ridiculous field goal boomed, coach Gary Pinkel seemed to fear being blanked and his team dropping out of the Top 25 altogether.

That's not what he was thinking, and they would not have completely dropped from the polls even if the final score had been 56-0. I promise on both counts.

(It was irrelevant that it was the last play of the first half; Missouri was on the Texas 16 and should have tried for a touchdown.)

Wrong, as already explained.

But margin of victory is meaningless in the NFL. When NFL coaches make decisions intended to keep the final score respectable,

Or in Childress and the Vikings' case, to get their team within two scores with 9 minutes left...

or avoid a shutout, while giving up any hope however small of victory,

Contrary to what Gregg thinks, kicking a field goal with 8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter when you're down 21 does not automatically cause you to forfeit the game.

it isn't just bad tactics.

Here's when it would be bad tactics: if the Vikings had been losing by 21 when they kicked that field goal with 9 minutes left. THAT'S bad tactics.

It is unprofessional -- the coach is placing his own résumé and career prospects ahead of the team.

Yes, I'm sure the team would rather take unnecessary risks (example #1) or attempt crazy 4th down conversions when points are available (examples 2 and 3). That selfish coach! Always thinking of only himself!

That's why Herm "I Honor My Contract When I'm in the Mood" Edwards' decision against Tennessee on Sunday ranks among the worst in the annals of sports.

Easy on the hyperbole, Joe Buck.

Undefeated Tennessee led 27-0 with five minutes remaining; Kansas City had fourth-and-goal on the Titans' 8; rather than try for a touchdown and maintain some tiny hope of a comeback, or at least salvage the Chiefs' dignity, Edwards sent in the field goal unit.

Let's see... 27 points = 4 scores... 24 points = 3 scores... 4th and 8 from the 8 is a very unlikely conversion, especially against a defense like Tennessee's... yeah, this seems familiar. I'm getting dumbass deja vu.

Herm wasn't even trying to protect his team's interest; instead he was protecting his own by keeping a shutout off his résumé.

There are two angles to take here, I'm not sure which is more apporpriate.

1) HE WAS REDUCING THE MARGIN FROM 4 SCORES TO 3, YOU DUMB TWAT
2) MAYBE THE FANS AND PLAYERS ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO GET SHUT OUT

I think I'll go with "both."

Moving on to a handful of other stupid jackass nuggets from the column:

Stat of the Week No. 4: Stretching back to last season, Dallas, picked by many touts including the consensus of ESPN.com experts to win the Super Bowl, has lost five of its past nine games.

How dare those pundits pick them to win this year's Super Bowl after they lost their last two games in 2007! What a bunch of lummoxes.

And I Don't Even Drink Gin: Several British readers including Holly Abbington of Whetstone, England, noted that a week ago, Tuesday Morning Quarterback was No. 2 on the list of "favorite things" -- excuse me, "favourite things" -- being perused on the Web by readers of London's Guardian newspaper.

A joke about how both British people (stereotypically) as well as TMQ are pretentious goes here.

The Real Way Many Kids Reach College: Here's a spoiler that matters to public policy -- a subplot of the current season of "Friday Night Lights" has Brian "Smash" Williams, graduated from Dillon High but without an athletic scholarship owing to an injury, rehabbing his knee and trying to get an offer from a college. Reader Robert Matranga of Orange, Calif., writes, "The show is giving the implication that a football scholarship is his only ticket to college -- that without it, college is unreachable. Smash's family cannot afford the tuition to Texas A&M, where he hopes to go -- but what about an academic or need-based scholarship? The show's implication that athletic scholarship is the only way Brian can attain college feeds the already poor awareness of federal aid in the form of Pell grants and subsidized loans, plus the need-based aid offered by many colleges directly."

This is an important point. The deck is stacked against African-American males in many respects; one of the few places where the deck is stacked in favor of African-American males is college admission. Most colleges and universities want to increase the black male population in their student bodies, and are generous with financial aid for African-American males who earned good grades. Black teens in fiction are often depicted as seeking athletic scholarships rather than regular need-based and academic scholarship opportunities -- though far more kids of all races attend college on regular need-based aid than on NCAA letters.

Not to say that all of this isn't correct... but boy, doesn't that sound like a thrilling storyline for a prime time drama? Smash Williams desperately wants to earn a football scholarship to Texas A&M! But, you know, if he doesn't get it, he can always just get an academic one too. BUT WHICH WILL IT BE? Tune in to find out.

Scouts Notes: Going into the Oakland game, Brett Favre -- who TMQ contends at this point should legally change his name to "Brett Favre Brett Favre Brett Favre"

TMQ is so unfunny he managed to screw up a joke about Brett Favre's self promotion and overexposure. This is like screwing up a Monica Lewinsky joke in early 1998.

-- had thrown eight of his 13 touchdown passes while already in the red zone. Since Jersey/B's coaches were criticized early in the season for not letting Favre throw near the goal line, they are having him throw near the goal line constantly now. Sunday, with the Jets and Raiders tied 3-3, Favre threw from the Oakland 8-yard line and the hosts were ready, intercepting the pass.

Conveniently omitted from this anecdote is the fact that the interception was thrown on 3rd and goal from the 8. Wow, you mean the Packers didn't call a run from that down and distance? Oh, and the Jets had also just called running plays on 1st and goal from the 6 and 2nd and goal from the 3. So basically... this proves ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about the tendencies of the Jets' coaching staff.

Opponents: Expect Favre to throw near the goal line, because Jersey/B's coaches want to avoid further criticism for not letting him throw there.

Also: be ready for most quarterbacks on most teams to throw near the goal line on 3rd and 8, because running on that play would probably be a fucking stupid idea unless it was a well-designed draw or something.

Did Lions Tip the Cowboys? Dallas traded first-, third- and sixth-round draft selections to Detroit for Roy Williams and a seventh-round pick. The seventh-round throw-in is so trivial, it seems like a gratuity: "Here you are my good man, here's your highly paid perpetually complaining wide receiver, and I've thrown in a little something extra for your trouble."

OK, I have to toe a very fine line here. Don't get me wrong- Detroit ripped off Dallas. That's a huge price to pay for any non-QB. That said- Williams is pretty talented. He may be overpaid (Dallas can afford it) and a complainer (likely to subside if he's playing for a winner), but it's not like he sucks or something.

And just a thought: Dallas is foundering, so the solution is to raid the roster of the Detroit Lions?

What? You mean bad teams sometimes have good players? What are you, fucking nuts? Here's a thought for you from last July, Milwaukee Brewers- you're foundering, and the solution is to raid the roster of the Cleveland Indians? Ha! Like that will get you to the playoffs.

The Real Reason for Pass-Wacky High School Offenses -- Summer Practice Rules: Here is last week's New York Times front-page take on the A-11 offense (Page 2 had the story earlier this year. Describing the basic A-11 trick of making all 11 players appear eligible just before the snap, the Times continued, "The difficult task for a team defending against the A-11 is to quickly and accurately figure out who those five eligible receivers are." Wait -- this should be easy, it's whoever goes downfield!

You don't... really... uh... understand how football works, do you? (Note: there's a chance this was a joke and I'm the one that looks like an idiot by trying to make fun of it. If you read it in the full context of the item, you can't really tell. But since we're dealing with TMQ, I decided to not give him the benefit of the doubt. Probably works better this way. And if reader Erik wants to email me and argue that my assessment is incorrect, I hope he sends it to the correct address.)

Happy Hour in Hell's Sports Bar: Hell's sports bar has 28 wide-screen plasma TVs, and now gets DirecTV! But certain blackout rules may apply. On Sunday in the early slot, the TVs in Hell's Sports Bar showed nothing but Ravens at Dolphins and Cowboys at Rams, and the far more attractive Chargers at Bills pairing was not offered. (Wait -- this is what actually happened in the Washington, D.C., television viewing area.)

Well, Chargers/Bills is an all-AFC pairing. That means CBS has the rights and the fact that Rams/Cowboys was on FOX is irrelevant. Ravens/Dolphins is an all AFC pairing too. And Baltimore is 50 miles from DC, meaning there are probably a lot of Baltimore fans in the DC area. This shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

For the highlight program, all 28 screens in Hell's Sports Bar showed nothing but, over and over, winless Detroit kicking a field goal when down 21-0.

On 4th and 10 from their own 37 with 8 minutes left in the 2nd quarter, you fucking... useless... what's the noun I'm looking for... oh yeah. Zilcheroo. Man, if Gregg Easterbrook were here right now, I would FWAP him right across the face. Are we important enough to be self-referential like that? I hope so. I mean, not because I want us to be important. Just because I want to make that reference and have most of our readers get it. And possibly crack a little tiny smile. Or who knows, maybe even get a smidgen of a chuckle out of it. Heh. Heh.

OK, I'm done.

Jemele Hill: Only Obnoxious When She Writes About Race, Which Is All the Damn Time

Her contract at ESPN runs out pretty soon, I believe. And it's probably a fair bet that it won't be renewed. So I'm feeling compelled to jump all over pretty much anything she does between now and whenever she is shown the door. In the midst of a relatively unterrible piece about white running backs, we find this gem:

Many of us watch sports not caring if the men on the field are purple or magenta, as long as they produce.

Yes. Many of us. But not you, obviously. You're only allowed to write sentences like that if you yourself are included in the "many" you're referring to. If anyone, and I mean anyone cares about what color the men on the field are, it's the spicily named Ms. Hill.

Actually, now that I look at her exact wording, maybe she's not being a hypocrite here. Maybe she really doesn't care what color a player is as long as he or she produces. The hypocritical thing to say would have been:

Many of us watch sports not caring if the men on the field are purple or magenta, as long as they are all held to the same standard for their off-the-field conduct.

Yeah. It would be a massive lie if she implied she subscribed to that idea.

In case you can't tell what I'm getting at, it's that Jemele Hill is a racist.

I'm Sorry, I Have to Call You Out on This One, Heyman

I don't have much time before heading out to Game 3 of the ALDS in Chicago today. But here's something that just pissed me off oh-too-much to ignore.

Jon Heyman made MVP / Cy Young picks recently.

Here are his choices for AL MVP.

1. Francisco Rodriguez, Angels. An alltime great season with a record 62 saves.

2. Carlos Quentin, White Sox. Broke his hand in a fit of anger, costing him the top spot here.

3. Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox. The "jockey'' may actually win it with a scrappy attitude and solid stats (118 runs, 54 doubles).

4. Justin Morneau, Twins. Without him and his 129 RBIs, what does that lineup look like?

5. Kevin Youkilis, Red Sox. The Red Sox campaign is for Pedroia, but this guy is just as pesky (.569 slugging, 115 RBIs).

6. Joe Nathan, Twins. Another great, underappreciated Twins star.

7. Joe Mauer, Twins. Great two-way catcher who won another batting title (.330) and is easily the best in his business.

8. Jermaine Dye, White Sox. Unnoticed star had a nice season.

9. Josh Hamilton, Rangers. As talented as anyone playing, including A-Rod, and 130 RBIs doesn't hurt his cause.

10. Evan Longoria, Rays. Even better, they already locked him up for six years.

Here are his choices for AL Cy Young.

1. Cliff Lee, Indians. Once-in-a-decade type season for this reclamation project (22-3, 2.54 ERA).

2. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays. The one pitcher in the league who can complete what he starts (nine complete games).

3. Francisco Rodriguez. Now holds the alltime saves record.

Let's throw out the fact that K-Rod is a completely and totally ridiculous choice for MVP. Really. We're just going to toss that part clear out the window. Possibly the craziest and stupidest thing anyone in the history of the universe has ever said, because there are at least 30 other relievers in baseball this season who could have broken the saves record playing for the Angels. (We're talking set-up men too, like Shields or Joba or Springer, or the entire Rays bullpen. Side note: Did anyone notice that this was Mariano Rivera's best season ever? That WHIP is sick!) I'm totally serious. Toss that entire bit out the motherfucking window. I will not make fun of you for saying this.

No, no. The problem I have with you, Jon Heyman, is this.

So K-Rod, whom you feel is the most valuable player in the entire American League, is only the 3rd best pitcher in the American League.

"Pitchers," for those who didn't know, are a subset of "players."

Why is the award handed out to supposedly the best player in the entire fucking American League going to a guy you feel is only the 3rd best pitcher????

Sure, Halladay and Lee are the two best "pitchers." They've racked up tons and tons of "Good Pitcher Points." But zero "Value Points". This is because Franklin Gutierrez is terrible and the Blue Jays gave Rod Barajas 102 at-bats in the #5 hole (and 9 batting cleanup!). These are the reasons that K-Rod is your MVP while being considered by Jon Heyman to be the 3rd best pitcher in the American League. (He isn't.)

There's only one way to describe this, and it's the made-up word that Larry B used > 10 times after passing out on my couch piss drunk after we went to game #163 on Tuesday.

That's "FWAP", Jon Heyman. One hundred percent grade-A FWAP!