Sanctimonious idiot Jeff Pearlman misses the point, spends 1500 words telling you that you missed the point

Are you up to speed on the whole Thayer Evans/Oklahoma State story thing?  Hopefully, because I don't really want to take the time to explain it.  (Have you already forgotten about it, because this post is about 10 days late?  Probably.)  The basics, in case you need them, are that Thayer Evans is a guy who is good at picking up on stories that people find interesting, but really shitty at adhering to basic standards of journalistic integrity as he crafts his reporting.  He's irresponsible and sensationalist.  He doesn't really do things like "verify his sources" or in some cases "have credible sources in the first place."  And please believe, I don't give a steaming pile of fuck about Oklahoma State, Auburn, LSU, the Honey Badger or Cam Newton.  But this is an indisputable fact at this point: Thayer Evans is a shitty journalist.  That should be the main takeaway from his Oklahoma State expose, because the fact that a major college football program doesn't follow NCAA rules and gives its players lots of benefits they shouldn't get is not news and thus not eligible to be a takeaway.

Anyways, what does Jeff Pearlman think about all of this?  YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT, AMERICA.  THE POINT IS THAT WE SHOULD ALL BE ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGED ABOUT THIS OUTRAGEOUS STUFF THAT OSU WAS DOING.  Jeff Pearlman is a dope.

I don’t know Thayer Evans. We’ve never met, never spoken. In fact, before a couple of days ago I’m not sure I’d ever heard of the man. Is he a good reporter? 

Not at all.  That's well known at this point.

A shady reporter? 

Yes.

Does he love Oklahoma and hate Oklahoma State? 

According to Jason Whitlock, yes, although that doesn't make his shitty reporting any more or less shitty.

Could he care less? I just don’t know—and, I’m quite certain, most other don’t know, either.

Everyone knows.  Use the Google machine.  Type in "Thayer Evans journalism ethics."  There's lots of smoke and plenty of fire.  Thayer Evans is an unethical journalist.

Here’s what I do know: Much of the criticism of his reporting methodology has been—on the surface—bunk. There’s this idea out there that, in order to properly and rightly report a story, one needs to interview a select group of people—generally the stars and head coach. If you don’t speak with them, the logic goes, you’re interviewing the wrong folk.

This is crap.

The criticism of Evans has little to nothing to do with his interviewee selections.  It has a lot more to do with his doing things like secretly recording conversations with interviewees who did not know they were going to become interviewees, not doing basic fact checking with regard to facts that could have easily been checked, and embellishing facts to spice up a story.  Jeff Pearlman is a dope, and in his quest to be OUTRAGED at another ho-hum NCAA scandal, is going to try to defend Thayer Evans.

Without fail, stars and head coaches are almost always the worst interviews/sources. Why? Multiple reasons: A. They’re the ones who benefited most from the team/program. The head coach of Oklahoma State was paid big money to guide a high-exposure program. He had endorsement deals, contractual perks, etc … etc. Unless he was ultimately screwed, there is, literally, zero reason for him to speak. Stars can be grouped in the same category. You’re Brandon Weeden. You were the starting quarterback at Oklahoma State; that ultimately led you to the NFL. What, exactly, are you going to complain about? Who are you going to rat out?

The job of a reporter (and it ain’t easy) is figuring out whose information is correct, and whose is not. 

See the fact checking link up there.  Apparently Evans isn't so good at "the job of a reporter."

It’s about feeling comfortable with sources; about having other people vouch for a source’s words and/or character. Ultimately, it’s a judgement call. 

That Thayer Evans has repeatedly demonstrated he sucks at making.

The thing that puzzles me—that has always puzzled me—is the brainless craziness that is college football. 

Crank up the Pearlman-o-matic 5000!  Here comes the sanctimony.

Whether Thayer Evans’ reporting was flawed 

It was.

or perfect, 

Not close.

clearly Oklahoma State did some very bad things. 

NOW EVERYONE WAG YOUR FINGERS AT THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY

This is obvious, and a fact no one seems to be denying. And yet … why don’t school loyalists care? We’re talking about 19-, 20-, 21-, 22-year-old (so-called) student-athletes 

ZING

once again being treated as pieces of meat. They’re models for uniforms, dollar signs for endorsement deals, images to place on the cover of university literature … and, rarely, actually people.

Yes.  All correct.  But we don't need shady fucktards like Thayer Evans to show us these things.  1) We already know them 2) presenting them in the context of a JUICY SCANDAL does nothing but titillate for the sake of titillating, rather than actually generating interesting analysis (something much of the reporting on the Ed O'Bannon case has done).  It is no longer news that players took money or had access to sex and drugs.  Sorry.  And if you want to report on those topics without following the basic standards of ethical journalism, then fuck you and fuck the people that defend you because they think you've uncovered the next Watergate.

I hear college football die-hards speak of their teams as “we”—we need to run the ball better; we need to come out strong against Oregon. This, of course, is ludicrous. These are often kids with flimsy academic credentials, being asked to carry a full course load while also practicing X hours per day, flying X miles across the country, missing X class and X class and X class. 

Oh my God, what are we talking about?  Jeff, you are the worst ranter ever.  At the very very least, even if you're going to be the dope that we know you are, try to stay on topic.

They would struggle to maintain a 2.0 average if they were solely enrolled in school (minus sports)—

That's completely untrue, fucking insulting to thousands of kids, and possibly racist.

and yet, we pretend all is OK and groovy and grand. We dress them up in our school colors, roll out the balls and cheer away. Then, seven or eight years later, when we see X player living in his mother’s house, barely able to read, 44 credits shy of a college diploma, we shrug. Shit happens.

If you love Oklahoma State, shouldn’t you be furious? Not at the reporter or the magazine, but the school and the athletic department and the football program? 

Yes.  But you already knew about all those problems before private eye Thayer Evans arrived on the scene to build his own personal brand with a poorly-vetted story full of uninteresting crap.  You can hate the NCAA and the way it treats athletes, and you can also hate Thayer Evans.  They're not mutually exclusive possibilities.

Shouldn’t you be demanding a clean system; a desire for all-around excellence; a chance for your guys to wind up as successes in business, not just a meaningless game against Baylor? Shouldn’t you demand to hear the truth from your university? Aren’t there better questions to ask than, “Why does Thayer Evans hate us so much?”

I have no sympathy for OSU alums who feel victimized by Evans because he's apparently an OU fan.  Fuck both of those schools and fuck that whole state.  But more importantly, fuck Jeff Pearlman for taking this angle on the story.  As a, you know, journalist, you'd think he'd understand why it's important that journalists adhere to ethical standards of their profession.  Instead he's busy making sure we understand that college football is broken.  Thanks Jeff.  We got it.

I’m a Jason Whitlock fan. I truly am. I thought his commentary on the Don Imus-Rutgers stuff was outstanding. His gun stuff was equally top shelf. He’s written some wonderful stuff through the years; some columns that I’ve read more than once.

That said, this has not been a good week for the man.

Whitlock is an asshole.  Still, this was pretty awesome.

Whitlock clearly sees himself as some sort of media sheriff; a guy charged with keeping the rest of us in line. 

The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

He likes calling out individual writers, pointing out their flaws, explaining (in not these exact words) why they suck and he’s awesome.

Pot kettle etc.  And yes, of course, I realize that the pot/kettle thing goes one step further, to me and this blog.  Except that I don't think I'm awesome.  I just think that everyone sucks.

In regard to Thayer Evans, Whitlock told an Oklahoma radio station, “Having worked with Thayer Evans at Fox Sports …”

OK, to start here. I’m pretty sure Whitlock did not work with Evans. Back in the day, when people shared offices, they worked together. I’m in this cubicle, you’re in that cubicle—we work together. Whitlock never shared an office with Evans, never spent great time (if any time) with Evans. Literally, they were located in two different cities. 

And we know that they never collaborated on a project, or shared notes, or discussed their trade?  I don't want to make a big deal out of this small point, but again, in his effort to make sure we understand that the REAL STORY HERE is that some NCAA athletes don't graduate, Jeff is bending over backwards to defend Thayer Evans.  It's pathetic.

By Whitlock’s definition, I worked at Sports Illustrated with Gary Smith. Sure, he was in North Carolina and I was in New York. And sure, we literally were never in the same room at the same moment. But we worked together because our paychecks were signed by the same person. No.

I like that this is his first criticism of Whitlock's piece.  "Let's start with the important stuff--sure, Whitlock and Evans worked for the same company, but did they truly work 'together?'  OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE, THEY TOTALLY DIDN'T"

Furthermore, Whitlock talks about Evans’ loyalties, calling him a “huge, enormous, gigantic Oklahoma homer.”

Here's the best part.

However, Whitlock’s past desperation to work for Sports Illustrated was no great secret. His dream of being handed the back-page column. He, of course, was never offered a job by the magazine—and was, we can assume, angry about it. Does this not (by Whitlock-think) make him the wrong guy to go off on the magazine? Is he not as biased as Evans is presumed to be?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's the greatest thing Pearlman has ever written, and we've definitely gone after him on this blog plenty of times over the years.  It's fucking priceless.  That might be the worst attempt at flipping the script on someone I've ever seen.

After slaying Evans, Whitlock noted, “I think the story is a cliché and bogus and suspect and just the wrong angle.”

You know what's fucking fantastic?  You want the full context of that comment?  To explain what Whitlock thinks is the right angle?  Here you go:

I have the obvious take (on the series) that I’m tired of these stories. We’ve been reading these stories for 30 years and I’m tired of people pointing out how corrupt participants are in a system that has been proven to be corrupt. The NCAA amateur system is corrupt, so we should not be surprised that there is corruption among the participants. I would like to see more of the focus on the NCAA and the system and fixing that, and then I’ll get upset about the corruption. I think the story is a cliché and bogus and suspect and just the wrong angle.

JEFF.  EARTH TO JEFF.  JEFF, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS IMMEDIATELY.  Whitlock has the EXACT SAME PERSPECTIVE on this issue as you do.  It's just that he, while acknowledging how fucking up NCAA football is, ALSO wants someone like Evans to not be a huge shithead.  See how he can have it both ways?  You could too, if you weren't such a sanctimonious dope.  That's the world Jeff Pearlman lives in: if an unethical "journalist" writes an unethical piece, but the tone of the piece is something Pearlman agrees with, it's asking too much of him to get him to acknowledge the shittiness of the journalism.

He also admitted, and I’ll place this in capital letters, that HE NEVER READ THE ARTICLE. Never. Not once. Not a word. DID. NOT. READ. IT. Even if you think the writer is a fraud, how in God’s name can you rip a piece you never read … then have other credible news sources give those words weight.

Whitlock should have read the article(s), but it doesn't change the fact that it is well established that Thayer Evans is a piece of shit.

Again, I think Whitlock is a good writer, and I have no personal beef. But he pulled this same crap when I appeared on his podcast several years ago to promote Sweetness. Whitlock welcomed me on, wanted to talk Walter Payton … but admitted never having read the book, because he doesn’t read sports books.

Uh …

OK, again, that's Whitlock being an asshole, but leave it to Jeff to complain about the nice (if awkwardly lacking in execution) thing that someone else did to him to help him sell his book.

My favorite piece of the Whitlock diatribe comes here: “There are a brand of sports writers who love doing these investigative pieces. They are not hard to do these days in terms of so-and-so got this money under the table. We’re into this area where unnamed sources can say anything, any of these he-said, she-said stories. I don’t respect the entire brand of investigative journalism that is being done here.”

All of that seems very fair to me, if heavy-handed.  It's not that this brand of journalism deserves no respect; it's that it's been done before, many times, and people like Evans use it to make a name for themselves because it's scandalous.  And that's pretty dumb.

Jason Whitlock has the absolute easiest job in sports media—and he knows it. He opines. That’s it. He doesn’t report. He doesn’t dig. He doesn’t make calls or seek out information. He takes the reporting done by others, sits in front of his laptop and comes up with a take. That’s it. He’s a good writer. Is he one of the, oh, 200 most-talented sportswriters in America? Probably not. 

I don't like Whitlock, but actually, I'm pretty certain he cracks the top 200 in the country.

(For the record, I’m by no means placing myself on that list either) 

Geez, I certainly hope not.  (Just kidding, Jeff!  You might be in the top 200 too.  No sarcasm.  But fuck you both anyways.)

But—and this is the big part—he’s loud. And obnoxious. He presents himself as a tough guy unafraid to take a tough stand, and people buy it. They absorb his self-righteous diatribes, because—on the surface—it seems to be driven by a desire to seek out truth and justice.

If any of you have every spent any time on jeffpearlman.com, you know the one thing you will definitely find there is a collection of self-righteous diatribes.

But, with men and women like Whitlock, truth and justice are often smokescreens for the parallel drugs plaguing the American media: Attention and fame. 

If you cannot see that those things are exactly what Thayer Evans is trying to obtain, you're fucking blind.

Whitlock seems all about attention and fame. Or, put differently,what sort of person states his own case for the Pulitzer Prize? What size ego must a man have to A. Think to himself, “I deserve the Pulitzer” and B. Write about it? I mean, between all the craziness of life and the highs and the lows and the ups and the downs, who even has time to ponder such a thing?

Whitlock is an asshole.  Pearlman is a dope.

For all I know, the Oklahoma State report is filled with holes,

It is.

and Sports Illustrated will have to apologize 

Oddly, they did not, although they should have.

and Thayer Evans will soon be selling insurance door to door in Ada. 

We can only hope!

I just don’t know.

As a journalist, however, I am deeply troubled by the blame-the-messenger mentality that has zoomed to the forefront.

As a journalist, what you should be troubled by is the state of journalism thanks to writers like Evans.  1% of the country is "blaming the messenger" in the sense that Jeff means it.  They are mouth-breathing OSU fans, and they want to discredit everything Evans wrote simply because they love their school.  The other 99% is blaming the messenger in the exact way everyone should be: by pointing out that Thayer Evans is a tabloid journalist who should be legally barred from ever going near a computer.

There is more here than just a reporter with a vendetta, and or a reporter who can’t report, or a magazine story.

It’s time we all try and see it.

Which is pretty much what Whitlock said, except with a lot more idiocy mixed in.

Simmons tries to pretend like he never had a silver spoon in his mouth; some asshole dives into the deepest part of the deep end re: steroids

Whew, writing that title was a lot of work.  Not sure how much energy I've got left for the post.  Tonight I found two short articles worth bitching about, so I'll write about both.  You're welcome.  But wait!  Bonus item (thanks to tips in the comments to the last post), before I get to the Simmons article:

is this the greatest sporting event of 2013 (so far)? They just went end to end for 34 OT minutes. This is amazing.
— Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) June 6, 2013

In fact, no!  No it is not.  It did involve DA FACKIN' BROONS though, so Bill needed to check in with his Tweeps to see if everyone else was as impressed as he was.  He probably has a yearly Google calendar alert that pops up on June 1 that says something like "Check to see if Bruins are still in playoffs; if yes, follow them, if not, Tweet about disappointing recent lack of success and strain it puts on fanbase."   Now for the article.  Don't worry, it's not recent; Grantland, realizing that there is an insatiable demand for Simmons articles from fuckwits nationwide, but having to cope with the reality that he only writes about one per month, has decided to start posting old articles.  This one comes from the summer of 2005, just as he was completing his transition from "Bad writer who is still sometimes a little entertaining and occasionally makes you feel sorry for Boston fans" to "Bad writer who is also an insufferable piece of shit."

Outside the Boston Garden before Game 7 of the '84 NBA Finals, scalpers were getting upwards of $2,000 per ticket. Since we were fortunate enough to own midcourt seats, I remember my father perking up as we heard the numbers being tossed around on Causeway Street. Four grand for our seats? He could barely afford season tickets as it was. 

Yeah fucking right.  Get the fuck out of here.  You went to some fancy fuck New England prep school before attending Holy Cross.  I'm real sure your dad was combing the couch cushions to find the loose change needed for those GAHHHHHDEN seats.  That obviously fabricated last line speaks to my contention above: this is a transparent case of Simmons saying "This anecdote about the incredible cost of scalped game 7 tickets is interesting and needs to be in the column... but I'd better not make too much of a show out of the fact that my dad had expensive season tickets!  How can I accomplish that?  I guess I could always just lie.  Done and done."

Did he ever really consider it? Of course not. 

We were huge Celtics fans and didn't need the money!  Why would we have?

As basketball fans, we knew Game 7 of an NBA Finals was the ultimate experience.

Yep, he was a shitty writer back then too.

You can't possibly imagine the level of intensity, the overpowering electricity in the building, how it keeps going higher and higher.

Unless you've sat at midcourt for a game 7, that is!  In that case, you'll be able to imagine it perfectly, because like me, your dad had season tickets.

Rarely are these games well played – there's too much pressure, too much energy.

I like the unintentional foreshadowing of game 7 of the 2010 finals here. 6 FOR 24 LOLOLO LOLOLL OLO LOLOLL

I kept thinking about that game while the Spurs outlasted the Pistons on Thursday night. You never beat someone in a Game 7 to win the title. You outlast them. You persevere. You survive.

Other things you do: outscore them, and in doing so, beat them.

We'll remember them as one of the weaker championship teams in recent memory, 

He was obsessed with how the present will look in the future back then, too.  Also: eight years down the road, and I don't think that statement is true.  That Pistons team was the defending champs, and they were tough.  The Spurs quasi bookended that 2005 title with much more easily won titles in 2003 and 2007.  I wouldn't sell that 2005 team short at all.  The 2006 Heat?  That's one of the weaker championship teams in recent memory.  

a team that could be pushed around at times, a team whose quality players disappeared for entire games. They needed a miraculous effort from Big Shot Brob in Game 5 just to avoid an ignominious 3-4-5 sweep in Detroit. They couldn't close out the resilient Pistons in Game 6, which any of the better NBA champions in history would have done. Yet none of that stuff will matter 50 years from now. As Joe Theismann would say, championship teams win championships.

The fact that he quoted that as legitimate analysis rather than ridiculous bullshit to be laughed at tells you everything you need to know.

Lost in the shuffle were the defending champs, 

More shitty writing.  They were not lost in the shuffle.  They were one of the two teams on the court.  They won three of the seven games in the series.

who defended their title with the requisite amount of honor and integrity. 

Just like the 2008-2009 Celtics, when they outlasted a mediocre Bulls team and advanced to the second round!  What a fantastic title defense!

They carried championship belts like boxers, shouted "on and on and on" before games, always thrived with their backs to the wall. 

They were really good.  But America needs to know: were they as good as the Patriots?

Some kept comparing them to the Patriots, 

No one did that.

and their impeccable record in must-win games and closeouts put them in the general ballpark. But the Pats won 34 of their last 38 games and haven't lost at home since December 2002. The Pistons never dominated over a prolonged stretch like that;

Pick your jaw up off the floor--I know it's shocking, but Bill reached the conclusion that [team that doesn't play football] is not as FACKIN' DAWMINATING as the GREATRIOTS.  Fun fact: that Pistons/Spurs finals feels like a long time ago, but the Patriots have not won a Super Bowl since.  Warms my heart.

Enough of that. Moving on, some jabroni from ESPN named Steve Wulf has written the hand-wringiest steroid piece you will ever see.  For the most part I will present it without commentary, because for the most part it is absurd and embarrassing on its face without the need for explanation.

This is important. You must care. You need to stop enabling the cheaters the way we used to. You have to root, root, root just as hard for the game itself as you do for the players.

Players have been cheating in one way or another for 125 years.  Somehow, some way, the game seems to be doing fine.

Yell, don't yawn. A new generation of players is playing us for suckers, just as Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro and Roger Clemens did. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, A-Rod, shame on me. Whether it be on the blogosphere, or in Twitterville, 

Use of "Twitterville" is a good way to out yourself as old, out of touch, unfunny, and probably not worth listening to when it comes to sports analysis.

or over sports radio, the vox populi seems to want the latest revelations to go away. Funny that some of the same people who criticized Major League Baseball 10 years ago for not doing anything about the steroid epidemic are now blasting the commissioner for trying to prevent a relapse. 

Who is saying that?

The illegal use of PEDs strikes at the belief in the game. If you can't trust a player's numbers, you can't really trust the score.

The next person to quantify the effect steroids has on a player's numbers, and furthermore, what the overall effect is when both pitchers and hitters are juicing, will be the first.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's not worth shitting ourselves over.  And in any case, that's a dumb leap of logic--I have no trouble "trusting the score" even if guys like Braun and Rodriguez are juicing.  Every team probably has guys who are juicing. They're all probably playing a little better than they would if they weren't juicing.  That means that even if one did want to avoid trusting the numbers, they should still be OK with trusting the score.  The baseball universe has yet to collapse in on itself as a result of any of this.

Does anybody have the nerve to ask this: Should the Yankees even count the past two of their 27 championships, the ones they won with Clemens (2000) and Alex Rodriguez (2009)?

I'm sure the 2000 Mets and 2009 Phillies were squeaky clean.  That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Taking steroids or HGH or any other illegal substance is not a victimless crime. Even if the players don't care about the side effects of their elixirs, baseball does have a responsibility to the young athletes who would emulate those regimens.

Cue up Helen Lovejoy.  Holy shitballs.  While "preventing kids from taking steroids" is a perfectly reasonable thing for society to want, trying to connect it to MLB in this way is embarrassing.  The answers to steroid problems among high schoolers are increased awareness of the dangers of steroids, increased parental involvement in the lives of high schoolers, and increased efforts to shut down steroid suppliers on the law enforcement end.  Not among those answers: wagging one's finger at MLB.

The financial investment we put into being fans is nothing compared to the emotional investment. Remember that wonderful moment when Mark McGwire passed Roger Maris, hugged his own son and then met with the Maris family? Feels kind of cheesy now, doesn't it?

It was always cheesy.  Watching McGwire hit the ball all over the place was cool because few guys could do it like he did it.  It was not cool because he hugged his son at home plate.  If you watch sports and glean more than a small sliver of your enjoyment of them from the emotional storybook moments like McGwire meeting Maris's family, you're wasting your time.  Just watch something else.  And anyone who thought McGwire got to 70 without any extra supplements was miles out of the loop.

It's just plain wrong. Yeah, Gaylord Perry threw a spitball, and Ty Cobb sharpened his spikes, and King Kelly used to take a shortcut from first to third. But the use of clearly prohibited banned substances is cheating of a much more profound nature.

And why is that?  Go ahead, I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

The decision encompasses at least five of the Seven Deadly Sins: pride, envy, greed, gluttony, sloth. (Lust and wrath may be in there, too.)

Ah yes, the Bible.  That's why steroids are evil.  Thank you and please step down from the pulpit.

ThMTMQR: Face, Meet Keyboard, Keyboard, Face

It's a busy time of year, meaning I'm down to about a post per week.  And it's pretty stupid of me to spend back to back weeks dissecting Greggggggggggggggg's tripe.  I apologize in advance.

The United States Postal Service might be losing billions of dollars, but much of the National Football League tried to bail it out by mailing it in this week. 

That's probably the best joke he's ever written.  D minus.

To say many teams mailed it in this week actually is sugarcoating. They didn't even phone it in. They barely bothered to text it in.

DID THEY EMAIL IT?  WHAT ABOUT CARRIER PIGEONS LOL.  OK, you had a decent thing going, and then you got excited, took it too far, and ruined it.  That's fine, it happens to a lot of 5 year olds the first time they discover what jokes are and that it's enjoyable to make people laugh.  Learn from the experience.

Eric Decker of Denver beat Cary Williams of Baltimore for a 51-yard touchdown. Once Decker broke into the clear, Williams came to a stop and watched him, not bothering to pursue. 

Patently untrue.  Watch the highlight.  Horrible coverage, yes.  Stopping and watching, absofuckinglutely not.  God, he really gets off on accusing players of giving up on plays.  What a zilch.

Later, Denver's Knowshon Moreno jogged across the goal line untouched as the Ravens' front seven stood watching.

Fuck you.

Detroit trailed Arizona 24-10 but was still alive with the ball on the Cardinals' 2 in the fourth quarter. Someone ran the wrong pattern, 

No.

as two receivers went to the short left corner of the end zone. 

No.

The pass was intercepted by Greg Toler. Wide receiver Kris Durham, the Detroit player closest to Toler, casually jogged to about the 10-yard line 

No, he was in a dead sprint, trying to catch Toler.  The problem is that he is not fast and Toler is.

and then just stopped and watched as Toler went 102 yards for a touchdown, making no attempt to chase down the play.

This time he is mostly right, everyone stopped.  This is because Toler had a convoy of about twenty Cardinals with him, and is probably faster than everyone on Detroit's offense except first round megabucks glory boy Calvin Johnson.

Seattle's Marshawn Lynch was running for a touchdown with only Buffalo's Da'Norris Searcy between him and pay dirt. At the goal line, Searcy stepped out of Lynch's way so he would not have to exert himself by attempting a tackle. 

Not really.  And what if Searcy had hit Lynch after he was across the goal line?  What DIRTY UNETHICAL play that would have been!  That sounds like something a weasel coach would tell his players to do!  

He goes on like this.  For paragraphs.  It's incredibly tedious.  You know what they say about someone who constantly goes out of their way find a perspective that allows them to indignantly spout off about the on-field character of people who play professional sports for a living (usually without any basis in fact): they deserve to be punched in the testicles.

Philip Rivers dropped back into the pocket and, without being touched by anyone, fumbled. The Chargers gained 164 offensive yards playing at home.

Well, that's actually 100% true.  And enjoyable to watch.

The Giants and Ravens are strong teams that played poorly; 

NO THAT'S NOT TRUE THE RAVENS QUIT.  YOU COULD TELL BY WATCHING THE GAME AND THEN IMAGINING THAT THEY QUIT ON EVERY PLAY.

the Bills, Bucs, Chargers, Chiefs, Jaguars, Jets, Lions and Raiders simply quit. 

QUITTING QUITTERS, ALL OF THEM.  EVERY PLAYER ON THOSE TEAMS HAS A GUARANTEED CONTRACT FOR NEXT SEASON, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE ALL QUITTING NOW.

And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. 

Holy shit, have you watched an NFL game in the last 15 years?  What do you think Norv usually looks like?

The NFL is a year-round enterprise that, for 20 of 32 teams, builds up to only 16 games. Every quarter ought to matter. Thousands of hours of offseason preparation, then teams simply quit when the playoffs become out of reach. Even if 

DIE DIE DIE DIE.  You are atrocious.

In other football news, TMQ maintains that sports stars who hold records should be honest about hoping their records stand. Thus it was refreshing to hear that Eric Dickerson does not want Adrian Peterson to break the single-season rushing record. Dickerson says he wishes Peterson well, just hopes he pulls up shy of the mark. This is being honest. It's great to hold a record. Why should any athlete root to be bested?

And why should anyone write in the vernacular of 17th century England?

Sweet Defensive Plays of the Week: The score tied with 1:34 remaining in regulation, the visiting Steelers had first-and-10 on their 46, holding three timeouts, and seemed ideally positioned to drive to a winning field goal. Dallas showed an unusual blitz alignment 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

and got a sack. 

/Larry B faints

Because the Broncos yield the tiebreaker to New England, Denver needs at least one more victory to attain a bye week. 

A basic grasp on tiebreaker rules, or the ability to look them up on the internet machine, would reveal that Denver most likely has to win both of its remaining games to keep the second seed and the bye.  Or, if New England somehow loses its last two, Denver could also keep the bye even if they also lost their last two.  He's wrong in two different ways here.  Nice.

The Broncs' final regular-season foes are Kansas City and Cleveland, combined record 7-21. This puts Denver in the driver's seat for resting starters in the regular-season finale, 

If both Denver and New England win in week 16, that will not be happening.

followed by a week off -- the very situation in which Peyton Manning tended to falter in Indianapolis.

OHHHHH.  Now we see why he went down that road--it helped him preach a tired old narrative about heart, and effort, and gloryboyship, or some bullshit like that.  PS-which round was Peyton drafted in?  Thought so.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play of the Week: Dallas leading Pittsburgh 3-0, the Boys had first-and-10 on the Steelers' 17. Little-used safety Robert Golden entered the contest. Tony Romo noticed and audibled to a seam route for tight end Jason Witten to run directly at Golden. Touchdown: sweet.

Perhaps you assume Golden was the sour player on this down. 

But you would be wrong, because he was signed as an undrafted free agent and has never made a mistake in his life.

Veteran linebacker Lawrence Timmons ignored Witten, letting him run past; veteran defensive back Ryan Clark ignored Witten, letting him run past. 

Probably because that was what the defensive play called for.

Timmons and Clark are experienced performers. They knew a green guy had just come in and was likely to be targeted, yet ignored the receiver heading toward the green guy. Sour.

Yeah, it would have been better for them to abandon the scheme and leave giant holes in the defense by triple covering Witten.  Classic glory boy move, not bending over backwards to accommodate the undrafted player who doesn't really belong on the field.

Unified Field Theory of Creep: John Denny of Big Rapids, Mich., reports, "Just read the January 2013 issue of Car and Driver, which featured a review of the 2015 Volkswagen Golf TDI, a car that won't be available in the U.S. until 2014." 

A magazine?  Reporting on topics of interest to its readers?  What next?!?!?!?!

Matt Coombs of Lynn, Mass., reports the 2014 GMC Sierra went on sale Dec. 13, 2012.

OK, I will admit that that's a little dumb.

Brees complained angrily to officials when City of Tampa defenders didn't hustle to get back to the line as seconds ticked down before halftime. So just snap the ball, and the Bucs are offside!

And already in the offensive backfield, ready to concuss you a quarter of a second after you get the snap!

The Falcons leading the defending champion Giants 34-0 just inside the two-minute warning, Atlanta reached first-and-goal. Mike Smith had his backups in and had them kneel. Now that's class.

TAKE NOTES, SCHIANO.  YOUR ATTEMPTS TO WIN GAMES BY FORCING TURNOVERS WILL BE THE END OF YOU.

Offseason Blame Game Starts Early: What exactly was accomplished by the Ravens' firing Cam Cameron -- known to this column as the Crafty, Clever, Cunning Cam Cameron -- 

/projectile vomit into nearby houseplant

By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting.

If the Ravens had fired Cameron after the season: "By firing his offensive coordinator now, rather than during midseason when something might have been done about the team's offense, Harbaugh sent the signal that he wants to shift blame away from himself."  Don't get me wrong, it was a dumb move, but you can just smell Gregg's insincere posturing coming right off the page.

Your columnist put himself through college, doing so partly by taking extra classes so I earned a bachelor's degree in three and a half years, 

Here's your fucking sticker.

cutting out one semester of expense. 

And not being liked by anyone.

Jiminy Cricket: 

GODFREY DANIELS!!!!

Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk: Its season on the verge of implosion, Philadelphia faced fourth-and-goal on the Cincinnati 1, score tied at 10, in the final minute of the first half. 

You know what's coming: just remember, going for it on 4th down always works, because even if you fail and lose the game, you have inspired your team and when they win a Super Bowl 15 years later, it can all be traced back to that gutsy call.

"Last Resort" Update: 

Finally!  Why not lead off the column with this item?

Giants at Ravens on Christmas Eve Eve might in effect be an elimination game both ways.

DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPARTMENT LOL   #funnycoffeemugsfrom1983

Public-company boards of directors approve this kind of insider luxury because most boards rubber-stamp whatever the CEO wants. Supposedly boards of directors are keeping watch on management. In practice they are lapdogs concerned with maintaining the lavish fees they receive for practically no work. 

BREAKING SCANDAL ALERT!  SOMEONE CALL THE SEC!  I've got another new one for you: sometimes, people cheat on their taxes.

If boards of directors are selling out workers and shareholders to pamper the CEO, are they also pampering themselves? 

YES, YOU MORON.  Holy moly.  Why are you presenting this like you just discovered the cure for polio?

San Francisco is 3-2 versus clubs likely to make the playoffs and next faces the surging Bluish Men Group. San Francisco will hold Seattle to fewer than 50 points.

THE DECIDING FACTOR: WHICH TEAM'S COACH IS MORE WEASILIER.

Good Seats Were Available: Facing Arizona in the season's first bowl game, Nevada gained 659 yards on offense, made 39 first downs and lost. In the Florida 8A state title game, Cypress Bay scored 50 points and lost.

We are not in 1930.  No one is amazed by this.  No one.  And yet, every week, there it is.

For the Bills, their performance was what looked bad. The Bills now are 1-4 in "home" games at Toronto and seem to save their worst for what ought to be an important marketing opportunity. 

Your grasp on the nuances of the possible Bills relocation is really impressive.

On Sunday, there was more derisive laughter from the Rogers Centre crowd than cheering. Toronto Star columnist Cathal Kelly opined, "Caring about the Buffalo Bills must be a real downer. Glad we don't have that problem." One doesn't encounter many sports columns with a reference to August Strindberg.

HO HO HO, INDEED!  No, I don't know who he is either.  But enough about August Strindberg, is the new Star Trek movie going to portray intergalactic travel accurately or not?

In the Miami-Jacksonville collision, 

Even your attempts to use slang come off sounding pretentious.

Bonus College Score: Marian (Ind.) University 30, Morningside (Iowa) College 27 (NAIA championship). Located in Indianapolis, Marian of Indiana 

OH MY GOD WHO GIVES A SHIT.  There has to be a local newspaper in central Montana who will hire this guy away from ESPN and have him cover nothing but Division III football year round.  Please.  I'll chip in to buy the plane ticket for his interview.

Here's the problem with the people angrily wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth about the Marlins/Blue Jays trade

They are not acknowledging that the trade is a good move for the Marlins.  "They" includes really good writers like Jeff Passan, who carries on forever here about what a piece of shit Jeffrey Loria is.

[Loria and team president David Samson] were two men who for years lied about their finances, lied about their intentions, lied all to get Miami to build them a $634 million ballpark that was supposed to end this wretched cycle of turning a major league franchise into a swap meet.

Yes. They stink.

And yet all this time, throughout the lies, the SEC investigation, the embarrassing payrolls, the pocketing of revenue-sharing dollars...

All of these are shitty things that Loria has done/been involved with.  And yet: the trade was still the right thing for the Marlins to do.  They won 69 games last year.  There's no reason to expect the Nationals or Braves to get worse this coming season.  Would it be better for the Marlins to continue to trot out an expensive but non-competitive team?  When the Red Sox pulled this same exact shit three months ago, there wasn't a peep about embarrassment to the game or other such horseshit.  That's mostly because Loria is a known asshole and John Henry isn't (to the degree he should be), but the fact is that both teams made almost the exact same move and both of them are better off for it.  I'm not the world's biggest Jonah Keri fan, but he hits the nail on the head here.  It's worth a read.  To wit:

Thing is, the Marlins weren't going to win with the players they had, at least not for the foreseeable future. Last offseason, they signed Reyes, Buehrle, and Heath Bell while narrowly whiffing on Albert Pujols, breaking the bank in an attempt to build an exciting, winning team as they moved into a new ballpark. After all that, they won 69 games, finishing second to last in the National League in runs scored while allowing more runs than all but four other NL clubs. Free agents tend to produce their best results early in long-term deals, while they're still at or near their prime, then fall off in later years. The Marlins got productive Year 1 performances from Reyes and Buehrle, bundled them with a talented but hugely injury-prone pitcher in Johnson plus a couple of fungible veterans, and cashed them in for some intriguing prospects, plus the GDP of a Pacific island nation in salary relief.

If the Jeff Pearlmans of the world could stop crying about how the sanctity of baseball has been forever tarnished by this deal, maybe they'd realize what Keri realizes.  But what's the one thing that Keri:

It's a system, first and foremost, in favor of owners who fall in line with the commissioner's office. ... Loria hasn't made McCourt money from baseball yet. But he's pulled off a series of shrewd and increasingly profitable business moves, exploiting all the advantages afforded to members of MLB's ownership cartel.

and Passan:

[N]ot a word from the commissioner. Not a lamentation that by the time the balloon payments on the stadium hit, Miami taxpayers will owe more than $2.4 billion. Not a sign that he intends to protect the sport from the cretins within. And not a chance, unless public outrage on the matter changes his thinking, that he'll use his best-interests-of-baseball clause to keep Jeffrey Loria and David Samson from murdering another baseball market.

agree on?  Not that anyone needed a reminder, but Bud Selig is a real cumbucket.  My advice to you: if what Loria did pisses you off, or at least seems wrong on some level, don't bitch and moan about him.  Bitch and moan about the system that allows him to be him.

Ridiculous Moral Indignation: ur doin it rong

By now you've probably heard the "story" (sarcastic quotation marks used because as the main subject of the story herself says, this is not actually a story) of Jan Cavanaugh. She's the Packers fan/cancer patient/autograph seeker allegedly snubbed by Aaron Rodgers as he walked to the team's Atlanta-bound plane last Friday. Now, all of the following are rational responses to the viral video that shows Rodgers walking past Cavanaugh without acknowledging her:

1) This is one 3 second video, we don't really know the context. Hard to judge Rodgers' entire character on this alone. Maybe he does other charity work and/or has given this woman an autograph before. (Both possibilities true)
2) Rodgers is wearing headphones, who knows what he was and was not aware of at that moment. (If you're Mike Florio, you speculate that Rodgers wore the headphones to make it easier to ignore cancer patients looking for autographs)
3) Players are not obligated to sign autographs for anyone and everyone at all times even if the autograph seek does have cancer and is a die hard fans of the player's employer. (Cavanaugh's own reaction, see below)

Of course, none of those angles appeal to sportswriters. #1 involves looking at all sides of an issue/situation, something 95% of sportswriters are too fucking stupid to do. #2 is too practical. #3 is too blindingly obvious and prevents sportswriters from being morally indignant about something that calls for no such perspective. So of course ProFootballTalk's Mike Florio (a breathtakingly useless writer employed by a breathtakingly useless site that we should write about far more often) took the easy way out.

Aaron Rodgers has a lot to learn about where his money comes from

Alternate title: Mike Florio has a lot to learn about how the business of professional sports works.

We realize that only two days ago we defended largely unlikable Bears quarterback Jay Cutler from a mailed-in attack by ESPN’s Rick Reilly.

The Rickster? Mailing in a column? Never. Also: anyone using the first person plural to talk about themselves deserves a square and vicious kick in the balls.

But since Reilly has yet to attack Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, we feel no need to defend him. (Yet.)

In fact, we feel the need to crucify him using shitty logic and pointless moral outrage.

Rodgers makes a lot of money because people are willing to pay to watch him do what he does, and because they’re willing to sit and watch him do it on television, while being bombarded with advertisements and networks promos.

True. Keep in mind that Rodgers does not make money because people think he's a swell guy. At least, not primarily. Of course being a non-asshole is good for a player's career, but before they can benefit from that kind of thing they have to be, uh, good at sports.

Without fans, football would be lacrosse. Or indoor soccer. Or postseason baseball.

Boom. Roasted. Take that, baseball. Your TV ratings for divisional round playoff games that start on weekday afternoons are not very good. That proves once and for all that football is better than you.

So football players need to be willing to pause and sign an autograph or two from time to time. Especially when the person seeking the autograph is female, is wearing copious amounts of NFL-licensed pink apparel, and has very short gray hair.

If players are going to stop and sign for anyone, I agree that cancer patients should be at the top of the list. Unfortunately, as previously stated (and as known by anyone with a brain since it's a really basic and obvious fact), athletes who are really awesome don't need to be willing to stop and sign for anyone. They don't. They don't owe it to anyone, they don't "need" to do it for anyone, and I think it's a stretch to say they "should" do it for anyone. The best way to put it is that they "can do so if they want." But you already knew that, because you have a brain.

Look- like any other fan, I want athletes to be nice. Especially the ones I cheer for. I can appreciate the occasional puff piece about one of them doing something really cool and charitable. But I'm not so much of an entitled prong as to think that any athlete owes fans anything. They owe their teammates, coaches, and management something. But they don't owe me shit. They don't work with me or for me. End of discussion. If you think otherwise I suggest you get your head out of your retum. When an athlete signs autographs, I say "Awesome! That guy rules!" When they refuse to, I shrug and feel neutral about it.

Hey, it’s a free country. Rodgers has an inalienable right to choose to behave like an ass.

Fuck the charity work the guy does, and all the other autographs he's ever signed in his life-including one for this very fan-this incident proves that Rodgers should be skewered by the media.

And the rest of us have an inalienable right to tell anyone who’ll listen that he’s behaving like an ass.

ExACTly. Good for you, Florio. This is a much easier way of generating pageviews than your normal method of making up trade/transaction rumors. Way to be the watchdog who makes sure no athlete gets away with snubbing an autograph seeker. AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW WHEN THIS KIND OF THING HAPPENS. HOW ELSE WILL WE KNOW WHO TO HATE FOR NO GOOD REASON?

Rodgers needs to realize that without people like Jan Cavanaugh, whose passion for pro football prompted her to go to the airport after a radiation treatment in the hopes of getting Rodgers to sign the pink hat with the Packers logo that she always wears, make his entire lifestyle possible. Otherwise, he’d be no different than a guy who’s really good at throwing darts or horseshoes or cornhole bags. He’d derive personal satisfaction from the use of his God-given skills, but not much if any money.

And Florio needs to realize that people like Cavanaugh might be slightly disappointed if they don't get an autograph, but they will continue to watch NFL games on TV, attend them when possible, buy NFL merchandise, and generally structure their entire lives around the NFL. Like most others in the world, our country is sports-obsessed. Our star athletes can more or less do whatever they want off the field as long as they don't kill anyone.

Do I hope that every person who wants an autograph gets one, especially when the person is a cancer patient? Of course. I've also heard of a man named Barry Bonds, who was a shameless user of illegal drugs (and eventual cheater once baseball got around to officially banning those drugs) and a world class asshole who treated 90% of the people he ever met like complete trash. Barry made a kajillion dollars throughout the course of his career and to this day remains wildly popular with a large number of fans. Why? Because he was good at what he did. And throughout the course of the modern history of sports, there have been hundreds and hundreds of Bondses. Rodgers isn't the Bonds of quarterbacking in terms of skill level, of course, but he's not a long ways off. And that's why is doesn't fucking matter whether he signs autographs or not.

We hope this strikes a chord with all pro athletes. The fans are the reason you get paid the big bucks. And it would be wise to show some gratitude, especially when it’s obvious that one of those fans isn’t blessed with good health.

Now I'm starting to think Florio himself was snubbed by a player at some point and is still carrying a grudge about it.

We also hope that Rodgers and/or the Packers track down Jan Cavanaugh and make it up to her. The fact that Rodgers would crap on a rare moment of happiness for someone whose entire life in consumed by fighting the disease and contending with the physical, mental, and emotional effects of it should make the stomach churn of anyone who has cancer, or who has seen a loved one stricken by it.

Jan Cavanaugh, what say you about this whole deal? (From the news link at the top of the post)

"I am very unhappy with people making so much out of this, because this really isn't that big of a deal. It's up to the players to decide who they want to give an autograph to, and that's their prerogative."

Three cheers for you, lady. You just made me hate the Packers a little less.

Suspicions, Steroids and the Hall of Fame

Just trollin' around the internets these days, looking for interesting articles to enjoy and miserable articles to mock. Here's one of the latter, by Dan Graziano over at AOL FanHouse: Jeff Bagwell a 'No' for This Hall of Fame Voter. According to Mr. Graziano, if it looks like a steroid user, it must have been a steroid user. Since Jeff Bagwell in 2000 had big arms, he shouldn't be in the HOF.

Now, looking at Jeff Bagwell's hilarious 1991 Topps RC, which I probably have somewhere stashed in a plastic sheath, it's obvious that the mulleted and high-hatted rookie Bagwell bears little resemblance to the goateed basher of 2000. But that doesn't make a man a steroid user. For a reasoned, logical argument that seems to disprove some of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Bagwell suspicions, read this intelligent post from Arjuna Subramanian at the Washington Post blogs.

Anyways, on to the Graziano article:

No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I'm suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked. I'd rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have.

As soon as I read this paragraph, I knew I wasn't going to agree with the rest of it. On the whole, his entire premise (summed up, like any good English Composition Theme, in his thesis at the end of this paragraph) seems sort of silly to me. He's withholding his vote because he's afraid of what his future self might think of his current self. Sounds to me he's a guy who's more concerned with his own morality than with the baseball Hall of Fame.

I understand the position of those voters (and non-voters, for that matter) who insist it's not fair to take such an action without hard proof. Understand it and actually agree.

This is a bit of a distortion, because the rest of his article contradicts it. Pretending to agree when you actually don't is an effective strategy early in a debate. I can see how this would work in lots of other cases:

Average Man: I understand the position of my wife, who insists it's not fair to hit on her sister. Understand it and actually agree. But she's still smokin' hot. It's not even slightly fair.

Average President of the United States: I understand the position of those Republicans (and non-Republicans) who insist it's not fair to tax millionaires more than paupers. Understand it and actually agree. But I'm still going to try to let some of these tax breaks expire. It's not even slightly fair.

It's not even slightly fair. But it's the world in which we voters and Bagwell and his fellow Hall candidates now live -- a world of the cheaters' creation. If Bagwell's upset about it, and if he truly is innocent, then he has my apology, but I'd also advise him to seek one from McGwire and Palmeiro and all of his peers and contemporaries who decided they had to cheat and break the law in order to play baseball better.

Again, that just seems like a real dick move to Bagwell. Rather than do the actual legwork of investigating Bagwell, or reading about Bagwell, or even outlining any of his circumstantial theories against Bagwell, he's just going to blame those other guys.

Average man: If she's upset about it, and if she truly is innocent, than she has my apology, but I'd also advise her to seek one from her sister, who decided she had to slink around in all those sexy black cocktail dresses at all these family parties in order to celebrate Christmas better.

Average President of the United States: It's not even slightly fair. But it's the world in which these millionaires and their Republicans now live - a world of the millionaires' creation. If they're upset about it, then they have my apologies, but I'd also advise them to seek one from Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay and all of their peers and contemporaries who decided they had to cheat and break the law in order to make money better.

Bagwell insists he's innocent, which is what you'd expect him to do whether he is or isn't. The Steroid Era (and the supposedly post-Steroid Era) has shown us repeatedly that the cheaters don't admit to anything until they've been caught -- and that even then they'll only admit to the exact thing for which they were caught, nothing more. Bagwell surely wouldn't be the first to passionately deny guilt only to later be proven guilty. So with all due respect to the man's words, I don't think they're worth very much in this debate.

Well, just because a bunch of other guys did it doesn't mean that Bagwell did it. I, too, don't know that Bagwell did or did not do steroids; I just think it's wrong to smear a guy because of what other guys did.

This isn't about whether I believe what Bagwell says.

Yes, it is. That's why you devoted the previous paragraph to addressing just that.

It's about suspicions I harbored long before he spoke out on the issue. It's about where he played and when he played and the teammates with whom he played and a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence that I readily admit wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

All of which you don't even mention, Mr. Graziano. Are you referring to the Houston Astros at a particular time? Are you referring specifically to Ken Caminiti? It's nice of you to admit that your evidence is circumstantial, but it certainly decreases my confidence in it if you don't even mention what it is.

But this isn't a court of law. This is a Hall of Fame vote. I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to cast a vote for any candidate in either direction. I could refuse to vote for someone because I didn't like him personally, though I think that would be wrong. I could refuse to vote for somebody based on racial or ethnic or religious grounds, though I think that would be despicable.

This paragraph is a specific appeal to the moral senses of the readers - we're supposed to think that since Mr. Graziani treats his HOF vote with such moral care, he's a trustworthy voter. But isn't it still rather immoral to evaluate a man's entire life life and career based on stereotypical assumptions and unstated circumstantial evidence?

I could withhold a vote because I don't want people in the Hall of Fame who have blue eyes, or owned cats, or ever played on a Texas team. It's my vote, and the only standards to which I am beholden are my own.

You could, but you'd be an asshole. Since that's not your criteria, you want us to believe you're not an asshole. But you are withholding your vote because of what a bunch of other assholes did, so you're kind of being an asshole here.

So yeah. I'm suspicious of Bagwell, and what that means is right now he doesn't get my vote. If he registers a "yes" with 75 percent of the electorate, then congratulations to him, he earned his way in. If he doesn't, I promise to grant him my full consideration in every future year in which he appears on the ballot, as I do with every candidate every year.

No you won't, because you're basing your consideration not on his candidacy, but on what a bunch of other guys did.

But where I am with the PED guys is I don't vote for them. I haven't voted for McGwire or Palmeiro. Right now, I don't plan to vote for Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds.

I wouldn't vote for any of them either, because we have hard evidence on each.

I could change my mind, but that's where I am right now on the issue. And in order to be consistent with that position, I don't feel I can vote for anybody I suspect, even if that standard casts an unfairly wide net.

How do you determine your suspicions? Other than hitting a lot of home runs, having big biceps, and playing with Ken Caminiti, I'm not sure what Jeff Bagwell has done to merit your suspicion.

People will hate this position, and I understand that.

No, you don't. I hate it because it's stupid, and if you understood that, you wouldn't write articles claiming it's a good position. Stop claiming you understand. What you really mean is:
"People will hate this position, and I think I understand why, but my moral high ground here means that I am too worried about my feelings ten years from now to understand why."

But I offer this in my defense: we writers who covered the game during the Steroid Era are often criticized for not reporting more skeptically based on the suspicions we harbored then. And while much of that criticism is justified, I believe the fact that we and our newspapers could have been subject to legal action for such reporting works in our defense.

Lame. There are journalists around the world who are investigating much weightier topics and pursuing all kinds of interesting stories, and they're not cowed by the possible repercussions. Wars, politics, government, and the like - somehow reporters have the courage to cover these topics. Would that baseball writers had that fortitude.

The withholding of a Hall of Fame vote based on suspicion of illegal activity is not the same as writing a newspaper story accusing someone of illegal activity.

Yeah, it's just a safe way to complain about steroids a decade after your voice was really needed.

I'm not accusing Jeff Bagwell of taking steroids or any other performance-enhancing drug. I'm just saying I'm suspicious. The five players for whom I voted this year -- Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Barry Larkin, Jack Morris and Tim Raines -- escape my suspicion, and I admit I could be wrong about any or all of them, too. But all any of us can do is the best we can with our individual ballots. And if you don't like mine, I'm sorry. But now at least you know the thinking behind it.

Several things:
1.Well, if you voted for Jack Morris, you've got standards low enough to make me discount your opinion on Hall of Fame matters.
2. In the last several years we've realized more and more that steroid users were not just home run hitters (Pettite, Clemens, Brian Roberts, Neifi f'n Perez, Matt Lawton, etc (per Mitchell Report))... why exactly do these five gentlemen escape suspicion?

Of course, the debate over the HOF criteria in the steroid era is just beginning - if this blog is around for the next few years, I can imagine the torrents of articles just like this one. I hope the crusade of baseball purists correctly evaluates players based on evidence and context, and that means doing the hard work of investigating and deciding just who belongs and who doesn't. Not throwing out every big-muscled baby in the needle-strewn bathwater.

A Staggering Display of Idiocy

This is the article that dude emailed me way back when. It's old as hell. That's OK. It's still worth going over. Pull up your socks, everyone. This is going to get rough. Mets beat writer Marty Noble wants all of us to know: we is dumber than him is.

The final word on Alomar and the HOF...until next year

Yeeeeeah. I can see you nodding. You knew it was going to be good, but a HOF article? Betcha weren't expecting that. Yup. It's gonna be goooooooooood.

Amazed, amused and somewhat disappointed I am,

OK, Yoda.

having read and heard the uproar caused by my Hall of Fame ballot. How dare I not vote for Robbie Alomar and Bert Blyleven? How senseless it was for me to check Dave Parker.

Parker has crummy credentials. Blyleven (or should I say CRYleven) has been discussed way too much here so I won't get into him. Aaaaand... not voting for Alomar is dumb.

I should have my voting privileges - or, as one outraged All-Star speller wrote, "privledges" - revoked.

There are 21 comments on Marty's post. I think about 17 of them point out to him that he has misspelled numerous words throughout it. It's always great when sportswriters have pot/kettle problems.

My mistake. Mea culpa, mea culpa. If only I knew what I was talking about, I would have devised a method to determine how all others voters would act and then submit a ballot that matched the consensus. Nothing like unanimity to sooth the masses and silence an uproar before it develops.

Right, great point. When people attack you for not voting for someone who they think is deserving, I mean, technically they're attacking you for not "match[ing] the consensus." Great straw man. "How dare you criticize me for not falling in line!" No, dipshit. They're criticizing you for not making a good decision based on whether or not Alomar was a Hall of Fame caliber player. This is like someone cutting a line of 50 people waiting to get into a bar, and then responding to their booing by claiming that they're just upset that you're too much of an independent thinker to follow the rules.

It seems a good number of people are opposed to independent thought, which begs the question "Why vote at all?" Anyone whose OPS exceeds half of Barry Bonds' in 2003 or whose WHIP is comparable to Roger Clemens' gets in automatically.

No one is opposed to independent thought, and no one with a brain thinks "automatic" qualifications would be a good idea. we're just opposed to idiocy. Let's keep moving so I can establish for the nice readers exactly what I'm talking about.

From much of what I've read, any player who had distinguished himself for an extended period ought to be inducted immediately upon retirement regardless of whatever else he has done, be it steroid use, wagering on the game or spitting in the face of of the on-field authority.

Another GREAT straw man. "Well, a lot of people think players who did bad things should be let in no matter what! You don't want that, DO YOU?" Look, Alomar did something dumb. He did it once, in the heat of a moment, got suspended, paid his dues, and then kept on playing. Was it reprehensible? Sure. Was it juvenile? Absolutely. Is it worth getting your panties in a bundle over the fact that it happened? Once? Not at all. To compare steroid use or betting on the game to one hot-headed moment (that unlike some hot-headed baseball moments, see: Young, Delmon, didn't threaten anyone's safety) is moronic.

I enjoy the exercise of voting, of annually using the perspective gained in nearly 40 years at the ballpark to decide who is deserving of my vote and who isn't. It hardly is life and death, but it is important to me. I choose carefully. I have to be convinced - each year -- of a candidate's worthiness before I check the box next to his name.

And somehow... Dave Parker... OK.

Alomar wasn't worthy this time. Call it punishment if you choose.

Mr. Tough Guy over here.

He did voilate an understood code of behavior. We don't spit at others, Johnny.

And I'm sure Marty has never done anything in the heat of a moment that he wishes he hadn't. I'm not saying he's ever spat on someone. Just saying, that's really not the kind of thing that should be swinging HOF votes. Gambling and steroids, sure. To quote Pulp Fiction, they ain't the same ballpark, they ain't the same league, they ain't even the same fucking sport.

I never have been convinced that Blyleven meets what I see as the Hall of Fame standard; too many losses.

Of all the anti-Blyleven arguments out there, this one is by far the worst, which is saying a lot. Better get Cy Young and his 316 losses out of Cooperstown. Nolan Ryan (292), Walter Johnson (279), Phil Niekro (274)? Out, out, out.

Until this year, my view was shared by at least 35 percent of the electorate.

WELL GOSH, SINCE YOU GUYS ALL AGREE, LET'S JUST HAVE IDENTICAL BALLOTING. LET'S JUST TELL ALL THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR HIM TO FALL IN LINE AND NOT VOTE FOR HIM. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT YOU REALLY WANT, MARTY.

Now people on the radio and television who never have been around the game on a daily basis

Easily the stupidest reason stupid sportswriters give to support their stupid opinions/reasoning. Has been discussed extensively here and on other blogs, so I don't need to go into it again here. But really, Marty, fuck you and fuck your "experience."

are calling for a change in the voting because this year merely 73.7 percent of 539 ballots cast included checks for Alomar. The best second baseman I ever saw received 395 votes and came closer to election than any other first-time candidate who feel short.

Is that... good? That's like being the best AAA player of all time who never played in the majors.

And the ripple effect of that vote ought to be that the system be overhauled? Now I will ask the question. Are you serious?

I don't think the voting process needs to be overhauled. I do think we should be waiting longer (15 years?) after players retire before voting on them. And they shouldn't stay on the ballot any longer than 5 years.

So if eight others had voted for Alomar, the system would been deemed acceptable and allowed to remain in place to determine whether Blyleven, Tim Raines, Barry Bonds, Derek Jeter and Johan Santana are Hall of Fame worthy. Eight more votes would have made all of us look so much wiser? Are you serious?

Look, it's not about Alomar. It's about a long history of cuntery on the part of numerous BBWA members.

I was unaware first-year election was the undeniable right of a player who committed an on-field misdemeanor

Well I certainly hope you wouldn't have voted for Ty Cobb on the first ballot. Sure, he had the highest batting average of all time, but he went into the stands and beat up a dude in a wheelchair who had been heckling him once. As awesome as that sounds I think it counts as a misdemeanor.

and occasionally left his motivation in his locker.

Well that's a nice, easy, objective criterion. Roberto Alomar: THE ANTI-ECKSTEIN.

I'm pretty sure Alomar hasn't been banned from the Hall. His inclusion on the next ballot is certain. His election borders on foregone conclusion. I will vote for him next year, not because I've been persuaded by the harsh outcry of those without voting privileges (and some with), but because that has been my intention since I received the last ballot.

Because that makes sense. Just like it made sense for some of those fucktard voters to not put Rickey Henderson in on the first ballot.

As I early this month that Alomar didn't deserve my vote this time.

No verb! Typo!!!!!

He offended me - and the game - by spitting in John Hirschbecks's face and by his occasionally compromised effort.

And now you're handing down a punishment. But ask yourself this- does that make any sense? Or as you might say, "Are you serious?" What does that prove? How is that a good and sensible usage of a hard-earned voting privilege? Either Alomar was HOF worthy or he wasn't. Time might shed a little light on how good he was relative to players from subsequent eras, but other than that, it changes nothing. It's a fucking travesty that Jim Rice got in after 15 years on the ballot. And another that Blyleven will probably have to wait until his 14th year to do the same. Really, let's just cut the bullshit by cutting the years. I said above that I think players should be on the ballot for no more than 5 years. But if you think about it, assuming you wait long enough after their retirement (for any dirt on steroids or other information that voters might find relevant to come out) to put them up for election... is there any good reason the voters should need more than one or two years? Either you were good enough or you weren't. Rarely do I think anything is this simple, but at least for the moment, I'm willing to think it here.

Now Alomar waits a year. Whitey Ford was elected in his second year on the ballot, Ralph Kiner was elected in his final year of eligibility, receiving one ballot more than he needed. Kiner is one of the most distinguished gentlemen in the game. No spit! And Alomar will be just as much a Hall of Famer as gentleman Kiner next year if enough of the electorate looks past his transgressions and sees what a terrific player he was.

Ah, classic justification. "We've been making this same dumb mistake for years... why should we stop now? I say that when Ken Griffey Jr. comes up for election, we make him wait THREE years! Just for the fuck of it!"

If mine had been the lone dissenting vote on Alomar's candidacy, or if it had sentenced the second baseman to 50 years of HOF exile with no chance of parole, then, by all means, question my ballot. But 143 other voters found fault with Alomar.

"We all think alike! How could we be wrong??" Oh wait, that's pretty much the same point he made earlier in the article. It certainly works so much better here though. Remember- if you just want everyone to vote the same way, you're an asshole. But on the other hand, if someone disagrees with your vote, make sure you cite to all the people who voted the same way you did to prove that your point is legitimate.

And I only can assume the fault they found was in his behavior not the totality of his performance. He spat at an umpire. Where else can that be done without someone being offended by it or without some consequence? What would have happened if he had lost his composure outside the ballpark and spat at a cop?

Hmm. This is such a ridiculous question that I'm really having a hard time imagining Marty thinking that it could be legitimately passed off as rhetorical. But I'll treat it as such because writing this post is tiring. It's like trying to explain the physics behind planetary motion to a three year old.

I've been told I shouldn't consider Alomar's behavior off-the-field, and that makes me chuckle. May I point out that what I view as his transgressions happened on the field.

You sly dog! Master of logic and argument!

And to those who say because Babe Ruth caroused and Ty Cobb did whatever he did and gained election anyway, all subsequent candidates should be measured as Ruth and Cobb seemingly were - with one eye closed. . .To those folks, I say the instructions that come with the ballot direct voters to consider integrity and character. I never had the chance not to vote for Ruth and Cobb.

Wow, he really might not have. That's incredible. At least that would be some consistency. Idiotic consistency, but still.

Why should Alomar be treated as Joe Morgan, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, and Ryan Sandberg were, as Derek Jeter

Classy guy! So classy! Oozes class. Bleeds class. Invented the idea of class. Has he ever done anything to establish this? No. He's just a good player for a popular team. But just ask any Marty Noble out there- classy guy.

will be, when he has fallen short of the standards they have established/maintained? Or should we create a special corridor within the Hall for players without rap sheets?

No. We should just put the best baseball players of all time in the Hall of Fame, and let the other stuff play out as it does. Fans know Cobb was an asshole. Fans know Ruth was a drunken moron. That's OK- doesn't really affect their overall status alongside the Ripkens and Gwynns. It makes them different, but certainly not unworthy of enshrinement.

Since my vote and reasons for it appeared on this Web site, other people in the game have expressed reservations about Alomar's candidacy. A radio interviewer in Baltimore said during our time on the air that, during his time with the Orioles, Alomar performed as expected four games out of six and that he often seemed disinterested.

Whoa. Come on now. We can't just publish anything as fact if someone called it in on a radio show. At least find someone on the internet who says that Alomar was lazy.

Players, general managers, announcers and writers I have known were startled by periods of disinterest by a player so well equipped otherwise. We've talked about them, not as gossip, but a gathering of information so that our accounts of games would be properly shaded if Alomar's performance on a given day was pertinent.

Right, so, you're convinced he's lazy. Which means you will vote him into the HOF the second time you have the opportunity- not the first. Makes sense.

People in my business who are at the park everyday have hundreds of conversations each year - on planes, in airports, in cabs and at he batting cages. Opposing managers will inquire. "Hey, what's up with so and so? Our scout tells me. . ." People without that sort of entry aren't privy to that perspective.

I KNOW PEOPLE. I TALK TO THEM ABOUT BASEBALL. I AM BETTER INFORMED ABOUT BASEBALL THAN YOU ARE BECAUSE I AM FRIENDS WITH THE PEOPLE IN MY BUSINESS AND WE ALL KNOW MORE THAN YOU DO.

They get their perspective from Web Gems,

By using it in this context, it's obvious you have no idea what those are.

box scores

Yeah, and extensive video highlights and statistics (besides AB R H BI).

and 20-20 updates

You also don't seem to know what these are.

and what we write.

Occasionally. Beat writers such as yourself are good sources for information on trade rumors, injury-related stuff, information about who the manager plans on giving more/less playing time to, those kinds of things. You're pretty useless otherwise. I certainly don't need you to tell me who's playing well and who isn't. And given your kind's penchant for occasionally holding grudges, I also don't need you to tell me who's playing hard and who isn't. Fuck that.

Few of the voices that have the public ear are at ballparks as often and for as many hours as the laziest baseball writer.

Yeah, sitting in the press box is really so much different than watching the game on TV and reading about it later. Good God in heaven. The day idiots like Noble drop the I GO TO THE BALLPARK AND YOU DON'T thing can't come soon enough.

Consider my take on Alomar. Dismiss it if you choose,

Definitely didn't need your permission to do that.

take it as gospel if you're so inclined. But it is an outlook formed carefully and without prejudice.

Riiiiiiiiiight

In my time watching the game, he was as skilled a position player as any with the exceptions of Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Bonds before his head grew, Griffey, Rickey and Beltran and a half dozen others.

But what I saw of him playing on a regular basis said he didn't play the game with the equal motivation everyday. Adn

TYPO

when his skills eroded and he no longer was a magical second baseman, he didn't care about his performance.

I have been stunned by the silly proposals that others - besides BBWAA members of 10-year standing - should vote or even replace us as the electorate.

Well, since a lot of you are stupid, I don't think that should be stunning. Then again, if you're stupid like Marty seems to be, you might be stunned by just about anything that makes sense.

No sports hall of fame has prestige remotely close to that of the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Questionable assertion.

How do you all suppose that came to pass? To a great degree the prestige is a result of the way BBWAA members have voted - with two discerning eyes open wide and with objectivity.

Right, because "he wasn't trying hard" is an objective determination.

We have elected merely 109 players over the years.

Not every House, Hall and Hanebrink -- Tom, Dick and Harry - even appears on the BBWAA ballot, and players of high quality - Vada Pinson, Steve Busby, Ted Simmons, Mike Cuellar, Dan Quisenberry, Robin Ventura and Keith Hernandez - often disappear from the ballots after few years. We are a discriminating group. I can't explain and won't defend votes for David Segui or, a few years back, Jim Deshaies. But those sorts of votes are in the tiny minority.

Not voting for Alomar or Henderson on their first ballot is roughly as stupid.

The undeserving seldom gain election by the BBWAA vote. And if a candidate waiting one year in some way assures that result, then let him wait and hope he handles it as Kiner did, with class and without whining.

IN A JETERIAN MANNER.

Some have endorsed the idea of having the Hall of Famers themselves vote. Has anyone noticed how few candidates they elect now that they do have a second-look say? Once they have gained the elite status they are of a mind to maintain it.

But it's a good thing the writers are so discerning, as we just learned.

I've distributed and collected the ballots of players who've been asked to vote All-Star teams for The Sporting News, and I've heard their arguments about Hall of Fame candidacy. The Hall would need a new wing every other year if players voted.

No one is suggesting that. It would definitely be a terrible idea though.

Good players who work diligently at their craft often are on players' unsent ballots. If effort were enough, Mookie Wilson, Juan Pierre and Jay Payton would be in the Hall. Friends and players who have succumbed to injury would be too.

And those who have their noses pressed against their computer screens and think VORP is a valid means of measuring a player's performance

Pwned. Pwnpwnpwnpwnpwnpwn. Got a comeback for that one, nerdy nerds? Way to think that a statistic which measures how much better a player is than bad players is legitimate in ANY way. NERDS. (Not that I'm the biggest SABR advocate ever- in fact, the FanGraphs crowd annoys me more often than they make me nod along in agreement- but I really don't think it's unreasonable to attach the adjective "valid" to VORP.)

ought to get a life and a credential that would allow them to see and hear the game up close.

So you can hang out with the Marty Nobles of the world and REALLY see how dumb many sportswriters are.

Then determine the players whose numbers actually contribute to winning and those who are equipped only add the next run in a 15-3 game.

Again, like he just said- writers only use objective standards to evaluate players.

And, while they're at it, they ought to take a breath.

Of delicious basement air.

Alomar's close enough to the Hall to grab the doorknob. That he's not already shoulder to shoulder with Andre Dawson is his own doing, not the fault of the electorate.

Just as it wasn't the ref's fault that the US didn't win their game against Slovenia- it was their own fault for going down 2-0 in the first place. And when someone breaks into your car to steal your stereo, that's not their fault- it's yours for parking there and having a stereo in the first place. And if a restaurant screws up your order? Not the waiter's fault- your fault for ordering the wrong thing. Etc., etc. Anyone who actually thinks this way should find the nearest street and jump in front of the first bus they see. "Fault" isn't quite the right word, but yes, Marty- it is the "fault" of mouth-breathers like you that Alomar isn't in the hall yet. You're too busy taking pointless holier-than-thou stances on irrelevant issues to just elect the best players. It's cute that the guidance manual says that you should consider character, but I have a hard time believing that whoever wrote that line intended it to be used to keep a guy with 10+ great seasons out for a year because he lost his cool and quasi-assaulted an ump once. Good fucking grief.

I hate baseball writers more than anything else in the world.