Look

Reasonable minds can disagree.  But in my opinion, if you'd rather a team owned by a card-carrying asshole and played for by at least five card-carrying jerks (Westbrook, Ibaka, Collison, Fisher, Perkins) win a title over LeBron, U MAD.  Go Heat.  I certainly hope they never win another with this nucleus, but this one was deserved and enjoyable.  And fuck the Thunder and their basketball hipster fans in the earhole.

Also, as I typed this, we returned from commercial and were all treated to the following:

PA Announcer: And now ladies and gentlemen, direct your attention to center court for the presentation of the Larry O'Brien trophy and the Bill Russell MVP trophy...  PLEASE WELCOME STUART SCOTT!!!!

That has the same ring to it as "Ladies and gentlemen, you asked for them, you got them... NICKELBACK!!!"  And I'm not going to link to it, but I hope you saw it on Grantland a month or two ago; surprise among surprises, Klosterman thinks Nickelback is SECRETLY SUPER UNDERRATED.  What a chode.  Now let's get the mic to Stuart so he can buttfuck his way through the simple line he had days and days to rehearse.

SS:  Thank you.  Here to present the Larry O'Bryphen trophy

Cue up my main man Carl.

... Larry O'Brien trophy... David Stern.

Which is kind of like Nickelback introducing Jay Mariotti.  Also worth noting that Stern thanked "the wonderful fans of South Florida."  As my first few sentences make clear, I was rooting for Miami in part because OKC's fans are a bunch of entitled dust bowl fatsos who were born on third and think they hit a triple (in the context of sports fandom).  But whoa, UH OH, let's not get carried away with praise for Miami's worthless/barely existant fans.  Stern's use of "wonderful" there reminds me of Louis CK's bit.

Also, I know Chris W was counting, and unfortunately this year the NBA playoffs only lasted 55 days.

Make an immediate run for the Canadian border if Gregg Doyel is ever elected president

Bask in the glow of Gregg's mind-bogglingly stupid stance on how we should form public policy.

In the case of The United States v. Roger Clemens, the government thinks it's helping somebody. Not metaphorically or symbolically, but literally. The government thinks this is good. This is something we want.

No, the government thinks it's something the government wants, because the government really doesn't want people to perjure themselves in front of federal authorities.

This is helping.

Yes. A conviction will help, because the next time some asshole like Clemens is in front of Congress or a grand jury they'll be less inclined to be like GRRRRRR I AM ANGRY AND I LIKE LYING SO I WILL LIE NOW AND THEN I WILL THROW THIS PIECE OF A BROKEN BAT AT ORRIN HATCH BECAUSE HE'S AN ASSHOLE.

The government thinks this trial will remind everyone -- that's you, and that's me -- that lying under oath is wrong.

Assuming Clemens is found guilty or pleads to something, will it not? Will that result make you say "Nah, fuck it, I'm going to keep on perjuring myself anytime I get a chance. It's a fucking rush."

The government also thinks this trial will serve as a lesson for all you kids out there that steroids are bad. Don't take them, little Johnny Ballplayer. This is your reminder. That's what the government thinks.

Here's what I think about The United States v. Roger Clemens: I think the government's case is run by idiots.

Ohhhhh snap

This isn't a Tea Party rant about Big Government sticking its nose into our affairs. And this isn't a liberal plea for compassion toward Clemens, because he has been through so much already. No. This is neither of those.

I don't think you could find 10 people in the entire country with knowledge of the basic facts of this case who hold that "liberal" opinion.

This is steroid fatigue. That's all this is.

I see. The government's interest in showing people that lying to Congress will not be tolerated bores you. Hey everyone, Gregg is ready for something new- can we get some fresh news going on here? Can't the government just let this go and do something awesome like bomb the shit out of North Korea or give free money to everyone?

I'm tired of the whole issue, and I'm preaching to the choir because I know you're tired of it. And the irony doesn't elude me, because here I am complaining about steroid fatigue even as I slog through another set of steroid-story dumbbells.

I'm not tired of it. I want blood! Let's see this fucker get strung up! Eat a penis, Clemens. You're the worst.

Maybe I'm the dumbbell.

Yep.

Nah. The government is the dumbbell, because this is stupid.

No, you were right the first time. Also- what's with the government worrying about all this terrorism stuff? Ugh, it's been like 10 years. Can't they busy themselves with something else? Terrorism this terrorism that. BORING.

Christ. What a fucking asshole.

After Careful Consideration, Dayn Perry Decides that Winning is Good

Have you been wondering which MLB teams "need" to get off to a fast start this season? Here's the answer!

First, the painfully obvious.

Why are you writing it then? And leading your article with it, no less?

Look over baseball's six divisions and wild-card races and you'll find few clear favorites.

You can all see where this is going.

The Yanks, Red Sox or Rays in the AL East? The Dodgers, Snakes or even Giants in the NL West? Mets, Braves or Phillies? Heck, you can make a case for any team in the AL Central. And that's to say nothing of the crowded wild-card frays. In fact, only the Cubs stand as clear divisional favorites. Likely, this will result in quite a few close races, and that means every game — for every contender — will be important.

So a good half, maybe even 2/3 of all teams, are "contenders." And all contenders must get off to good starts. Thus, nearly everyone must win games early in the season. This level of analysis is hurting my brain- did Joe Morgan ghost write this?

The silly emphasis on the September stretch drive

First time I've ever heard it described as silly. Mets fans might not agree.

obscures a vital fact: The games in April count just as much as the games in September.

The cliches are beginning to pile up- everyone get out while you still can!

If a team blows the division by a single game, then that 9-2 yawner of a loss in April is as much to blame as the white-knuckled 4-3 defeat on the season's final day.

(Larry B takes out abacus, plays with the beads in a meager attempt to confirm this crazy mathematical theory)

With so many tight races ahead, the playoff hopefuls can't afford slow starts.

By which you mean pretty much no one can afford a slow start. Other entries on Dayn's "Can't afford a slow start" list- pitchers, hitters, guys who are mostly used as defensive replacements, managers, umpires, and beer vendors.

I've heard more relevant analysis from players and coaches who get interviewed during their jog into the locker room at halftime of a football or basketball game.

OMG! Who Would U Want 2 B Ur New BFF?

Sportscenter continues its downward descent into retardery. I understand turning this kind of thing into a simple internet poll, but how insulting is it to make the lead story on a Thursday night edition of the nation's premier sports news program: "TO, A-Rod, or Manny- who would you want to be your teammate?" Because that's what happened tonight. Here's my answer to that, anonymous ESPN program director: who gives a shit? What is this, an "Us Weekly" poll? How about instead of asking dumb and meaningless questions like that, you instead just report the news (the relevant news) and show some fucking highlights. Now, I'm not saying that those three guys aren't all relevant stories right now. They are. But why must they all be packaged together, in an invitation to the masses to pick which of the three would make the best teammate? That's the worst possible way to present those stories. The absolute worst. Sportscenter is quickly becoming worse than chlamydia.

The sad part is, there are millions of cable viewers out there tonight who thought this was a totally relevant and fun way to look at the stories surrounding these three guys. These pinheads thrive off of comparing apples to oranges to bananas, particularly when there's absolutely no need to make the comparison in the first place. Fuck this country. I don't mind our politics, or wealth disparity, or any of that stuff a lot of people cite as reasons for disliking us. I just hate 90% of the people who live here. Jesus fucking Christ, people. Stop pandering to this shit. SAVE US, LE ANN SCHREIBER. Dear Lord.

Oh, and for what it's worth, if I had a vote, I'm going for Manny. He seems like a cool dude! TO and A-Rod are selfish, and more importantly they aren't "winners!" Yay for useless polls!

Rick Reilly- Unfunny by Any Standard

This is a bit of a throwaway post, but-

1) If I tried to give either of these things I'm about to link a full FireJay treatment, I might end up drop kicking my computer out of my window.

2) We haven't posted in a while. Gotta give the people what they want.

So... there isn't a lot to say... other than I'm simply and completely shocked that this guy gets paid to sit around and think this stuff up. I'd rather he write a thousand heart-warming pieces about blind midget rugby players with irregular heartbeats than one more vomit-inducing attempt at comedy.

LAWLZ, WHAT IF WES HAD A MACHINE DAT MADE COACHEZ SAY WHATZ DEY RLY MEEN

OH NOES, LOOK AT DEEZ FUNNY WAYZ DUH CUBS COULD LOSE EVEN DOUGH DEY DONT MAKE SENS

Boooooooooooooo. Rick Reilly is somehow less clever than Jay Mariotti.

Dayn Perry Sits Down, Writes Meaningless Article, Cashes Paycheck, Laughs Maniacally

Someone, anyone, tell me why this article needed to be written. I'll give you zero guesses, because there is no right answer and I don't want to waste either of our time(s).

This year, wild card is hurting, not helping

For the most part, the wild card has been a good thing for Major League Baseball.

Correct. In fact, if I had to quantify it, I'd say the wild card has been good for MLB at a 99% rate of success.

Since the expanded playoff format was introduced prior to the 1995 season, we've seen more teams in contention, more teams making headline-grabbing trades at the deadline, and, in a related matter, increased fan interest.

Mmmmmmm-hmmmmmm.

After all, without the wild card, the 2004 Red Sox, 2002 Angels, and 2003 and 1997 Marlins wouldn't have been able to win the World Series in the first place.

I like the use of "after all" here, as if people really needed convincing that the wild card is good. It's like he's trying to justify something controversial like tax increases or immigration reform.

The wild card also means that intra-divisional rivals can meet in the LCS (as did the Rockies and Diamondbacks in 2007; Astros and Cardinals in 2004 and 2005; Red Sox and Yankees in 1999, 2003 and 2004; Braves and Mets in 1999; Braves and Marlins in 1997, and Yankees and Orioles in 1996), which lends some high-stakes tensions to the respective blood feuds.

As a Rockies fan, I have to say that they don't exactly have a "blood feud" with the Diamondbacks. But whatever. Even a big market team hater like me has to admit the 2003 and 2004 ALCSes were amazing.

So it's all good, right?

Right. Aaaaaaaaaaand... the article should end here.

Sure, the wild card has added drama to the regular season and engaged more fans in more cities.

You're dawdling. Get to your dumbassery.

However, let's not forget that the wild card comes with a cost. That cost is the division race between two or more truly great teams.

Wow. Since I'm a hyperorganized person (that is a lie, but whatever), let's parse this with a list.

1) This is not necessarily true. This isn't exactly college-level math, but if each league has 3 (three) divisions and only grants 1 (one) wild card, that leaves 2 (two) divisions that will only have one team (their champion) making the playoffs. I'm not sure what Dayn's definition of "truly great" is, but if the AL East has two 100 win teams that both make the playoffs, and the AL Central has a 96 win team that makes the playoffs and a 95 win team that misses out on the last day of the season, isn't that pretty dramatic?

2) I'm pretty sure a wild card race that could include as many as four or five teams well into September is cooler than a two or three team division race. Which, like I already said, isn't even necessarily precluded by the wild card.

3) If you asked 100 baseball fans what the "cost" of the wild card is, maybe 10 of them would say what Dayn said. The other 90 would stare at you blankly.

Think about it: In the wild-card era, when two division rivals are among the best teams in the game there's often less at stake because the second-place team has the wild card berth to fall back on.

I guess. The degree to which this is a bad thing, however, is dramatically overshadowed by the degree to which this is a bad thing:

Remember the classic NL West race of '93, when the 104-win Braves won the division and the 103-win Giants failed to make the postseason?

Yeah. I was pretty young, but I remember that. And you know what? It sucked. What a shitty situation for that Giants team. And for the fans, consider this: which is cooler- the Braves clinching the division on the last day of the season by beating the Rockies while the Giants lost to the Dodgers, or the prospect of a compelling Braves/Giants NLCS?

Those days are mostly over, thanks to the "hedge effect" of the wild card.

And not a year too soon.

It so happens that the 2008 season may provide us with two more examples. Courtesy of the Playoff Odds Report over at Baseball Prospectus, let's have a look at which teams have the highest odds of winning the Wild Card in each league:

Red Sox: 42.8%
Rays: 28.1%
Yankees: 15.8%
Twins: 5.2%
White Sox: 3.1%

Brewers: 48.5%
Cardinals: 16.8%
Cubs: 13.7%
Phillies: 9.4%
Mets: 7.9%

Here's what I see in both leagues: an exciting race in one division, which will award two spots to three teams, and a great secondary race in another division in which two teams (possibly "great" teams, depending on your definition) will fight for one playoff spot. Pretty cool. What does Dayn see?

As you can see, in the AL the top three wild-card contenders, according to the system, are in the East. Over in the NL, the top three wild card contenders are in the Central. In fact, the system predicts that the Rays will take the East with 95 wins, and the Red Sox will win the wild card with 92 wins. In the senior circuit, the Cubs are tabbed to take the Central with 96 wins, and the Brewers are in line for the wild card with 90 wins.

This is in the article just so Dayn can meet his pre-determined minimum word count.

Therein lies the problem.

Certainly, in these kinds of situations you'd prefer to win the division (that's especially the case this season, when so many contenders can't seem to win on the road and thus badly need home-field advantage in the playoffs), but for the Red Sox, Rays, Cubs and Brewers (and perhaps the Yankees and Cardinals) it's likely not going to be a matter of life and death.

Read that again, and see if it gets less stupid. If you're like me, it won't. So we're saying... that because the Yankees are Cardinals are both likely to finish with good records but miss the playoffs... that's somehow undesirable? Because there aren't more teams missing the playoffs despite good records? Here's what I think is too bad: when a team like the 1993 Giants wins 103 games and misses the playoffs. (A roughly similar situation happened in 1987 in the AL, when the 96 win Blue Jays lost the East by 2 games while the 85 win Twins won the West. I didn't look any further back than that, but I assume it was a semi-regular occurrence during the pre-WC days.)

That's too bad.

You're not just stretching- you're stretching to get to the point where you could be construed as stretching. Ridiculous.

Imagine, if you will, the all-in scenario: two — maybe even three — teams from the AL East battling down the stretch for a single playoff spot, and now imagine the same scenario in the NL Central.

OK. It's kind of cool. But not as cool as the wild card.

Brewers-Cubs, separated by fewer than 100 miles? Cubs-Cardinals and their long-standing rivalry? Sox-Rays with all their recent bad blood? Sox-Yankees with all their historical bad blood? Each of those hypotheticals is a compelling one because of the histories and — in most cases — proximities involved.

And here's the key- each of them could easily still end up being a significant and compelling race. It's not that hard to imagine: take the two teams you want to match up, and now simply pretend that the third team in the division wins it. Pretty cool.

As for the scheduling possibilities, the Brewers end the regular season with a three-game home set against the Cubs, and the Red Sox, in customary fashion, end the season against the Yankees. Potentially, that would be two "all or nothing" series on the final weekend, each pairing up regional and divisional rivals. Obviously, such a turn of events is almost impossible now, thanks to the wild card.

Almost impossible, unless of course the Cardinals/Rays win their respective divisions. Pretty unlikely but still possible for the Cards; reasonably likely for the Rays. So... not that impossible.

To be fair, the wild card on occasion provides drama of a similar nature — the 1998, 1999 and 2007 seasons all provided us with one-game playoffs to determine the NL wild card.

Obviously.

However, most often those match-ups are going to lack the hostilities native to intra-divisional match-ups (last year's wild card playoff between the Rockies and Padres is an obvious exception),

Again, as a Rockies fan, let me confirm for you (in case you couldn't figure it out for yourself) that the Padres and them have no bad blood or hostility whatsoever. Didn't really make the game any less exciting, did it? I know that 9-8, 13 inning walkoffs are pretty unlikely. The next one game wild card playoff will probably be a 10-2 snoozefest. But still... yeah.

and they generally aren't going to involve genuinely great teams (after all, it is the wild card — most often a signifier of goodness rather than greatness).

Thank you for that completely arbitrary and meaningless distinction.

As mentioned, the institution of the wild card has been on balance a positive for baseball.

This is like saying that on balance, having a job will help you support a family.

But let's not pretend it's without costs.

I'm OK with pretending that. Or, If you really don't want me to, I won't. I'll go ahead and acknowledge that it has one tiny and pretty much insignificant cost. I'm comfortable with either option.

If the possibilities detailed above come to pass, then the wild card this season will deprive NL Central and AL East fans of something truly special.

Yes, it has the potential of depriving them of a winner-take-all divisional race. Any disappointment they feel in the aftermath of this, however, will probably be abated by the realization that two awesome teams just made the playoffs instead of just one. Not mentioned here: the fact that AL Central, AL West, NL East, and NL West fans will be unaffected. Also not mentioned here: Dayn Perry stinks.

BACKBACKBACKBACKBACKBACK........ GAWWWWWNNNNNNN!

Wow. What the fuck. I just rewatched pieces and parts of last year's home run derby, which was being shown on ESPN2. Of all the annoying things Chris Berman does, I think I have a new favorite: his referencing of local cities/landmarks when describing how far a home run went. During a total of maybe twenty minutes worth of HR derby, I think I heard him awkwardly drop in about fifteen Bay Area points of interest. Not once was it funny. Not once was it clever. Not once did it add to my enjoyment of the festivities. Which begs the question- assuming he's commentating tonight, what NYC-area locations will he blurt out? Follow along at home, and see how many you catch!

-Statue of Liberty!
-Empire State Building!
-Times Square!
-Central Park!
-Ellis Island!
-Staten Island/Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens!
-Laguardia/JFK!
-Mount Vernon!
-White Plains!
-Union City!
-Yonkers!
-Connecticut!
-Harlem/East/Hudson River!
-THE ATLANTIC OCEAN!
-CANADA!
-OUTER FUCKING SPACE!

I bet he hits at least 10, maybe 12 of those.

Also- I'd like to take this opportunity to mention two blogs that are pretty fucking awesome. The first might already be familiar to a few of you- it's BenGoodFella's blog The Bottom of the Barrel, and it's very well done. I think he does more work for it on his own than our entire "staff" of six writers does for this piece of crap. And it's funny, too. So basically... it's better than this blog. Damn.

The second is a little more random. I only found it by looking at all the sites that have linked us in the last month via Google Analytics. It only has six total posts, hasn't been updated since June 18th, and doesn't even allow outside comments. But in spite of its anonymity and relative lack of content, it fucking rules. It's called Fire Michael Ryan Gebhardt. Who's that guy? Just read it and find out. And if you're out there reading this, "The Jackal," please please please update your blog more regularly. This MRG dude sounds like a real zero- don't tell me you can't bait him into emailing stupid shit to you more often than once every three weeks.

That's all I've got for now. I'm off to HACKENSACK! in hopes of catching a home run tonight. Hey, if any of you regular readers or commenters have a blog that you think is better than ours, email a link to firejaymariotti@gmail.com. If it's any good I'd be happy to link it in a post like I did for these two guys.

Just Stop, Jerry. Fucking Stop.

Continuing the wave of short posts here on FireJay....

Hey everyone! Did you ever wonder which baseball players are good at stealing bases! No? You don't have a clue? You're not really a fan and have been stuck under a rock? Great! Jerry Crasnick just wrote this just for you! Would you ever have suspected that Juan Pierre is one of the best base-stealers in the league? How about Jose Reyes? He's so far removed from the public spotlight that you might never have noticed that he swipes a TON of bases!

If that crap doesn't define useless, Crasnick. I don't know what does. This is officially the first column that was not either blatantly wrong or written poorly that has gotten me really, really, REALLY pissed off. You need to find something else to do for a living, Jerry, because you're just flooding the world with stuff people didn't need you to tell them. I have no idea how ESPN doesn't notice just how little you contribute to the flow of baseball information and analysis.

Starting 9

Hello! This is Jerry Crasnick, and I'm making a guest post here on Fire Jay Mariotti to present my weekly Starting 9!

Doubles. Home runs. Hits. Everything-but-sacrifices-walks-and-beanballs. What do all of these things have in common? You need to have an at-bat to accumulate ANY of them! It's a little-known fact that Jimmy Rollins set the MLB record for at-bats last season with 716, and propelled by his ability to get up to that plate and log at-bats at a tremendous pace, he won an MVP award. Also, when you go to MLB.com and go to the "Sortable Player Stats" page, how are all the players sorted by default? That's right. At-bats. No question they're important.

This week's edition of "Starting 9" takes a position-by-position look at the players who are the current frontrunners to take the at-bat crown by storm. In addition, we're going to assign a rating to each player on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being, "Hey, this guy's totally overachieving at-bat-wise, he has no prayer of keeping this up" nand 10 being, "Don't look now, Rollins, your record's in severe jeopardy!"

1. Ivan Rodriguez, Tigers C
(89 ABs, 1 triple)

Okay, so there were actually 3 guys who were worthy of the catcher's slot on this list. Brian McCann of Atlanta and Kurt Suzuki of Oakland both had the same number of at-bats. So why choose Rodriguez? Well, Rodriguez has logged his impressive 89 ABs in the fewest plate appearances of the three, needing only 98 (ouch, Brian McCann's 99). Rodriguez is simply one of the most effective players in the game at logging an at-bat when he gets up to that dish. However, his decline in effectiveness is concerning. He's already drawn 5 walks this year (he drew 9 all of last season), and he's even gotten hit by a pitch twice.

At-Bat Rating: 4 I-Rod has impressed the world by getting more than 500 ABs in each of his last 5 seasons. But he's a catcher, and while he's durable, he won't be able to log enough at-bats to be among the league leaders at season's end. Plus, he's batted near the top of the order plenty due to Curtis Granderson's early injury. That won't keep now that Granderson is back.

2. Derrek Lee, Cubs 1B
(103 ABs, 1 intentional walk)

You've gotta feel uneasy about this one. Lee seems to have it all. He bats 3rd in a lineup that scores a lot of runs. He has all the job security in the world. He draws an above-average, but not insane amount of those at-bat killing walks. So why worry? Well, as we know, Lee is fairly injury prone. You can't rack up at-bats from a stretcher. Plus, the steady Mark Teixeira is right on his heels, needing only one more at-bat to pull even with Lee. And Teixeira gets like 4 or 5 of those every game! Best of luck, Derrek.

At-Bat Rating: 2. If he's leading first basemen in at-bats when this season is done, I'll eat my hat. Luckily my hat is made out of candy.

3. Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox 2B
(111 ABs, 44 Total Bases)

Another one of those plate-appearance tiebreakers. Mark Ellis also has 111, but he's got one fewer plate appearance. Plus, there's something else that Pedroia has going for him. He's a leadoff hitter in a potent lineup. He's going to get a lot of At-Bat opportunities. Mark Ellis is only batting 2nd, and Oakland's lineup is more in a state of flux than that of the Red Sox. The fans love him, and he has all the job security in the world.

"Pedroia keeps himself in the best shape possible to avail himself to at-bat opportunities in every game," said one MLB scout. "You don't find that kind of determination in just anybody."

At-Bat Rating: 8.5. Good health + good lineup + best lineup spot for at-bats = Pedroia's got something special working for him in this category.

4. Cristian Guzman, Nationals SS
(110 ABs, 38 Groundouts)

Cristian Guzman being talked about for leading an offensive category? You betcha. Guzman has logged 4 more at-bats than the next closest shortstop in two less games. There's no question that this has been what has enabled Guzman to be 4th in the majors among shortstops in the "hits" category. What's the secret? Well for starters, he's a 2-hole hitter. Also, his at-bat efficiency is startlingly good. Guzman has logged 110 at-bats in 116 plate appearances. That's nearly a 95% clip, and it's his absolute refusal to draw a walk that helps him. Take a free pass? No sir! This guy's going to earn his way on!

At-Bat Rating: 6.5. Guzman, despite his awesome at-bat propelled start, has historically not been very good at baseball, and job security is all I'm worrying about here. He could tank. But MLB pitchers are just not afraid of him, and will rarely walk him with Zimmerman and Johnson right behind him.

5. Kevin Kouzmanoff, Padres 3B
(113 ABs, .327 SLG)

Ladies and gentlemen, your current 2008 at-bat champion of the world! Kouz leads fellow 3rd basemen Garrett Atkins by one at-bat, despite drawing one more walk (3) than Atkins (2). Kouzmanoff has not had less than 4 at-bats in a game since April 7th, and that stretch includes a stunning 9-at-bat performance in the seemingly endless game against Colorado on April 17th.

"His ability," commented teammate Jake Peavy, "to stay in the lineup that day was remarkable. He never got pinch ran for, never got double-switched. It was almost as if he was willing [Bud Black] to keep running him out there. And what did he do? Led the team in hits."

At-Bat Rating: 1.5. There's no way that Kouz can continue to avoid the base-on-balls. He's always been good at that, but never THIS good. Also, if he continues to perform this poorly, Chase Headley may threaten his starting job. And let's not forget, 22 inning games are a fluke.

6. Carl Crawford, Rays LF
(110 AB, 1 Caught Stealing)

Crawford leads all outfielders in at-bats despite trailing his closest competitors for that title in games played. He's a very exciting player who hasn't had less than 584 at-bats in the past 5 years. Crawford is also younger than you might think (26) and doesn't seem to have the off-field problems of other Rays (a bar fight, Al Reyes? Really?) and former Rays. Being the face of the franchise won't hurt his playing time. Oh and lets not forget the best part: 2 walks this year. Crawford has only been to the plate 113 times. That's the highest efficiency on this list.

At-Bat Rating: 8. Crawford has had a history of walkophobia, and as a fan-favorite who finds himself in the 3-hole, there's reason to believe he'll shatter his personal single-season games played record of 156. Keep your eyes on this one, America.

7. Ichiro Suzuki, Mariners CF
(109 ABs, 434 pitches seen)

Absolutely no suprise here. Suzuki has only missed 3 games over the last 4 seasons. His single-season at-bat record is 704, which only falls 12 shy of Rollins's monstrous seven-one-six. He has never logged less than 647 in a season. He'd be in the At-Bat Hall of Fame had he not joined the majors at the relatively old age of 27. Suzuki is a Mariners icon, and can pretty much be cemented in that leadoff hole for every game of the season. If the Mariners' offense can keep the line moving (I'm looking at YOU, Sexson), this guy has the best chance in baseball to record 717 at-bats.

At-Bat Rating: 10. There is absolutely nothing not to like here.

8. Jeff Francoeur, Braves RF
(102 ABs, 0.0 SB%)

Okay, right field must be some sort of at-bat void. Francoeur is 7th in the league among outfielders, and first among the starboard variety. Little known fact about Francoeur: he appeared in every Braves game in 2006 and 2007. However, the fact that his spot is further down in the batting order than most of the others on this list has crippled him. Despite a superbly low amount of walks, Frenchy's brief career high in at-bats is 651. He's as good a bet as any to land over 630 at-bats this season, but his odds at coming anywhere near the league lead are almost nil.

At-Bat Rating: 5. He's consistently good at racking up the at-bats, but until they start putting him higher in the batting order, this guy's got no shot at the crown.

9. Micah Owings, Diamondbacks P
(18 AB .865 OPS)

Man, can this guy flat out HIT! If there's one thing Owings has shown, it's that his bat might belong in the lineup more than once every five games. He's the best hitting pitcher of this generation, and for that reason, it's clear that he's the frontrunner for the at-bat crown amongst pitchers. There's simply little reason to pinch hit for him. However, as you may have guessed, his ability to keep getting at-bats is reliant on his ability to get hitters out on the mound. Not getting pinch-hit for is one thing, avoiding getting the hook on the other side of the ball is quite another.

At-Bat Rating: 1. So long as he's a pitcher and only a pitcher, he'll be among the best hurlers at raking up at-bats, but when's the last time a pitcher has been even close to the league lead?

BONUS SUPER AWESOME TENTH GUY YOU GET TO READ ABOUT.

David Ortiz, Red Sox DH
(96 AB, 6 doubles)

Even I can learn something new and uninteresting. Apparently, DHs aren't high at-bat guys. Ortiz has struggled with his offense overall thus far, but those at-bats are sure to come rolling in, as Boston refuses to lose faith in him. Boston needing to play games at National League parks further prevent him from coming close to the record.

At-Bat Rating: 1.5. Far, far too many walks, there David.

Well that's all from me, FireJay! Thanks for letting me stop on by!

Jerry Crasnick covers baseball for ESPN.com. He swears he has said something interesting in his life. His book "License To Deal" was published by Rodale. He is the 2-time winner of the Paul DePodesta Trophy, given to the person working at ESPN who looks up a lot of stats, but doesn't have much else to say. He was featured on the cover of "Useless Weekly Column" magazine. Jerry can be reached via e-mail

I can't remember for the life of me why I thought that was worth my time.

Super Top Secret Exclusive Scouting Reports

I almost wasn't going to write anything tonight, but then I stumbled onto this hilarious piece by Jayson Stark in which he polls a combination of managers, execs, and scouts and asks them who the "scariest" hitter in the game today is. For starters, it's probably an article that didn't need to be written. Even if the interviewees actually had really poignant and insightful things to say about the subjects (they don't, but if), it still just comes down to the fact that Pujols/Guerrero/Ramirez are really good hitters.

But as bad as that concept is, its awfulness completely overshadowed by horrific execution. Check out these quotes Stark managed to pick up; I'm surprised I didn't need an Insider subscription to gain access to this incredibly valuable information.

Re: Pujols

"He's the total package," said the Mets' Willie Randolph. "He's capable of adjusting to any pitch and any pitcher. You come inside, he'll pull it. You pitch him away, he'll take you the other way."

Is... is that allowed? Are you allowed to pull inside pitches? And take outside pitches the other way? Does the commissioner's office know about this? No wonder he's so good- he's cheating!

Re: Guerrero

"Vlad's the answer," said one AL executive, "because there's no one else in that lineup I fear. Torii Hunter is a really good all-around player. But the difference between him and Vlad is, Vlad's a guy who makes you feel like you can't breathe the whole time he's at the plate."

The actual difference between the two of them is that one is a pretty good (if overhyped) hitter, while the other is fucking incredible and will probably merit HOF consideration one day.

"I'd go with Vlad because the plate isn't 17 inches wide with him," laughed a long-time advance scout. "It's more like 25 inches. He's an amazing guy. He's not a guy with a swing you'd put in an instructional video. But, somehow, he puts that bat on the ball no matter where the pitch is."

Man, if I want to become a better beer league softball player, I'm going to have to consider altering my approach at the plate to mimic what these guys are doing. (Larry B writes vigorously in marble notebook labeled "Stuff To Do" on front) Put... bat... on... ball.

Re: A-Rod

"He has the ability to change the game with one swing," said one manager who requested anonymity.

Unlike most players, who usually need between ten and fifteen swings to change a game.

"He's like Pujols," said a scout. "There's no way to pitch him."

Hilariously, that's not even the most useless quote Stark will credit to an anonymous scout before this column is over. Wait for it- it's a doozy.

Re: a package deal of Ramirez/Ortiz

Pitch to Manny or pitch to Big Papi? Or neither? Or both? That turned into the big debate within the debate.

The term "debate" being used loosely given the divisive quality of the analysis being given.

Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon said he prefers not to mess with Ortiz. "He has a propensity for hitting in the clutch situations," Maddon said. "He just lives for the moment."

Ramirez, on the other hand, is miserable in the clutch and prefers to live for three weeks ago.

But Joe Torre picked Ramirez, even though the former Bronxian is now safe from both of them out in L.A. "He's always been one of the top five hitters in the game," Torre said of Manny. "But when gets in that 'determined' mode, he's really, really difficult to deal with."

So I guess if you're an opposing team, the key to getting through the Red Sox lineup is to try to make Ramirez hit in the moment and then force Ortiz into being determined. If you accidentally get those two backwards, the results will be disastrous.

And Toronto's John Gibbons sounded like a man who has decided you can't win either way. "The tough part of saying the guy you fear the most is Manny is, you've got Ortiz, too," Gibbons said. "When Ortiz is on, there's no point in pitching around him because then you have to face Manny."

Take notes, kids. If you want to be a big league manager one day, you have to be able to identify subtle nuances of lineup construction like Gibbons has here.

"What the hell," muttered one scout. "It's pick your poison."

Sounds like that scout has been out in the sun too long, or is maybe getting up there in years and has become disenchanted with the world around him. Anything else to offer? No? Just damned if you do, damned if you don't? Great. Be sure to forward that hot tip straight to your general manager's office the next time the Red Sox come to town. I'm sure there's something the team can do with it.

Re: Ichiro

"The guy that we probably end up walking the most is Ichiro because you can't set him up," said Boston's Terry Francona. "He has a way of dictating things, depending on how he feels. Left-handers don't bother him, either. And you can't double him up. Lots of ways to beat you."

Among the top two examples Francona can come up with to explain why Ichiro is good: his ability to hit into fielders' choices.

Re: Utley

"He hits for average, hits for power, has a great idea of the strike zone," said an NL manager who preferred not to be named.

The manager must've been afraid that if Utley found out who was saying this kind of stuff about him, he'd hit for even more average and power against the manager's team while developing an even greater idea of the strike zone.

Re: Chipper Jones

"Still the best pure hitter in the league, from both sides of the plate," said Washington's Manny Acta.

Wow, that's a little bold. But give Acta credit for not saying something like "He's really good. He'll get hits against you when your pitchers throw him the ball."

Re: Derrek Lee

"He can hit the ball out of the park," said one scout.

Remember when I said look for that fantastically useless quote from an anonymous scout?

Thanks Jayson. Don't sleep on Prince Fielder, though- there are so many ways he can beat you. And don't forget the fact that Hanley Ramirez does some great stuff when he's in the batter's box. Oh- and Miguel Cabrera really likes food.

Parity Is Great and J.A. Adande Is an Asshat

There are two kinds of articles I bitch about on this blog. First, you've got articles that are just plain wrong. These are the Eckstein-is-greats, the ARod-is-bads, and the Bonds-is-innocents. They should make you cry. Second, you've got articles that don't contain any objectively incorrect information, but are still very wrong. They should merely make you whimper. This, by J.A. Adande, is one such article.

Superstar trades put emphasis back on the games

Let's hear it for big, fat contracts. Money-money-money-monnn-ey -- MON-ayy. Dollar-dollar bills, y'all. Those salary-cap-killing, luxury-tax-inducing contracts -- envied by fans, cursed by owners with buyer's remorse -- are saving the NBA.

You can't wait for the playoffs to start. You have no idea who's going to win it all. And it's all thanks to economics.

In the past eight months, four All-Stars have switched teams and reconfigured three of the marquee brands in the NBA. In order, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, Pau Gasol and Shaquille O'Neal were traded to the Celtics, Lakers and Suns because their old teams were tired of paying star salaries for scrub results.

Let us count the ways in which this article is wrong, so far.

1. Expensive contracts are not "saving the league," neither in the way Adande implies here nor in any other way. Sure, their existence has recently facilitated a flow of high-paid stars to popular/good teams. (As you'll see, his premise is basically that the league is better off when said teams have all the talent and "under the radar" teams, like their former teams, disappear into the background.) On the other hand, popular/good teams are just as susceptible to horrible contracts as anyone else. Why do the Knicks blow right now? Because (among at least fifty other horrible gaffes) a few years back they gave the untradeable and unplayable Jerome James an 11 year deal worth $290 million. What's wrong with the Bulls? Well, for one thing, they signed Ben Wallace to a disastrous contract two summers ago. For every Memphis who gives a Pau Gasol a monster deal and then has to send him away so they can look towards the future, there's a marquee/popular team that makes a devastatingly bad decision.

2. "You can't wait for the playoffs to start." If you didn't feel that way before these trades, you weren't an NBA fan in the first place. Douche. "You have no idea who's going to win it all!" This has been the case each and every year since Jordan retired the second time. So, for a decade or so.

3. These stars' old teams were "tired of paying star salaries for scrub results?" Maybe in Shaq's case. As for the other three- well, if you call their most recent seasons/half seasons with their old teams "scrubby," I'd like to hear what adjectives you'd assign to the 97% of the players in the league that aren't as good as these guys.

OK. *Deep breath* Good. This is going okay so far.

Their former squads aren't better off today. In fact, Seattle, Minnesota, Memphis and Miami have the four worst records in the league.

Let me introduce you, J.A., to some of the finer points of the "trade." You see, very few "trades" are made between teams that expect the same results from the deal in the same time frame. You alomst never see two teams trade players that are current stars. Same goes for swapping young players that have the potential to be stars somewhere down the road. Although they do happen in rare circumstances, trades like these don't make a ton of sense on the surface. Right? You see why, don't you? Unless it's a positional or change-of-scenery issue, why would a team trade a guy who's really good right now... for another guy who's really good right now? And why would they trade young guys with potential... for young guys with potential? That would be like trading eggs for eggs, or shoes for shoes. You make "trades" in order to acquire something you don't already have.

I'm wasting everyone's time. I know. Let's just leave it at this: despite being a professional journalist who primarily covers the NBA, J.A. Adande apparently has yet to grasp the idea that teams often deal current stars for young players. This is the basic format of the vast majority of significant trades to take place during the salary cap era.

I am slightly frustrated.

This wasn't about them trying to stay in the hunt for a championship. It's about them trying to stay out of the red in the Excel files.

It's about them acknowledging they were not going to win a championship in the next couple of years, and building for the future beyond that timeframe. Welcome to the wonderful world of professional sports franchises.

Top-to-bottom competitive balance is right where it belongs: in the trash can, next to the short shorts.

And here we have the main premise of the article, the main reason I am forced to conclude that J.A. Andande should be attached to a weather balloon and released into the atmosphere. I've read some bullshit in my life, but this sentence might take the cake. Let's see- which major pro sports league has the most year-to-year parity? That's right, those jolly fat fucks in the NFL, who have more money than they know what to do with right now. And how do people tend to respond to underdog success stories? My inside sources say they like them, and that there's a direct relationship between the amount of competitive balance in a league and the likelihood of such a story playing out. Why do salary caps exist in three out of the four major sports? Because otherwise we'd have four times as many Yankees and Red Sox running around, which would not be "good for the league(s)" no matter what anybody says. And finally, why does the NCAA limit the number of athletic scholarships schools can give out? Because having the Boise States of the world occasionally dance with the big boys is more exciting than having USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Alabama grab 150 out of the top 200 recruits every year like they did in the 40s/50s/60s/70s.

The league is better off with several superpowers battling it out among themselves, not with some unknown upstarts crashing the party.

Let's focus. I'll limit discussion to the NBA alone. Boy, I sure don't remember anyone being excited about Golden State's first round win over Dallas last year. Boring. Who likes an upstart, anyways? I find life more fulfilling when everything is extremely even-keeled and goes exactly according to plan all the time. Keeps my blood pressure down. Here is my ideal 2008 NBA playoffs: Don't even play the first round in the West or the first two rounds in the East. Celtics sweep Pistons in the Eastern finals. Lakers sweep Spurs and Mavs sweep Suns in the Western semis. Lakers sweep Mavs in the Western finals. Celtics and Lakers agree to split the championship and instead play 7 exhibition games against each other. Immediately following the playoffs, every team in the league has to send its top scorer and rebounder to one of the six teams I named here to make 2008-2009 even more exciting! I mean, exciting in an even-keeled kind of way.

Supreme teams are compelling and draw big ratings, as the New England Patriots just showed.

This is partially true, but I would argue that the pursuit of perfection angle was much more important than just the simple fact that the Patriots were a dominant team. If they had somehow dropped their week 1 game (farfetched, I know, considering they were cheating during it), and gone through the whole season without that magical zero in the "L" column, I'm willing to bet ratings would have been much lower. Still outrageously high compared to anything the NBA puts up, but relatively lower.

If the success of the rich must come at the expense of the struggling poor, so be it. Call it de facto contraction.

Apparently J.A. has a little Rush Limbaugh in him.

"There are too many teams," one All-Star said. "There needs to be, like, 20 teams."

That guy probably just said that because he hates road trips.

But because the owners won't give up that additional revenue and the players won't give up the extra jobs, we're stuck at 30. The best we can do is have the best players concentrated among a few elite teams.

Nevermind, you know, the fans of those teams. Are there millions of rabid Bobcats fans out there? No. Are you going to get stabbed if you tell someone in a bar in Memphis that you don't really give a shit about the Grizzlies? Probably not. But that doesn't mean those teams are irrelevant or not useful assets for the league and their home cities. I really don't give a deuce if Adande thinks the Sonics or T-Wolves or Hawks shouldn't be competing with the traditional powerhouses. I steadfastly refuse to believe it's harmful to the sport in any fashion when parity exists and when non-traditional teams see a little success from time to time. I know ratings suffer and the blogosphere erupts with contempt when something like the 2007 NLCS happens. You know what? If people are too fucking stupid to be interested in a given sport's playoffs unless a team with a lot of history is winning them, that's not my problem. Those kind of people can go play in traffic.

"The trades seem to have piqued interest," commissioner David Stern said.

This doesn't support your point, tinydick. These trades would have piqued interest no matter where the marquee players landed.

There's anticipation and unpredictability, the two things that make sports such compelling TV content.

If Ray Allen goes to New Orleans and KG somehow ends up on the Clippers? No anticipation or unpredictability whatsoever, I guess.

Anticipation and unpredictability sound a lot better than cynicism and skepticism, which was the general attitude toward the NBA last summer.

Hmmmm... let's jog our memories... why was there a lot of cynicism and skepticism aimed at the NBA by fans and analysts last summer? I was going to link the funniest looking Tim Donaghy and Isiah Thomas pictures I could find, but J.A. actually goes through the trouble of answering his own question in the next paragraph. How thoughtful. OK, fine, fuck it. I'll link the pictures anyways.

Those dark days seem so long ago they might as well be in black-and-white. A referee was found to have bet on NBA games and shared inside info with gamblers. A troubled young player had a fatal car crash. The No. 1 overall pick had season-ending surgery before he even played a game. The SuperSonics gassed up the moving vans. The Knicks went through a sordid sexual harassment lawsuit. It was all gloom and doom.

Not on this list:
Too much parity in league
Too many upstart teams having success
Elite players too spread out
Fans bored by lack of traditional dynasty
Too long since Lakers or Celtics have won title
Shawn Bradley no longer available to be hilariously dunked on

Although that last one damn well should be included.

Last year was one of the hardest years from a public relations standpoint," said former All-Star David Robinson. "To see how well the NBA has bounced back from some of that stuff last year … I don't know any league that could deal with that kind of stuff. Wow.

"The energy level is still great. Everybody is looking forward to the playoffs. It's still so much excitement."

So what happened? Sports happened.

What does that mean? How does it justify your point?

We should know by now that all it takes to restore faith and interest in a league is to play games. Make that, play games on relevant networks (two points lost on the NHL).

Apparently the NHL is no longer playing games. No wonder I haven't heard much about them recently. And apparently they willingly chose to take their games off NBC and ESPN. "Hey," Gary Bettman said to a board of league executives, "I heard this 'Versus' is the next big thing. Call up our current networks and tell them to stick their thumbs up their own asses. We're riding the wave of the future, baby."

Bring out the balls, blow the whistle and the problems go away.

And- make sure all the best players in the league end up on just a handful of teams. You forgot that part.

All they had to do was keep playing and wait for the emergence of a dominant team or two. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy hegemony. In the league's glory days in the 1980s, there was a nine-year stretch when the Lakers and Celtics won eight of the titles. So much for sharing the wealth.

Those were the "glory days" because of the kind of people I earlier said should go play in traffic. Ratings were up. Everyone talked about the Celtics and Lakers. Great. But was the level of play in the league and higher? Was there something more inherently interesting about the games? The NBA has and always will market its superstars ahead of its teams. And it just so happened that two of the biggest superstars of the 80s happened to play for two otherwise excellent teams in opposite conferences. But just because everyone back then said "Oh man, Lakers/Celtics ftw, kewlest yizz evr" doesn't mean things were any better. Having both the Yankees and Red Sox playing very well at the same time these days sure generates ratings and hype for MLB. But can you really say the sport is better because of it? Really? Look, I already said it, but if you need shit like this to get interested in a sport then you weren't really a fan in the first place.

There are more good teams now. At the current pace, a Western Conference team could win 50 games and still miss the playoffs.

This will not happen. I promise. And it doesn't prove at all that there are more good teams now. The Lakers and Suns were already going to win 50 games before their moves. Denver, Utah, Portland, and Houston have basically the same rosters they did in November. As long as "now" is referring to "since these big trades," which I'm pretty certain it is.

Before the All-Star Sunday the arena was buzzing with the renewed possibility of a Dallas-New Jersey deal. It turned this weekend's All-Star Game into exactly what it should be: an afterthought. An interlude. People are obsessed with trade talk, and with the state of Kobe's injured pinkie. (One way or another, it always comes back to Kobe). But that's where the focus should be. There's no sense wasting time wondering whether the East All-Stars can beat the West. Who cares? You don't want the exhibtions overshadowing the main event.

Most confusing paragraph in the whole article. The All-Star Game should be an afterthought to what? Trade talk? Injury speculation? Are those "the main event?" I sure hope not. But I thought the only thing the league had to do in order to make everyone happy was just get out there on the damn court and play with their balls while whistling. Now you're telling me we should be more focused on gossip and rumors. And does anyone else see the irony in Adande knocking the All-Star Game after forming a whole article around the idea that concentrating the elite players onto as few teams as possible is a good thing?

This game won't be more entertaining than that Suns-Warriors game Wednesday. There's no way it will be more tension-filled than Shaq's anticipated Suns debut this Wednesday.

Thank you for helping us make the connection that Shaq's debut this Wednesday is for the Suns during a Wednesday game this Wednesday which will be his first game with his new team.

It was telling that, for the first time in memory, Stern opened a news conference talking about basketball. Not collective bargaining negotiations, not television ratings, not legal proceedings. "We're awful pleased about the state of our game," Stern said Saturday night.

"The game looks terrific. It's open, it's fluid, there's more movement. And there are more shots. The fact that the shots go in is also good.

"People feel good about the state of the game and the way it is being played and coached and reffed."

The league rediscovered what matters most, the one thing the fans really care about.

"It's the game, it's the game, it's the game," Stern said.

I thought it was trade rumors, injuries, and Kobe.

Not all the league's problems have magically disappeared. What should be a full-fledged celebration of the hosting Hornets, the team atop the Western Conference, is tempered by the possibility they could leave town without increased fan support. And the Sonics are locked in litigation with the city of Seattle, doing their best to bolt for Oklahoma City.

The last time an NBA team left the Pacific Northwest for the South, it was Vancouver to Memphis … and look how that turned out. The Grizzlies are playing in a half-filled arena, having just dumped their best player in exchange for No. 1 pick bust and a rookie.

But why weep for the Grizzlies when you can wonder how far the Lakers will go with Gasol?

But why wonder about the Lakers when you can be interested in whichever team is your favorite? I realize my well documented anti-Yankees/Red Sox bias is dripping into the article, but it's doing so for good reason. It's comments like this that make me hate every single nationally popular team out there and sometimes make it difficult to cheer for my hyperexposed alma mater.

As J.A. suggests, I'm not weeping for the Grizzlies. It's their own fault they put together a shitty team and had to basically give away Gasol. But at the same time... I know this is hard to hear if you're an elitist fan of a big-market team that thinks because they're on TV more often than everyone else that they're special... I also couldn't give two craps about the Lakers. To wit, with my baseball comparison- do you think Joba Chamberlain should start 2008 in the bullpen or the rotation? If you're not a fan of an AL East team or a keeper league fantasy owner, the answer is "Who fucking cares?" Honestly. Your team has a rich history and a larger than average fan base. I get it. Now stop bothering me so I can learn about other stuff.

Sorry, Memphis. Sorry, Minnesota. Your losses are better for the league as a whole.

I think you mean, your losses are good for the Lakers and Celtics.

The on-court action is as good as you could ask for.

If you're a Laker or Celtic fan.

It's All-Star Weekend in New Orleans. Might as well grab a go cup and celebrate the good times.

You sound like you're drunk already.

J.A. Adande is the author of "The Best Los Angeles Sports Arguments."

1. What's the best way to enjoy a Dodger game- by showing up in the 3rd, leaving in the 6th, or both?
2. Which riot was more violent and unnecessary- the one after UCLA basketball's championship in 1995, or the one after the Lakers won the NBA finals in 2000?
3. Why the fuck don't we have an NFL team?
4. Who's going to end up as a bigger bust- Matt Leinart or Reggie Bush?
5. How fucking lame are the Angels and their fans for that "Rally Monkey" shit?
6. Why doesn't anyone think USC football qualifies as a "dynasty" this decade, even though they've grabbed a whole one national championships?
7. How do we get the Clippers to go back to San Diego?
8. What's the best object to throw on the field for no reason when you're drunk at a Dodger game?
9. No, seriously, why does the country's second largest city not have an NFL team?
10. Tommy LaSorda- fat or pregnant?

Much love to any LA-based fans or readers if they made it this far. You know I'm just messing with you. I pretty much hate everyone equally. Except Boston.

Quiet Out There Tonight

I wanted to put up a Dr. Z piece, but it was too funny to finish. If that makes any sense. I mean, it was unintentionally funny, and as a result I got too exasperated to finish it. That should clear things up.

So instead, because I like to put something up every day, let me encourage you to enjoy this extremely well written piece about "American Gladiators" by ESPN.com's Sam Alipour. Even if you're not excited about the show's return to TV, it's still a good read. And if you're like me, so excited about the show that you recently asked your mom to sew you a stars-and-stripes themed unitard you can wear while watching it, it's a great read.

Also, I know nobody takes him seriously anyways, but just a second ago on Best Damn Sports Show Period John Salley inexplicably claimed that "The Patriots don't get any respect because they play in a small market." I'm not sure which part of that is more offensive- the part about the Patriots apparently not getting respect, or the part about the 7th largest TV market in the country (according to Neilsen) being small. Yeah, I mean, totally. This is why everyone is always all over Peyton Manning's nuts- he has the advantage of playing in the nation's 26th largest market! Brett Favre only gets brought up because Green Bay comes in at number 70 on that list, just behind the Wichita/Hutchinson, KS area who came in at number 69. (Haha! Sixty-nine!) Imagine putting Tom Brady in front of those kinds of audiences. With all that exposure I bet he'd even make Sportscenter every couple of weeks or so. Did you hear he just finished up a really good season?

Back To The Grind

Enough of this vacation nonsense. Starting today, I'm back to my usual at least one post per weekday routine. That's good news for both of you out there who are still checking the blog after our week-plus hiatus. Thanks for sticking with us, and if you see any of the other ten people that used to read us, tell them we're back.

Let's get things started with two quick new years resolutions-

1) By popular demand, I'm going to try to be less angry and more light-hearted/carefree/happy/comedically inclined. Basically I'm going to spend less time talking about how how furious bad sportswriting makes me and instead spend more time coming up with unwitty jokes. I'm going to end more sentences with exclamation marks! Because that implies excitement! Which makes everything seem more energetic, and high-energy people are always funny! See what I mean?! I feel like Dane Cook already! In order to get my mind in the right place for this transition, I'll probably visit funny sites like this more often. Or this. Or this. These make me laugh. I like laughing.

2) I will start getting in shape, eating healthy, reading books, volunteering for charities, and generally putting the shattered pieces of my life back together.

See what I mean about writing more unfunny jokes? It's gonna be a great year.

In Case It Wasn't Already Obvious, Last Friday I Learned That I'm Not Meant To Be a Real Journalist

I haven't posted anything for a few days, and I do feel bad about that. Horrible sportswriting happens every single day; I usually take pride in the fact that I in turn complain about it each and every day. Or each and every weekday, anyways. So I'll be getting back to that kind of thing on a regular basis starting tomorrow. For now, though, please indulge me while I tell you a story about my brush with real journalism and the valuable lesson I learned in the process. I know this is going to come off douchebaggy and boring- I promise I don't intend it to be either of those things. It's actually a kind of good story, and I swear that this kind of writing will not happen (from me, anyways) regularly here at FireJay.

(Preface: It really bothers me when sports bloggers/columnists put information about their personal lives into their posts. I constantly rip Bill Simmons for doing it. Wow, you helped conceive a child? Congratulations. You've managed to perform a basic mammalian function. Here's your sticker. And although I absolutely love The Big Lead (how could I not when he's responsible for about 75% of FireJay's exposure), he sometimes lets details about where he lives and how he's employed slip into his writing. It's not like these kinds of things are the end of the world but for some reason they do kind of bother me. Obviously, though, I'm going to have to do exactly the same if I want to tell you a story about something cool that I did. So I apologize in advance for that. And I promise that when I'm not having adventures like this one, which are extremely rare, I'm squarely planted in my parents' basement doing nothing but playing Stratego against myself and eating Teddy Grahams. Also, like I already said, I promise that this kind of post is a one time deal, unless something equally exciting happens to me during the life of this blog, which is very unlikely.)

A few weeks ago, one of my roommates gave me a great idea. "Hey," he said, "you should go to that Bonds arraignment thing." Although normally he's full of crap, I had to hand it to him on this one. It was a damn good suggestion. I do live in the Bay Area (near Palo Alto, so about a 45 minute drive from downtown San Francisco). I will be going to law school next fall. I am self employed, meaning I can take a day off from "work" pretty much anytime for any reason. And furthermore, as a huge baseball fan, I do definitely find Bonds's legal troubles fascinating. Several of my biggest interests were intersecting at a massively significant event which was to take place less than an hour from where I live. How could I not show up?

I quickly realized, however, that I was probably not the only person in this metropolitan area of about 8 million people interested in this arraignment. And federal courtrooms can only accomodate so many people. A quick search of the court's website revealed that after allotting 60 of the available "public" seats to media members, there would be a whole 30 seats left over being made available to people like me. My interest level in the event quickly sank. What were the odds that I could secure one of those seats? Surely there were enough crazed Giants fans, avid court watchers, media members having to pose as regular citizens after being denied a media spot, and streakers-that-always-show-up-at-big-events interested in Barry's big day that there wasn't really a point in me trying to get in.

But come Thursday, I couldn't help but continue to be interested. It's not that I harbor some dream of becoming an actual sportswriter, but I couldn't help but remember what ESPN's Jeff Pearlman told me when I interviewed him for the blog back in September.

LB: bloggers/amateur writers with big dreams about getting into professional sports journalism should make sure they do what, in order to best increase their chances of one day making their living from writing?

JP: ... do reporting—real, honest-to-goodness reporting... The thing about blogging is that, while it's great, it's also lazy. I know—I write a lame blog, and it's literally me on the couch. It may well show you can write, but it doesn't show you can report.

Again, it's not that I want to be a real journalist. I'm selling my soul to the US legal system in about 9 months. But that doesn't mean that I don't want just a little taste of what it's like to be a real journalist before I go through with the whole legal career deal. This was obviously the perfect opportunity for me to do so. Not only would I be getting off my couch, I would be leaving my house AND going to a significant event in the world of sports! Plus, I mean, what if the impossible happened and Bonds decided to take a plea bargain right then and there? I would be kicking myself for years after passing up an opportunity to be in that room to witness such an occurrence. Of course it wasn't going to happen, but this thought wouldn't leave my head. I had to at least take a shot at getting in. So Thursday night, I threw my Spiderman toothbrush and Harry Potter pajamas in a backpack and drove to San Fran. I have some friends who live up there, in an apartment that's about a 20 minute walk from the courthouse. My plan was to park at their place, crash for the night (to avoid making the drive in the morning), get up at 5:30, and walk down to the courthouse. Assuming no one was allowed to camp out overnight, I figured there was a pretty good chance that getting there at 6 would put me in the top thirty. And hey, if it didn't, I could just go back to my friends' place and continue to sleep.

I don't really remember waking up and getting dressed. Five thirty in the morning is not a time I am well acquainted with, unless I experience it before going to bed rather than after. Somehow, some way, thanks to pure will power and my unstoppable desire to pretend to be a journalist, I found myself in front of the Philip Burton Federal Building at 6:30 AM. Those who know me well can confirm that this is a minor miracle. I really surprised myself by pulling this off, especially since I hadn't gone to sleep until about 2 in the morning. Even more surprising though, at least to me, is that I was the first motherhumping person in line! That's right! Me! I won! I won the prize! Laptop under my arm and smug sense of satisfaction evident on my face, I proudly stood inside a temporarily fenced off area as a handful of camera crews and other media types hanging around on the building's front patio sipped coffee and wondered who would be dumb enough to wake up that early unless it was part of their job. You want to know who? Me, baby. Me. The rest of the line filled in very quickly with a combination of interested citizens and (as predicted) media members who hadn't been able to get a media pass during the next 20 or so minutes. But they'd better not forget who was first. Bitches.

Don't believe me? I've got proof. Check out this. And this. (Note: now that you know my full name from those articles, please do not steal my identity. That would really piss me off.) That's right. To the victor go the spoils. At least eight or nine print journalists interviewed me, along with three camera crews from local TV stations. I didn't bother to watch the news that evening and see if my ugly mug made it into the lead for their Barry piece; I fucking hate my voice when it's recorded and played back to me. I tried not to sound like a total dumbass, but when you're coming off less than 4 hours of sleep and it's the earliest you've been awake in a year and a half, the words tend to stumble out of your mouth. You can see the guy from that first article I linked chose to directly quote me on the stupidest thing I said during our three minute conversation in order to make me look like an idiot. Why? I'm not sure. That's the media, I guess. Always out to screw you.

My favorite part about the interviews was that everyone seemed shocked that while I didn't support Barry, I also claimed not to be there just to shit on him either. Which was true- although I hate the guy, I didn't go to the arraignment to watch him crash and burn. I was there, as I've said, for a variety of other reasons. Attending a possibly historic event involving both baseball and the courts. Trying to do some "real reporting." (I failed to plan out in advance just what I would see that justified reporting; an arraignment is a very vanilla process. But whatever.) Not wanting to miss out on the 0.0000000001% chance Barry would plead guilty. Etc. But I definitely didn't go there with any kind of anti-Bonds rage. I save that for the ballpark, where you can't get thrown out of the building by a couple of US Marshals for loudly telling him he sucks.

One of the TV interviewers, in particular, was really hoping for some kind of angry and/or racist sound bite from me. She asked what I thought about Barry being charged with using steroids. When I pointed out to her that he was actually standing trial for perjury, she looked disappointed that I understood that issue. She then immediately switched gears asked me if I thought the fact that he is black has something to do with it. Fortunately I was able to voice my disagreement with that assertion without bursting into laughter; had I done so it might have come off wrong. But really, are people who think that serious? I mean, COOOOOOME ONNNNNNNN... Anyways, this reporter moved on down the line as soon as she realized I wasn't going to play the role of local idiot for her. I was on to your little trick, Jemele Hill. Don't think I didn't recognize you under all that makeup. You're going to have to do better than that.

This is getting long winded and I've already done what I really wanted to do, which was gloat about being first in line, so I'll move forward and get to my conclusion. I brushed off the media like a celebrity and entered the building as soon as they opened the doors around 7:15. I spent the next hour or so in the cafeteria, talking to the guy who had been second in line. He recently retired and now spends his days as a court watcher. He had been to the vast majority of the BALCO case happenings so he was able to answer all my questions about their intricacies. He also knew a lot about the judge and Barry's legal team, so we discussed that for a while. Probably the most eyebrow-raising thing he told me was that it took so long to get an indictment against Bonds because (by his estimation) the US Attorney who had formerly been in charge of the case, Kevin Ryan, is a lazy bastard who wasn't doing anything with the case before his removal about a year ago. Ryan is the balding guy you see being interviewed on ESPN in split screen all the time whenever Bonds is being discussed. I can now no longer take him seriously. I probably should have written down some of the other interesting things this court watcher guy said, but I was too tired/delirious to do so.

At around 8:30 I took the elevator up nineteen floors to claim my rightfully earned spot. Brushing elbows with lawyers and other well-dressed people in the elevator was mildly awkward. I was wearing a hoodie and jeans, and probably had forgotten to brush my teeth. My seat in the courtroom was unfortunately in the back row. But the room was small, with a maximum capacity of maybe 120 people, so that wasn't a huge deal. It was mostly full by the time I arrived. I ended up sitting directly behind ESPN's Pedro Gomez, the guy that has been Barry's shadow for about four or five years now. I didn't have the heart to tell him he has basically contributed exactly jack shit to my appreciation or understanding of the Bonds situation since the day he was assigned to report on every single Goddamn thing Barry does. He's been more useless than Ed Werder and his reports from Dallas Cowboys headquarters. Gomez definitely has a nicer cell phone than me. But it wasn't one of those "ESPN Special Superfan" ones with video highlights on it that they're always advertising, which was disappointing. At 8:55 Barry and his high powered legal team came in, silencing the room. I'll say this- Barry's head is shockingly enormous from 20 feet away. I couldn't believe it didn't get stuck in the door frame as he made his entrance. It really looks like it needs to be lanced like a giant boil. There's got to be a soda can's worth of fluid in there.

At 9:00 sharp, the magistrate judge arrived and the next ten minutes were spent receiving Barry's plea ("Not guilty." FUCK! A tiny hopeful sliver of me really hoped he was going to give in) and hammering out the details of his release bond. After a ten minute break, the actual judge who will conduct the trial came in and spent about twenty minutes talking to both sides and agreeing that the next time everyone would convene would be in exactly two months, on February 7. In the meantime, they'll begin the discovery process and send threatening letters to one another. They didn't even get close to beginning to think about setting a trial date. Hell, I don't even think they used the word "trial" in a sentence at any point in time. And then, at about 9:40, it was all over.

All told I had spent just over an hour staring at the back of Pedro Gomez's head. Barry hadn't pleaded guilty. No one had made a "WE LOVE YOU BARRY!" or "GO FUCK YOURSELF BARRY!" outburst and been forcibly removed. No surprise witnesses had been produced. No one cracked under the pressure of an intense cross-examination. The most interesting part was probably when the US attorneys initially said they wanted to restrict Bonds from leaving the country, only to relent and instead limit his travel to North America when his attorney pointed out that the might have to go to Toronto to play ball next summer. Yawn.

I looked down at the blank screen on my laptop. I hadn't written a damn thing. What was that I had thought to myself about Pearlman's "real reporting" advice? Did I honestly think I could do that kind of thing? Sure, it was cool to have been there. Had Barry pleaded guilty I would probably have shit myself with excitement. And the experience made me hope that one day if I'm a lawyer, I can somehow practice law related to sports because that's probably slightly less boring that other types of law. Most importantly, I knew the whole experience would make for a half decent story. But really... what did I think I was accomplishing, "journalistically?" The only way to describe the situation is to say that I was completely out of my element.

Go back and read the stories those two guys who interviewed and quoted me wrote. They made this mudane arraignment sound kind of interesting. I, on the other hand, just wasted five to ten minutes of your day so I could brag about being first in line at something. There's definitely something wrong with that picture. Not only am I mentally about seven years old, I'm also a bad reporter. I'm just not cut out for it. So here's my conclusion, and the explanation for the title of this post: the main reason Friday morning was great (again, besides being first in line) was because it made me appreciate how much fun being a hateful blogger is! Let the Pedro Gomezes, the Jemele Hills, and the Howard Bryants of the world do the dirty work. Let them attend Barry's arraignment and broadcast completely useless "updates" back to Bristol, CT afterwards. Let them (SMACK!) play the race card and formulate ridiculous ideas and perspectives on the case. People like me don't belong in that world. We just don't do well coming up with our own material. Some might say this makes us useless to the world of discourse, since all we do is tear down other peoples' original thoughts. So? Someone's got to do it, when those original thoughts have little or no value in and of themselves. Even if we can't further the discussion with our own ideas, we can certainly try to prevent stupid people from doing the same when they have little to no business being employed by a major media outlet.

Friday gave me a new lease on life as a FireJay blogger. I feel great. From now on, I'm going back to exclusively bitching and moaning about professional sportswriters. And of course, living in my parents' basement while eating various unhealthy snack foods.

How Do You Write a Really Bad NFL "Week In Review" Column?

If you're CBSSportsline's Clark Judge, you approach this challenge by simply copying Peter King's "10 Things I Know" format. And somehow, through pure determination and perseverance, you manage to do an even worse job than King himself.

1. If the NFL can move the regular season to London, it can move the Super Bowl to November. And it just did. Because that's what next Sunday's Patriots-Colts game is.

Awful, awful segue.

Forget about the NFC. It doesn't matter, and New England and Indianapolis just reminded us. They just torched two of the conference's top clubs by a combined score of 83-14. Uh-huh, the Colts and Pats are that much better than everyone.

This week the Panthers and Redskins got their balls handed to them by the Colts and Patriots. True. Unfortunately for Clark, neither the Panthers or Redskins are among the 3 best teams in the NFC. (Cowboys, Giants, Packers, not necessarily in that order.) Sure, Indy and New England look leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. But beating up on maybe the 4th and 5th best (with Seattle in the mix) teams in the NFC doesn't prove that the Super Bowl will be a joke. NE's win over Dallas two weeks ago is more telling, but that game was closer than the final score indicates. Let's not go writing off the biggest sports television event of the year more than 3 months before it happens just yet.

(Besides, everyone knows you only watch it for the commercials anyways! Those commercials are so clever. I love it when animals act like peoples.)

2. So the Patriots leave Tom Brady in the fourth period to throw another touchdown pass, this time making it 45-0 with nine minutes to go. Great. My only question is: Why didn't they try an onside kick afterward?

Incorrect- the dumb joke we were looking for was, "Why didn't they go for two?"

4. That, folks, is not how you create interest in the NFL overseas. (That's all Miller includes for this item)

Want to elaborate on that? No? Do you mean because the game involved one of the worst teams in the league? Because it was played in a torrential downpour? Were either of these factors, which amount to 95% of the reason the game was boring, under the control of the league office? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the idea of trying to force football (no, real football... not dumb footvaginasoccer) on European people. It's a bad idea. I really don't think they care. NFL Europe folded for a reason. Still, this particular game mostly sucked because the Dolphins sucked and the weather sucked. If the Jacksonville/Tampa Bay thriller had been played in Londonville instead of the pissbucket of an excuse that was New York/Miami, Scott's campy little one liner wouldn't work nearly as well.

6. This is why passer ratings are overrated: The Tennessee Titans' Vince Young ranks among the league's bottom feeders when it comes to quarterback numbers. Except this one: Wins. All Young has done is win 10 of his past 13 starts. I keep saying it, and I'll say it again: Not a great quarterback; a great leader.

Where to begin, where to begin... shall we start with the fact that Tennessee's defense is 5th in the league in yards per game allowed? That they're 7th in points per game allowed? What about the possibly significant fact that they're 3rd in takeaways? No, I'm sure none of that has anything to do with their 5-2 record in 2007. How about we break down their offensive production instead: They're 3rd in rushing yards per game (only a small portion of which is due to VY... his rushing is way down compared to last year). But what's that? They're 29th in passing yard per game? Young has 3 TDs and 6 picks? And averages less than 6 yards per attempt? Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. This is all about correlation, not causation. The Titans have won a lot of games recently; Vince Young is their QB; therefore, Vince Young is a great leader. Makes sense to me! Screw you, Titans defense and RBs. You're a bunch of tiny-dicked pansies.

To explain Clark's reasoning in baseball terminology: Vince Young = David Eckstein. Carson Palmer = Alex Rodriguez. Which one would you rather have on your team- the guy who just flat out wins, or the selfish guy who only cares about regular season stats? I thought so.

7. New England's Mike Vrabel scores a touchdown, has three sacks and forces three fumbles. Any chance he can be the AFC Offensive and Defensive Player of the Week?

With a whole whopping 1 catch for 1 yard, he's going to have a hard time pulling down the first of those awards.

9. There is nobody worse than St. Louis, and I'm not talking about the Rams' winless record. I'm talking about their record of guarantees. The way I see it, Randy McMichael, Steven Jackson and Isaac Bruce are forbidden from dressing as Nostradamus on Halloween. Oh, and remind me not to consult them for predictions on Indy-New England.

Buh-ZING! Facial on you, St. Louis players who have been trying to fire up your teammates by predicting wins. I also really like the "There's nobody worse than (subject)... and I'm not talking about (what you expected me to be talking about)!" style of joke. Truly the work of a master comedic craftsman. I think the last time I saw one of those pulled off well, it was in a Jackie Harvey column. And he did it completely by accident.

11. No, I don't think the Eagles will press Dallas or the Giants in the NFC East, but this is why I would be careful before burying them: There is no one better at overcoming adversity. They won two division titles without Donovan McNabb. They won the NFC Championship Game without Terrell Owens. They were 5-6 a year ago and went on to win the division.

"I am burying the Eagles. However, I hesitated briefly before doing so because of things that happened in the past with different players on the roster and under different circumstances." Nice job by Judge hedging his bets here- if the Eagles fade and finish 4-12, he told you so. On the other hand, if they suddenly catch fire and finish 10-6, he told you so.

12. Al Davis, move over. If New England wins another Super Bowl, the Dolphins' Randy Mueller can be measured for a ring, too. He's the genius who traded Wes Welker to New England. It's bad enough to deal him within the division, but to deal him to the division champ? I would like an explanation.

Welker in 2006: 67 catches for 687 yards, 1 TD
Welker so far in 2007: 56 catches, 613 yards, 6 TDs

Hmmmm... I wonder what's responsible for those numbers getting bumped up so much? Could it be that there are massive talent and coaching discrepancies between the 2006 Dolphins and 2007 Patriots? No, that's a silly dumb fart of a thought. I'm sure Welker would have those exact same numbers were he still in Miami, running routes for Cleo Lemon.

Side discussion: If Tom Brady and Derek Jeter had a baby, hot would he/she be? How clutch? Which one of the two of them would actually carry the baby during pregnancy? Discuss in the comments.

15. From the You Had to Be There Department: The Chargers had 21 first-half plays and 35 points. What's more, they led 28-3 after 20 minutes after running off 11 plays and holding the ball 5:35. Yes, you can start taking these guys seriously again.

I have no idea why this is from the You Had to Be There Department. I read about the game, looked at the box score, and got a very good understanding of how great San Diego played. Furthermore, with wins over the Bears, Broncos, Raiders, and Texans (combined record: 11-19) and losses to New England, Green Bay, and Kansas City (who stack up at 17-4), I don't think it's time to climb back on the Charger bandwagon just yet. Let's see how they deal with Indy and Jacksonville before we start dry humping them.

Well that's about it for this week, but Clark's little column here has the potential to be a regular feature here on FireJay. Gregg Easterbrook's ego is so crushed from the abuse I've been giving him all season that he didn't even publish a TMQ this week! (So far.) That's why I'm excited Judge is stepping up to the plate for me. I mean... I've got to bitch about someone's bad NFL analysis, don't I?