Do College Sports Need the Little Guy?

During the NCAA basketball tournament, the nation's attention is usually captured by the "upset" teams. Honestly, as a casual fan myself, I could probably tell you more about these first- and second- round upsets than I could about the last five years' championship games. That's probably due to the state of media coverage.

Paul Daughtery (whose most recent piece laments the introduction of sushi to the menu at Great American Ballpark) is a good old Cincinnati homebody; I do not mean that as any type of insult. He's not afraid to call 'em as he sees 'em - though, at times, he sees 'em a little superficially.

About four months ago, he wrote about Cincinnati's slim chance at a BCS title game berth. In it, he intimated that the BCS was elitist and unfair to deny a team that wasn't a traditional powerhouse a chanced to play for the title:

Maybe. But how many years? How many seasons of 10-win cred does it take a Cincinnati, or a program like it, to break the BCS glass ceiling? What if the Bearcats play, say, Alabama, in the Sugar Bowl, and roll the Tide the way Utah did? Then do they get a seat at the big boy table?

Last week, he penned an article called "Why too many upsets make a bad Final Four". It's not so much a poorly written article as it is an article that directly contradicts his previous article.

The NCAA tournament encourages the myth of equality. You, too, can be George Mason. We relish that; it's in our national DNA. Rags-to-riches. Butler-to-Indy. In America, anyone can grow up to be president.

Kind of.

But, not anyone does. Thank goodness. By the time March Madness reaches the middle of its second weekend, we'd prefer sanity. It beats Butler in a national semifinal.

So? Unlike Cincinnati's football team, Butler actually stuck it to some good teams on the court.

The Madness is great. Stop the Madness.

Oh what a paradox!

It's like prescribed medicine. Just because five upsets are good doesn't mean 10 are better. There is a limit to their effectiveness. It was reached when Northern Iowa KO'd Kansas in Round 2. It was exceeded when Butler beat Syracuse five days later.

And here's where he starts to go off the deep end. He spent most of the fall complaining that good football teams weren't given the same access as good football teams with traditional pedigrees. Now, he's setting up an argument to suggest that this year's NCAA tournament is a dud because good basketball teams without traditional pedigrees have beaten teams with them.

Give me a tournament where, after the first weekend, pedigrees take over and pumpkins take off. The meritocracy is assured -- yes, Ohio, you really did beat Georgetown! -- but the aristocracy is preserved.

Sounds like an argument for the BCS, to me.

He goes on to argue that what makes a "bad" tournament is when the Final Four centers around teams without (and he uses the phrase) "sex appeal". While he doesn't advocate for changing the tournament, he sure is complaining about how things turned out.

So NCAA basketball gets what it asks for: it gives sixty-four teams a shot at the title. Most years, teams without historical success don't even sniff the Final Four. But really, what's so bad if they do?

That Was One Hell of an All-Star Game, Wasn't It?

Too bad this post has very little to do with the game in question. It's more crap about A-Rod from Rick Morrissey.

Crede is no A-Rod ... thank goodness

Yeah, thank goodness. Because then the White Sox would have an absolute stranglehold on the AL Central and then baseball would be less exciting. That's what you're getting at, right?

No wait....you write for a Chicago newspaper. It has to be the other meaning. The stupid one.

Sitting at a table amid a gob of reporters and cameramen, Alex Rodriguez was talking about his life, which might or might not include Madonna, who, by the way, might be using Jewish mysticism to brainwash A-Rod into thinking the two are "soulmates," according to friends of Rodriguez's estranged wife, as reported by the New York Daily News, which keeps track of these things.

This is pretty much entirely the media's fault, when you think about it.

"Look, everyone has distractions, everyone goes through personal issues," Rodriguez was telling the gathered media Monday. "Mine are on the front page of the papers."

See? And you're making it worse. I saw the front page of the actual Chicago Tribune newspaper today, and these words of Rick Morrissey were written on it. It's like circular reasoning, man. "Thank God that Crede is no A-Rod, because A-Rod has widely publicized personal issues that are exacerbated by me writing this sentence on the front page of a newspaper."


A few minutes later and several tables away, Joe Crede was talking to five reporters about his distractions, which would be "A" material for the cover of Parenting magazine only if he came up with something like a revolutionary toilet-training method.

"The biggest excitement in my life are my two girls, 4 and 2," he said. "That's all the excitement I need right there.

Awwwwwww!

Alex Rodriguez, Joe Crede. I always get them mixed up.

This is sarcastic, I know. But what's your point?

They're both third basemen. They're both American League All-Stars. They used to be connected at the agent, Scott Boras, until Rodriguez decided to work out his own deal last year.

Uh huh....great.

That would pretty much sum up the similarities between the New York superstar and the White Sox's resurrected infielder.

This is interesting because......

This is Rodriguez's 12th All-Star Game, Crede's first.

::rereads and copies article title::

Crede is no A-Rod ... thank goodness

You serious, dude?

Rodriguez is the Yankee with the two-ton contract. Crede is the guy who would like a new contract from the Sox.

Again, true statements, but these have no relevance to any point you are trying to make.

The Sox didn't exactly leave him for dead in the off-season, but they were seen holding a stethoscope.

Are all the sports cartoonists in the room done laughing yet? The rest of us didn't find this one to be all that witty.

And they sure were talking a lot about an ascendant Josh Fields at third.

Maybe because he hit 23 HR in 373 AB last year?

Whether you believe they were furiously trying to trade Crede and his balky back depends on the person doing the talking.

No, it fucking doesn't. They were absolutely trying to dump him. They were showcasing him for a trade all spring and he played like Tomas Perez. Kenny Williams asked Brian Sabean for Fred Lewis, and even Sabean understood it was a ripoff and laughed in Kenny's face. Kenny Williams literally would have taken a vending machine in exchange for Joe Crede in spring training.

But it's indisputable that Crede is here at the All-Star Game.

Of course it's indisputable you fucking twat.

"Hi, I'm Rick Morrissey. It's indisputable that Joe Saunders is a pitcher."

Sometimes standing still — or being forced to stand still — is the best thing for a team.

God, that's great philosophy. Do you write books, sir? Maybe you should be a GM.

Forgive Crede for taking some pleasure in this. Thirteen months ago, he couldn't lift his children because of his back. Six months ago, as he rehabbed from back surgery, he was the subject of trade rumors.

Sure, of course he should be happy about his comeback. I don't think he should go around bragging about his .325 OBP or his .259 EqA though. Did I mention he in no way deserved to be on the All-Star team? Because if I didn't, let me declare this to the world.

Ahem.

Joe Crede in no way deserved to be on the All-Star team. If you are being generous, he has been the 7th best 3rd baseman in the American League this year, behind A-Rod, Lowell, Rolen, Longoria, Guillen, and ::gasp:: Adrian Beltre. He has 17 errors, which people with a fully functional brain would deem terrible. The fact that he made the All-Star team this year is living proof that you can't use All-Star game appearances at all to prove that a player has played well in a given season.

But yeah, I mean all that stuff about not being able to lift his kids and rehabs and back surgery and rainbows and lollipops and trade rumors and....shucks, you're probably right, Morrissey.

Now he's backing up A-Rod at the All-Star Game.

Which is an honor because A-Rod is great, but.....

Crede is no A-Rod ... thank goodness

So it's awesome, because Crede deserves a world of respect for his comeback, which you are epitomizing by saying he's backing up an awesome player at the All-Star game, an awesome player whom, as your title states, you are glad Crede is nothing like.

It has come to my attention that several readers have developed migraines upon reading these things Morrissey has said. Remember, friends, don't kill the messenger!

If the Sox are smart, they will work something out with Crede.

If the Sox are smart, they would realize that having a pretty good 3B prospect at AAA that has already proven he has a future at the big league level would merit passing on Crede, an overrated player that is guaranteed to demand more than he is worth as a free agent, no matter how much he is worth at season's end.

But I mean, he couldn't lift his kids 13 months ago, so eh, I dunno Morrissey, what do you think? The evidence in both directions is astounding!

The All-Star selection would seem to be proof that his formerly aching back isn't an issue.

Again, we've had this discussion. Jason Varitek was an All-Star. He is hitting .218/.299/.354. What. The. Fuck. Is. Your. Point. Question. Mark?

Aside from a first half uncharacteristically filled with errors, he has been a rock at third base.

::reads sentence again to make sure that he isn't dreaming.::

Aside from a first half uncharacteristically filled with errors, he has been a rock at third base.

This might be the stupidest sentence I have ever read.

Okay readers, I can't do this one justice. We'll turn this over to you. What would be the funniest line to write here? Make it in the form of "Aside from _______, (something) has been (phrase basically saying (something) has been good)."

Here's an example. "Aside from all the holes in the bottom, this plastic bag has been great for containing water." You guys are creative, I trust you'll make them good! FireJay bloggers, get in on this one as well!

Best Title I Could Come Up With: Jemele Hill Flat Out Sucks at Writing About Sports

After more than a year at this blogowebpage, I'm starting to feel like I can assign specific adjectives to some of the writers we most frequently critique. When I think Mariotti, I think "ignorant." When I think Simmons, I think "obnoxious." And when I think Jemele Hill, it gets simpler: I think bad. She's terrible. She's just... fucking awful. I'm not linking the article. It's her most recent as of Sunday night.

More than a week has passed since the Boston Celtics won the NBA championship, and I've been patiently waiting for someone to point out the obvious.

Well, you're the sportswriter with the national audience. Maybe some dude in a bar in North Dakota made whatever point you're looking for, but it's unlikely more than six people heard him. Why don't you go out on a limb and take care of this big announcement yourself?

Fine, let me be the bearer of bad news.

Great. Glad you finally gave in.

The Western Conference is overrated.

That's it? That's your big point? Let's count the ways in which that is dumb and/or wrong.

1) Arguments about which conference/league/division is tougher or better than its counterparts are lame and pointless to begin with except in very special circumstances. (I'm honestly not sure I can make it through another college football season with this bullshit as the backdrop/main talking point. I might just have to take a fall off and hope that people find something else to yammer about by 2009. Yes, SEC, you have a lot of good teams. We get it. Go fuck yourselves.) Of course, assuming you buy into that like I do, much of this post immediately becomes very ironic. I already thought about that and I'm OK with it.

2) Six games between two teams, in the context of conference superiority, means nothing.

3) Not that it matters, see point 1, but it was pretty obvious that the Western Conference was a lot better than the Eastern Conference this year. The West was 66 games over .500 in matchups between the two. That's an enormous advantage. Yes, the Celtics were perhaps the best overall team in the league. (I still maintain that the Spurs or Jazz would beat them in the finals more than half the time, but whatever.) That, however, does not make the East better. Was the WAC better than the Big 12 because Boise State beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl? Was the NL better than the AL because the Cardinals beat the Tigers in the World Series? No, and no. Unless you're Jemele Hill, in which case: yes, and definitely, because you have a tiny brain.

The basketball certainly is entertaining. The Phoenix-San Antonio opening-round series was better than any of this year's NCAA tournament games.

It went a mere five games, and was never in question after the 1st quarter of game three. So... no. There were probably like ten March Madness games that most people would consider "better" than that series, regardless of how cool games one and two were. You sound like JA Adande.

And if I had been told I could attend only one NBA game this season, I'm positive I would have picked a Western Conference matchup.

But winning and entertaining are two different things.

Very true. And all season long, the West ran the East's collective ass up and down the court, winning 57% of the games they played against each other.

All season long, and especially during the playoffs, we heard nonstop about how much better the Western Conference is than the Eastern Conference.

If this is true, and I don't think the part about hearing it "especially" during the playoffs is, that's probably because every playoff team in the West won at least 50 games while the East sported just three 50 win teams (and one playoff team that as eight games under .500). Seems fair.

But if that's true, why has the East won three of the past five NBA championships?

This is perhaps the stupidest sentence in the whole article. Again, let's use a list to specify why:

1) Small sample size means the finals aren't indicative of much in terms of relative conference strength

2) I must have forgotten something, isn't this article about the 2007-2008 season?

3) Since in Jemele's mind it obviously isn't, I think we might as well point out that the West has won seven of the past ten titles

4) Oh wait- that makes no fucking sense; why does the fact that Detroit beat LA four years ago make the West overrated now?

5) Think about that for a second. Jemele wants you to believe that, contrary to popular belief, the West is not better than the East right now. Why? In part, because Detriot beat LA in the finals in 2004.

6) Wow.

(And when you consider the Pistons-Spurs series in 2005 lasted seven games, the East easily could have been winners of four of the past five.)

Nevermind about that last sentence being the dumbest in the article. Hey, if the Lakers don't blow that huge lead in game four of this finals, it goes seven, and you never know what can happen in a game seven. And if the refs hadn't stolen the 2006 series from the Mavs, they might have won it. So it's really the West that could have won four of the past five.

We're so fond of the style of play in the West, we've given the conference a free pass for how its teams have recently failed to show up in the NBA Finals.

The Lakers sort of showed up this year. (Not so much in 2004, but again, that was five finals ago.) On the other hand, the Spurs have obviously shown up in each of their three recent appearances, and the Mavs definitely showed up in 2006. That was a damn good series. What are we talking about again?

The past few Western Conference teams in the Finals have had one very obvious character flaw:

They've been softer than John Daly's midsection.

Wow, how do you ruin a John Daly joke? That's difficult to do. The Spurs are the opposite of soft. That Mavs team was also not soft. So let's go ahead and take what happened this year, and extend it several years back without regard for reality or facts. Sounds great.

The Mavericks mentally shrunk against the Heat in 2006.

Few could blame them, given the way that series unfolded. (They also lost games 5 and 6 by one and three points respectively, FWIW.)

The Lakers were completely undressed by the Pistons in '04. And this year, reigning MVP Kobe Bryant and his sidekick, Pau Gau-soft, were punked by the Celtics.

This is the big, bad West?

Yeah, it is. The same West that has flat out torched the East in head to head play each of the last several years. (60 games over .500 in 2006-07, 55 games in 2005-06, 62 games in 2004-05)

It's often been argued that if you entered Western Team A into the Eastern Conference, it'd either win the conference outright or at least be among the the East's top teams. But after watching how the Celtics annihilated the Lakers, how can that possibly be true?

Insanity. Absolute insanity. No explanation needed. (Except for the part about people saying Team A would outright win the East, which would obviously be untrue. And I don't remember hearing it this past season from any analyst.)

In fact, a lot of the Western teams have major issues lurking behind those pretty 50-win records.

Just as a lot of Eastern mid-tier teams have major issues "lurking" behind their 35-45 win records.

Houston can't win a playoff series.

Apparently, if you use some kind of advanced math, their inability to succeed in the Western playoffs proves that they wouldn't be one of the better teams in the East. You know, I don't see anyone out East besides Boston, Detroit, or Cleveland winning a whole lot of playoff series either.

Utah can't win on the road.

They won 17 regular season games there this year. Besides Boston, Detroit, and Orlando, no Eastern team won more than 18. In 2006-07, their 20 road wins were more than every Eastern team except Detroit and Cleveland.

Denver doesn't play defense.

Just like Washington and Cleveland don't play offense.

Golden State can't get focused (and doesn't play defense).

The Indiana Pacers, the East's #9 team this year (as the Warriors were in the West): a pillar of focusedness. Thanks, Jamal Tinsley and Jermaine O'Neal!

Phoenix can't get past San Antonio (and doesn't always play defense).

Just as with the Houston situation, apparently the fact that they can't get past a Western team that's won three titles in the last six years means they wouldn't cut it out East.

New Orleans doesn't have enough pieces and is too inexperienced.

Hilarious and inaccurate anecdotal bullshit.

Dallas has yet to regain its confidence after losing to Miami in the Finals.

They have managed, however, to continue to win lots of games.

And San Antonio, the West's savior, is starting to get old.

OK, you got me there. Clearly they suck. And Boston and Detroit are a couple of spring chickens. No key players of 30 on either of those teams.

At least in the East, there's no pretending. When Eastern Conference teams stink, they make it obvious (see: the 76ers', Nets' and Cavaliers' Finals appearances).

This is a direct contradiction to pretty much everything you've written so far.

A team with 37 wins (Atlanta) and a team with 45 wins (Cleveland) pushed the Celtics to seven games -- something the mighty West's Lakers had no shot at doing.

Something they had no shot whatsoever at doing, unless of course they managed to not pull an epic collapse in game four and lose in the final minute. Yeah, they were really miles away from making it go seven.

Both Boston and Detroit had a better winning percentage against Western Conference teams this season than against teams in their own conference. But outside of Boston, very few people thought the Celtics had a chance against the Lakers.

Why?

Because Vegas is close to LA, and because everyone thought Kobe would carry the Lakers because recent history suggests that having the best individual player in a Finals will lead to victory. I don't think conference superiority was at the forefront of most people's minds. Maybe it was tucked somewhere in the back. Maybe.

Understand, this isn't an argument about which conference is deeper. Clearly the West wins that argument. Every Western playoff team won more than 50 games, while just three teams in the East accomplished that. Only four Western teams had a losing record against the East -- the SuperSonics, Clippers, Timberwolves and Grizzlies. Just four Eastern teams managed a winning record against the West.

(Larry B slaps holds head in hands, slowly shaking it back and forth)

That ship sailed the second you started writing this, Jemele. You weren't on it.

But despite those gaudy, imbalanced numbers, the East's recent dominance in the NBA Finals

Probably the loosest usage of "dominance" I've ever seen.

has earned its teams the right to tell everyone to be quiet about how great the West is.

I sure hope the Celtics' and Pistons' shoulders don't get too sore from carrying those other thirteen teams around in the context of that argument.

At the very least, there should be a moratorium on that crazy talk that the NBA playoff format should be changed so that teams with the top 16 records make the playoffs, regardless of conference.

So Jemele can even admit (like five sentences ago) that the West is deeper than the East. But she still calls for a moratorium on this idea, which has been proposed precisely to award the conference with more depth. Let's hear it for consistency.

Golden State last season against the five, count 'em, five Eastern playoff teams that finished with worse records than the Warriors: 8-2. Yeah, it would have been totally unfair to let them into the playoffs in front of the 37 win Hawks or 40 win Sixers.

Horrendous.

More Bad Analysis re: The Big Aristotle

Everyone watch this. (Turn down the audio or plug in the ol' headphones if you're at work.)

OK. That should have gotten all the laughter out of your system. Now we can begin.

As if Scoop Jackson's disaster of an article (covered by PNoles, just two posts below this one) didn't adequately implicate ESPN as an employer of idiots, Bill Simmons felt the need to weigh in on the matter as well. Actually, NBA trades are the one thing not related to Boston that Simmons does a reasonable job of understanding. And this article isn't bad through and through. Still, why the fuck would he say:

If the trade doesn't work, Kerr gets canned. If it does work, he's a genius. There is no middle ground.

Oh yeah? What if Shaq performs very well in the playoffs, but the Suns still lose to the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs in seven in the conference finals? What if Shaq blows out his knee tomorrow and they still somehow win it all because the Warriors knock off two of the Spurs/Lakers/Mavs while the Pistons and Celtics beat each other to pieces in the Eastern Conference finals? What if Shaq turns into an unstoppable presence in the postseason, but Stoudemire, Diaw, and Barbosa forget to show up and Phoenix bows out in the second round? What then, Mr. Simmons? All of those outcomes, by my very subjective estimation, constitute a middle ground.

I know it's more fun to sensationalize things, because heroes in action movies are always like: "This ridiculous plan could either be the stroke of genius that helps us defeat the bad guys... or it could be totally insane and lead to the end of life on Earth as we know it! What if it's BOTH?!?!?!?!" But that doesn't mean events that happen in real life can be viewed through the same lens. Some trades end up being essentially meaningless. Some players don't do a whole lot to either help or hurt their new teams. And some sportswriters should be fired from ESPN and go back to riding Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel's coattails. (Or trying to, anyways.)

Scoop Jackson Has An Announcement: Scoop = Right, World = Wrong

If that sounds unbelievable, that's because it is. It starts out relatively inoffensive, then gets stupid.

Shaq will thrive on solar power

Incredibly, incredibly cute.

Guess what? The Suns just made a fantastic trade

Fantastic? You're going to tell me that this was "fantastic"? The best argument I've heard involves "Marion is a malcontent so the Suns did the best they could by shipping him out for Shaq." But fantastic? Read on....

The world has finally given up on Shaq.

Because his PPG and RPG have dropped rapidly over the last 3 years, perhaps? The fact that he has only played in 99 games the last two seasons and has only played in 32 during this one?

Many feel the gimmick is up, there's no room left for the games, that he's not worth his weight or contract on anyone's roster anymore. "Damaged goods," is how one man described him. "Stupid," "Dumb," "Doesn't make any sense," and "What in the #@$% were they thinking?" are some of what's being said. If you've read ESPN.com or any blogs, listened to any sports talk radio or had time to peep the sports pages, you'd know that the Suns are catching heat for bringing Shaquille O'Neal into their almost perfect basketball universe.

The same kind of heat the Lakers caught when they gave him up and gave up on him almost four years ago.

Right. Because 4 years ago, Shaq was still pretty damned good. He was a 20 points, 10 rebounds kind of guy. Very very productive. And those critics were right, he went on to win an NBA title. Got news for ya scoop, they're still right.

Shaq doesn't fit into their style of play. Even if he's in the best shape of his life, he can't get up and down the floor with the Suns. He'll be worthless on offense, and he's going to destroy their flow. He's lazy. He's not going to work hard. He's injury-prone. He's not worth the money. They still won't win a championship with him there.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Wrong. Wrong.

Correct answers: Yes. Wrong. Sorta wrong. Sorta wrong. Maybe. Yes. Yes. Impossible to determine.

Since you have 1/2 credit on some of these, you get 4.5/8 right for a 56.25% score. Lets look at where you screwed up!

Shaq absolutely does not fit into their style of play. A large, old player does not fit into a run-and-gun fast-break style offense. Absolutely not. This should be obvious. He won't be completely worthless on offense, but not worth very much considering Amare is a better option almost every time, and he probably will disrupt their flow. Shaq is nowhere near the 2nd best player in the NBA, so no, he is not close to worth 2nd best player in basketball money. And you have no idea if they will win a championship with him there or not. That's bullshit.

In Miami (and in L.A. and Orlando before) Shaq was Option 1 or 2, and over the past two seasons that became a problem. In Phoenix, he'll be Option 4, maybe 5. Mike D'Antoni should have no plans to depend on Shaq for any offense -- heavy emphasis on "depend." Not in the conventional way that everyone is thinking. The pressure on him to score 20 and grab 10 is finally over.

Read what the hell you just said! You're basically arguing "Shaq will totally help propel Phoenix to a championship, my reasoning is that 1) he's not that good anymore, and 2) but that's ok, because he won't be expected to be that productive." Cleanup on aisle common sense!

Now he'll be the Big Decoy.

Which will totally work, because other teams have no sense for evaluating if he's still as good as he used to be. You know, I hear the New Orleans Hornets and San Antonio Spurs prepare for games by looking at tapes of the 1999-2000 season.

And because he won't be double-teamed (remember he's still one of the best-passing post players in the game, and the Suns are one of the best outside-shooting teams in the League, hitting 38.7 percent on 3-pointers along with four players capable of dropping 20 to 30 every night), Big stands a chance of being more valuable by doing less in Phoenix.

Big Decoy, 2007-2008 season: 1.4 APG, good for 14th in basketball among centers. He's behind Zydrunas Ilgauskas for fuck's sake. His assist to turnover ratio is .47! Not as comically bad as Eddy Curry, but still awful, even for a center.

The beauty is -- again, if the Suns play this right -- Shaq doesn't need to be a part of their transition game, he just needs to ignite it.

Get ready for this guys, it's pretty funny.

Rebound, turn, outlet! Rebound, turn, outlet! Precision. Execution. Buckets. Only six seconds off the shot clock. Back on D. Repeat. So unfair.

Sounds exactly like what Shawn Marion did for them! Only Marion grabbed rebounds more often and actually was able to run the floor to contribute anyway even if he wasn't the lucky fella to whom the rebound bounced. FANTASTIC trade! I guess if you're arguing that Shaq "wouldn't be completely dismal" to the Suns, you've done a C-minus job. But that the trade was FANTASTIC!?!?! Gimme a break.

It will be so systematic that no one will be able to stop it once it gets perfected.

For crissake all you're saying is that he can grab the farking rebound and pass it. The rebound is the hardest part, and he's not even very good at that anymore. Ben Wallace is way shorter and lighter and having a terrible season and he STILL gets more rebounds per game than Shaq, who is 40th in the NBA.

And for those who think it's predictable and defenses will be able to shut it down, here's one to grow on: Whenever teams played the 49ers, they knew where, when and how Jerry Rice was going to get the ball. Yet for years, the best defenses in the game could not do anything to stop it. Nothing. The Niners won four rings with Rice, proving that predictability when perfected, works.

Football....that doesn't happen to be a completely different sport with different dynamics than basketball....does it? Chalk another one up to the "anecdotal bullshit" category!

On defense, all Shaq needs to do is breathe, partially because Amare Stoudemire is so active. As long as Shaq doesn't move (and get in foul trouble, which my be a bigger problem on offense), no one'll get hurt. Remember Chief from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"? That's Shaq all day on defense. Just play the paint, don't protect it.

So, what does Amare Stoudemire's man do when Amare goes to help out Shaq? Run into the stands and buy a hot dog? No, he stands right under the fucking basket for easy points if the ball can get to him. An awful defender can bite you in the ass, regardless of how good the help defenders on your team are. And I'm so gonna think of a Cuckoo's Nest-related label.

There's more grief from the world about this. Grief of how "the Suns should have kept Shawn Marion," how he was "their best defensive player and best rebounder" and how "there's no player in the league like him." All true. But Marion wanted to go. He wanted out of everyone's shadow and the organization's underappreciation of him. And before the Suns ended up like the Grizzlies after trading Pau Gasol and getting "the twin of nothing" in return for the Matrix, they decided to get someone who, if you checked his history, guarantees your team will either get to the NBA Finals or win a ring.

Orlando? Finals in three years. L.A.? Finals in four years, three rings in eight. Miami? Finals and ring in his second season.

Sir, a coke-addicted moron could fine serious, serious flaws in that logic. For starters, you just represented something that has historically happened 53.3% of the time as a "guarantee." Hey guys, 53.3% of the time, Shaq gets to the finals EVERY TIME. Second, you just assumed that things like the state of Shaq's career (currently the severe decline phase), Shaq's teammates (ones who play a vastly different style of basketball than he does), and the conference and division in which Shaq is competing (both pretty tough) are irrelvant.

Get ready, this is about to become dismal.

See, the Suns are outthinking all y'all.

You're a professional writer. "Y'all" should not appear in your sports column.

They know that one thing comes almost assured with this trade: They will win a title with Shaquille O'Neal in the lineup. It's just a matter of whether the one ring they get with him is worth the years they won't win while he's still there.

Could you be more completely and totally irrational? First of all, as you just discussed, Shaq didn't win a ring with Orlando. Second, you are talking like the Suns are 100% completely and totally guaranteed to win a title either this year or in the next two. If you can say this with confidence, Scoop, head to Vegas right now, bet the farm on it, and start living the good life. And third, if the Suns absoluetly will win at least one ring with him there that they wouldn't have won without him, then it's not a "matter" of whether the other two years are worth it, because the Suns are absolutely dying for a title, and it's a very difficult title to win. If this trade guarantees them ONE title (which it absolutely doesn't), then it's no fucking question that it's worth it. Period.

The Suns have never won an NBA championship -- just like Miami before Shaq arrived. And if they're smart, they can take the one they'll win and milk it for 30 years -- just like Portland. The question is if $20 million per for the next two seasons is worth getting the one year of ring service they're going to get from Shaq.

It's official, you've fallen off the proverbial cliff harder and more dramatically than the little Price is Right mountain climber guy with an idiot contestant playing. If there is a fucking team in the NBA that wouldn't pay a guy $20M for two years with the stipulation that it would guarantee them one championship in the next three (hell, it's probably true of the Knicks), that team shouldn't have a fan in the world, and the GM should probably be drowned. And you continuously hammer home the "fact" that Shaq in some sort of divine way "guarantees" a championship in Phoenix, which is a "stupid" "thing" to "say."

There are so many other variables that play to the Suns' favor in this: a front line of Stoudemire, Shaq and Boris Diaw that no squad in the West can match -- not even the Lakers, when Andrew Bynum comes back with Gasol in the slot. Amare will be able to play his natural position, power forward, which causes matchup drama for any other team.

For the 20 minutes per game you'll get out of Shaq, that's true. Stoudamire is currently running at 23.1 PPG and 9.4 RPG. We'll see if those improve. My guess: not significantly.

Steve Nash is going to get open looks because of Shaq's presence and how coaches automatically forget about other players on the court because they are still afraid of getting killed by Shaq in the playoffs.

Those teams must still have the image of Shaq dominating the Bulls last year fresh in their minds. Oh wait....

Shaq's and Grant Hill's passing ability in the half-court will be more dangerous than Nash's, which will now increase the assist-per-game ratio for the team, which is the most difficult stat in the League to alter and one that correlates most to a team's ability to win.

Are you fucking kidding me? Shaq and Grant Hill better passers than Nash? Even though Nash is overrated, he's at the very least one of the three best passers in basketball. Shaq can go ahead and add his 1.4 assists per game at the expense of Marion's 2.1. Grant Hill averages 3.3 assists. Nash averages 11.7. How many of Nash's are in the half-court, I can't say for sure, but it's still way more than Shaq or Hill get. Mark my words, Scoop, the Suns' APG will not be seeing a significant boost from this trade, and you couldn't overrate O'Neal's ability as a passer any more than you have. You know what else correlates to winning? Not turning the ball over. Shaq does that a lot.

Big might come to town rejuvenated. He probably hears everything that's being said about him, which could send him back into 2005-06 mode. Just being gone from Miami with all of the hot mess surrounding his divorce will give him a new lease on his life. Robert Horry might think twice about running a Suns player into the scorer's table next time.

So....all the Toronto media needs to do to get Frank Thomas to hit like he did for Oakland 2 years ago is start talking shit about him! Totally makes sense!

Variables that no one outside of Steve Kerr's office and Robert Sarver's bank account could possibly comprehend. The fact is, by attaining the services of Shaquille O'Neal and not expecting or needing much from a productivity standpoint in return, the Phoenix Suns may have made the most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years. Only time will tell. It's just a matter of how wrong they -- and he -- really want to prove the world to be.

Most ingenious move in the NBA in the past 10 years!??!??!?!?!

::faints::

WMTMQR: Gregg Easterbrook Is Still Very Wrong About Clock Management

I haven't done a WMTMQR in a while because Easterbrook has somewhat cleaned up his act recently. This has probably happened because he reads my scathing commentary and takes it to heart. But he tried to sneak a couple giant slices of crap pie into this week's column, so I might as well complain about them.

In other football news, would New England actually be better off losing Sunday against Jersey/B? If the Patriots beat the Jets, they lock in the No. 1 seed and home-field advantage throughout the postseason. Then, with two meaningless regular-season outings and a bye week, a full month will pass until Jan. 12, the earliest date the Flying Elvii could appear in another game that counts. Consider New England's last three regular-season opponents: the 3-10 Jets, the 0-13 Dolphins and a Giants squad that might be resting starters. Even the mad-at-the-world Pats could have trouble maintaining focus for an entire meaningless month. Meanwhile, Dallas is in almost the same situation as New England. With effectively a two-game lead over Green Bay -- owing to beating the Pack head-to-head -- through the final three weeks, the Cowboys need only a combination of Dallas wins and Green Bay losses that adds up to two to lock up home-field advantage in the NFC. Thus, Boys faithful actually might root for Green Bay to beat St. Louis on Sunday -- otherwise it's possible the Boys could lock up the top seed this weekend, and face a meaningless month of their own.

Oh yeah, definitely. I think think both of these teams should intentionally lose their next two games and hope Indy and Green Bay win both of theirs. That way, the Cowboys and Pats will have something at stake during week 17. That's a great strategy. No way that could possibly blow up in their faces. Or maybe Gregg is saying they should just lose this weekend, and then win to wrap up home field in week 16. Because, you know, a three week layoff from "meaningful" games is totally different than a 4 week layoff. Someone get this man a head coaching position.

It's been mentioned by commenters here before: do the "stats of the week" really add to anyone's enjoyment or understanding of football? Below, I have added a made up stat about my own life that I consider to be equally as interesting as what Gregg offers.

Stat of the Week No. 3: Since taking the field for their final playoff appearances last season, a combined 28-6 at that point, the Bears and Ravens are a combined 9-19.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 1: Since choosing the fastest checkout lane at the supermarket twelve out of a possible fifteen times during a stretch that ended last January, Larry has chosen the fastest lane only two out of thirteen times.

Stat of the Week No. 6: Kansas City was outrushed by 199 yards.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 2: Larry parallel parked his car four times.

Stat of the Week No. 8: In high school, college and now the pros, Derek Anderson is 3-1 as a starter against Kellen Clemens.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 3: Including high school, college, and now post-college, Larry is 23-18 in pickup football games against Chris Hart.

Stat of the Week No. 9: At the end of the Cleveland-Jersey/B game, the Jets attempted three onside kicks in less than three minutes.

Stat of Larry B's Week No. 4: On Friday, Larry attempted to complete five transactions at the bank during their last seven minutes of business.

Tell me mine aren't better.

Sweet Special-Teams Plays of the Week: Trailing 17-3 with 10 minutes remaining, San Diego punted on fourth-and-29 at the Tennessee 40. Chargers special-teamers downed the ball at the Titans' 1, then the defense forced a three-and-out. Quick San Diego touchdown, and suddenly it's a game.

Although I will concede that converting a 4th and 29 is next to impossible, I can't count the number of times Gregg has bitched about teams punting from their opponent's territory while trailing in the 4th quarter. Now it's suddenly a good thing, as long as the team that does it subsequently forces a 3 and out. Had the Titans somehow put together a game icing field goal drive after this punt, I'm reasonably confident Easterbrook would have made some dumb point about how no matter the distance, punting in the 4th when you're trailing and in your opponent's territory is always bad.

Yes, I'm nitpicking. It's what we do here.

Dallas has reached the Detroit 16 with 22 seconds showing on the clock. To that point in the game, Boys tight end Jason Witten had 14 receptions for 122 yards. This is what is called "a clue."

What does that even mean? As if the Cowboys didn't have anyone else to throw to on that play. Assuming Marion Barber was in the game, he had 10 catches for 61 yards including an 8 yard touchdown at the end of the 1st half. Maybe that was "a clue." T.O. also has 74 catches for 1270 yards and 14 TDs on the season. That could have been "a clue" as well. Yeah, Witten was getting thrown to a lot during that particular game. That still doesn't guarantee shit on any one given play.

As the Cowboys broke the huddle, TMQ said aloud, "Maybe it's to Witten."

Easy there, Nostradamus. You had a one in five chance. And you didn't even say you knew for sure; you went with "maybe."

Moving on, I hadn't seen this particular demonstration of idiocy out of Gregg in a couple of months. But apparently old habits die hard.

TMQ's Law of the Obvious holds: Sometimes, all a team needs to do is run up the middle for no gain and things will be fine. Leading San Diego 17-10, host Tennessee faced third-and-4 on the Chargers' 46 with 2:37 remaining and San Diego down to one timeout. Run, grind the clock! Instead, incompletion, and San Diego scores to force overtime with nine seconds remaining. Had the Flaming Thumbtacks simply rushed up the middle for no gain, keeping the clock moving, the Chargers would have run out of time.

No. That is wrong. You can't say that with any certainty at all. You have no idea what would have happened if the Titans ran there. None. You have no idea how San Diego's play calling would have changed on their possession if they had 37 fewer seconds to work with. BOOOOOOO.

When Roger Goodell fined the Patriots a first-round choice in the Beli-Cheat scandal, it was New England's first-rounder, not the San Francisco choice acquired in trade, that Goodell voided. Belichick obtained San Francisco's first choice fair and square, and his decision to bank that choice reflects the wise husbandry New England has shown consistently under current management. Still, if the Patriots win the Super Bowl, then go second in the 2008 draft after Goodell publicly imposed what sounded like a harsh draft penalty, the situation will seem rigged, even if it isn't.

I hate the Patriots as much as anyone, but what the hell is the point of this? That's the item's conclusion: The Patriots have lost their own 1st rounder this April, but still possess another team's 1st rounder, which will probably be a top 5 pick. Even though there is nothing shady about this, it seems shady. What?

At the endgame, Washington led 24-13 and Chicago faced fourth-and-goal on the Redskins' 4 with 34 seconds remaining, holding a timeout. The Bears' faint hope was a touchdown and a two-point play and a field goal, wrapped around a recovered onside kick. Sure, that hope is faint, but to have any chance at all, Chicago needed to try for the touchdown first. Assume the onside kick will be recovered and the deuce will work. At the 34-second mark, the Bears were just 4 yards from a touchdown. If they go for the touchdown here, they need to gain 4 yards and -- after the deuce and the recovered onside, likely to be recovered just on their side of midfield -- will need to gain about 25 yards to attempt the field goal that forces overtime. Thus, Chicago needs about 30 offensive yards, plus success with the deuce and the onside, of course. If, on the other hand, the Bears take the field goal here, they must score a touchdown after the onside and will need to gain about 55 offensive yards to do so. So to keep the faint hope of victory aflame, the team should go for the touchdown first in this situation because it already is close to the goal line and, if successful with the onside, can launch the field goal try for long distance. Yet Lovie Smith ordered the field goal first. When this happens, it is fairly obvious the coach is not going all out to try to win but rather is taking the easy three points to make the final score more respectable and deflect criticism. (Washington got the onside.)

I agree that kicking there was probably bad strategy. I would have elected to go for the TD in that situation. But it's not like Smith's decision is completely indefensible. To accuse him of not really trying to win is laughable. I mean, let me play devil's advocate. Easterbrook's claim about the yards the Bears needed in each hypothetical situation was correct, but didn't factor in the number of plays the team would get in order to gain said yards. Had they recovered the onside after kicking the field goal, they would have had probably about three or four plays (maybe five) to get the 55 yards needed for the tying TD. That's pretty unlikely but not impossible. Sure, had they instead gone for it on 4th and gotten the touchdown, they would have had three or four plays to get a mere 25/30 yards needed for the tying field goal. But that opportunity only arrives after putting the entire game on the line for four yards on one play against a compressed defense. Failure, obviously, would have ended everything before an onside attempt even becomes part of the equation. So although I disagree with the decision, I can definitely see why Smith chose to kick. TMQ just loves implying that coaches care more about the margin of victory than their won-loss record; he's done it many times before this. It's pretty comical. When he's being evaluated by his owner/GM at the end of a failed season, what coach actually gets points for saying "Well, I went 5-11 this year, but nine of those losses were by single digits!" That's ridiculous and does not happen. Coaches are judged first and foremost on Ws and Ls. To imply anything else is WRONG. There is absolutely a 0% chance that Smith sent in his field goal team with any thought in mind other than "I think this gives us the best chance to win." Zero.

Speaking of WRONG, I think I'll wrap this up and attach the labels. And speaking of labels, don't you all love the kooky and zany labels we sometimes use here at FireJay? They're soooooooo silly! We can't quite match up with the juggernauts of the absurd label world like Kissing Suzy Kolber, but I think we do alright for ourselves. I think for this post I'll re-use a couple of the wackiest ones we've already got, just for the hell of it. Get ready to laugh at something that's not really overly funny!

There Is No Excuse for This

A blockbuster deal that happened today sent Cabrera and Willis to the Tigers.

SportsCenter just announced that the Marlins gave the Tigers "their two best players".

Hanley Ramirez had the highest fucking VORP in the NL last year.

Dontrelle Willis had a 1.60 WHIP last year.

Would Hanley Ramirez be more hyped if he and Jose Reyes swapped teams.....oh I wonder......

This Is Why We Prefer Jay Mariotti Didn't Write About Sports

Go ahead. Read this. It's very short, I promise.

I don't want to create a bunch of new labels for this specific post. But here are a few new ones I could easily tag onto it. Each one is applicable to many of Jay Mariotti's columns.

"Chris Duhon is not better than Kirk Hinrich"
"Blowing a small sample size out of proportion"
"hyperbolic crap" -- wait, we actually have that one
"One bad decision does not a player make"
"Player B, usually regarded as worse than Player A, played better than Player A last game. Therefore, Player B should start over Player A"
"Cleanup on aisle common sense!" (sorry, the Miller High Life commercial just came on)
"Marriage....the true cause of sports failures."