Enough of This Favre Nonsense... Let's Get Back to the REAL Stories

And by "the real stories," FoxSports.com's Michael Rosenberg means a bunch of other stories that are just as overplayed and annoying as Favre's (along with a handful of bad jokes). Out of the frying pan and into the fire we go.

American adults can only use so much brain matter on pro football, and lately, all of it has been occupied by Brett Favre. And in the meantime, we're missing out on some more interesting training camp stories. Here are seven:

Brace yourself for some fresh angles.

1. The Patriots huddle and discuss: "What the hell do we now?"

The who? The Patriots? What? Damn you, Brett Favre. You're keeping us away from stuff we need to hear about. Like stories that haven't been mercilessly run into the ground for months on end.

This team was basically one helmet-catch away from the greatest season in NFL history.

I must've missed that. I'd better Google it or something. Anyone want to link me to a story about that?

If the Pats had won the Super Bowl, this summer would be filled with speculation about when they might actually lose a game.

Oh, if only.

Instead ... well, we bring you back to the question at the top: What do they do now? They were clearly determined to run the table last year, more than any team in modern NFL history. Can they bring that kind of focus again? Is that even possible?

I don't know, but I'd sure love to read about it for another 6 months. Let's get that train rolling.

The suspicion here is that the Patriots follow the example of the Steelers, Colts, Miami Heat and St. Louis Cardinals in recent years. Those teams all followed dynamic regular seasons with disappointing postseasons, then won the championship the following year.

Please, no.

If you're a Patriot, how can September dominance seem so important again?

I don't know, but I'm sure the sports media will be there to fill us in every step of the way as they try to handle that challenge.

2. The Saints try to save several careers

Not sure this one would be getting too much press regardless of what Favre was up to. But let's see Rosenberg's angle.

There are a lot of exciting players in the NFL. There are only a few that make you say "Wow, I don't know if I've ever seen anybody quite like this guy."

Jeremy Shockey burst onto the scene as one of those guys. If Shockey is the player he thinks he is, New Orleans can be a Super Bowl threat.

Jeremy who? I hate to re-use my "fake ignorance" joke, but fucking seriously. Is this clown (Rosenberg, not Shockey) really trying to say that we need less Favre because he's getting in the way of the Patriots and Jeremy Fucking Shockey? Really?

Reggie Bush is one of those guys, too.

Never heard of him.

Nobody puts together a highlight like Bush.

An NCAA highlight, maybe. Not sure I'm willing to give him that stamp for his body of work in the NFL.

Bush was supposed to revolutionize the running-back position, but so far, the position has transformed him. We'll find out soon if he is truly an NFL star, or another electrifying college player whose skills don't quite translate to the pros.

We've been hearing about this issue since week 3 in 2006. This Favre-induced break from that topic is welcome in my book.

3. The Cowboys are throwing Tony Romo, Terrell Owens, The Artist Formerly Known as Pacman Jones, Tank Johnson, Zach Thomas, Roy Williams, a coach who is rumored to be a lame duck (Wade Phillips) and a coordinator who could take over for said duck (Jason Garrett) all into one pot.

So far, our list of topics that are being ignored because of Farvefest 2008:
1. The Patriots
2. Jeremy Shockey and Reggie Bush
3. The Cowboys

I'm beside myself with rage. Is this article being written ironically? Is Rosenberg spoofing one overplayed story to make a broader point about the sports media's tendency to consistently ram other stories down consumers' throats? Or is he just simply fucking clueless? You decide. (I for one already have; I'll bet you can guess which conclusion I came to.)

The result could be a Super Bowl champion. Fascinating.

Two years ago? Mildly interesting. Now? Completely and totally unfascinating. (sic)

4. The Giants try to do things in reverse order.

Lose your highest-profile player, then win the Super Bowl, then win your division. It's a twist, you gotta admit.

Very confusing. First, more talk about Shockey, which is pretty much nauseating. Then, an implication that the Giants are more concerned with winning their division than repeating as Super Bowl champs. All this framed by the idea that the usual order of goals for any given team is to win their division, then win the Super Bowl, then lose their highest-profile player.

5. Will the Detroit Lions finally be good?

No.

As infuriating as it was at the time, now that we're at this point I kind of liked it better when he was talking about the Patriots and Cowboys.

6. The Norv Turner Show!

(I don't know if there is, or ever has been, something called The Norv Turner Show. I assume there has. But I can't imagine why anybody would watch it.)

Then don't try to write a joke about it, dummy.

The San Diego Chargers are threatening to be one of those teams that seems like it should win the Super Bowl five years in a row but never even makes it. At some point, LaDainian Tomlinson will start to decline. At some point, so will the Chargers. The NFL is cyclical.

Will this be the year San Diego comes through?

You know what? I'll give credit here. This story (particularly the Turner angle) isn't exactly underappreciated, but at least it's not the Cowboys or Patriots.

7. Green Bay makes a bold decision to ... keep its team.

Am I the only one here who is more interested in watching Aaron Rodgers this season than Brett Favre? (Put your hand down, coach McCarthy.)

Rodgers is an unknown. In his one extended stretch under center, against the Cowboys last year, he was terrific. And the fact that the Packers are willing to end Favre's ironman streak, or trade him, and risk the public backlash, just to see what Rodgers can do ... well, that's enough to get me to watch the guy.

Don't worry, you'll be hearing about it. In fact, if you were paying attention, you'd know that you're already hearing about it three-quarters as much as you're hearing about Favre himself. This is the perfect wrap-up to the article, really. Michael Rosenberg: utterly and completely clueless.

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others

I usually don't like arbitrarily constructed lists about sports. The classic example is the ever-present "power rankings" columns that permeate every major sports website. Other than providing hilarious user comments sections on a weekly basis (seriously, check them out sometime if you haven't before. ESPN, Fox Sports, CBS... doesn't really matter), those couldn't possibly be a bigger waste of time.

But I have to admit, some topics are best discussed in list format. Foxsports.com's Jeff Gordon (no, not THAT Jeff Gordon! LOL! NASSSCCCCCAAARRRRRRRR!!!!!!11111) has assembled a kind of sort of interesting one. For your reading pleasure, he has listed what he considers to be the 10 best free agent signings in baseball history. And I have to concede that this is one of those rare topics that works better as a list. So take a look at his selections, and see if you can figure out why I'm blogging about his column right now instead of just silently nodding in approval and moving on to something else.

David Ortiz, Red Sox, 2002
Andre Dawson, Cubs, 1986
Reggie Jackson, Yankees, 1976
Greg Maddux, Braves, 1992
Roberto Alomar, Indians, 1998
Barry Bonds, Giants, 1993
Roger Clemens, Blue Jays, 1996
Kevin Brown, Marlins, 1995
Ichiro, Mariners, 2000
David Eckstein, Cardinals, 2004

Did you catch it? Go look again. In order, we have (all stats were acquired by candidates while playing for the new teams they signed with):

-A guy who has hit 241 HRs in 5 years
-A guy who won an MVP and OPS+ed 130 or better 3 out of 6 years
-A slam-dunk hall of famer who hit 144 HRs in 5 years
-One of the greatest pitchers ever and winner of 3 straight Cy Youngs
-A guy who in 3 years with his new team OPS+ed 139, 114, and 150 while playing unbelievable defense at a premium position
-One of the greatest hitters ever and winner of 4 straight MVPs (5 total with new team, 7 overall)
-One of the greatest pitchers ever and winner of 2 straight Cy Youngs (7 overall)
-A guy who recorded ERA+es of 216 and 150 in 2 years with his new team
-A guy with 7 straight seasons of 200+ hits, who may one day reach 3,000 despite not entering the league until age 27
-A guy who in 3 seasons with his new team OPS+ed 99, 81, and 93, and who plays bad defense at the most important defensive position on the field

Is it any clearer now? Let's let Gordon defend that final inclusion in his own words:

When he signed his three-year, $10.25 million free-agent deal after the 2004 season, some experts ripped the Cardinals for giving him too much money and too many years.

They were right.

After all, Eckstein was really a second baseman playing shortstop. He didn't possess great fielding range and his arm strength was famously poor.

Like I said, those critics were right.

He was a decent hitter,

He had just put up back to back OPS+es of 75 and 79. So, no. He was not. (Although it's fair to note that in context with those numbers from 2003 and 2004 in Anaheim, Eckstein's had a huge resurgence in St. Louis!)

but he had no power and little speed on the basepaths.

Absolutely right. All this for the low, low, low introductory rate of 10 million over 3 seasons.

But Eckstein was the perfect fit in St. Louis, where he moved into the lead-off spot.

Where he did not belong.

He earned two trips to the All-Star Game

Proving to fans everywhere that the All-Star selection process is a joke.

and became the MVP of the 2006 World Series, on the strength of his three doubles in Game 4 against Detroit.

He certainly had a great game 4 of the 2006 World Series. Can't take that away from him. He also went 0 for 5 in game 1 and 0 for 4 in game 2. He was also a complete anchor for the Cards that year overall, OPSing .696 in more than 550 plate appearances from the leadoff spot. It's a minor miracle St. Louis managed to limp into the playoffs at all considering what a shitbomb of a season he had. His 2005 and 2007 campaigns, although worth nowhere near what he was paid for posting them, were positively Bondsesque/Ruthian by comparison. Oh, did I mention he plays bad defense and the most important defensive position on the field? That's right, after all this, you're looking at what Jeff deems to be one of the 10 greatest free agent signings ever.

In many ways, he is the anti-A-Rod —a low-budget, low-glamour signing that produced maximum results.

Given this statement, I have to wonder what Gordon would consider "maximum results" from things or events in his everyday life. Say he told you he recently bought a used car, and was getting "maximum results" out of it. Would you be surprised if it didn't have an engine? Or wheels? What if he went on a date and came home reporting it ended with "maximum results." You couldn't really assume anything from that description other than that the girl didn't punch him in the face. "Maximum results" from a new appliance in Jeff's kitchen? As long as his house hadn't yet burned to the ground, that's probably how he would describe the situation.

David Eckstein. "Produced" "maximum" "results." Wow. The lunchpail alert is now at red. Bright, vibrant, red.

Look at what was left off so Gordon could squeeze Eckstein onto this list. Randy Johnson to the Diamondbacks in 1998? Overrated. Vlad Guerrero to the Angels in 2003? Yawn. You want to talk about truly great free agent signings? Look no further than America's favorite 4'7" white guy and his amazing ability to sprint from home to first on a ground ball.

How to Make Power Rankings Worse

- A report by John Donovan

John Donovan's a curious character. He's well aware of Fire Joe Morgan, and has even stated in this column that he's afraid to write anything that might get ripped apart there.

There's more than one FJM you have to worry about, John, especially when you make several ignorant selections for "Team MVP"s

Most of these aren't bad. But there are quite a few awful, awful selections.

GM Ned Colletti is still talking trades -- a starter, maybe a reliever and always that ever-elusive power bat -- but the Dodgers, thanks to their pitching, are in the N.L. West race anyway. Catcher Russell Martin leads L.A. in the Triple Crown categories (.306, 11, 60), but the other youngsters (Matt Kemp, James Loney) will make or break this team.

First-half MVP: Closer Takashi Saito (1.47 ERA, 23 saves) has been money in the bank.

I'm very sorry to everyone who wanted this to get funnier as the time went along, but the most wrong selection is also the first wrong selection. When I read this, I almost fell out of my chair, so excuse me for a second as I get this out of my system.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Okay, there we go. Now let's take a look back at what you just wrote. Russell Martin leads the team in triple crown categories. He's easily been the best hitting catcher in the National League. Takashi Saito is a pitcher that has thrown 36.2 innings this year. I don't care that most of them were in the 9th inning. Runs in the 1st inning count for just as much. Saito has been a very good closer, but his VORP is about HALF of Martin's.....it's 16.8 for Saito and 32.1 for Martin. Not even fucking close.

And Martin's not even the team's best candidate.

What about this guy?

Sporting a happy little VORP of 41.7 and a 2.39 ERA over 116.2 innings, he's your Dodger MVP. I'm sorry to all you closer apologists out there, but a great starter is way more valuable than a great closer. Being great over 36.2 innings is nowhere near as difficult as being great over three times that many.

New York Mets

First-half MVP: Hitting just .239 on May 6, David Wright is hitting .321 since.

Despite your awful reason, I have to give you props for not giving into the nationwide mancrush on Jose Reyes. It's a very close call. Wright has actually been the better hitter this year by EqA. Reyes's position gives him the edge in VORP. This one depends on what you're looking for really in an MVP. I just applaud someone's ability to think in a different direction. You can tell Donovan doesn't work for ESPN here.

At 43-44, the Jays are under .500 at the break for the first time since '04. And they're facing a monstrous eight-game road trip to Boston and New York to start the second half, too. Enjoy the time off, gentlemen.

First-half MVP: Where would the Jays be without Canadian Matt Stairs (.900+ OPS).

Oh good. We're back to Donovan doesn't watch baseball mode.

Yeah. Stairs has a great OPS. The lift he has provided for the Blue Jays has been very helpful and unexpected. But the only reason he started getting major playing time was because Lyle Overbay got hurt. You knew that, right? Stairs didn't even reach the 200 AB mark in the first half! I'm sorry Johnny, but you can't just look at one line of the stat book and pick the top guy. This one's all Alex Rios. VORP: 26.9 vs 14.5 for Stairs.

New York Yankees

Wanna guess? OK, it's Alex Rodriguez (hitting .542 in the ninth inning).

Great reason there, dude. Just simply awesome. Pick a very small sample size of his hitting, pretend every time he batted in the 9th inning it was in the "clutch" and just go with it. Like, that's the worst attempt I've ever seen at pointing out someone's clutch performance. Batting average in the 9th inning. He's obviously been good in late-game situations this year....ESPN's "close and late" situation has him at .326/.388/.721. When a guy like A-Rod has been mashing all-around, this is a completely stupid angle to take anyway.

Kansas City Royals

The Royals are definitely improving -- they're 38-50. They were 31-56 at the break in '06. Alex Gordon is hitting. Billy Butler, too. Smile, K.C.

First-half MVP: Catcher John Buck (15 HRs) could have been this team's All-Star rep.

Let the pukefest continue. John Buck was, in fact, a better hitter per plate appearance than A-Rod for the first two weeks of the season when A-Rod was tearing the cover off of the ball. And he's had himself a very nice season so far. But he, like Stairs, hasn't reached the 200 AB plateau. That's because he only catches three of the 5 Kansas City starters (it's sad that he's still the 2nd highest in VORP among position players for KC despite this). Sorry Donovan, the players and managers got it right with Meche (24.5 vs 15.5 VORP)

Also, in what universe could Buck have been an All-Star rep? You want 4 catchers on the team, or do you think that's he's been better than reserves Posada and Martinez?

Texas Rangers

Talk about leaps forward. Texas is 15-8 since mid-June and 6-0-1 in their last seven series.

First-half MVP: He hasn't had many chances for saves -- and may not get many more with this team -- but Eric Gagne (1.37 ERA) is back.

At least you picked the best pitcher on the team this time (Texas's top 5 pitchers by VORP, an accumulating stat, all have under 50 IP. How absolutely sad.). Teixeira has been significantly more valuable at .302/.405/.554, VORP edge of 24.2 to Gagne's 14.0

There's more ways to be dumb than to emphasize grit and hustle, Johnny boy.

Admitting is the First Step

In browsing the interwebs, I discovered this nonsense.

Basically, it's just one guy ranting about the guys who have, in his opinion, played poorly this season. A few batting averages are cited, but mostly it's just a list of "players Scott Miller doens't like". Which is bad enough. But I call to your attention this journalistic gem:

So welcome one and all to my eighth annual Anti-All Star team. The criteria for being an Anti-All Star is very simple: As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it."

Well, at least one of the cadre of journalists finally admitted to making lists with totally random qualities (read: subject to Scott's minimal intelligence). Scott, your criteria for being on the worst players team is not actually BEING the worst player (which can be objectively verified) but simply being a player you don't LIKE. I guess it would be a boring article if you just took the lowest OPS or VORP from each position and put them on your team, but it would at least be less boring sensationalism and less egotistical.

Seriously.. "welcome one and all"? It's like he concedes the fact that his articles are like a circus!

when metric stats go horribly wrong

although you might be tempted to do so, it would be unfair to say that me, chris w, dan-bob, pnoles, and eriz simply write this blog to criticize writers who love intangibles in favor of those who would rather gush about pure, quantitative statistics. why? because i'm about to make fun of espn.com's kc joyner. kc's heart is in the right places; he's not here to tell you darin erstad brings a football mentality to the baseball field or that randy moss is a bad player to have on your team because he's lazy. kc is all about the numbers. in this case, he wants to use them to break down wide receiver performance. why is this a bad idea? you'll see. i'm not going to use hyperbole and say that joyner is the biggest dumb dummyhead who ever moroned his way into a sports journalism job. still, i gotta call him out- this is poor statistical analysis, plain and simple.

Overrated wide receivers

Donald Driver
For sheer production, Driver had few equals last year, as he ranked fifth in the league in receptions and in receiving yards.

awesome. in my opinion he still doesn't get the press he deserves for amassing such totals, making him at the very least regular-rated (or even underrated). but let's see what joyner has to say.

However, it took a huge number of pass attempts for him to amass these figures. When I rank wide receivers, I place the highest value on consistency and explosiveness. Driver certainly wasn't that explosive, as his 7.6 YPA ranked him 48th among wide receivers (of 67 qualifiers).

and this is where i start having problems; look, it's great to try to use numbers to break down situations. i strongly encourage it. numbers are far superior to anecdotal bullshit. but sometimes, they don't tell the story their user wants them to tell. receiver yards-per-attempt doesn't seem like a very solid statistic. what if the guy has an inaccurate quarterback throwing to him? that's going to hurt him right there. what if he's a receiver that gets most of his work done over the middle on slant and drag patterns because the team feels he works best there? does that make him "less explosive" than a guy who only goes deep? you can argue that if a guy is running short patterns, his team probably doesn't consider him to be very "explosive" in the first place. i hear that. it still seems like a fishy stat to me.

His 10.3 YPA on bomb passes (30-plus yards downfield) ranked him 39th in the league, and his 10.1 YPA on deep passes (20-29 yards) ranked him 44th.

again, i think maybe just maybe the guy on the other end of the passing/receiving transaction might have a little bit of impact on this number. brett favre is still a decent NFL quarterback, but let's just say that the deep ball is probably the second thing that starts to go (after mobility) when a gunslinger starts getting a little long in the tooth.

Driver's consistency also left something to be desired. His success percentage, which used to be Driver's calling card, plummeted to a meager 57.6 percent last year, his lowest total in the four years I have been tracking metrics.

success percentage is defined by joyner as the percentage of plays for a WR in which they catch a pass or draw a penalty. favre's completion percentage last year was 56%, his lowest in the last 4 seasons. how much of driver's decline in success percentage is attributable to that? i say lots.

He also had the most dropped passes of any wide receiver, and his dropped pass percentage (14.4) was the 12th worst in the NFL.

can't argue with that. still, it's like the 5th item on joyner's list of reasons why driver is overrated. and the other four suck.

I'm not saying Driver is a bad wide receiver. I just think metrics such as these did not warrant the Pro Bowl starter slot he garnered last year.

i think favre's declining skills were mostly responsible for driver's poor YPA, YPA on "bomb" and "deep" passes, and success percentage. but what i do know? i'm just a nerd blogging from my mom's basement.

Chris Chambers
Chambers isn't considered a great receiver, but his metrics indicate he wasn't even a good receiver last year. Chambers had the lowest YPA (5.1) and success percentage (44.8) of any wide receiver in the NFL in 2006. He ranked no higher than 49th in YPA at any depth level, so he lacked production across the board.

are you effing kidding me? some guy named cleo lemon was throwing to chambers by the end of the 2006 season. before that it was joey harrington and dante "a bad season or two away from a spot in the fox nfl studios" culpepper. in 2005 chambers had gus ferrotte throwing to him, and still managed to grab 82 balls for 1100+ yards. i don't know what his YPA then was, but those raw totals were with gus freakin' ferrotte throwing to him. christ, what kind of numbers would he put up with a decent QB?

Honorable mention

Randy Moss: He'll have to dramatically improve on his meager 6.2 YPA to keep the Patriots happy.

tom brady will have to dramatically improve on the performance of aaron brooks and andrew walter to keep moss happy. think he can pull it off?

Greg Jennings: He is a Favre favorite, but his success percentage (45.2) was the second-lowest in the league.

what a coincidence- two packers, both with bad receiving metrics! weird. i wonder if favre knows about this?

Wes Welker: He is being touted as a vastly underrated player, but his 7.2 YPA last year ranked 55th in the league.

gasp! and two dolphins! what are the odds?

Torry Holt: He is one of my all-time favorite wide receivers, but his 7.5 YPA and 55.9 success percentage were his worst numbers in the four years I've been doing this. He also didn't deserve a starting spot in the Pro Bowl.

ok, you got me. marc bulger is pretty good; he completed 63% of his passes last year. so holt must've dropped a lot of balls, or run a lot of very difficult to complete routes. not sure how you can explain away these bad stats. maybe he really IS overrated. but you know what? it's too late. based on the first 10 paragraphs of this article, i already think joyner is full of shit.

he's trying to measure something that's very much a function of two inputs while pretending like one of them, almost definitely the more important one of them, doesn't exist. receiver YPA is just as useless as a lot of other stats that have very significant hidden/ignored factors. team rebounding averages in basketball is a great example. teams that play at a very slow pace usually don't rack up very high rebounding totals because their games have fewer possessions than games involving, say, the suns or nuggets. does that mean these slow paced teams like the raptors or pistons are "bad" at rebounding? of course not. but this stat is still widely used as if it means something. or in baseball, how about "catcher ERA"? just like it sounds, this is the ERA of a pitching staff when a specific catcher is behind the plate. some dipshit analysts like to pretend like it means that certain catchers are better at calling a game or choosing good pitch locations than others. in 2006, pudge rodriguez of the tigers had a fantastic catcher ERA. in 2005 brad ausmus of the astros did. what did those guys have in common? dominant fucking pitching staffs throwing to them, that's what. which do you think was a bigger factor in their respective teams' low runs allowed totals?

on one hand, i gotta hand it to joyner for going out on a limb and trying to quantify things that are not easily quantifiable. looking for new ways to objectively explain trends or evaluate performers is a worthy pursuit. and like i already said, i'd much rather read something like this than something about how david eckstein is great because he looks like he's actively trying to dislocate his shoulder when he throws the ball to first base.

on the other hand- shut up, kc joyner. your wide receiver metrics are stupid.

when dumb lists and anecdotal bullshit converge

remember espn's baseball "hot stove heaters?" i hope not. i've been trying to forget them for months now. they were a series of pathetic lists and countdowns about supposedly the league's best hitter, division, ballpark, etc., meant to get readers ready for spring training. they were terribly written and completely uninteresting. unfortunately, espn decided those worked so well that they'd do something similar in preparation for football season. their unoriginally titled series "the best" concluded this week with this list of the game's "best" owners. this is obviously a pretty tough category to judge; other than spending money and hiring upper level personnel, what exactly do owners do that make them good or bad? the four espn analysts chosen to judge this category split their votes between pittsburgh's dan rooney and new england's robert kraft. here are some of their reasons-

John Clayton: Dan Rooney, Pittsburgh
Rooney is the game's best owner because he cares about the game
he runs the Steelers the right way
He treats employees right

he's the david eckstein of football owners, i guess.

Matt Mosley: Bob Kraft, New England
Obviously he's a highly successful business man, but his best trait is that he still has the ability to think like a frustrated fan.

what the hell? frustrated fans are stereotypically full of bad ideas formulated from kneejerk reactions. if all owners operated like frustrated fans nearly every team in the league would turn over 75% of their roster every year and the average length of a caoching tenure would be about 1 season.

Len Pasquarelli: Rooney
The late Jim Finks, a terrific football man whose administrative skills earned him a well-deserved niche in the Hall of Fame, once noted, and we're paraphrasing a bit here, that players play, coaches coach and general managers generally manage. Well, the best owners pretty much own, and that's why they're so good. They get out of the way and allow their football people to do their jobs. And, because of that quality, they have a lot of Super Bowl hardware sitting in their respective trophy cases.

that must be the problem with the owners of teams that don't win titles; they're overstepping their boundaries. just last season i saw bills owner ralph wilson slap on a leather helmet, push j.p. losman aside, and take an offensive series at QB against the jets. cardinals owner bill bidwill calls most of his team's 3rd down plays- no wonder they haven't been to the playoffs in 10 years. (note: sarcastic jokes do not apply to al davis of the raiders, who i would not put past doing either of these things.)

Merril Hoge: Kraft
Consistency and the ability to trust those to whom you delegate decision-making authority are the hallmarks of great ownership and that's why Bob Kraft is my pick for best owner in the league. Over the years, the Patriots have consistently won because of the trust that Kraft puts in his staff. You never see Kraft meddling in the concerns of his staff even when the team might look to be down-and-out due to injuries or other concerns.

i think what merril was going for here was "owning a team that spends money on the right players and coaches and thus wins a bunch of super bowls is the hallmark of great ownership. over the years the patriots have done this, so, therefore, i'm picking kraft. also, because i need to write something else besides that, here's some anecdotal bullshit."

to be fair, all four of these guys are pretty good writers/analysts most of the time. (at least espn didn't ask joe theisman for his opinion.) i think the problem here is more stupid question-related than bad writing-related. if that's the case, then why was the column written in the first place? i can't wait until october, when espn prepares us for the upcoming NBA season by telling us mike brown of the cavaliers is one of the league's best coaches because he knows how to utilize lebron.

Criminal Negligence

More evidence to prove the fact that sportswriters are not more knowledgeable about baseball than the people who are not paid to write about it, which I allege in an earlier post. The longer I write for this esteemed media outlet, the more convinced I am of this.

Larry Dobrow's Bottom 10 Major League Starters

Owing to a particularly treatment-resistant fractured tooth, I have spent much of the past two weeks alternately sobbing in the bathtub and bonked out of my head on painkillers. Unable to do much else, I set up shop on the couch. Armed with a remote control and the Extra Innings package that Major League Baseball so graciously allows me to purchase, I watched a whole lotta games.

So wait, only when you were incapacitated by your poor dental health did you do what was required to get the information necessary to execute your job? I'm glad you watched some baseball, but nobody gives a shit about your dental health. Also, I suppose you are introducing this as an excuse for the egregious factual error you will commit in this article.

The article continues to list bad players, and I don't really care about his selections, since they're all shitty players and arguing about the shittiest player in baseball is like sitting next to your friend in class and arguing about who the ugliest girls in the class are.

But here's my major problem with this article. While talking about DougieDoug Mientkewicz, he drops this irrelevant and criminally ignorant bomb:

Separately, there's lots of talk this week about how the Red Sox shouldn't feel too comfortable with their 10-game AL East lead, since the Yankees surmounted an even more severe deficit back in August/September 1978. I don't know how to respond to this, other than to say that such a comeback has happened exactly once in the 100-plus-year history of big league baseball.

The moment I read that, I was taken back to the halcyon dan-bob's baseball-fan childhood past. I recall reading dozens of references to the famous "Miracle of Coogan's Bluff" where the Giants caught and passed the Dodgers while being down thirteen games. How could this guy have not heard of "The Shot Heard Round the World"? Perhaps he had heard of Thomson's homer, but remained ignorant of why the situation had such drama.

Now that I was certain that this gentleman's knowledge of baseball was poor, I thought this merited investigation. Then, in doing seven seconds' worth of research thanks to my insider tool (google.com), brought me to this page, which identifies at least nine other comebacks which could be considered comparable. Now the Yankees did come back from the second-most games back (14), but the aforementioned Giants did 13 games in three weeks' less time. The point is, this sort of comeback has not happened "exactly once" in baseball's history, but something like "exactly ten" times in baseball's 100 (well, more like 138) years.

My guess is that he conveniently forgot those other comeback teams because they happened to be current teams not named "Boston" or "New York". It's sad to see that the plebe sportswriters have Yankee/Red Sox tunnel vision so bad that they ignore basic baseball history.

Stark's Top Ten Most Overrated

I really have a lot of work to do, but a friend of mine alerted me to a Jayson Stark article delineating who he thinks are the top 10 most overrated players in baseball. He thought the article was very well written. Obviously, I thought, Jayson Stark + opinion = sketchy. Sure enough, this is my study break

I by no means have a problem with everyone he listed, but a few of these are seriously awful.

First off, here's the definition of "overrated" according to Stark.

Overratedness -- like underratedness -- is all relative, remember. It's about perception. It's about illusion. It's about myths. It's about assumptions we tend to make about all kinds of players -- assumptions that sometimes turn out not to match up real well with a condition best described as "reality."

So the question I kept aspiring to answer as I wrote my book -- and as I wrote this companion column -- was this:

How does the perception of this player match up with the kind of player he really is (or was)?

Here we go.

No. 1 -- Barry Zito

Fine. He should be a #3 starter on a contender and is filthy rich now. I won't argue.

No. 2 -- J.D. Drew

It's like, when I clicked on the link, I thought, "please, please let J.D. Drew be on this list."

Nobody denies that Drew has massive talent oozing out of his eyebrows. You can tell because he entered this season as one of only 13 active players with a career slugging percentage over .500 and an on-base percentage over .390.

But now the bad news: Those other dozen players have made a combined 70 All-Star teams (and all have made at least two apiece). And Drew has made, well, zero.

I learn a lot from Jayson Stark. Mark Redman > J.D. Drew. Scott Podsednik > J.D. Drew.

If you're trying to make a case for a player being overrated, why are you citing his lack of All-Star game appearances? All-Star game appearances are evidence of a player being rated HIGHLY. If anything, this makes Drew underrated. That having been said, DONT EVER USE ALL-STAR GAMES AS EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AGAIN. Travis Hafner and Francisco Liriano, the best hitter in the AL per plate appearance and pitcher per start last season, weren't on the All-Star team. And the game took place before either got hurt.

It sure is funny how all that talent has added up to just one 30-homer season, only one 100-RBI season, a .180 lifetime average in seven postseason series, no All-Star at-bats, nearly 400 games missed with a massive assortment of injuries and a $14 million a year paycheck. Let's just say this guy is realllly fortunate the Red Sox's great start has obscured his messy .169 average since April 21 -- because so far, the occupants of Fenway have been shockingly patient with him.

Speaking of patience, Drew has walked once in just over every 10 at bats. His batting average is bad, but he's still on-basing above the league median. When his bat gets luckier, the numbers will be more J.D. Drew-like. Poststeason series stats are ridiculously irrelevant. And oh, the paycheck thing. Let's do a comparison between someone that is not on this list and J.D. Drew

J.D. Drew: Career .303 EqA. Contract: 5 year/$70M
Carlos Lee: Career .275 EqA Contract: 6 year/$100M

Drew has especially been great in his recent career, posting EqA's of .335, .323 (limited time), and .305. He is a very good baseball player. I don't care what your batting average and All-Star games say.

No. 3 -- Andruw Jones

I'm not gonna argue. He's seen as a great defensive outfielder, and hasn't been above average by FRAA since 2003.

No. 4 -- Juan Pierre

Attaboy Starkie

No. 5 -- Bobby Abreu

Boy, do people love arguing about this fellow. Who can blame them?
The folks who only peruse Abreu's numbers don't just wonder what he's doing on this list. They wonder when he's getting inducted into the Hall of Fame. How multitalented is Bobby Abreu? Well, he does happen to be the only active player with a .300 career batting average, a .400 on-base percentage, 200 homers and 250 stolen bases. And his .909 career OPS tops the OPS of Sammy Sosa, Chase Utley, Derrek Lee and many, many, many other famed batsmiths out there.

Right. He's a great player.

But there sure are a lot of people who watched him in Philadelphia who think Abreu is the poster boy for an unquantifiable division of the All-Overrated Team -- players who mysteriously seem to be less than the sum of their spectacular numbers.

We'll put that subset of people living in that one American city into group A. The rest of the world (the sensibles, if you will) into group B.

When people battle me on this guy, I always sum it up this way: As great as Bobby Abreu can be, he lacks that all-important Derek Jeter gene. There is no voice in his head, screaming: "This ball has to be caught." Or: "That runner on third has to be driven in." In Philadelphia, where he was the centerpiece of the franchise, that one flaw showed up way too glaringly. Now, in New York, as the Yankees flounder, they're getting aggravated over the same stuff. Funny how that happens.

Look Stark, I don't know what to tell you. The Derek Jeter gene is recessive. Both of Abreu's parents were carriers, but Bobby just got unlucky.....or did he?

At the age of 7, Abreu showed tremendous talent. He would beat all the other kids in dodgeball. He would dive all over the place playing kickball. No one, and I mean NO ONE, could attack the monkey bars with as much intensity as this kid, boy lemme tell ya. And he had this mysterious gleam in his eye that made him look fierce, yet calm. One day, his parents asked him how he was able to perform so well. Bobby told them that there were voices in his head screaming at him to do his best at everything. His parents had heard enough. It was off to the child psychiatrist. After about a half year, the voices dissapeared and the gleam in his eye was gone. And that's the sad tale of how Abreu lost the phenotype of the Derek Jeter gene.

To all sportswriters who wonder why there are blogs making fun of the things you say, re-read what Stark just wrote. It enrages people who would love to have your jobs when you invent intangibles that make writing easy and devoid of any cogent analysis.

No. 6 -- Brian Giles

Remember back when Giles was a perennial 37-homer, 100-RBI, .600-slugging walk machine in Pittsburgh? What happened to that Brian Giles?
That one-time .600 slugging percentage didn't even make it to .400 last season -- and has submerged below .350 in 2007. And that quick, 37-homer bat mostly ropes balls the other way now -- leaving us with a guy who has as many homers this year as Kip Wells (one).

Not to suggest that Brian Giles isn't still a really useful player. Still cranks out tough at-bats and walks 100 times. Still gaps 35-40 doubles a year. But there's a difference between a star player and a useful player. And it's a difference that can propel a guy right onto an overrated list just like this one.

Based on the way you defined overratedness, there's really no major issue here. I would argue that not many people think he's a star player, though. and that most would agree that he is a very useful guy with power who gets on base. Based on the way you're arguing things, you could say anyone aging is overrated, just because they aren't as good as they were before. Giles is 36. He's past his prime. He's inevitably going to get worse.

No. 7 -- Alfonso Soriano

I kinda agree, just beacuse a guy as talented as Soriano should get on base more.

No. 8 -- Richie Sexson

Sexson and Adam Dunn fit into a category of overratedness I figured I'd better get to in this column someplace: Guys We Love Because They Can Pulverize A Baseball About 900 Feet.

I have no problem with the Richie Sexson argument. I have major issues with people saying that Adam Dunn is overrated. He consistently puts up 40 HR seasons while getting on base a lot. Just because of Dunn's low batting averages, he has become one of the most underrated players in the game.

No. 9 -- Bob Wickman

A little bit. I think people slam him too much, but a little bit. The 3.57 career ERA. He's underrated because

No. 10 -- Jeff Suppan

Agreed.

Again, why is Carlos Lee not on this list?

what a waste of valuable internet bandwidth

seriously... i dont know how useful cyberspace is for medical research, or fighting poverty, or anything else socially responsible. but the fact that this entry from "jimmy's blog" (by jimmy traina, on sportsillustrated.com) is eating up imaginary room on the internet offends me. isnt there any limit to the dumb crap that a major media outlet will stamp with its seal of approval, and then publish? i hope the fact that this article exists doesnt delay the curing of cancer or AIDS. this is dumb, unclever, not to mention outdated drivel like youve probably never seen it before.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_blogs/scorecard/jimmys_blog/2007/05/most-famousinfamous-body-parts-in_1686.html

the article is titled "most famous/infamous body parts in sports". oh jimmy. youre really on the cutting edge of what people want to read about.

You can thank Gary Thorne, a rabid Red Sox Nation and a pitcher who thrives on being in the spotlight for this list. When you're done reading my top 10, be sure to send me yours.

no, i can thank YOU, you unfunny hack. also, anyone who sends jimmy their top 10 after reading this should also send a letter of apology to me, because jimmy might be tempted to make ANOTHER column like this if he gets enough responses out of it.

now, its weird for me to break this dumb article down piece by piece as we usually do because each individual choice isnt bad writing or inherently stupid. well, they sort of are. youll see what i mean. taken as a list though, this is just a pathetic attempt at writing something that people would actually be interested in reading (except for people like me, making an anti sports media blog). just look at the thing as a whole and try to tell me jimmy didnt come up with it while drunkenly sitting around with his friends late one saturday night. the format of the discussion was probably like this:

friend #1: "oh, dude, remember (sports incident/strangely bodied athlete)? haha! remember that?"
*thirty second pause*
friend #2: "yeah and what about (other incident/freak)? man, that was wild."
*thirty second pause*

and so on and so on. finally, 5 minutes later:

jimmy: "so what have you guys come up with, about ten of these? hmmm, looks like my monday assignment for SI just got a lot easier. beer me, brah."

the point is, theres nothing to think about or discuss here. this article is the polar opposite of what people want to read. almost every single incident/freak here has been discussed to death already, especially when you consider most of them were "current" 5+ years ago. this list sounds like "top 100 one hit wonders from canada" or some other dumb countdown show youd see on VH1 at 5 in the morning. theres nothing mildly stimulating about it. shoot, ive built it up enough. lets just get this over with.

1. Evander Holyfield's left ear: Mike Tyson's erratic behavior came to a head on a summer night almost 10 years ago when he was in the ring with Holyfield. During their rematch, boxing's bad boy couldn't resist the urge to chomped down on Holyfield's ear, which stopped the fight.

yup, we all remember this. a piece of pop culture that will be remembered for a long time, to be sure. haha, remember that? REMEMBER THAT? crazy times. i bet jay leno and david letterman still send tyson a christmas card and fruitcake every year for giving them such a bottomless pit of material to work with. something tells me this isnt the last well hear from iron mike on this list though.

2. Curt Schilling's right ankle: Some would say Schilling's mouth (or should it be fingers, now that he's a blogger?) could be on this list, but his right ankle became a storyline in the 2004 postseason and still causes much discussion.

im going to go out on a limb and assume jimmy is a red sox fan. because if i allow myself to completely abandon whatever shred of dignity i have left in life at this point, and actually lower myself to jimmy's level and enter into debate with him on his selections (which im about to do), i have to say this one sucks. at least the holyfield ear was a one-of-a-kind type thing. no real precedent there. but athletes have been playing hurt in big games literally since sports were invented. what about willis reed and his bad leg or whatever it was for the 1970 knicks in game 7 of the nba finals? what about the guy in ancient greece who ran the first ever marathon and died immediately afterwards? why arent his lungs/heart on here? congratulations jimmy. youve managed to make this dumb, unreadable column even dumber and less readable by choosing a not-that-cool incident for it. red sox fans. what the hell are they good for?

3. P.J. Carlisemo's neck: Who can forget the scratch marks left on Carlisemo's neck after the Warriors head coach was strangled by Latrell Sprewell?

remember that? so crazy. so crazy. this incident became uninteresting ever since spree turned down $9 million a year to play basketball for a living, famously quipping "i gotta feed my family, man". at this point he stopped being a violent coach choker and became a financial moron and an insult to the american dream, which is slightly more interesting.

4. Mel Kiper's hair: A slew of sports figures can make this list based on hair (Dennis Rodman, David Beckham, Don King, etc, etc), but nobody -- nobody -- can talk about the NFL Draft without mentioning Kiper's hair, which I don't really understand because after watching this year's Draft, I thought his hair looked normal.

well i cant really rip this apart, considering in the very first post ever on this blog i took a shot at this exact topic. oh wait, i can. the comedy here is how jimmy thinks it looked "normal" during this year's draft. you cant really see jimmy's hair in the mugshot at the top of his blog, but im hoping the reason he says what he says is because he and mel jr. look a whole lot alike from the forehead on up. that would be awesome.

5. Antonio Alfonseca's extra fingers and toes: He hasn't had a distinguished major league career, but the current Phillies reliever, who has polydactylism, will always be the answer to a triva question: Who is the only pitcher in history to have six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot?

go ahead jimmy, take a free shot at polydactylism victims. not like theyre here to defend themselves or something. this choice is partially not terrible because many casual sports fans may not have known about it. still... just like the other entries on the list... once youve brought it up, who gives a crap? im getting madder and madder as i go here.

6. Rich Garces' stomach: There have been plenty of baseball players of large girth, but for some reason, the former Red Sox pitcher became the poster boy for those living large in the late '90s.

at least he acknowledges that garces is not the only fat baseball player ever. but you know why he was chosen for this list? because jimmy (im assuming) is a red sox fan and therefore thinks that everyone in the whole country is just as interested in the quirky parts of his favorite team as he is. its a sad, sad world we live in.

7. Orlando Brown's right eye: You never know what you're gonna get when NFL referee Jeff Triplette makes a call, but he'll always been known as the ref who threw a flag into Brown's right eye, causing the Cleveland offensive lineman to miss three seasons.

no, he wont "always been known" as that. no one really talks about this incident anymore, it might randomly pop up like once per NFL season. though ive got to admit, it was pretty interesting when it happened. i also have to admit, this article is still a joke and i cant believe this guy gets his blog published on SI's website.

8. Mike Tyson's face: Maybe Tyson was jealous that he caused Holyfield to make this important list. Whatever the case, as soon as Iron Mike got that massive tatoo on his face, he locked up his spot.

THERE'S tyson! i knew hed be back! if we assume the theory i advanced at the beginning of this post about how this list was developed is true, this must have been the contribution of the dumbest/drunkest/both guy in the room. dude, he has a tatoo! ON HIS FACE! DUDE!

9. The Rock's eyebrow and elbow: You may not consider wrestling a sport, (nobody who would read a blog on the internet does. not making fun of wrestling fans for being "trashy" or whatever, just saying, i bet they dont read blogs, except for maybe wrestling blogs) but you'd have to admit, (no i wouldnt) for a period of time starting in the late '90s, (and lasting until 3 months later in the late '90s) the WWE's popularity exploded, (if by "exploded" you mean "increased marginally") let in most part by The Rock. (the typo is [sic]. and lame is this makes me, im going to go ahead and say stone cold steve austin was just as significant. he just didnt make "the scorpion king".) And two of his trademarks were the "People's Eyebrow" and "People's Elbow." (this part is true, those were his "things that he did". remember that? my friend jarrett could do the eyebrow thing. it was totally awesome. man... those were the days. freshman/sophomore year of high school. god, i was young then. wait, what were we talking about?)

10. Anna Kournikova's everything: She's still enormously popular even though she hasn't played tennis since 2000. Enough said.

jimmy, you perv. also, no she is not still enormously popular. i have to admit, though- shes the perfect choice to top off this giant pile of vomit of a list. remember anna kournikova? remember her? she was so hot. yeah. i remember.

What famous/infamous body parts have I left off? Let me hear from you.

again- how about no. the internet is crowded as things are. we dont need the CIA's counterterrorism website being slowed down just because jimmy and his friends like drunkenly reminiscing about mildly relevant shit from 8-10 years ago and then posting it online because they think other people would like to read about it. how selfish is that? making a blog just so you and your friends can spout off your dumb ideas and commentary. makes me sick. who DOES that?