MMTMQR: Gregg Gets Self-Critical

Remember a couple weeks ago, when he started taking pot shots at the media? YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT PLAY AS WELL AS YOU COULD HAVE, MIKE TIRICO. SHAME ON YOU. Well last week he took things even further. It's more confusing than anything, but basically, he makes an ass out of himself. Again. But in an entirely new way. Sit back and enjoy.

Changing the playcaller sure helped the Redskins!

Brutal sarcasm!

In the cult of football, surely few things are more overrated than play calling. Much football commentary, from high school stands to the NFL in prime time, boils down to: "If they ran they should have passed, and if they passed they should have run." Other commentary boils down to: "If it worked, it was a good call, if it failed, it was a bad call," though the call is only one of many factors in a football play.

Yes. Yes, that's entirely correct. You know why I have to agree with what Gregg just said? BECAUSE HE SPENDS HALF OF HIS FUCKING COLUMN DOING THESE EXACT THINGS. Passing on third and short is bad... if you don't get the first down! If you lose on a last second field goal, you should have run up the middle on a play with 12 minutes left in the fourth quarter! Then the clock would have run out! Etc., etc., etc. And beyond that, Gregg is the motherfucking czar of "If it worked, it was a good call- if it failed, it was a bad call." Incredible. Cognitive dissonance strikes again.

Good calls are better than bad calls -- this column exerts considerable effort documenting the difference.

Ah. OK. So you do understand that. So basically this is like saying "I hate liars. Of course, I often lie. But still."

But it's nonsensical to think that replacing a guy who calls a lot of runs to the left with a guy who calls a lot of runs to the right will transform a team.

I don't think anyone associated with the Redskins, even batshit crazy and mildly retarded Dan Snyder, thought their team would be "transformed" by their new play caller.

My take on Sherman Lewis' play calling Monday night? When he ran, he should have passed -- when he passed, he should have run. Here was an actual Lewis call overheard: "B-14, N-7, I-2, G-6. On set!"

Because Lewis has been calling bingo recently, don't you see.

Crickets.

In the Redskins' case, there is an added dimension -- the rumor is Chainsaw Dan took away coach Jim Zorn's play-calling authority hoping that Zorn would blow a gasket and quit.

Yes. Correct. Again, no one was seriously expecting a "transformation."

If Zorn quits, he gets nothing; if he's fired, he receives the balance due on his contract. No doubt to Chainsaw Dan's dismay, Zorn held his ground. Here are other things Snyder might try to prompt Zorn to quit:

Who's ready for some more GreggJokes?

Take away his authority to shout, "Clap it up, clap it up."

Is this Zorn's catchphrase or something? I hope not.

Bring in a coin-toss consultant.

That'd frost that Zorn, wouldn't it?!?

Place a large concrete planter in Zorn's parking space at team headquarters.

Boy, that would just be flat out mean.

Require Zorn to return the phone calls of Washington Post sportswriters.

LOL COACHES HATE ANGRY MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA

Have everyone in Redskins management get exactly the same buzz cut.

What?

When Michael Crabtree finally signed with the 49ers, TMQ warned of a Crabtree Curse -- Mike Singletary had spent a year in San Francisco instilling the message that nobody is bigger than the team, and suddenly it seemed you could jerk the 49ers around all you wanted and get $17 million guaranteed as your reward.

JESUS CHRIST. YOU ARE A FUCKING STUMP. THAT WAS THE EXACT CONTRACT THEY ORIGINALLY OFFERED HIM AFTER THE DRAFT. CRABTREE GAVE IN. HE PRETTY MUCH CAVED. THE 49ERS GOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED- AN AWESOME PLAYER, FOR A PRICE IN LINE WITH THE DRAFT SLOT AT WHICH HE WAS PICKED. THERE IS NO CRABTREE CURSE. SHUT UP. And you know what's great? The 49ers lost again today (at Indy... where visiting teams always win!) so we're going to read about this again tomorrow. Awesome.

Before the signing, the 49ers were 3-1; since the signing, they are 0-2, and have been outscored 69-31. Beware the Crabtree Curse!

Go give yourself a swirly.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: With New England leading 21-7, the Patriots lined up four-wide, then sent tight end Ben Watson in motion almost to the sideline; he ran a fly pattern and caught a 35-yard touchdown pass. That was sweet. He was covered deep by a linebacker because, though New England faced first-and-20, Tampa did not have a dime package on the field. That was sour.

If it worked, it's a good call! If it didn't, it was a bad call! This goes for both teams, of course- if New England had tried to run out of the 4 wide, and then the linebacker who was on Watson made a great tackle and forced a fumble, it would be kudos to the Bucs for having the right personnel on the field.

Clang! Clang! Clang! New Orleans scored just 17 baskets in losing to Denver 121-63 in the playoffs.

Clang! Clang! Clang! In the first two games of the NBA Finals, Orlando missed 100 shots from the field -- nearly one miss per minute! (One of the games went into OT.) Just to prove it was no fluke, in these games Orlando also missed 15 free throw attempts.

You know, it's great that he wants to diversify his material. But if we're going to talk about the NBA, maybe we shouldn't do so by just listing facts from games that happened 5 months ago.

In Praise of Unknowns: Miles Austin, undrafted out of Monmouth, has an incredible 421 yards receiving in his first two pro starts. Pierre Garcon of Indianapolis, low-drafted out of Division III Mount Union, and low-drafted unknown Julian Edelman of New England, are also playing well at wide receiver, while numerous high-drafted big-bucks receivers perform poorly. My guess is that Austin, Garcon and Edelman don't have ego problems. They are happy to be in the NFL, work tirelessly, and don't whine if everything is not exactly precisely what they wanted.

Nice guess. Here's mine- Austin plays for a decent team (or is that a decent Cowboys FOOTBALL team with a DYNAMIC offense?) with a legitimate QB. Garcon and Edelman play for awesome teams, each of which has a QB who is probably in the all-time top 25. Darius Heyward-Bey, for all his overratedness, is playing for a joke of an organization with a 350 pound idiot at QB. Meanwhile, highly drafted Jeremy Maclin and Hakeem Nicks are having good seasons. And there are dozens of low-drafted/undrafted WRs who aren't doing shit right now. Why not? Because they suck at football. But go ahead and use the exception to prove the rule anytime you want, shithead.

And what two running backs are getting most of the carries for the league's top offense? Undrafted Pierre Thomas and undrafted Mike Bell.

That Saints power rushing attack- known throughout the league for being the key to New Orleans' success! Thank goodness Drew Brees has those two studs carrying him- where would he be without them?

Carolina -- Run the Ball!: Carolina managed to lose to Buffalo despite a 425-167 edge in offensive yards; three Jake Delhomme interceptions doomed the home team. TMQ has been asking all season and asks again, with Delhomme playing poorly and the Panthers' rush offense strong, why do Carolina coaches continue calling so many passes?

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

Reaching first-and-goal on the Pittsburgh 1 in the third quarter, Minnesota, aided by a penalty, ran four snaps and did not advance, then settled for a field goal from the 1. Spectacular Steelers defense, though one wonders why two of the four plays were incompletions: It's hard to believe even Pittsburgh could have stopped Adrian Peterson four straight times when only a yard was needed.

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

NBA Officials Check Passports Before Calling Traveling: TMQ has long contended that football rules are too complex; also, the NFL refuses to reveal its officiating manual, which explains such things as how a zebra determines what counts as pass interference. The NBA by contrast recently put its rulebook online, complete with multimedia examples of what is and isn't legal. Great idea -- do the same, NFL. In the new rulebook, I did find this interesting definition:

More GreggJokes! GreggJokes for all! GreggJokes all around!

TRAVELING. If the player with the ball walks off the court and out of the arena, hails a cab, goes to the airport, and buys an airline ticket, at the point that he boards the plane, he shall be whistled for "traveling."

See, that's just kind of ridiculous. That's a situation I just can't see happening during-

Ohhhhhhh.

I hope you see what he did there!

The Football Gods Promised an Investigation: The Steelers went shotgun spread, five-wide on third-and-3; the Packers went shotgun spread, five-wide on third-and-goal from the Cleveland 2.

If they ran, they should have passed. If they passed, they should have ran. If it worked, it was a good call. If it didn't, it was a bad call.

Running Up the Score Watch: Possession results for Nebraska versus Iowa State: fumble, punt, touchdown, interception, punt, fumble, punt, fumble, fumble, fumble, punt, interception, interception (noted by reader Andrew Miller of Arlington, Va.). Can it be coincidence that Nebraska is 1-2, with a disastrous eight turnovers Saturday, since the day the Cornhuskers ran up the score to 55-0 against hapless cupcake Louisiana-Lafayette?

Nope! It's not. It's actually a function of real life variables which are affecting the outcome of their games. Nebraska is playing teams with actual talent now, like Virginia Tech. Granted, that's an awful performance against an Iowa State team (Iowa State FOOTBALL team that plays hard on the FOOTBALL field) which Nebraska should beat. But I'm sure Iowa State has a shit ton more talent that UL-Lafayette. In any case, I suppose you can make the argument that the football gods are indirectly responsible for scheduling. So if you accept that ridiculous and nonsensical premise.... maybe Nebraska's recent struggles really are a function of a crazy and vengeful group of imaginary spirits in the sky! Sort of.

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE! YOU USED A SMALL SAMPLE TO MAKE THAT POINT

There are at least fifty things worth picking on in this Buzz Bissinger shitbomb re: Billy Beane, Michael Lewis, and the book Moneyball. I don't have a lot of time so I think I'll pick on the most absurd one. Bissinger's thesis is essentially that Billy Beane is a decent but overrated GM, Lewis's portrayal of him is unfairly positive, and that the best way to build a baseball team is still by spending a lot of money on good, proven players. He may have a bit of a point with the last part. As for those first two:

Looking largely at the narrow time frame of 2000 through 2002, Lewis attempted to explain the phenomenon of how the A's had done so well (they made the playoffs all three of those years) with such little dough.

Yeah, great, that's true. Lewis does focus on that three year span, which isn't really as large a sample size as you'd like if you're going to evaluate a GM's ability. But before I get to my point about Buzz, let's quickly address this:

The explanation was dazzling, although Lewis barely mentioned the three reasons the A's had been so successful--pitchers Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson. The three won an astounding 149 games during that span. Each of them were 20-game winners in at least one of those seasons.

If you've read the book, you know that this is pretty unfair. First, Lewis mentions those three then-aces plenty. Second, the reason the book focuses a lot MORE on guys like Scott Hatteberg and Chad Bradford is because it's a lot more interesting to hear about how a GM took relative unwanteds like them and turned them into valuable players than to hear about how a GM had three really good pitchers at the same time.

But anyways, back to the point. Yes, Moneyball focuses on a tiny, insignificant, negligible number of seasons. Just three. (Three seasons during which the A's won more than 300 games.) Meanwhile, Buzz has some excellent points to make about Beane's allegedly sterling reputation for finding and developing talent:

Beane had seven first-round draft picks that year, each of them extolled by Lewis for their buried-treasure status. Three of them are still playing in the majors, none with anything close to superstar careers and all of them long gone from the A's. Three others were busts. Poor Jeremy Brown never stopped being fat and slow and finished with a grand total of 10 major league at-bats before retirement.

OHHH! OHHHH! JEREMY BROWN BUSTED EVEN THOUGH BEANE SPENT A FIRST ROUND PICK ON HIM! SHAME ON YOU, BILLY BEANE. SHAME ON YOU FOR FAILING TO DEVELOP EVERY PLAYER WHO ENTERS YOUR ORGANIZATION INTO AN ALL-STAR. OUT OF A WHOLE 7 FIRST ROUND PICKS IN 2002, NONE OF THEM BECAME SURE FIRE HALL OF FAMERS. THIS IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT BILLY BEANE IS AN IDIOT AND KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT BASEBALL. I'M BUZZ BISSINGER, AND MY HEAD IS STUCK IN MY TAINT. I LOOK DOWN UPON WRITERS WHO TRY TO MAKE THEIR POINT WITHOUT USING A REASONABLE SAMPLE SIZE. THAT'S JUST BAD JOURNALISM.

Read the rest of the article- it has a lot more garbage that will make you laugh. Or smirk. That's what Buzz would do if someone else wrote this and he read it.

Back to the Salt Mines, People

Effective September 1, Jay Mariotti will begin working for the Chicago Tribune.

Wait a minute, what?

"It's been a tremendous experience, but I'm going to be honest with you, the profession is dying,'' Mariotti said, "I don't think either paper [Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune] is going to survive.

Hold on, play it again.

"It's been a tremendous experience, but I'm going to be honest with you, the profession is dying,'' Mariotti said, "I don't think either paper [Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune] is going to survive.

Once more.

"It's been a tremendous experience, but I'm going to be honest with you, the profession is dying,'' Mariotti said, "I don't think either paper [Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune] is going to survive.

Fascinating. So why is he doing this? You don't suppose.... NO. NO WAY. No way is he doing this just to get back at his former employer, the Chicago Sun-Times! That would be silly. After all, we know that Jay is not in favor of holding grudges.

A special fuck you to Sports by Brooks, linked above as the source for this story, for this:

If you live outside of Chicago, there’s a good chance you only know Mariotti from his surprisingly well-reasoned work on ESPN’s Around The Horn.

Well-reasoned? Either the powerful Jay Mariotti lobby has gained control of SBB and is now using it as a mouthpiece for his self-promotion efforts, or no one at SBB actually watches ATH. Those are the only possible explanations for that comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TNTMQR: Obviously I'm Biased

But TMQ is still a pretentious ass-hat.

Buck-Buck-Brawckkkkkkk No. 2: Trailing Dallas 24-9 early in the fourth quarter, Green Bay faced fourth-and-2 on its 35, and sent in a punt unit. "Got to be a fake," yours truly thought -- boom went the punt, and Dallas scored on its possession to ice the game. As TMQ endlessly notes, teams that punt on fourth-and-short when trailing in the fourth quarter almost always go on to lose.

With 13:55 left in the game, and down by 15 points, it's always best to take a risk that will immediately put your opponent in field goal range if the gamble doesn't pay off

Best Purist Drive: Jacksonville ran an 18-play, 82-yard drive that consumed 12 minutes and 18 seconds of the fourth quarter. Fourteen of the snaps were rushes; the result was a field goal that put the Jags ahead 20-14 with 2:36 remaining.

Jacksonville kicked the field goal on 4th down from the Colts 4 yard line! Doesn't Jack of the River know that the average play from scrimmage gains 5 yards!? With 2:33 left and a 6 point lead the Jags lined up to kick-off to the Colts, whose quarterback has more 4th quarter come from behind wins than any other active NFL quarterback. "They should onside kick it" said the tastefully named, official son of TMQ, Spencer Easterbrook. Even my 12 year old son knew the Jags shouldn't risk giving Peyton Manning the ball back with so much time! BOOM went the kick, and TMQ needn't tell you that the Colts scored the winning touchdown just 1:26 later.

Network Priorities Praised: TMQ lives in the Washington, D.C., area, where endlessly the network affiliates show excruciatingly dull Baltimore Ravens games instead of whatever the day's headliner is, on the theory that Washington is a "secondary market" for Baltimore.

Who are the Ravens, and why are they playing in the Nevermores' stadium?

Look, I hate watching the Redskins play, but Baltimore, MD (where the Ravens play) and Landover, MD (where the Redskins play) are only 50 miles apart. In that space, there are fans of both teams. Please do like me, and get over it.

On Sunday, WUSA, the CBS affiliate, had the late slot and showed Pittsburgh at Philadelphia, the headliner game, not the Cleveland-Baltimore stinker.Good call!

Easterbrook, the guy who constantly writes about how DirecTV's exclusive rights to Sunday Ticket prevents thousands of fans from being able to watch their home team play, lauds a local affiliate for preventing Ravens fans who live in the Maryland suburbs from watching their team play. This reminds me of a word that starts with "h," hapo...hypo...hippopotamus, that's it.

Pittsburgh at Philadelphia wasn't a fireworks game, but was a lot better than the Cleveland-Baltimore stinker.

Browns/Ravens: 38 combined points, 5 touchdowns, 41 first downs, 5 sacks, 5 turnovers = stinky.
Steelers/Eagles: 21 combined points, 1 touchdown, 1 safety, 30 first downs, 12 sacks, 4 turnovers, 5 second half points = not stinky.

ESPN should blackout this Monday's game between the Ravens and the Steelers because the forecast calls for a 100% chance of stinkyness in Pittsburgh that night.

Mariotti is the Pot, Woody Paige is the Kettle

Special thanks to reader Jim A for the tip. On yesterday's Around the Horn, the following situation (allegedly, we don't have any visual evidence, but fuck it, this is a blog, we don't have to substantiate anything as far as I'm concerned) took place.

Woody, obviously, is based in the Denver/Boulder area. And anyone who has lived there for the past 10 years or so will never forget the backstabbing the University of Colorado received at the hands of a certain current UCLA football coach. He basically packed his bags in the middle of the night and left for Washington after promising over and over again that he wanted to stay with CU for life. People there are just a little bit sore about the whole deal, even to this day. And subsequently, that coach has earned himself a couple degrading nicknames. I think that's about all the background you need. The rest I'll just leave in Jim's words:

That Woody Paige guy called Rick Neuheisel "Neuweasel," and the next sound was the voice of Jay Mariotti saying, "stop holding a grudge". I actually watched the replay of the show on ESPN2 just to make sure I heard right. It's a good thing Mariotti is such a fair and reasonable person who would never use his position and access to public media to hold a grudge against a guy like, say, Ozzie Guillen. What a fucking hypocrite.

Don't hold grudges, Woody. That's unprofessional.

Peter King: Fat, Stupid

Reading MMQB is like going to Chipotle. Every time you walk in, you hope it's going to be as good or better than Qdoba, but it never is. The point I'm trying to make is that Qdoba's steak queso burrito is outrageous, New York Magazine called it "a playful but mysterious little dish." Also Peter King probably eats 12 or 13 of those a day.

VINDICTIVE MANNY STAT OF THE WEEK

The first month on new jobs for Manny Ramirez and the man who replaced him in Boston, Jason Bay:

Manny:
AVG: .415
OBP: .508
H: 44
HR: 9
RBI: 25

Bay:
AVG: .315
OBP: .358
H: 35
HR: 4
RBI: 29

Ramirez is unconscious, as we figured he might be, trying to show the Red Sox didn't appreciate him.

Get it? Because Manny is sometimes lazy in the outfield. He makes a lot of stupid mistakes. I guess the main bullet point of my presentation would be that Manny Ramirez isn't a very good fielder.

But Bay's been superb with runners in scoring position, and 29 RBIs in August -- in any month, for that matter -- is big-time production.

Yes, RBI's, the great equalizer among all hitters. In no way are RBI's related to your teamate's ability to get on base. Take your "unconcious" .508 OBP and jam it up your ass Manny.

Later in the column:

Is Dustin Pedroia a real person? He just had a 43-hit month, with six home runs. He is 5-foot-8, maybe. He just went 4-for-4 on back-to-back nights, reaching base 10 times in 10 appearances in the two games. Terry Francona batted him cleanup twice. Ozzie Guillen pitched to David Ortiz and intentionally walked Pedroia. Ozzie Guillen said, "I just [intentionally] walked a jockey.'' This is an amazing story we're watching.

So in sum:

Over the past month, Pedroia and Manny have almost the identical number of hits, and Manny has 3 more home runs. Here's how Peter King sees it:

Manny = Asshole having flukey month
Pedroia = The most amazing story ever! I texted Pedroia to ask him how it feels to be having the greatest season ever, and he wrote back "Plz stop txting me." His focus is unbelievable!

1b. I like the reinstatement of Pacman Jones, or Adam Jones, or whatever his name is this week.

Notice PK's use of the nickname Pacman Jones...

1k. The Dayton Daily News, one of the papers covering the Bengals daily, has begun referring to Chad Johnson as Chad Ocho Cinco, from the looks of Saturday's paper. "The week leading up to the Baltimore game represents the first full week of practice time Ocho Cinco, T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Carson Palmer will have together since the 2007 season finale at Miami,'' beat man Chick Ludwig wrote Saturday, apparently with a straight face.

Are you fucking kidding me? In 1b, you refer to a player by his nickname, and then 9 bullet points later you deride a writer for referring to a player by the nickname they legally adopted. You are a fat asshole.

I'm Speechless

Jay Mariotti actually took the time to write this in his 24/7 online column. I couldn't be more shocked. I'll copy the entire thing here, and it's short. I refuse to link it for fear it may increase the number of hits this terrible terrible "sports" column gets.

Find your earplugs: Harrelson back

Jay is referring to the White Sox resigning Hawk Harrelson, the poor broadcaster, for the next several years.

Ensuring that illiteracy remains in the Chicago sports media for four more years, the White Sox have handed a contract extension to alleged broadcaster Ken (Hawk) Harrelson.

This is not a reason to write a column. You are abusing your privilege as a columnist for a personal attack. This as a premise for a column alone should be grounds for giving you a pink slip.

This means listeners in an otherwise sophisticated town will be punished with more hillbilly twang,

You heard it here first: Ken Harrelson is the only non-sophisticated thing in an "otherwise sophisticated town". Isn't this the city where some dude ran onto the field plastered to try to attack a first base coach with a knife in one stadium, while in the other people throw their garbage onto the field whenever the team plays bad late in the game? Are these "sophisticated" things to do? Walk around Wrigley Field in the 7th inning of a baseball game, and you'll see and hear just how "sophisticated" Chicago really is.

which is almost as embarrassing as Harrelson's .239 career batting average

ZING!

and his short-term flop as the general manager who fired Tony La Russa.

He fired the guy who felt Aaron Rowand was a better late-game hitting option than Albert Pujols? Tony La Russa is not now, nor ever has been, a good Major League Baseball manager. And even if he were, managers don't do that much.

Now Jay, try to relate this bullshit to something actually about baseball.

When the Sox should be attempting to reinvent an organization that already has lost its World Series cachet, they instead try to stay the same.

I hate to admit it, but I actually agree with Jay here.

Ken Harrelson, WARBs (Wins Above Replacement Broadcaster) for the past 5 years.

2003: 3.2
2004: 2.1
2005: 0.4
2006: -4.7 (oh boy...)
2007: -10.4

So as you can see, it was the broadcaster who profoundly and negatively affected the team's performance in 2007 (and possibly costed them a playoff berth in 2006), and not aging players, regression to the mean, Jerry Owens, or, as Jay believed, Ozzie being crazy and stupid. It was all about Ken Harrelson being crazy and stupid. This organization has just doomed itself.

Harrelson doesn't bring in audiences as much as he scares them away or makes them cringe, whether it's throwing one of his dead-air fits, blaming every loss on the umps or lowering himself to pick fights with media members far more professional and accomplished than him.

Ooooh hooooh hooooooooooooooh! It gets juicy!

The fact behind this comment is that Harrelson allegedly tried to pick a fight with Jay Mariotti in the press box.

As much as I believe Harrelson to be a bad broadcaster now (he wasn't as awful say, 10 years ago), let's look at the facts here for a second!

Ken Harrelson played Major League Baseball. He was the General Manager of a Major League Baseball team. He has been the TV broadcaster for said team for 2 decades or so.

Jay Mariotti writes a sports column for a newspaper. Millions of people are aware of him, and I've yet to meet one who didn't dislike him. He is also often on a TV show that features 4 idiot blowhards trying to suck Tony Reali's dick for "points". Rarely does Jay do any real sports analysis, and has become famous simply for generating controversy.

Which person is more accomplished? Jay feels, the latter.

And this is lovely. Jay has just patted himself on the back for being "far more professional" than Harrelson in the midst of a newspaper column written solely to continue his personal vendetta against the man. Shades of hypocrisy!

Consider it one more reason, along with the extension given to Ozzie Guillen, that the Sox are locked in as Chicago's second-class ballclub for years to come.

It just wouldn't be Jay if he attributed the Sox' failures to something that actually plays baseball. You know, something that actually affects the outcome of the games.

Column over.

Sure, I Could Write About Someone Else

But who would want to read that? Besides, Bill Simmons only writes about a column a week these days. (Probably because he just had a kid! Did you hear about that? He's trying to keep it a secret, but I guess the information leaked out somehow. Shucks! Seriously though, rest assured that if I ever get out of this basement and impregnate a woman, you readers will not be hearing about it. Unless she's much less ugly than I realistically anticipate her being.) So I've got to jump on anything he bothers to publish.

Overcrowding plagues NFL pregame shows

The same phenomenon is taking a real toll on Brett Favre's nuts these days. Hoo hoo! Pow! Larry B 1, Peter King 0.

I avoid the pregame shows unless I'm searching for a specific nugget of information, usually a weather report or an injury update for fantasy/gambling purposes. Before the Internet took off in the late '90s, these shows had real value because die-hards lacked the resources to follow 30 teams at once and needed as much information as possible, even if it came in the form of uninformed opinions from the mouths of Brent Jones and Joe Montana.

I hope Bill realizes that he is a popular sportswriter for one reason and one reason only: people like to read his uniformed opinions. I have no idea why, but that's clearly the case. Oh, maybe a handful of readers drop in for his razor sharp wit. Others might rarely love his ability to make hilarious pop culture references at the drop of a hat. Paris Hilton and Heidi from The Hills, LOL! And a few real winners out there might look to him for fantastic gambling advice, evidenced by his under .500 record picking against the spread during the past two years. But by and large, nearly everyone who reads him is doing so because they enjoy the exact kind of uninformed opinions he's mocking here. So although those pregame show talking heads aren't really saying much of anything important, there's obviously a market for people peddling drivel to be successful in today's sports media.

Now? We have the resources. Thanks to the 24/7 sports cycle, we digest an inordinate amount of information and opinion heading into the morning of the games. What else is left to say?

Well, by your own admission, there are weather and injury tips to be had. And beyond that, isn't making sweeping generalizations fun! Bill has failed to understand that maybe not everyone is like him. (Reminds me of the column he published last spring in which he expressed an inability to understand why not everyone loves the Patriots.) Maybe some people out there are casual viewers who aren't going to obsess over the weekend's action for days in advance. This is like making fun of newspapers because "everyone I know uses the internet for news these days." Sure, newspapers aren't exactly flourishing. But they're not about to disappear or become irrelevant just because other ways to get news are becoming more popular. There are still plenty of people who fully utilize them, because that's what they're comfortable with.

Even if the pregame shows still rate well, I don't know anyone who feels fully satisfied by them, and I don't know anyone who goes out of the way to watch them. We turn them on because it seems like the right thing to do.

Anecdotal. Bullshit.

I don't personally know anyone who likes "House," "Two and a Half Men" (or as one of my friends calls it, "Two Guys and a Fat Kid"), or "Dancing With the Stars," but I'm a big boy who understands the whole world doesn't think the exact same way I do about things. So I'm therefore willing to trust from the ratings that there are plenty of people who are very tickled by those programs. My personal opinion may be that they suck, but I'm not going to express it as "Because neither me nor my friends like them, I'm forced to conclude that the only reason people watch them is because nothing better is on and they've been fooled by the shows' promotional tactics. No one out there actually enjoys these shows. I'm 100% certain of it. The ratings are a lie, and all my opinions are fact. The moon landing never happened. Tupac is alive and partying on a Caribbean island with Robert Kennedy as we speak. And David Ortiz is objectively clutchier than any other athlete, ever."

There's a reason nobody would ever think to release the shows on DVD after the season.

It's the same reason no one would ever think to release "Sportscenter," "Access Hollywood," or any regular op-ed show from CNN or MSNBC on DVD. No one wants to watch a news/analysis show that deals with current events months or years after those events happen. But that's a nice straw man. Is that a straw man? I'm pretty sure that counts. It's like saying "Well, there isn't a single MLB team that would sign David Beckham to a contract, so he's not a good athlete."

Of course, if you're watching with friends, the same two comments will always be made.

"Why are they all laughing when nobody made a joke?"

"Why are there so many people?"

Those are the exact same two questions I always ask myself when I read through one of Simmons's chat sessions. Or when I'm changing channels and I stumble onto an old episode of "Friends."

As it turns out, the questions are related: They're laughing because there are too many people and it's the only reasonable way for everyone to communicate at once. Remember when Floyd Mayweather Jr. was showing us his car collection on "24/7," and he pointed out his Maybach, and then he pointed to another car ... and it was another Maybach? That's what happened to these pregame shows. Every network exec thinks like Floyd: They have too much money, there's too much money at stake and they desperately want to impress us, only they're not exactly sure how to do it. So instead of sticking with one Maybach, they buy two to be safe.

That's one of the stretchiest stretches for a pop culture reference I've ever read. Isn't there a Karate Kid moment that better fits the situation? What about "The Hills?" No? Maybe Mayweather wanted two different colors of Maybach. I doubt he was trying to impress the public. Maybe his opponents, or women... but not us. I hope not. Because I am unimpressed. I'm not even sure what a damn Maybach looks like.

That leads to ...

Bill Cowher is coming to CBS!

Tiki Barber is coming to NBC!

Emmitt Smith is coming to ESPN!

Barry Switzer is coming to Fox!

Cowher is very good on camera, despite constantly looking like he just got hit in the face, so his hiring is ok with me. Barber seems like a total snake-in-the-grass asshole, and he really likes throwing ex-teammates under the bus, but he's also good on camera. Smith has little to no grasp on the English language, but he provides some comic relief. And Switzer is definitely good on camera as well. So what's the problem here? You'll see what Bill's getting at in a minute. Hint: everything was better back in the late 80s/early 90s, because he was young then.

When you add a fifth person to a four-man studio show, and you're not getting rid of any of the other four people, by my calculations, that's too many people.

When you're a national sportswriter who constantly writes about Boston teams, and you don't provide any balance by occasionally writing about some other team, by my calculations, that's fucking annoying.

Think of it as the power of four. Unless you're putting together a poker night or a group to play pickup hoops, in nearly every other conceivable scenario, you're better off with four people than five or more. Dinner always works better. Vegas works better. Cabs work better. Sporting events work better. Road trips work better. Rock bands work better. The most successful sitcom ever ("Seinfeld") centered around four friends, and the most popular female comedy series ("Sex and the City") did the same.

None of those things have anything in common with a pregame show. And I would disagree about road trips, sitcoms, and sporting events anyways. The more people the merrier.

Local newscasts and morning shows work better. If you keep the number at four, you'll always have enough people to make it interesting and everybody has a chance to shine.

Anecdotal. Bullshit. I see no shininess problems with a five person cast. The only issue is when they all talk over each other. But Bill hasn't really brought that up. According to earlier in this same article, he just seems to hate laughter. I bet he hates babies and America, too.

Let's take a trip down Memory Lane. When I was growing up, Brent Musberger, Phyllis George/Jayne Kennedy, Irv Cross and Jimmy The Greek made up CBS's groundbreaking "NFL Today," the first "modern" pregame show that worked because Brent was so good and CBS was smart enough to keep it to four people.

Therrrrrrrrrrrrre we go. This is the real issue; things aren't like they were during Bill's glory days anymore, so they're bad.

The non-Brent talent was sorely lacking. Phyllis and Jayne were cute enough, but they didn't know much about football and admitted as much. Irv smiled a lot and never said anything even interesting -- in fact, he's the first broadcaster I ever made fun of on a regular basis. And Jimmy had the TV persona of a drunken uncle who crashed your Thanksgiving family dinner, then made long-distance bets on your phone, complained about an itchy colon and yelled at you for accidentally changing the TV. Needless to say, I loved him. But not everybody did.

Needless to say, Jimmy the Greek turned out to be an ignorant weirdo. So yeah, I guess I'm not surprised Bill loved him. Was he from the Boston area? That would help further explain things.

Skipping through a brief history of the pregame show on each network.

Now each of the four shows is overproduced, overstaffed and overlaughed, only whenever an appealing "name" comes on the market (Bill Parcells, Jerome Bettis, Barber, whomever), the networks pursue him for the same nonsensical reason Mayweather bought two Maybachs. Maybe I don't need it, but what the hell, I'm rich! And that's the part I don't get. From 1975 to 2000, we just established that only two pregame shows stood out -- "NFL Today" in the late '70s (four people, likable host) and "NFL Sunday" in the mid-'90s (four people, likable host).

Bill's ability to turn opinion into fact is astonishing. It must be part of the key to his success. Let me use some parallel reasoning: the only two movies I like are "Back to the Future III" and "Mr. Baseball." So based on that, we've just established that there have only been two good movies ever made. The end. Unless you also want to count "Beavis and Butthead Do America," which is fine as long as we keep it in a separate category because it's animated.

So why would all four Sunday shows in 2007 feature five-man casts?

Probably because, as Bill admitted earlier in this very column, ratings are high. (There's probably also some focus group research in there somewhere as well.) Hmmmmmm. Shit. So if networks are using five man casts... and ratings are high, which means the networks are making lots of money... why would they keep using five man casts? Christ, this is hurting my brain. Anyone have any ideas?

Why would they willingly create the following six problems?

I hope one of the problems on the list isn't "Causing the network to make too much money."

Problem No. 1: A historic amount of overlaughing, fake-laughing and abstract laughing (when someone laughs at something that doesn't possess a single shred of humor, you either assume they're stoned or crazy).

Well, they could also be under the age of 17 and watching a Dane Cook special. Or they could be a big Bill Simmons fan, reading a Bill Simmons article. ZING!

Problem No. 2: Scripted "arguments" in which one guy makes his seemingly unrehearsed comment, then awkwardly stops and turns to the person who's supposed to make the next seemingly unrehearsed comment as the cameramen struggle to keep up. Even porn movies have smoother transitions.

As far as I can tell (this may not be true, but it's certainly my impression), Bill's employer wrote the fucking book on scripted arguments between analysts. Watch ten minutes of Sportscenter. You're going to stumble right into one, usually between two equally stupid opponents like Skip Bayless/Stephen A. Smith or John Kruk/Steve Phillips. So clearly, people eat this kind of stuff up. Don't blame the pregame shows for following the formula. (Anyone who can clarify whether or not ESPN popularized this practice, feel free to let me know.)

Problem No. 3: Relentless attempts by everyone to make over-the-top comments and predictions, then shamelessly flip those same predictions at halftime in the opposite direction. You might remember Shannon Sharpe pulling this off to perfection before and during last Sunday's Chargers-Titans game.

While I can't say this kind of stuff is at all excusable, let's run the hypocrite test take a look at what Bill has had to say about the Giants' chances against Tampa Bay and Dallas respectively during the past two weeks:

1/4/08, before the wild card round:

When I write the Playoff Manifesto 5.0, you can bet anything that Eli and Coughlin will be featured in a section that includes the words "don't" or "beware." Seriously, you're thinking of backing Coughlin, Eli and (probably) his second-string center in a road playoff game? Are you nuts?

The Pick: Buccaneers 27, Giants 20

1/11/08, in this column (published before the divisional round):

You wanted me to believe in Mr. "8-1 On The Road," Giants fans? Fine! I believe in Eli Manning! I was wrong! Now I'm on the bandwagon and you can't kick me off! Come on, Eli! TAKE US TO THE PROMISED LAND, ELI!!!!!!!!

The Pick: Giants 33, Cowboys 30.

Let's see: over-the-top comments and predictions? Check. Hell, those are the only kinds of comments and predictions he knows. Shameless flip-flopping? Well, it didn't happen at halftime, but Bill doesn't publish articles midway through games, so this is the next best thing. Backing Coughlin and Manning in a road playoff game? What are you, fuckin' nuts? (Fast forward to the 3:00 mark) Oh, yeah. I guess not.

Problem No. 4: In a misguided effort to give everyone air time during the halftime shows, both CBS and Fox have their nonhosts doing highlights. In other words, there's a trained professional on hand with command of the English language and a natural ability to narrate what's happening, and we have to listen to people such as Sharpe, Bradshaw and Marino stumbling through highlights like they're doing a Foster Brooks routine? And this makes sense ... how?

If you really get that much more out of a highlight when one of those "trained professionals" does the narration, you are too stupid to have a job as a sports columnist. Maybe the average everyday fan has a gripe here. But Bill has already established several times that he doesn't give a flying poo about the average everyday fan. Sharpe, Marino and Bradshaw (especially) are idiots. You have to listen to them do a whole 15 seconds worth of highlights every halftime. Deal with it. I'll still take any of them over Stuart Scott or Linda Cohn.

Problem No. 5: A never-ending effort to convince us that, yes, this show is gonna have some personality and we're gonna have some fun! YEE-HAH!

How dare they! How dare a television show attempt to excite its viewers! What do they think this is, show business? Get out there and be as unflashy and boring as possible, studio personalities. We didn't come here to be entertained by you. Actually, let's just cut out the problem entirely. Is there any way we can get robots to do their jobs? I find the humans' facial expressions extremely distracting. Stop grinning at me, Howie Long. You look like a troll.

(My favorite gimmick here: CBS's "live" commercial during games that shows the five studio guys standing uncomfortably next to one another, laughing for no real reason and flipping a football around the semi-circle as Jim Nantz does the "Coming up at halftime ..." voiceover. Invariably, someone drops the ball and everyone else laughs hysterically. Apparently, this sequence is supposed to get me psyched to hear some football talk or something.)

Yeah, you know what would be better? A shot of the field from a pulled back angle, with the players just kind of milling around because it's a TV timeout. Or a shot of the studio with all the guys sitting behind their giant desk. That would get me much more excited. I'm not saying the "dropped ball routine" is comedic gold in terms of execution, but I don't see a problem with its intention.

Problem No. 6: The alpha dog analyst never getting enough time to make his points. For instance, Cris Collinsworth does the most homework, watches the most tape and has the most insightful/provocative comments of anyone, with the possible exception of Parcells. And he's fighting for air time with Tiki Barber and Jerome Bettis on NBC? Really? That's what America wants?

Collinsworth is smart, but also smarmy and unentertaining. If I were allowed to speak for America, I would say that this is exactly what America wants. In fact, it would be even better if Collinsworth had to literally physically fight Bettis and Barber for access to a microphone in order to be heard on the air. That's what America really wants, although America is willing to admit it's probably asking too much.

Knowing these problems -- and let's face it, they're problems -- why wouldn't at least one network return to a four-person show? The simple answer: they don't like firing people or eating contracts, but they loooooooove hiring people. Nothing makes a network exec happier than announcing, "We're bringing in so-and-so!" And the sheer power of numbers makes shows feel like a bigger event than they actually are, so instead of choosing between Emmitt and Keyshawn, or Marino and Boomer, or Tiki and Bettis, they just keep both under the "bigger is better!" premise. Even if it inadvertently clogs up their shows and flies against the face of everything that has ever worked well on a Sunday pregame show.

The number of people in the greater New England area who now assume that this is fact, even though it's just one douchebag's opinion, is undoubtedly tragically high. They're like lemmings. This obnoxious man is their leader, and they will do what he says. If I had more time on my hands and didn't hate Boston sports so much right now, I'd check around some blogs for the next couple of days and see how many Massholes suddenly start feeling this exact same way about this exact same topic. I guarantee it'll happen. It's creepy.

Anyway, that's how we arrived at CBS's watershed six-guys-at-the-same-table pregame show last week. Six people! That's a lot of people. That's the cast of "Friends."

I wrote my earlier joke about "Friends" being unfunny before I read this part of the article, I promise. What a happy coincidence that Bill actually seems to like the show. But I wonder which Friend he likes the best? I'm guessing: all of them! ("Friends" guitar riff plays)

That's the number of people you're allowed to play in a hockey game. That's enough people to rent an off-campus house in college. That's the "Brady Bunch." That's nearly an entire table at a wedding.

Amazingly put. Top notch analysis. It's also how many outs there are in a complete inning of baseball. It's how many days per week the mail gets delivered. It's a number of beers or sodas commonly held together with flexible plastic rings. Are any of these examples helping you better understand how many "six" is? No? (Larry B holds up his entire outstretched right hand, and left hand in a partial fist with just the index finger extended) It's this many!

If you can explain to me how six people could attempt to discuss a football game when only one person can talk at a time, I'd love to hear it.

Well, first one guy talks, then another, then another, until all six of them have talked. Then they repeat that process. Viola! Magic. Furthermore, the difference between four and six is basically negligible as long as they don't talk over each other too much. Which shouldn't happen if, you know, their producer has them well prepared to do their extremely easy job. Everyone gets less time to talk, but more viewpoints are presented. And the general format of a roundtable discussion about the sport of football should be pretty much unchanged, unless one of the guys wandered over from a different set or something. It's not very complex.

Did CBS stop and think, "Wow, maybe this was a bad idea?" Of course not. For about four minutes, they aired a round-table "conversation" that made all of Spencer's and Heidi's scenes in Season 3 of "The Hills" look unscripted and off-the-cuff by comparison.

I also made my obligatory joke about Simmons liking "The Hills" before I read that. God, I hate my brain and how much of it is devoted to knowing how Bill Simmons thinks.

The amazing part was the sheer volume of people sitting at the same table.

If you grew up with three or more siblings and both parents, and sometimes all ate meals at the same table, you are part of a weirdo-freak family. Congratulations.

How did they even fit six people on the same screen?

By having them sit kind of close together, and zooming out the camera. And using voodoo to shrink everyone.

Did they discuss having Casserly sit on Shannon's lap? Did they have to buy smaller chairs? Now I'm wondering what the limit will be. I never thought we'd see six on camera at the same time. Will we reach seven?

If market research and ratings say so, yes. Yes we will. I can't wait to read Bill's ensuing column.

Is that even possible?

Yes. If Woody Paige can help choose who gets into the Baseball Hall of Fame and who doesn't, I believe that anything is possible.

What if we did an eight-man show with two rows of tables? Where are we headed?

Hopefully for a "Hollywood Squares" type of grid setup. I'd watch that in a heartbeat.

I'd believe anything at this point.

OK. Next year, all four major networks that show the NFL will make massive cutbacks and limit their studio on camera staff to one man: Tim McCarver. He's going to do pregame and halftime shows for all of them. He'll even be doing play-by-play and color during games for FOX on certain weekends.

One last note, and this is the funniest part: Fox dominated the ratings from 1994 to 2005 with James Brown as its host, winning 132 of 134 straight shows at one point. Before the 2006 season, JB switched to CBS ... and CBS edged Fox for the first time ever. This season, CBS whupped Fox even more handily. Could you credit the change in power to JB? Actually, you probably could -- he's the best studio host alive and has been for years.

Although Brown may resonate well with viewers, FireJay reader Ben sent me a hopefully non-sarcastic email with a better idea. CBS does the majority of Patriots games. You think that maybe their even-more-immense-than-a-few-years-ago popularity (not to mention non-fans just wanting to follow their search for a perfect record) might have something to do with those numbers? It's definitely possible. Ben also makes the excellent point that almost all of Bill's examples in this article deal with the CBS pregame show, probably for the same reason as the ratings shift. Bill watches Patriots games and that's probably about it, so CBS is the only network whose coverage he's fully familiar with. But he's more than comfortable lumping in the other networks with them for the purposes of this article, because if he didn't, it wouldn't make much sense. I am/Ben is not saying he's never seen NBC or ESPN or FOX's show... I am/Ben is just saying, there aren't a lot of examples of their alleged misdeeds in here. So he can't have seen too much of them

Like in the '70s with Musberger and CBS, on-the-fence viewers are gravitating toward a pregame show because of a host and not because of the four ex-players and ex-coaches sitting next to him. Really, it's not rocket science. The host matters the most. Chemistry matters second. That's it. And you can't have chemistry when you have too many people trying to talk at once.

1) These are not facts, they are opinions. So no. That is not "it."
2) This is the first time too many people trying to talk at once has been brought up. If it happens, it's a problem. Do we know from this paragraph that it definitely happens? Nope. But we do know that the host matters the most, and that rhyming your points is always a better way to get them across. That's why Sesame Street is so popular with the age 3-10 demographic.

(And yes, if this was a Sunday pregame show, everyone else would wait a beat to make sure I was finished, then they'd start laughing hysterically for no discernable reas-

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, I didn't have to pause before I laughed at that! Not just because this isn't actually a Sunday pregame show, but also because this whole column has been just too dang funny. HO HO HO HO. It feels like I just read a bunch of Ziggy cartoons while a Robin Williams movie played in the background!

There's more to this column, but I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll get to it tomorrow if I really feel like working myself into a frenzy again.

Integrity

Let's talk about integrity, friends. I am going to lecture you all about integrity. I feel that as some guy who searches the internet for bad sports writing and mercilessly bashes the somewhat-innocent writers of the pieces, I am mega-qualified to tell people the value of integrity.

Oh fuck it, I'm burning in hell. Let's let someone good, with high morals, like Jay Mariotti tell you why integrity is so important.

Bad time to acquire a juicer
Leadoff hitter could be perfect addition to awesome lineup, but admitted user of performance-enhancing drugs also would kill club’s integrity

I have never seen a worse subtitle in my entire life!

Let me correct that first clause real quick. It should say "leadoff hitter could be good addition to awesomely overrated and flawed lineup." (Soriano is just....not that good, folks! And I don't care what Soto did last year on a small sample either!)

Now, for the second, blatantly more wrong, blatantly more irrelevant, blatantly more completely idiotic part.

but admitted user of performance-enhancing drugs also would kill club’s integrity

Admitted user. Brian Roberts admitted to taking steroids. He publicly came clean. Admitting when you have done something wrong is a SIGN of integrity, not a detractor from it! How would he "kill club's integrity?" He's not juicing now! You, on the other hand, once lied and said Torii Hunter was better than Nick Swisher, just to try to make your for-some-reason archrival Kenny Willaims look bad. Who has more integrity, Brian Roberts, or Jay Mariotti?

Is it possible a man can use steroids only once? Does he feel a needle pierce the hide of his buttocks and realize, right then and there, that he has violated his conscience and made a grievous mistake? Are we really expected to believe someone smokes weed only once, drinks and drives only once and embezzles an employer only once before suddenly finding religion?

Jay, those things happen all the time! I know tons of people who have smoked weed only once and said "hey man, that's not for me." Some people drink and drive, then remember just how dangerous it is and don't do it again! Some people don't feel how wrong an action is, like embezzling an employer, until they actually do it! Did you really just write that? Really? Then again, you once said that John Paxson should be fired and the Bulls nucleus dismantled after continued improvement in 4 straight seasons. So maybe we shouldn't take what you say to heart too much.

Such is the claim of Brian Roberts, who could be a Cub by the time you read this. Last month, Roberts was named as a steroids user on Page 158 of George Mitchell's report probing baseball's juice era. He didn't comment immediately, waiting a full five days before revealing he'd used performance-enhancers.

That FIEND! He kept the nation guessing for 5 FUCKING DAYS before coming clean! I bet you waited less time than that to write an entire "sports" column about how Rick Morrissey is stalking you.

Only once, of course.

``In 2003, when I took one shot of steroids, I immediately realized that this was not what I stood for or anything that I wanted to continue doing,'' Roberts said. ``I never used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing drugs prior to or since that single incident. I can honestly say before God, myself, my family and all of my fans, that steroids or any performance-enhancing drugs have never had any effect on what I have worked so hard to accomplish in the game of baseball."

A very open confession. Given no hard evidence at all to the contrary, there is little reason not to believe Roberts. Jay has tried to convince the world of stranger things, on the other hand, like that time he said the Bears would be better off losing football games for reasons besides getting a better draft pick. Is anyone besides FireJay giving you the third degree about that one, JayBird?

The problem I have with his impassioned confession is that it also exposes his bold-faced lie.

No it doesn't. I literally can't wait for what you're about to say. And besides, you lie all the time. Remember when you said Chris Duhon was better than Kirk Hinrich?

When the great snitch Jason Grimsley told federal agents in 2006 that Roberts was a user of anabolic steroids, he flatly denied it.

So we're supposed to believe Jason Grimsley, the perpetual blowhard who was one of the steroid ringleaders, and not Roberts? That's crazier than that time you said that the Sox were cheapskates for not overbidding for big fat overrated Torii Hunter (he isn't fat, I'm sorry, that was a lie. See why I'm having Jay teach you aboiut integrity instead?).

Side note: why is Roberts's denial evidence of his guilt?

``His accusations are ridiculous,'' Roberts said then. ``We've had steroid testing, and I've taken all the tests. There is no point in getting into verbal wars. That's all there is to say.''

A very mature, evidence-filled reply. It wasn't an outstanding argument or anything, like that time Jay said David Eckstein would vastly improve the White Sox, but you know, it was alright.

So now, as the Cubs consider making a major deal with the Baltimore Orioles for Roberts, we're supposed to conveniently forgive this episode as one simple, human mistake? He didn't tell the truth, people.

Yes! Forgive it! There's no reason not to! Especially because he isn't juicing now! And you can't say that Roberts didn't tell the truth, because you have absolutely no proof of it. Something Jason Grimsley said might either be false, or he might have based it on the one time that Roberts did use steroids. You are literally just looking for reasons not to like things Chicago sports teams are doing. I'm even more disappointed in you than that time you said football fans shouldn't be passionate about their team!

And after the Mitchell Report, he again waited a good while before noticing others were confessing guilt and deciding to come out himself. This is not called being forthright. This is called trying to cover your syringe-poked butt before something else might be said.

He waited 5 fucking days! That's all! That's not even a week! Saying Joe Torre would boost the 72-90 White Sox to a 90-win season before they made any offseason moves isn't being forthright either! It's dodging the issues with the team and spewing wrongitude as a futile attempt to attack Ozzie Guillen!

We have reached a fascinating juncture, then, as baseball observers. Facing Cubdom is an ethical debate far removed from the usual beertap arguments, such as when a manager should pull a starting pitcher or if the girl in the halter top looks better than the girl in the t-shirt. What is more important: (a) trying to win your first World Series in 100 years by acquiring an elite leadoff hitter and second baseman, which would let Lou Piniella drop Alfonso Soriano to third in the batting order and create a powerful lineup; or (b) maintaining integrity as an organization during a scandalous period in baseball history?

"Elite leadoff hitter" is a bit of a stretch. And why choose one when you could have both! The only way you could add a player and not maintain integrity is if you added a guy that was secretly still doing drugs! (or like, some guy who steals things from teammates' houses) Roberts isn't! This sounds like a healthy dose of your Ashton Kutcher-related bullshit.

I choose integrity.

That is the most fucking ironic thing I have ever seen! Sweet! I love it when extreme things happen!

You didn't choose integrity that time you claimed the DBacks were beating the Cubs using "grinderball".

Nor did you choose integrity when you chose to write an entire column accusing the White Sox of using anti-Mariotti propaganda (imagine the irony!).

General manager Jim Hendry, sadly, has chosen the .290 batting average and 50 stolen bases. And my guess is, most Cubs fans are siding with Hendry.

THAT IS BECAUSE MOST CUB FANS AREN'T COMPLETE RETARDS THAT CAN'T FORGIVE SOMEONE FOR ONE INSTANCE OF USING STEROIDS AFTER THEY APOLOGIZED AND CAME CLEAN!

Maybe, just MAYBE, they're as excited about Brian Roberts for playing baseball well as I was when Larry found that blip on Deadspin about someone paying $15/year to make www.retardedvagina.com link to your column.

If so, those people are hypocrites.

FUCK THE HECK!?!??! Jay calling someone ELSE a hypocrite is probably the most hypocritical thing in the history of hypocritical things.

You clearly have forgotten that time on July 5 that you suddenly decided Piniella was the best manager ever after bashing him for 2 straight months.

You can't decry the Steroids Era in one breath, then cheer wildly when your ballclub acquires one of the stars of the Mitchell Report.

Roberts was not a "star" of the Mitchell Report. Clemens, Segui, Grimsley. Those men are stars. Roberts was something of an afterthought.

You can't claim the White Sox had no injury problems in 2007 and that the manager is responsible for their losing since July 2, 2006 when neither of those things are true!

Hendry was relieved when no current Cubs were listed in the report, but dealing for Roberts would smear that record.

HOW? The reason Hendry was relieved that no current Cubs were listed in the report was because he didn't want to find out that one of his guys was secretly, unbeknownst to Hendry, using steroids. Hendry knows Brian Roberts was in the Mitchell Report and has accepted that. It's a completely different scenario than if Hendry traded for Roberts before the report was released. Just like when you said it would have been a completely different scenario in the ND vs Georgia Tech game if only Charlie Weis had ::gasp:: revealed to the public that Demetrius Jones would be the starting QB!

This isn't a player with a drug or alcohol problem being given a second chance to conquer his disease. No, this is someone who made a conscious decision to use steroids as recently as five years ago, when everyone knew the juice was sinful.

Anyone else completely lost here? Like, why is the sentence about the "player with a drug or alcohol problem" in here. Like, is he saying the Cubs should want someone who is being given a second chance to cure a drug/alcohol addiction, but not a guy who used steroids once 5 years ago and apologized for it and for sure isn't doing it anymore? That makes less sense than saying Tony LaRussa could fix the White Sox.

Won't another leadoff hitter be on the market eventually? Isn't Mark DeRosa a solid second baseman for now? Why sacrifice your soul for a .377 on-base percentage?

Scene: Hell, 3 years after Hendry's death.

Hendry: Where did you guys go wrong in life?

Adolf Hitler: I persecuted the Jews and caused the death of millions of people.

Osama Bin Laden: I ordered that attack on the Twin Towers in New York. Lots of terror and lives lost.

Adolf & Osama: What did you do to piss off God, Jim?

Hendry: I um....::gulp:: traded for Brian Robe--

Hitler: No! Not Brian Roberts!

Osama: That guy who used steroids and came clean about it???

Hendry: I know, I know. I realized I was submitting myself to eternal damnation by doing so.....but he had that .377 OBP in 2007.....

Hitler: That's just a horrific and inexcusable sin! C'mon Osama, this guy's a lunatic, let's get out of here.

End scene.

Pretty ridiculous right? Not as ridiculous as that time Jay said that a baseball that rolled in from the bullpen was cursed because "baseball" starts with the letter "b", but still, pretty insane.

``Absolutely, you don't take it lightly, and you try to be aware of it,'' Hendry said recently in his only post-Mitchell comments. ``But you can't go to bed every night thinking about, `Gee, I heard back in '01 that this guy might have done that,' or, `Gee, I wonder about that report from the thing that came out in Orlando.' I'm sure there are people that have done certain things that we would all feel weren't maybe appropriate or proper at the time. We have no idea who they are. You can't speculate on who did what or who did this.''

Okay, everybody, deep breath. I'm not even going to make a Family Guy-esque transition into a previous Jay column. This has been an insanely long post, and we just heard a voice of reason.

Ready? Okay. Proceed.

Speculation, this is not. Even if Roberts is described almost universally in baseball circles as a fine human being, he is stained by his mistake.

Yes, there's no arguing that. But the man came clean, and one instance of using steroids is no fucking excuse to throw out the fact that he's a good guy. That compliment has no business in an "even if Roberts..." clause. Just like writers have no business constantly slamming a manager and blaming him for things for which he's not responsible, like players being old and terrible.

And with the catfight between Roger Clemens and trainer Brian McNamee soon to reach the Congressional stage -- Jerry Springer wants to do a live show from Capitol Hill, I hear -- steroids again will be the dominant topic in spring training. Do the Cubs really want their newly acquired steroids guy to be a national story line in Arizona? Do they want their moral code and value system questioned? How do the prospective new owners feel about inheriting one of Mitchell's poster boys?

There is almost zero chance of Brian Roberts becoming a "national story line in Arizona." I have no idea where you got the idea that this was going to happen. Just like I have no idea where you got the idea that Paul Konerko was the only position player you could definitively pencil in for 2008 when A.J. Pierzynski and Jim Thome were both under contract for that year.

Strictly as a baseball hire, Roberts would be a treasure for the Cubs. Imagine an order of Roberts, Kosuke Fukudome, Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, Geovany Soto, Felix Pie and Ryan Theriot. Relinquishing two young pitchers, Sean Marshall and Sean Gallagher, and shortstop Ronny Cedeno would seem well worth the price under normal circumstances. Roberts would cement the Cubs' position as National League Central favorites and legitimate pennant contenders. But you'd also have to draw an * in the second-base dirt before every game.

1. Lineup is good, not great. Fukudome and Soto are question marks. Pie and Theriot are bad hitters.

2. The performances that Brian Roberts will give in 2008 are not under the influence of steroids, as are the historical records you're referencing, so this asterisk crap doesn't hold water.

3. Did you determine that Roberts would be worth the price using your Lou-bik's Cube?

Roberts is someone you want to forgive, someone you want to like. Even Curt Schilling, who seems to hate everyone (including himself), wrote on his sinister little blog that he feels terrible for Roberts. ``Brian Roberts worked as hard as anyone I've ever been around," Schilling wrote. ``Not to mention he's about as kind and giving as anyone you'll ever meet. I know how regretful he is and I know that this mistake is not indicative of his choice making in life. He screwed up, knows he screwed up and admitted it."

Here's a thought, Jay. Putting more and more evidence that Roberts is a good guy into your column is not exactly a good way to win support for your "Roberts is a shady dude" argument. Just like when you are arguing that the White Sox are underperforming, you should ask yourself if they were predicted to be any good in the first place.

For example, when I made a prediction about you writing a bad column about the Michael Barrett trade, and you somehow didn't do it, you overperformed expectations.

That, he did.

So what is your problem with Roberts??? What is it going to take for you to just accept him for who he is as a player? It's like when you wrote an entire column about the ongoing drama between Zambrano and Barrett last season. You're looking to write about anything but baseball itself! And when you do write about it, it's the same crap over and over again!

``I am very sorry and I deeply regret ever making that terrible decision," Roberts said. ``I have worked very hard to develop a good reputation both on and off the field. I have always taken pride in being a man of integrity and values. I know that by being a professional athlete, I am held to a very high standard. I never have and never will take that for granted. However, I am also human and I have made mistakes."

This Roberts quote is somehow supposed to prove your point? After reading your column, I almost couldn't be more convinced of Brian Roberts's innocence, just like you couldn't have been more convinced that Lou Piniella wouldn't last past Labor Day, 2007.

You should really stick to what you're good at (like making fun of Hawk Harrelson), because it isn't arguing via writing.

Next year, maybe I'd feel different. Maybe there would be enough distance. But with Clemens in steroids hell and Barry Bonds headed for a landmark court case, this is no time to acquire Page 158 of the Mitchell Report.

So wait.....if you're 5 years removed from taking steroids, you should not be traded for. But 6 years removed, well that's just an entirely different story! Oh Jay, that's senseless! Like telling the Bulls to lose every game until they're ready to win a title.

So as you all can see, there are few figures in sports more filled with integrity than Jay Mariotti. I sure learned a lot today from him, and I'm sure you all have too! Join us next time when Bill Simmons preaches against using anecdotal bullshit and blatant homerism in arguments!

Bill Simmons- Still Dumb, Still a Hypocrite

Ho hum. This is all I could find to complain about on teh interwebs tonight, and it's pretty standard stuff. But I must continue my mission to make all four of our readers (note the plummeting BallHype ranking, down more than 100 spots in just 2 weeks! We need to get linked on The Big Lead again) hate The Sports Guy just as much as I do.

Go ahead, Bill. Tell me about unfortunate teams and annoying fans.

Which brings us to the difference between suffering and insufferable. When Celtics fans like me were pulling the woe-is-us routine after last May's NBA lottery, outsiders found it distasteful that any fan base that had been fortunate enough to have enjoyed the Russell, Havlicek and Bird eras could complain about anything. In our defense, it was almost worse to have lived the high life (16 titles) before falling on hard times (14 mostly terrible years) than never to have lived the high life at all.

No. No, no, no, no. That's not a defense. It's funny, this paragraph comes at the end of a long segment in which Bill acknowledges that fans of the Bills, Pirates, Blazers, have basically nothing positive to hang their hats on in the last 20 years. Which is great. Good to hear him admit that, especially in the context of his (until this season) constant bitching about the Celtics. Yet at the same time, here he is claiming it's "almost worse" to be a Celtics fan. This is a consistent pattern frequently repeated by Simmons- even when he's stumbling towards being right, he inevitably careens into Boston-homerism mode and ends up being hideously wrong.

We knew what we were missing: big playoff games, the sound of a sold-out crowd, rooting for a franchise that meant something.

Whereas... fans crappy teams have no idea what that kind of environment is like. It's not as if, you know, they can watch other teams enjoy those things on television basically each and every fucking night of the entire year (minus the playoff games, which can only be watched on like 75 or so fucking nights of the entire year). Go ahead, ask a Royals fan to describe a playoff game. See if they can tell you what a packed, loud, baseball stadium looks and sounds like. I'm guessing they have more than a vague understanding of one thanks to TBS and FOX. Now, granted, very few if any of them have probably ever seen such a game in person and felt the energy that accompanies it. But what percentage of Red Sox or Yankee fans have been to a playoff game? Two? One? Probably less than that. So their understanding as a group isn't that much more sophisticated. They've just had the pleasure of knowing their team was involved in the big games several times over the course of the past 15 years or so, whereas the Royals fans do not. But it doesn't mean the latter "don't know what they're missing." They have brains and imaginations. I'm sure they can put two and two together and come up with a vague idea of what a Royals playoff game would be like.

And because there were more of us, our suffering made us loud -- and, yes, insufferable.

Thank you. See, here he is, on the doorstep of admitting something that's long overdue. And yet, he still manages to blow it:

Same goes for Knicks fans now. In a sports world that is increasingly defined by big money and big markets, the Knicks play in the richest, biggest market of all.

This is true. But Bill's favorite teams play in the 5th largest market in the US (as of 2004, according to this website). And of course they also have legions and legions of bandwagon fans nationwide (arguably more than New York or any other city's teams), not to mention the world's largest and most influential sports network in their back pocket. So it's not much of a different situation.


You can't drown out their fans and can't reason with them, so don't even try. They will just have to figure out for themselves that they're lucky they don't live in Buffalo or Pittsburgh, where nobody hears you at all.

This is the ambiguous ending to the piece. Is he saying that he realizes the exact same thing applies to Boston fans, so maybe they need to shut the fuck up every once in a while if their precious Celtics don't go to the NBA Finals for a whole twenty years? Or worse, if their beloved "Patties" can't win the Super Bowl every single year (see Simmons's sour grapes/woe is us analysis of last January's AFC Championship Game)? If so, great. But this statement is too vague to be purposely vague. It's like he admitted earlier in the article that big market/popular teams get a disproportionate amount of press... but once he arrives at its conclusion, he feels it's necessary to make a distinction between New York fans the rest of those fans that like popular teams. Assuming that's the case, then this flagrantly obvious and glaring piece of hypocrisy has somehow slipped from his brain to his fingers to your computer screen undetected. It's truly astonishing that this is America's most popular sportswriter. Is the average sports fan just not annoyed by Boston fans? I guess so.

Too bad for me that I am, huh? My blood pressure is through the roof because of this topic.

We Always Give The Readers What They Want

And right now, they want us to continue using Jemele Hill as a punching bag. Just glanced through her recent Patriots/Belichick article and found one particular segment that was juuuuuuust offensive enough to make me want to fire up the computer and complain mindlessly about it on teh ol' blogowebs.

Ever hear the story about how the real Suge Knight allegedly dangled rapper Vanilla Ice from a 20th-floor balcony to coerce Ice into signing over royalties from "Ice, Ice Baby"? If someone else calls Belichick classless, I'm afraid he might do the same thing to LaDainian Tomlinson, the first to publicly make that statement because New England players stomped on the Chargers logo after disposing of them in last season's playoffs.

The attacks on the Patriots' character are certainly amusing and highly hypocritical. Naturally, Tomlinson failed to mention what teammate Drayton Florence reportedly told fans at Gillette Stadium following San Diego's 41-17 win in 2005. "[Expletive] New England and their team," Florence said, according to the Providence Journal. "Get that look of shock off your faces. Don't be shocked. We beat your ass."

So let's apply Jemele's reasoning here to the real world. Basically what she's saying is that if you have ever worked or gone to school with someone who did anything wrong, you're not allowed to complain about anyone else who does something wrong. That would be hypocrisy! How dare you criticize the white collar criminals who make the evening news- aren't you the one whose third cousin once stole a six pack from 7-11? And don't be so quick to get angry about that guy who backed into your tail light in that parking garage and didn't leave his insurance information. It was your college roommate that got a speeding ticket that one time. Haha! Shoe's on the other foot now, it's it, bitch?

Yes, I know that in both those examples the imaginary stranger's crime is worse than the imaginary person you know's crime. But I also think stomping on the opposing team's logo is much worse than talking trash to some dumb, drunk fans who chose to hang around near the visiting team's tunnel after a game. The first is meant to humiliate and anger your opponent and every single one of their fans. Although this is not necessarily the case when a newspaper reports the quote, the second is originally intended only to humiliate those previously mentioned fans (who I'm sure were acting like total angels in the situation and not instigating any conversation with Florence what so ever). Everyone, including both players and fans, is either going to see a logo stomp as it happens or hear about it later on. But unless a newspaper somehow gets ahold of the quote and feels the need to turn it into a story, only like 50 random people and some of their friends are going to hear postgame trash talk aimed by a player into the stands.

All this babbling aside- when is ESPN.com going to fire Jemele Hill? She's somehow making Page 2 look even worse than it normally does, which is saying a lot.

might as well make it 2 posts in one day regarding some idiot recommending outrageously excessive punishments

tony la russa, you're a big time idiot. i can't decide who is more out of touch with how things work: the guy from my previous post who thinks burglars deserve life in prison, or tony with his comments here about how the league should punish pitchers who hit batters in the head. granted, one is talking about the criminal justice system in real life and the other is talking about a professional sport, so its hard to compare. lets just agree that theyre both expressing abso-fucking-lutely insane ideas.

the backstory: reds pitcher aaron harang hit cardinals catcher gary bennett in the head with a pitch on wednesday. harang later apologized. bennett accepted, saying he was sure it was an accident and that there were no hard feelings. end of story? not if la russa and his transition lenses have anything to say about it!

"It's accidental because he didn't mean to hit him, but he meant to throw the ball up and in and that's a very dangerous thing," La Russa said. "I've probably said it 100 times in the 20 years I've managed, so it ain't new material. But if you're a big league pitcher you should be able to get the ball below the shoulder."

this is like saying "if you make it to the NBA, you should never ever miss a layup." anyone who's watched maybe 20 or so baseball games in their life should know that this is not the case. there are plenty of successful big league pitchers who accidentally throw balls as high as a batter's head from time to time. the cardinals themselves, during la russa's tenure as manager, once famously employed a pitcher named rick ankiel who had quite a bit of trouble keeping the ball "below the shoulder." ankiel's tenure as a big league pitcher was relatively short. still, he made it to the big leagues, and had limited success, despite having shall we say minor control issues.

On Tuesday, La Russa said a first-time offender should receive a two-week suspension, a month for the second offense and a full season for a third occurrence.

that is completely and totally batshit insane. i can't even put together any other sentences to describe how dumb that proposal is. i bet tony would also endorse the following punishments:

-15 game suspension from the NHL for high sticking
-lifetime ban from the NFL for roughing the quarterback
-any european soccer player who gets a red card is immediately thrown out of their league and must spend a year in the MLS before reinstatement

ha! comedy by exaggeration. sorry, now back to tony being stupid.

He emphasized that goes for his pitchers, too.
"If our guy does it I yell, 'Get it down or you're out of there,"' La Russa said.

maybe he's yelled that to some 20 year-old minor leaguer during spring training. but i'll bet a fair sum of money tony has never made that threat to any cardinals player on the major league roster during a regular season or playoff game.

presumably la russa takes this stance for safety related reasons. i can't think of any other reasons he would feel so strongly about this issue, can you? well, i hate to resort to ad hominem attacks, but what the heck, it seems somewhat fair in this specific case. hey tony: if you're so concerned with safety, how about you don't drive drunk? asshole.