Bill Simmons: Still not talking about sports, still sounding like a complete toolbox

Q: I'm 18 and just graduated high school. When my college decisions came in in April, I narrowed down my choices to Dartmouth and Princeton and had no idea what to do. Whether it's teenage indecision or my relative laziness, the only thing I could think of was your pure hatred for Princeton. So I chose Dartmouth. You, Bill Simmons, made the biggest decision I have ever made. Most likely, you will be responsible for whatever shenanigans I go through in life. Just wanted to let you know and say thanks.
-- Sam, New York

A: You're one of two things:

1. A complete liar (most likely).
2. The poster-child for 75th trimester abortions.

SG: I couldn't be prouder. To think, I saved you from a terminal case of insufferable "dooshdom."

Yes, but that was by not recomending that he go to Holy Cross.

Now I want to offer my services as the deciding vote for anyone's college choice. Wouldn't you watch a "Judge Judy"-type show in which high school seniors went on, told a "Judge" (in this case, me) a little bit about themselves, rattled off the colleges that accepted them, and then Judge Simmons made the decision? Then we could have moments like this …

Me: "OK, we're back on 'Judge Simmons.' So Michael, you're debating between Duke and Princeton. You seem like a good guy. I read your bio. You like sports, you have a lot of friends and I enjoyed your essay in which you vowed not to get married until you're 40 because love is overrated. I was particularly impressed that you were the commissioner of three fantasy leagues, and that you were suspended four months ago for trying to organize a wet T-shirt contest with girls from your prep school's sister school. They called it offensive, I call it ingenious. Anyway, I can't let you attend Duke or Princeton. Everyone hates Duke and the list of insufferable jerks from Princeton is longer than all the other Ivies combined.

"Therefore, my decision is this: I'm enrolling you at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla. Maybe it's not Ivy quality, but it's a good school and you'll get to wear shorts to class every day. Also, every day when you're walking around campus you'll think you're a judge on 'America's Top Model.' Just trust me. This case is dismissed. And remember, folks, as always, it doesn't matter where you go to college, just what you did when you were there … and that the weather was warm. Until next time on 'Judge Simmons'!"

Let me paraphrase: "Michael, you seem like a smart guy who probably enjoys college sports. Therefore, I recommend that rather than going Princeton (a top 3 school, which has a shot at making the NCAA basketball tournament every year, and a top 3 lax team) or Duke (top 5 school, one of the best basketball and lax programs in the country), you should go to Rollins College (third tier school, no D-I sports teams) because it's warm. Case closed."

As an anecdotal aside, I've met students from Princeton, Dartmouth, Duke, and Rollins, and by far the douchiest guy was the one who went to Rollins. Ipso facto, all guys at Rollins are intolerable pricks. Good job, Simmons.

Q: Simmons, you amaze me. You are either the embodiment of the American Dream or a sure sign of Armageddon. You write for ESPN, yet you break no stories, have no sources, offer little analysis. Instead you write superfluous pieces of fluff that are only your half-baked opinion, offer no proof and constantly write about the NBA, the Red Sox and Pats to the exclusion of anything else of substance. To top it off, you seem as mature as a horny, pimply 14-year-old. I don't get it.
-- Rick D, Saint Joseph, Mo.

Tip of the cap: Bill Simmons for running this email.

Wag of the finger: Larry B for not using his real name.

Q: I am a die-hard soccer fan living abroad and agree with your theory that international soccer could take off in the States. But not everyone listens to your podcasts, so could you please make the same case in one of your columns so everyone can see it? I think it's important. Thanks and cheers from the UK!
-- T.J., Leeds, England

Can one be a die-hard fan of an entire sport? My guess is that T.J. considers himself a Manchester United fan because he once stopped in Manchester on his way to London. Whatever.

Sure. I'll do it in five short paragraphs and 500 words total. The theory goes like this …

1. Americans enjoy watching the best (fill in any sport). We are elitists. That's why we like the Olympics

Which for the most part have gotten lower and lower ratings over the past 20 years.

that's why we enjoy any finals, that's why we watch Wimbledon

If some combination of Federer, Nadal, or Roddick is in it.

and the Masters

If Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, or some complete long shot has a chance of winning.

that's why we don't care about sports like the WNBA, MLS or arena football

Three leagues which I believe have finals that no one watches.

International soccer plays into this. It's the best of the best.

Actually, European club soccer is the best of the best as it includes all the best players in the world, not just the ones whose entire country is good at soccer.

2. The games zoom along: no commercials, no sideline reporters, no corporate tie-ins, no four-hour games like in baseball, no "takes 20 minutes to play the last two" like in the NBA.

I really enjoy watching high level soccer. That said:

- A lot of soccer games do not feel like they're zooming along. If both teams are ambivalent about taking the offensive, those 45 minute halves can seem like 2 hours each.
- During the Confederation Cup, ESPN had a sideline reporter. Not really the sport's fault, but still.
- "No corporate tie-ins," except for the outer perimeter of the field which has more advertisements than a minor league baseball stadium.
- While it doesn't take 20 minutes to play the last 2 minutes, a team with the lead will do anything to kill clock: meaningless substitutions, taking forever on throw-ins, etc.

you can sit down for a soccer game and say, "I'm going to spend the next two hours watching this and then I'm going to do something else." Like watch more TV.

Excellent point. Unfortunately, it was buried by "facts" that were wrong.

3. Give credit to ESPN for committing air time in non-Cup years to elite international soccer tournaments like the UEFA Cup.

The UEFA Cup is semi-elite that gets almost no air time on ESPN. Bill is thinking of the UEFA Champions League, which ESPN relegates to ESPN 2 or ESPN Classic in order to avoid scheduling conflicts with women's softball or Rome is Burning.

5. International soccer never took off here for the simple reason that American sports fans had trouble following anything they couldn't attend in person and/or watch on television at their leisure.

Yes, Americans have always loved watching tennis, golf, and Olympic gymnastics finals because those are all events that they've either attended themselves, or watched whenever they wanted.

Now? We're turning into a sofa culture; since it's more expensive to go to games, many of us find it just as rewarding to stay home, save money and watch games on a nice TV.

When did this happen, last night!? I am so out of the loop.

Throw in the Internet, DirecTV, fan blogs and everything else and you really can follow soccer from across the Atlantic.

Again, a lucid point buried at the bottom of an otherwise moronic paragraph.

That's why, over the next decade -- starting with the World Cup in 2010 -- I predict international soccer takes off to a modest degree in America during the '10s. Not to compare everything to "The Godfather," but for America, the NASL was Sonny (exciting, impetuous and ultimately self-destructive), the MLS is Fredo (weak) and international soccer is Michael (the heavy hitter who was lurking all along). That's how this plays out I think.

Call me crazy, but I think soccer played at one of its highest levels will be more successful than soccer played at one of its lowest levels.

Simmons on Brock Lesnar and Dan Henderson's recent unsportsmanlike behavior in the UFC:

I appreciate the honesty of the UFC guys -- unlike boxing, if someone trash-talks you in the weeks leading up the fight, you don't just shrug it off right after the fight like it was "part of the promotion" or some crap. There's a code of honor to it. You talk crap about me, fine. But I WILL make you pay, and after it's over, I'm not going to just shrug it off and forget what you did.

Simmons is right, except in the overwhelming majority of UFC fights that end in mutual respect. Anyone who has watched an event besides UFC 100 knows that post-fight hugs and gushing interviews are pretty par for the course in UFC. In addition, there are plenty of examples of fighters being fined/suspended/banned for unsportsmanlike behavior that endangers opponents safety.

In response to the 2md or 3rd Michael Jackson question from the mail bag:

...I've written before about how death can be a good career move (Kurt Cobain, Chris Farley, Heath Ledger, etc.)

Retarded. Completely and absolutely retarded. Let's go through the list:

Kurt Cobain: Maybe this choice would work if Kurt Cobain/Nirvana weren't already hugely popular at the time of his suicide. It's not as if they had one or two good bordering on great songs. Not only that, but he died before grunge/alt rock peaked.

Chris Farley: Three of the four movies Chris Farley starred in were financially successful. The one that wasn't was Almost Heroes, which was also the only one released posthumously. Would you really argue either of the following:

A. Chris Farley would not have kept getting lead comedy roles if he went on living.
B. Chris Farley wans't that funny, but since he died, people choose to remember him being as such.

Heath Ledger: Would he have won the Oscar for Dark Knight? My guess is no. Between Brokeback Mountain and Dark Knight was he well on his way to an equity Oscar, a la Denzel Washington for Training Day and Russel Crowe for Gladiator? Yes. Would he have commanded a high salary and had his pick of movie roles: undoubtedly.

Q: My buddies and I returned home today with a few dozen steamed crabs from a beach adventure this past weekend that involved three cougars, two Hooters waitresses and a hotel room that could only be rivaled by the room in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" or the more recent hotel room fiasco in "The Hangover."

Me: So you and your friends had sex with 5 different women in the same tiny hotel room?

Dave, Baltimore: Uh, no, but those sluts were totally down to fuck. We just got too schwasted to bother with them. Besides bra, the shit we did to that room...it was fuckin' EPIC.

Me: Wow, how much cash did that set you all back?

DB: Well once we threw out all the empty Natty Light cans it really wasn't that bad at all. But dude, we CRUSHED it Saturday night.

After watching four straight hours of the "Entourage" marathon leading up to the Season 6 premiere

I take it back, those guys obviously sexed the cougars and Hooters girls.

we waited for the HBO content screen in anticipation of the "N for nudity" to appear. When it did, we were all thrilled and spent the next 27 minutes trying to figure out who it would be ahead of time (wagers were made and odds went off as such: Sloane 10-1, Meadow Soprano 4-1, Ari's wife 15-1, random Vince slew 1-5).

If you bet on any horse other than "Vince Slew," then you're probably a mouth breather.

When the episode ended boob-less we then argued about whether the chick Vince had in the Escalade might have actually been naked. As I sit here typing, I am looking at my TV realizing HBO has since changed the content screen to no longer say there is nudity in the episode. This should be either illegal or made good with one of the above three naked in a subsequent episode. What are your thoughts on this shafting HBO put on all of us?
-- Dave, Baltimore

My thoughts: There are few things that I'm more ashamed of than the fact that this letter came from Baltimore. If it turns out to be my friend Dave, then he and I have a date at a vacant sometime soon (THE WIRE REFERENCE).

Some Guy Makes a Bunch of Stupid Arguments Why Michael Vick Should Be Banned For Life

For the record, I don't give a shit whether Vick is ever allowed to play football in the NFL again. I don't think there's an irresistible argument on either side of the issue. I also have my doubts that he'll ever see major playing time in the NFL again even if he is reinstated, amazingly dynamic and successful Wildcat offense trend or not.

That said, this article by George Dohrmann (heh heh more like DORKman--that's the FJayM difference!) is chock full of some of the jackassiest argumentation I've ever seen.

For the record, I own two dogs: a yellow Labrador retriever and a mutt my wife rescued from a shelter. My stance that he should not be allowed to return to the NFL, however, has little to do with his abuse of animals. It is grounded in a desire for equitable treatment of all individuals

Am I the only one annoyed by this aspect of all Vick discussions. Whether someone owns dogs, or loves dogs, or thinks dogs are nicer than people always seems to come up when someone's making a point. Not a big deal, just something that grinds my gears.

But "equitable treatment of all individuals"? GMAB. Given that this is a unique circumstance, that shit doesn't fly. Letting Vick back in will be an injustice to whom? Pacman Jones, who was let back in the league? Tank Johnson, who was let back in the league? Chris Henry, who was let back in the league? If anything the "equitable treatment for all individuals" argument is a strike AGAINST Vick being banned for life.

Nice try though, fella.

Vick's crimes repulse me, but matters of fairness and finances are why, if I were Goodell, I'd meet with Vick later this month and inform him that he is banned from the NFL for life.

This is the worst use of the "but" conjunction of all time.

Let me start by debunking one common rationale offered in support of Vick's reinstatement: players who have done far worse have been allowed to return to the league. An oft-cited example is Leonard Little, the St. Louis Rams defensive end who killed a woman in 1998 when driving drunk. The NFL suspended him for eight games for violating the league's substance abuse policy, an appallingly light penalty. Then commissioner Paul Tagliabue erred in his handling of Little's case, which current commissioner Goodell implicitly confirmed when he indefinitely suspended Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth recently for committing the same crime as Little.

Dohrmann apparently has confused "indefinitely" and "permanently". For the record, when Pacman Jones was banned "indefinitely" by Goodell, he ended up serving 4 games (iirc). My guess would be Stallworth will serve a year (if he's even league-caliber after that). So this is a pretty shitty way to argue Vick should be "banned for life".

And what's up with this "if not NO PENALTY, then A RIDICULOUSLY HARSH PENALTY" thing that Dohrmann's running with? So you're going to refute the idea that Vick should have NO PENALTY (a pretty extreme position) and counter by saying he should have THE ULTIMATE PENALTY?

Ok d00d.

Still, some take the view that if Little received only an eight-game suspension for killing a woman, how can Vick get a more severe penalty for killing a few dogs?

This presupposes that the league and its fans can't move the line of tolerance. Goodell showed with his early handling of Stallworth's suspension that precedent does not bind him, nor should it. Vick's case is unique, and Goodell should treat it as such.

Certainly the league reserves that right, but that hardly falls into the category of "equitable treatment for all individuals".

Also, I love how this guy has completely misunderstood the nature of Stallworth's suspension.

Vick didn't commit one heinous act; he financed and participated in an illegal operation for years. He is a repeat offender just by the nature of his crimes. In addition to the harm Vick brought upon animals, gambling also occurred at the fights run by Bad Newz Kennels. Vick also lied to Goodell and Falcons owner Arthur Blank when first questioned about his involvement. Violence + gambling + deception = three compelling reasons to banish Vick forever.

I'm not sure how the law works in financing illicit operations, but my suspicion is it's just one count. Financing an illegal operation is a little different from, like rape and murder or something. Larry B, a little help?

By the way, the little equation at the end of this quotation is pretty funny imo.

Is that fair? I think so, even if it goes against one of the loudest arguments made in favor of Vick's reinstatement: After serving a 23-month federal prison sentence, after losing all of his money, after being publicly humiliated, Vick has paid for his crimes. His debt to society fulfilled, he deserves the chance to rebuild his life via the NFL.

I realize celebrities are treated differently, but no job, especially playing in the NFL, should be considered a fundamental right. At a time when millions of people have lost their jobs, why is it unthinkable to some that Vick, after throwing away his football career, should be forced to ply a different trade than he did before?

This is a valid point, but once again "making a compelling argument that Vick shouldn't escape punishment"=/="making a compelling argument that Vick should be banned for life"

To be sure, Vick can find work in football outside the NFL. The new United Football League might pay him $1 million or more a season. He could also get into coaching. Yet those who support his return to the NFL speak as if it would be a failure of the system for him to land anywhere but football's highest peak, that any opportunity short of that would deprive him of a shot at redemption. That is the narrowest view of what constitutes redemption, and it is flat wrong. Would he be insufficiently absolved if he spent the rest of his life working hard at a blue-collar job?

Except that's not the argument. The argument isn't "Should the NFL be forced to give Vick a spot on the roster of one of its teams?" The argument is "Should the NFL allow Vick the opportunity to play for an NFL team if that NFL team thinks he will be beneficial to their success?"

Some believe Goodell should let the market decide Vick's future. Reinstate him and see if a team is willing to sign him. This connects to another reason I believe Goodell should keep Vick out of the league: It's bad for business.

In one online poll, 71 percent of the more than 140,000 respondents replied "No" to the question: "Would you want your favorite team to take a chance on Vick when he gets out of prison?" To the question, "Should the NFL allow Vick back into the league?" people were more divided, with 58.1 percent believing he should be permitted to return and 41.9 percent in favor of a ban. That might appear to be a good sign for Vick -- a majority favored his return -- but Goodell can't be happy knowing that he would appease only 58.1 percent of the league's base if he allowed Vick to return.

This is one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read.

A more relevant question, one not asked in the poll, would be: Would you stop supporting the NFL if Vick were reinstated? Among die-hard fans the answer would be a resounding "no." Vick or no Vick, they would support their team and play fantasy football. But what about the casual fan or the dog lover who has yet to totally embrace the league and its players? Goodell would lose at least some of those people, and that's not fiscally wise. Sponsors would also have to think twice about supporting the team that signs Vick.

Or this. Sheesh. I give up.

Hat Guy, A Man of the People, Loves Steroid Users

I was bored and wanted to post. So I found the latest from an old friend.

"If Fans Don't Boo Manny, Why Should the Media?"

Though I realize that sometimes writers don't create their own titles... this title already suggests a logical conclusion that I do not support. Let's remind ourselves that HatGuy has, in the past, praised the efforts of Sammy Sosa in overcoming steroid judgment and coming back to the game. HatGuy, by all accounts, has little problem with steroid use. Here are the major problems with this article:

1. HatGuy bases a huge argument about baseball, the press and moral indignation based on one anecdote of evidence from a Mets/Dodgers broadcast.

2. HatGuy takes pointless potshots at people who enjoy the historical tradition of baseball.

3. HatGuy makes himself into a people's champion. In that respect, I'm perfectly happy with the blind leading the blind. But it still smacks of arrogance.

The Mets’ play-by-play guy couldn’t believe what he wasn’t hearing. Manny Ramirez, fresh off a 50-game drug suspension, was stepping to the plate for the first time this year in front of the toughest fans this side of Philadelphia, and there were more people taking pictures than booing.

Whose fans are tough? Since when are Mets fans notoriously tough? But the man's right: where are the boos?

“They just don’t care anymore,” SNY’s Gary Cohen said, with a distinct note of disappointment. “Most of them seem to care not much at all about performance-enhancing drugs.”

Which is a significant charge. The player just got caught for cheating and suspended for almost a third of the season... and nobody seems to care.

The camera panned the crowd, catching Dodgers fans wearing novelty caps with Manny dreads attached or waving signs welcoming their hero back from exile. Oh, there was a smattering of boos, but nothing remarkable. They weren’t even as loud as those showered on Mets starter Mike Pelfrey when he let the Dodgers jump out to a 5-0 lead in the fourth.

Well, at least the Mets fans are tough on their bad baseball players, if not on actual cheaters.

Cohen kept talking about it, as if the fans’ behavior was incomprehensible.

HatGuy keeps writing about Cohen, as if his reaction is somehow incomprehensible.

HatGuy is clearly on the side of the fans here - in fact, HatGuy is almost always on the side of popularity and what the ordinary mindless idiot fan thinks. In an earlier post, pnoles notes that HG said there's "no freer spirit in the game" than Manny Ramirez.

Manny had been caught with a drug in his system that’s used to restore normal testosterone production after using steroids.

Fact. Good to see one of these in HatGuy's work.

He was slammed with a 50-game suspension that cost him more than $8 million.

Fact.

Though he has never tested positive for steroids, all the commentators are calling him a cheater who may never get in the Hall of Fame.

Debatable fact (given the word "all").

He’s sullied the game.

Opinion. Actually, this is a rhetorical trick by old HatGuy - sticking an opinion with which he does not agree after a series of facts. He's making it seem like this is an obvious fact, so that he can set it up to question it.

You're tricky there, HatGuy, but I'm on to you!

He’s lower than a snake’s belly in a canyon.

Another quality HatGuy comparison. I thought he'd go with his old favorite comparison, but I imagine that snakes' bellies in canyons are pretty low. I thought maybe he would go with something creative and relevant, like "He's lower than Eliot Spitzer's moral compass" or even "He's lower than Eddie Gaedel's jockstrap".

Why aren’t the fans booing?

Because they don't care. Also because they don't care much about the game of baseball.

“Either they put it behind them or they didn’t care to start with,” Cohen finally decided with an almost audible shrug.

What does an audible shrug sound like? Also, Cohen's conclusions are correct.

We in the opinion business like to talk about how players don’t have a clue about just about everything — money, fame, contracts, respect, the real world.

We in the sarcastic blog business like to talk about how journalists don't have a clue about just about everything - sports, logic, basic conventions of English, writing skill, basic statistical maxims, the real world.

But on this subject, the guys in the electronic pulpits are the ones who are clueless, and have been for a long time.

Actually, HatMan, I'm not clueless, I'm just mad. I'm well aware that hordes of morons are baseball fans.

And calling a blog an "electronic pulpit" is amusing. There's an interesting dose of anti-evangelical sentiment in this particular article of HatGuy's. I mean, I always figured HatGuy believed in faith over reason, but maybe not.

I’ve been saying this for years: The fans don’t care.

Bloggers have been saying it for years: you're an idiot.

[I here omit three paragraphs of storytelling about what happened on Manny's return].

The real issue is the fans, who have been packing ballparks at record rates ever since chemically-enhanced players started hitting balls out of the park more than a decade ago. Scandal after scandal was going to destroy the game. Scandal after scandal has produced little more than a collective yawn.

That's the truth: the steroid scandal is not affecting baseball's bottom line and people are still coming out in droves. Even Bud has claimed that "this could be our greatest season". Now - that doesn't mean it's right. Just because people show up doesn't mean that steroids are not a problem and were not a problem.

HatGuy, the ultimate populists, equates moral correctness with popular opinion. I realize that I'm getting a bit preachy here, but isn't that a problem?

And this brings a larger issue to the table: is MLB's job to entertain its fans, or produce the best quality baseball on the planet? HatGuy says the former, I say the latter. If you ask me, too much of HatGuy's entertainment will destroy the quality of the baseball, whereas if the quality of the baseball is held high, it will certainly entertain the fans.

Oh, sure, you won’t have any trouble finding people on message boards and bar stools yawping about how these guys should be hung by their thumbs in Times Square and beaten like piñatas with the Naked Cowboy’s guitar.

This is what you call humorous hyperbole, a standard tool in the writer's arsenal.

To them, the guys who cheated with steroids are the only people who ever broke the rules of the game.

No. This is what you call "stupid hyperbole", or a straw man logical fallacy. It's where you misrepresent your opponent's argument and then refute the misrepresentation.

The guys who stole signs, used corked bats, gobbled down amphetamines like they were M&Ms, threw cut balls, spitballs, scuff balls, emery balls and Vaseline balls weren’t cheating at all. They were just trying to win.

Not the same thing, HatGuy.

They’re a vocal minority, and their voices are amplified by commentators and columnists who are the baseball equivalent of creationists.

Woah.

Huh?

Did I just get called a "creationist" by the most illogical and unreasonable sportswriter on the entire interwebs?

The reason that all forms of cheating except using performance-enhancers are OK is because it’s written in some sacred book somewhere.

In fact, right here it states that all those types of illegal-substance-balls are clearly banned with the penalty of a ten-game suspension. HatGuy does not seem to know the rules of this game.

Or is he talking about an unwritten sacred book of sportswriters that are designed to crucify steroid users? I wonder who wrote this book. Probably Bill Simmons. I want a copy of this book.

Are there suspicions that anyone in the current game is throwing spitballs?

The book says that if a player takes something that helps him hit more home runs, he’s cheating. If he doesn’t hit more home runs, it doesn’t matter what he does.

Tell that to this list of guys, who were suspended for using corked bats.

Also, unless I am very mistaken, the use of the spitball has been effectively curtailed, putting pitchers on the same level playing field. Obviously, only now has steroid use been effectively curtailed.

Most fans don’t make such fine distinctions.

Most people don't make fine distinctions in anything. That hardly strengthens your argument.

They also don’t have their home pages set to baseball-reference.com and don’t give a rat’s patoot about the sacred numbers that give meaning to the lives of true believers everywhere.

I see what you're doing here, HatGuy. Really, this whole article is about HatGuy's praise of the common baseball fan and his criticism of the ivory-tower blogointellectualfan, who might actually know why OBP is important, or care that hardworking, reasonably-honest players' records are being surpassed by roiding sluggers.

HatGuy's homepage is probably yankees.com

I understand where the true believers are coming from, and it’s kind of touching that people can be so obsessive about it all.

You don't really believe that. Now you're patronizing me, you asshole.

Baseball, like physics, is numbers. There’s nothing in the game that hasn’t been broken down by the wonks and given mystical meaning.

I think balks have never been broken down by the wonks and given mystical meaning. But yes - anything that might have a bearing on how baseball games work and how they might turn out... might actually be fun to think about.

I have to admit, it’s pretty cool, and I’ve bought Bill James’ books and spent more time wandering around baseball-reference.com than is probably healthy.

I'm pretty impressed that he bought them, though he chooses his verbs carefully enough to suggest that maybe he didn't actually read them. And I have no doubt that HatGuy's exprience on b-r.com was truly wandering, since he never goes there with a focused research goal in mind.

But what leaps out at me in baseball’s immutable numbers is that they are always changing. You want unfair? How about 1930, when the National League hit better than .300 and the Giants as a team hit .319? You don’t think that skewed the numbers?

It did skew the numbers. As a result, baseball took action and introduced a less lively baseball in 1931, hoping to bring the game back into a normal competitive balance and preserve the integrity of the numbers.

1920, 1931, 1968... and now in the early 2000s, baseball has always taken steps to retain the competitive balance between hitters and pitchers, no matter what the fans have thought. That's why McGwire's 62nd in 1998 was such a big deal - because it was actually comparable to Ruth and Maris. What other sport can consider a statistical season in 2009 (Pujols possibly hitting 62) somewhat statistically comparable to a season in 1927?

The great majority of fans understand that in their guts. They’re sports fans, and baseball is the sport they follow in the summer.

I wonder if this is the case - are there more or less "dedicated baseball fans" than just "average sports fans who watch baseball in summer". But even then: the great majority of the fans probably still want Manny and other steroid users punished. But they still want to come to games.

They’re used to the collective yawn that greets steroid abusers in the NFL. Their interest in numbers is confined to how their fantasy teams are performing, and if one of their guys hits 89 home runs, they’re not going to complain about it.

Disagree. Well, maybe the home fans won't complain about it, but you can bet the rest of baseball will. See: San Francisco Giants fans.

They’re at the park not to worship numbers or to watch perfect human beings play a perfect game. They’re there to have a beer and a brat and cheer for the home team and have fun.

And go home and punch nerds in the face. For HatGuy, apparently enjoyment of the historical tradition and numerical comparison aspect of baseball is mutually exclusive with eating and drinking. I think I can do both.

In their view, Manny had a slip-up. He got caught. He paid for it. Now he’s back, and ain’t that grand?

Sort of, maybe if you like the Dodgers.

They love Manny because he’s a character who does goofy things and has crazy hair and hits the ball like few others ever have. Guys like him are the reason we buy tickets.

Wild generalization.

The fans got over it a long time ago. It’s getting to be time for those of us in the press box to do the same.

It's never going to be time for those of us in the FJM press box to get over your ignorance.

The Process

Fans, let me tell you a little bit about how we here at FireJay go about finding articles to write about. They don't just fall into our laps....we've only had a few real gems e-mailed to us in our existence. Most often, we have to trudge on through many internets to find something worth writing about. Of course, we're exposed only to the title and the author before we actually click a link to read something. We'll ignore most of them, of course. There's some authors that we consider too consistently intelligent to ever make fun of. There's articles that are purely factual, that of course we pretty much ignore. It's pretty much all opinion columns from authors that haven't proven themselves to be consistently untouchable. Many times, we can't tell if an article is going to be terrible just from the title. But once every so often, we stumble onto a can't-miss "gem" of an awful article. One that no matter how it is subsequently written, it's in for disaster. You know, something like.......

Baseball Needs More Black Stars

Get ready for all the reverse-racism!!!

By Milton Kent

Milton Kent, you guys!

There's good news and bad news to report to Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig from my family gathering this weekend.

For all you people out there that thought the Kent family gathering was an insignificant event in Bud Selig's life, well, JOKE'S ON YOU, MOTHERFUCKERS!

The good news is that John and Joshua, my 17 and 13-year-old great nephews like to play baseball.

I promise you, Bud Selig does not care.

The bad news: They don't like to watch it on television.

I promise you, Bud Selig does not care.

This means that John and Joshua, apparently like millions of other young black men, won't be tuned into tomorrow night's baseball All-Star Game, the annual midsummer showcase of the best and the brightest in the national pastime.

....tensions on the Korean peninsula have spiked since North Korea defiantly conducted its second nuclear explosion on May 25.

Sorry, Milton, what was that significant thing you were talking about?

For them, baseball's leisurely pace and distinct lack of hipness, not to mention the virtual absence of players they can relate to, makes the game a loser.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, Mister Jackass, but I'm guessing that 100% of the reason is the first two, and 0% of the reason is the third one. That's right. I know your great nephews better than you do. Your nephews play baseball, sir. They enjoy the sport. Oh, and by the way......me and LeBron James? Absolutely nothing in common. Can't relate to him at all. LOVE to watch him play basketball.

For decades, the history between baseball and blacks was a rich and meaningful one, from the Negro Leagues to Jackie Robinson's successful infiltration of the majors in 1947, an act that helped set the scene for the civil rights movement.

This has nothing to do with your title: "Baseball needs more black stars". Baseball is crashing and burning right now, yes? People turning it off to watch the WNBA?

In the 1960's, the list of great black players grew exponentially, and with the stardom of men like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Reggie Jackson and Frank Robinson, my childhood hero, the bond between blacks and baseball grew ever stronger. In the part of Maryland where I grew up, pick-up Sunday afternoon baseball games among black men were all the rage come summertime, with decent crowds of spectators watching on makeshift wooden stands.

Baseball needs more black stars because Milton Kent needs pick-up Sunday afternoon baseball games among black men. No whites allowed!

However, as the popularity of the NFL and the NBA grew, the ties between African-Americans and baseball loosened to some degree. Older blacks, who remembered the game and its sociological importance, never left, but as they died off, they weren't replaced within the younger set.

This is an excellent point, sir. Time to strike up awareness in other things similar to this! Where are all the cries for more white people in the NBA? Didn't there used to be a strong history of white people in basketball? And hey, let's get more Asians in the NFL! There also needs to be more Latinos that play professional hockey!

You, Milton Kent, are a racist.

As a result, baseball stopped creating black stars. In the 1990's, either Ken Griffey, Jr. or Barry Bonds - both sons of former baseball players -- seemed to alternately hold the title as the game's best player.

Now you're saying blatantly wrong things! From 1991 - 1997, Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas were unquestionably the two best players in Major League Baseball. Not Griffey. Hey, Frank's black too! Doesn't he matter?

However, Griffey's repeated trips to the disabled list left him unable to sustain his greatness for a long period of time, while Bonds' presumed connection to baseball's steroid era has rendered him a less than credible role model.

Frank....Thomas?

Today, Hispanic players like St. Louis' Albert Pujols, and Manny Ramirez of the Los Angeles Dodgers are baseball's biggest stars.

What a complete and total tragedy.

Oddly, Michael Jordan may have held an important key to reestablishing baseball as a relevant force in the minds of young blacks. Jordan retired to pursue a career in baseball in 1994, and his charisma might have transferred a level of coolness to baseball for the hip-hop community. Instead, Jordan famously flamed out, never rising above the minor leagues, and an opportunity was lost.

You have to be the first person in history to attribute the fact that there are a small amount of African-Americans in the MLB, in some way, shape, or form, to the fact that Michael Jordan was bad at baseball.

The irony is that my great nephews' indifference comes amid signs that MLB's recent efforts to reconnect with the African-American community are starting to bear fruit.

Look, some people just don't care for baseball on TV. It's three hours long, and can be pretty slow sometimes. Your great nephews still clearly LIKE baseball.

Now in its 20th year, the Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities (RBI) program is a grassroots effort among the 30 Major League clubs to provide resources for urban youths who want to learn and play the game.

I am all for this. Everyone should have an opportunity to learn how to play baseball, regardless of family income. This is a great program.

Even though only 10 of the 71 players who were either voted or selected to tomorrow's All-Star game are African-American, there are a handful of budding black stars who could bring back the cool to baseball.

Holy shit. I have never read a more ignorant paragraph in my entire life.

Percentage of U.S. population that is black: 13.4%
Percentage of All-Star Game participants that are black: 14.1%

We need to reverse this tragedy! If black people don't rise to complete and utter dominance of the sport of baseball like they have in the NBA, the sport will die!

But the absolute worst part of this paragraph, Milton, and one of the most racist things I have ever read, is that you claim that baseball needs more black people to bring back the "cool" to baseball. You know what? David Wright and Evan Longoria are pretty fucking cool in my book too. If this was written by a white person, about white baseball players, they would be universally blasted verbally from here until eternity and probably presumed to be a member of the KKK.

The world champion Philadelphia Phillies have a pair of terrific players, shortstop Jimmy Rollins, the 2007 National League Most Valuable Player, and first baseman Ryan Howard, who won the award in 2006. Tampa Bay's Carl Crawford is one of baseball's best all-around players, while Adam Jones, who roams centerfield for my Orioles, may actually lift the team over .500 for once.

If only they could just coax John and Joshua to put away their XBox and watch real baseball players play.

Better yet, you actually acknowledge that there are several legitimate African American stars in the game, and that your nephews STILL have no interest in watching them. C'mon now MLB. Less like Willie Bloomquist, more like Willie Harris.

Because this is a sensitive subject for some, I am pulling all of the sarcasm and anger for these closing thoughts.

Since you have great-nephews who are teenagers, Milton, I am assuming that you are an older dude, and have experienced a lot of the hardships and inequities that African-Americans have had to endure over the early/mid decades of the 20th century. I, as a young white male growing up in the late 20th/early 21st century, could never even begin to understand what any of that was like. But none of that changes how overly and ironically racist this article was. Baseball does not need more of any specific race of players. It needs the best players. Period.

All-Star Liveblog!

Here's a few thoughts on the ASG as it unfolds. All quotations are in italics, and are the best paraphrases I can accomplish, since I don't have a DVR.

First off, fuck the nearly hour-long pregame nonsense.
Second off, Obama's left-handed toss was a blooper that barely made it. [Note: I didn't see it till the replays in the second inning]. I think that explains why this country's so screwed up: we elected a southpaw. They can't even walk straight, or even live straight, in the case of Larry B.

Top of the first:
Some poor defense by the NL lets the AL sneak ahead 2-0. Albert Pujols, all-everything, commits the error that lets in a couple of runs. Nothing egregious in the commentary so far.

Bottom of the first.
A graphic calls Roy Halladay "The I-Beam of The Blue Jays". Really.
McCarver:
"We looked that up, I'm not an architect or anything, but it's supposed to be the structure of the house."
Well, I'm glad Tim admits that he looked something up - he's a step ahead of Joe Morgan. Still:
- Who made that stupid graphic?
- Neither of the broadcasters, who've been alive for fifty or so years... know what an "I-beam" is?

McCarver:
"Nobody has had numbers in his first nine years like Albert Pujols. Nobody."
Except this guy and this guy. But ok, Pujols is legendarily good. Not that bad.

Top 2:
lol, Halladay didn't bring a helmet. He's the starting pitcher! And the AL goes quietly.

Bottom 2:
Obama shows up in the booth in a White Sox jacket to chat with our esteemed team. In the course of this inning, Obama commits several FJM cardinal sins: admits that he doesn't hate the Cubs, admits he didn't play the game (wait, that's not one of our Cardinal sins), believes in parity in baseball, endorses the Phillies as a "scrappy team" and engages in blatant Hawaiian homerism.

I'm kidding. If I were the President I'd do the same thing. But shouldn't he be out saving the world?

"No bailout plan in place for the National League" - don't remember which of the two said this, but it's not funny.

Interesting move by Charlie Manuel spending Prince Fielder, perhaps his best pinch-hitter, with two out and a runner on second early in this game. But it pays off with Prince's double to left! Two-out rally plates three and the NL takes the lead.

Top 3
Ryan Franklin has a bizarre beard.

It seems like a lot of players are pulling the ball tonight - you'd think that with some of the hardest throwers in the game only having to go one or two innings, you'd see a lot of balls hit the other way. Maybe they're not throwing their hardest? Speculation.

AL goes in order.

Bottom 3
What happened in this inning?

Top 4
McCarver blathers on a long time about Haren's windup being hard to detect.

A single by Michael Young does nothing and this game is moving quickly.

A commercial by MasterCard comes on to show passionate fans. Of course it shows Cubs, Dodgers and, inexplicably, a Giants fan. Strange: Cubs and Dodgers fans are probably the most notorious fans in baseball for not actually being passionate about baseball.

Bottom 4
At 37, the oldest nonpitcher to make an ASG debut since Babe Ruth (why does nobody note that there was no game for Ruth to make?). The roider fouls out.

Spoiler: The answer to the trivia question is Ted Williams and Rogers Hornsby.

Zach Grienke's sick stuff makes the NL look bad, striking out the next two. I wish he still had social anxiety disorder. Did doctors name it that just for the obvious acronym?

Top 5
Crawford leads off with a single. McCarver discusses his speed, comparing him to Lou Brock.
Buck: "Imagine how fast he'd be if he pulled his pants up."
McCarver: "Lou Brock always had his pants up high."

Damn kids these days and their fashion.

Also, Jeter apparently cried when Chris Webber called timeout. What a pansy. I thought this was true.


Joe Mauer double ties the game. That Joe Mauer is quite the American. Pujols' diving stop keeps it tied.

Bottom 5:
This inning was uneventful.

Top 6
A 4-6-3 and Hoffman gets some useless revenge against Michael Young. Game still tied at 3. I'm almost bored, except for these exciting commercials that remind me that somehow MLB is making piles and piles money off this.

Also, I note that I hate pretty much every commercial, even ones that try to be funny. I think it's because I hate the public to which these companies are trying to appeal. Also, these bullshit "passion for the game" commercials that show a bloody sock or Derek fucking Jeter diving into a bullpen make me sick. I'm sure it makes hordes of morons want to go drink Gatorade and buy Nike products, but they piss me off.

Anyone who buys Daughtry albums can go hug a cactus already.

Bottom 6
Here's a quote taken out of context, because I missed the context:
McCarver: "How come you didn't tweet me that day?"

Here's a picture taken out of context:


NL goes quietly.

Top 7
Cordero shows a little Reds pride. Shuts down the AL and this one's turning into a barn burner.

Bottom 7:
This is the most uneventful liveblog ever. Nobody's said anything really stupid. Carl Crawford did just make a sick catch, though.

Top 8:
This is where I had to stop watching the game. Fortunately, Larry B watched the rest of it and provided me with a few good quotes:

McCarver, re: Kevin Youkilis: "You can make a case that he's the most VALUABLE (emphasis Tim's) player in the league this year - by which I mean, look at his salary. Only 6 million a year for his level of production! Then, look at what A-Rod and Mark Teixeira make- $52 million between them!"

Really, Tim? This guy is making $439,000 this year. This guy is probably making about that much - made $408,000 last year. That's a lot more valuable per-dollar than Youkilis. Basically any decent young pre-arbitration player is going to rank higher than Youkilis on this list.

Later: 2 on, 2 out for the NL in the bottom of the 8th.

Joe Buck: "Francisco Rodriguez warming up, just in case"

Larry B: "Just in case? You mean when he has to pitch the top of 9th no matter what happens this half inning?"

Larry B later suggested that Joe Buck was ignorant of the fact that Mr. Rodriguez does not, in fact, pitch in the American League any more, and his job as the Angels' closer has been taken over by Mr. Brian Fuentes, a left-handed sidearm slinger.

[Late edit from Larry B, since dan bob didn't tell the whole story: it was abundantly clear after Buck made that comment that he was clueless as to the fact that K-Rod is no longer with the Angels. When he first said it, I was a bit confused because of, you know, the fact that the NL was the home team. But immediately after he said it, they flashed to the AL bullpen where we see Fuentes warming up. So in Buck's I-don't-give-a-shit-about-baseball-and-there-is-no-way-I-should-ever-call-another-World-Series-game-again brain, he sees Angels reliever, he assumes K-Rod. It's a cherry on top that Fuentes is a lefty submariner and K-Rod has a distinctive righty overhand throw. Seriously, fuck Joe Buck and fuck FOX for making him call baseball games when he clearly doesn't give a shit about them. Just let him stick to football, I don't care how good/famous his dad was.]

And the National League loses again. Dammit.

Bill Simmons is the Most Popular "Sports" Columnist on all teh Internets

See what I did there with the quotation marks? Anyways, that popularity is generated by efforts like this train wreck of a mailbag.

SG: Take it from someone who worked on a late-night talk show for 18 months: Celebrities are staggeringly, improbably short. It's bizarre. I always wanted to play in Garry Shandling's weekend pickup game just so I could play center once in my life.

What? Bill worked on a late night talk show? Whose show was it? I've never heard a peep about this. Seriously though, how self-congratulatory and/or insecure can one quasi-famous guy get? Look, Bill, it didn't work out for you. Probably because you're not that funny, you're certainly not that creative, and you're almost definitely a huge pain in the ass to work with. Move on and enjoy your job as a sportswriter who doesn't even bother to write about sports. You can stop telling people about the "failed TV writer" portion of your life. Sheesh.

(And by the way, I am 6-foot-1½. See? You didn't know that! I'm taller than you thought, aren't I? Admit it. ADMIT YOU CARE!)

DIE.

Q: I started a new job today and I found a copy of your recent column in the men's bathroom stall. I think this job is a keeper!
-- Derek L., Houston

Baseball's All Star weekend is here, NBA free agency is underway, so is the Tour de France, the U.S. Open was a couple weeks ago and the British Open is this weekend (if you're into golf, which I'm not, but I assume at least a few fat old white guys send emails to Bill), Roger Federer just broke a very significant record, and the NFL season is on the horizon. But no. We don't have time or column space to discuss those topics because Bill needed to print an irrelevant ass-kissing email from some clod whose day was made by a computer printout he found while taking a dump.

Q: Do you, Kimmel, Carolla and Cousin Sal have a name for yourselves? If not, I suggest the Crap Pack.
-- Jason, Philadelphia

Say, you may not have heard this, but Bill used to write for a couple of B list TV personalities. It's a part of his life he doesn't really make a big deal out of, though, so you'll have to pay close attention if you want to catch him talking about it.

SG: (Searching for a comeback …)

(Hoping some moron TV executive is reading this, and gives me another shot ...)

Q: I was getting on a plane to Vegas recently for a guys' weekend when I noticed some schmuck in first class who looked like a perfect cross between Pat O'Brien and Danny Bonnaducci [sic]. I was fascinated the whole flight and couldn't wait to tell my friends when we met up. We ultimately named him Bon O'Briduchi and for 72 hours of liver-killing shananigans, he was the invisible fifth guy in our group. We even tried to find similar real guys on the Strip and would make jokes like "Sure, that guy looks like he enjoys drinking, fighting and getting crazy with hookers, but he's no Bon O'Briduchi." In fact, my friend actually bought a round of five beers instead of four and justified it by saying, "Bon just went to take a leak, he'll be back in a minute." We ultimately decided that Bon now resides with such legendary fictional alcoholics/sex addicts such as Norm Peterson, Glenn Quagmire and Joey Buddafucco [sic].
-- Dave, Denver

Dave from Denver should be sterilized, placed in a crate of some kind, and shipped to Siberia so that he cannot reproduce and runs a minimal risk of annoying anyone. Yes, these are Bill's readers- who I'm guessing don't behave all that differently in public than Bill himself.

Q: I have no idea why, but I have a massive S&M crush on you. With other men, including my boyfriend, I'm pretty normal, but something about you makes me want to tie you up and have fun with you. It's weird. This is not a drunk e-mail, or a high one, or anything like that. Can I get a "Yup, these are my readers?"
-- Jennifer, Atlanta

Woo hoo! Sports!

Q: Hey Bill, I saw your man Ray Allen at a bar in Hartford on Saturday night. After getting over the shock of seeing him, my boyfriend turned to me, very serious, and said, "OK, go have sex with Ray Allen and tell me how it is." Would you make that offer to the Sports Gal for any sports figure? If you did would she be offended? Because I wasn't, and I think maybe I should have been.
-- Jen S., Newington, Conn.

Hey, at least this one involved an athlete. I only included a very small sample of the questions in this massive pile of suck of a column, so let me justify my use of sarcastically suggestive quotation marks in the post's title by breaking down the mailbag by questions per topic.

MLB- 1
NBA- 8
NHL- 2
NFL- 1
Other sports/sports in general- 5
Assholes kissing up to Bill/talking about Bill- 4
Shit that has not a fucking thing to do with sports- 9

Five of the NBA ones were quick one liner sour grapes cheap shots at the Lakers. Throw those out and we've got a mailbag written by a sports columnist on the country's most popular sports website that's almost that's almost half about sports. Keep those one liners in, and that percentage skyrockets up near sixty! Why is this happening? How can this man be so useless and yet so popular? The answer is simple, and also happens to be the answer to any number of random questions I find myself asking the cosmos on any given day: America is full of people who are fucking stupid. There's nothing more to it. For example, that's why there are millions out there who don't believe Barry Bonds used steroids. And why Chris Berman is still being hired to announce the Home Run Derby. BACKBACKBACKBACKBACK

GAWWWWWWNNNNNN

THAT ONE WENT ALL THE WAY TO EAST SAINT LOUIS, ILLINOIS

I'm pretty sure that at this point the main reason Bill is still employed by ESPN is so that Rick Reilly looks intelligent and heavily invested in sports by comparison.

Matt Sussman uses giant soapbox to whine

The only thing I know about Matt Sussman is that he is a contributing writer for the site Deadspin, which I read every day. Today he wrote this really crumb-bum article:

Was That A Great UFC or What? (No, Really, Tell Me)

When I first read this, I assumed that this article would be about a non-MMA enthusiast having watched UFC 100. But I was wrong. Dead(spin) wrong!

Not to break wind on the parade of the 18-35 male demographic, but it seemed from this comfy couch that everyone was watching UFC 100 because everyone else was.

Yeah, that, or maybe it was the Welterweight and Heavyweight title fights, which included possibly the best pound for pound fighter in the sport and the most physically dominant heavyweight ever respectively.

So, not being one to fall behind on today's hip happenin' trends, I turned it on. And let me tell ya, I don't know what the big deal was. All the view was obfuscated by the letters "SORRY, THIS CHANNEL IS NOT AVAILABLE." I was later informed that you have to pay money to see this event, because it is important.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I did not see that coming!

I then inquired why such a huge event in a sport trying to constantly prove itself to the mainstream isn't available for free. The dog had no idea.

Just a wild guess, but maybe it has something to with money.

I really want to formulate some kind of thoughts on the sport — and I'm sure others out there are curious too — but, c'mon, I don't have that channel. Especially as a guy who has to keep a site like this warm on the weekends, it's beneficial to be at least competent in boxing and MMA and the Premier League.

Argh, if only Deadspin or the Gawker network had some sort of revenue stream. Then they could pay for you to watch both.

But I'm not going to spend another $30 a month to get certain premium soccer channels or spend ... really? Just 55 bucks for the fights in HD?

God forbid, you'd go to a bar and watch it for the price of drinks/some cover charge.

Were the Super Bowl to be aired on pay-per-view, the live blog of it would be much less descriptive. All the sports websites would still be talking about it, and you'd feel left out, too.

Yes, NFL : UFC :: Apples : Apples

Except for the fact that the NFL is the most popular league in America, with every regular and post season game being broadcast on network television (save for MNF on ESPN). Additionally, the Superbowl (which happens once a year) rakes $90 billion per 30 second ad spot.

Compare that to the UFC (whose best fighters fight 1-3x per year) which has a couple shows on Spike TV, and has pay-per-views an average of once per month. Those ppv's draw powerhouse sponsors like Mickey's Malt Liquor, and for UFC 100: The USA Today Sports Section, the Cadillac of sponsors. But I'll be darned if I can figure out why Dana White would want people paying $55 per ppv.

So I understand how MMA is ever-proving to everyone that it's legitimate entertainment and how far they've come, but ... um, would ya mind showing the rest of us cheapskates?

Yes, they would mind because they like making money.

If not, then I'll be damned if I ever have the desire to write about the sport anymore.

This was the MMA article that Deadspin, the most prevlant non-msm sports blog in America, ran the day after UFC 100. Sheesh.

Bud Selig is a Naive Moron

I guess in preparation for my fair town hosting the All Star Game, St. Louis Post Dispatch writer Rick Hummel got to talk to Bud Selig. He proves he can hold a grudge, can't answer direct questions, and that he is a guiding light for naive morons everywhere.

Bonus FJM Drinking Game: Everytime you read to word "eliminated," take a drink.

My first problem with this article was that the headline to it is "Baseball prospers under Bud Selig." It

(1) has nothing to do with the article, and
(2) is wrong.

I'm not picking on this because a capitalization weary Larry B showed us that the writer does not write his headlines. (Larry also showed us his gmail address, his lack of a good internet browser, his problem with spam, and lack of labels. What an unorganized schmuck!) Now onto the fireworks.

As a Milwaukee Braves fan in 1956, he still laments the two catches a nondescript Cardinals outfielder named Bobby Del Greco made on a Saturday night in St. Louis to cost the Braves what would be their first pennant.

"We lose 2-1 and Bobby Del Greco makes two catches he couldn't make again if his life depended on it," said Selig. "I was mad at him that night. I didn't sleep — and I'm still mad at him."

To which Selig writes a note: "Have Del Greco eliminated." Unlike Joe Morgan's stories, this one is actually true.

Q: Do you worry about the impact the recession will have on baseball?

A: I worried about it last fall, no question about it. I used to think that in some of the previous recessions that baseball was recession-proof. But not this one. So far, while advertising sales are down and clubs have had some trouble with sponsorships, our attendance is down between four and five percent, which is remarkably good.

Baseball does not prosper under Selig, it just doesn't implode. I seem to remember seeing that another league had attendance go up this past season. I realize there's a big difference in selling tickets to 80+ games in stadiums that seat 40,000+ fans compared to 40+ games in arenas that might seat 20,000, among many other financial differences between the ticketing systems in both leagues. Let me gloat about hockey for one paragraph, and then back to shitting all over it once the preseason starts in September.

Q: When you hear the names of Rodriguez, Ramirez and Sosa linked to performance-enhancing drugs, how does that make you feel?

A: All it proves is that our program is working and nobody is above the law. I'm the only commissioner of any sport who ever called on an outsider, George Mitchell, to do a study of the sports. He made 20 recommendations and we adopted every one of them. This is a subject of collective bargaining. It cannot be unilaterally implemented. When I could do it, I did it. We've toughened our program three times, had the Mitchell investigation. I'm proud of what baseball has done. … Anybody who's still living in the '90s, who said we should have done something, well, I can't talk to them. But it's easy, in the retrospect of history, to be very smart 11 years later. I'm very protective of the image of the sport. Sure, do I wish it hadn't happened? Of course, I do. Do I worry about it? Of course, I do. But I'm proud of our players. I've had players call me and tell me, 'No, everybody didn't do it. Most of us didn't do it. And that's unfair.' And I do think some members of the media have not only overreacted, they've overreacted without any facts.

Surprisingly, Selig's answer wasn't "Feelings only make you weak," followed by ripping the heart out of Rick Hummel, eating the still beating organ and then checking his stock portfolio on Fox Business Channel. Instead, his answer is to a question that wasn't asked and it takes an unnecessarily defensive stance on what was/is? a problem. If you totally ignore the problem, only losers will talk about it. Who cares what losers say anyways? They aren't with the time, those losers. And to any of you lameoids still living in the 90's, stop ruining baseball with your positive drug tests in 2001-present.

Q: Would you be in favor of the list of other 103 players who tested positive in 2003 being released?

A: There was a list that was supposed to be eliminated.

The list or the players on it?

That was the agreement, in all fairness. It wasn't, for some reason, as the players' association didn't get (it) thrown out. The answer is that it was supposed to be anonymous, but it's now in the government's hands. But I would want to say something to all these people who are grumbling about these things. If we didn't force those tests, none of this would have ever been public. Does that tell you that we're not hiding and have never tried to hide anything?

The answer to this question is yes or no. Miraculously, neither of those words show up in that answer. If there is a list, and it's supposed to be "eliminated," why the fuck are you going to throw it out? Shred it. Flush it down the toilet at the gas station. Burn it in the fire that glows deep in your soulless body. But throw it out? That's a fail proof plan to keep things safe and out of the public eye.

Q: Do you concern yourself with the fact that, somewhere, there are chemists at work trying to concoct some other potion to beat the system?

A: Yes. All of us in sports worry about that. But we've come a long way in our understanding of this. Will there be new chemists? Of course, there will be. And we just have to be very vigilant and have to stay ahead of the game. Steroids are not a baseball problem. Steroids are a societal problem. Could I sit here today and say, 'We've got everything under control.' I wouldn't even make a statement like that. It would be foolish.

See? Baseball doesn't need to clean up here, it's society. Get with it, society! You're tarnishing the game's reputation, with your steroids and techno music. Society, it is YOUR fault that these premier athletes are trying to find new ways to cheat to make millions of dollars to play a game.

Q: In the last eight years, there have been 13 different teams in the World Series. How good is that for baseball?

A: I looked out at the field last year and saw Tampa Bay in the World Series, I said, 'That's a great thing for the sport.' It wasn't always well-received on the East Coast, but if baseball can't survive in Middle America, baseball won't be the sport we thought it could be.

A rather pointed question that I didn't really care for yields an even worse answer. Tampa Bay is on the west coast of Florida, which... uh.... uh huh. Still on the East Coast. Not in Middle America.


Q: Do you perceive that the Home Run Derby has taken on a bigger life than the All-Star Game itself?

A: It's big. It's the highest-rated cable show of the summer. But I was in St. Louis for the All-Star Game in St. Louis in 1966. I was trying to get a (major league) team for Milwaukee. All I can remember is I sat down in a seat that was so hot, I had a Coke in my hand and I spilled it all over the friend I came with. But it was a one-day event. People came in, saw the game and left. What you're going to see in St. Louis is really a celebration of the sport for six days. The Home Run Derby is huge, no question about it. But does it eclipse the game? I don't think so.

He went to the All-Star game in 1966, and all he remembers is spilling a Coke. I meant to erect a monument to that story, but I couldn't find a grade of marble boring enough.

He can also remember the name of a Cardinals outfielder in the 1950's, but when it comes to remembering anything from an All-Star game 10 years later, it's all hot metal and Coke. What a piece of shit.

Q: What's your favorite All-Star Game memory?

A: I guess Cal Ripken (hitting a home run in his last All-Star Game) in Seattle in 2001. Cal Ripken is everything baseball should have. You want me to go back? OK, 1955, Stan the Man right here in Milwaukee off Frank Sullivan. I'll never forget it. There was the All-Star Game I went to with my brother in 1950 in Chicago's Comiskey Park. I believe Albert Fred "Red" Schoendienst won that one with a 14th-inning homer.

What the fuck is going on here? Here's that game he went to in 1966. And he doesn't remember a 2-1 extra innings All-Star game. But he does remember a Stan Musial home run 11 years before that.

Q: Least favorite All-Star memory? I suspect it was the 11-inning tie in 2002?

A: It was unfortunate because it happened (in Milwaukee). My wife left early that night. She was smart because she was about to have hip replacement surgery.

Good thing she was walking around the All-Star Game.

Joe (Torre) used Barry Zito for like one hitter and I said to my wife before she left, 'I hope to hell Joe knows what he's doing.' And she said, 'Oh, don't worry, Buddy, he does.' But when the umpire (Gerry Davis) came over to me and told me that (Vicente) Padilla was laboring and Joe was worried about Freddy Garcia. We were out of pitchers and I'll tell you how it happened. In 1993 in Baltimore, when Cito Gaston didn't use Mike Mussina, the crowd booed the hell out of him. The managers (then) decided they were going to get everybody in the game. Sandy Alderson (Selig's right-hand man) and I worried from the late '90s on that something like this was going to happen. It happened. It was unfortunate. Now we've added some pitchers and it's never going to happen again."

Fans were booing that their player wasn't being used. That doesn't mean use every player, it means that if you're in Baltimore and an Oriole is on the roster, you should play him. So because of Orioles fans, the All-Star Game counts. Or should we blame Cito Gaston? I can't wait for this to happen again.

Q: Does the interleague play need to be adjusted, i.e., do natural rivals really need to play six games a year, rather than three?

A: The natural rivalries are so good. The first time I ever heard interleague play talked about was by (Bill) Veeck and (Hank) Greenberg in the late 1940s. Our attendance is up for interleague play by 19.5 percent. Veeck and Greenberg were absolutely right. And our fans like it. Yes, there are some scheduling things that aren't perfect. But what's interesting is that you've got a lot of rivalries that people like — rivalries that people didn't know about. Pittsburgh wants to play Cleveland. Cincinnati wants to play Cleveland and they fight over it. So this idea is that it's only New York and Chicago …

Cleveland and Pittsburgh hate each others teams in football, too. It's a geographic rivalry, as is two Ohio teams playing each other. Interleague works for a lot more for two cities, but Rockies v. Mariners? Rays vs. Any NL team that they didn't lose to in the World Series?

Q: The DH was instituted more than 35 years ago to help improve attendance in the American League with more scoring. Now that that goal has been achieved, isn't it time to have the same rules in both leagues?

A: The American League clubs really do like it. The National League clubs clearly do not. (Former Philadelphia owner) Bill Giles said to me a few years ago that a little controversy helps. Eventually there will be some event that will force us to make a decision, but not yet. That's not an issue I want to force right now.

That event will be fans booing the hell out of somebody, followed by an idiotic decision made from a field box 10 years later. Most likely, it will be a result of the second coming of Cito Gaston.

Q: Do you have fun in this job?

A: I'm not sure 'fun' would be the right word.

So the answer is no?

You have 30 owners with 30 different agendas. But I do love the challenges and the responsibilities. I do question my sanity sometimes.

That explains the Florida Marlins...

I'll be 75 years old on July 30 and when this term is over, I'll be 78. Let me put it this way. It's been a remarkable journey.

Straight into the ground?

Have you found it interesting that since the All-Star Game carrot of the winning league having home-field advantage — home field for the seventh and decisive game — has been in effect, that game actually never has taken place?

I’d like to see a seven-game World Series, I don’t mind telling you. I miss that. We didn’t really have a great idea in place. One year, you got (the home-field advantage) and the next year I got it. So, in talking to the Fox people, I really liked the idea because it does revive interest in the All-Star Game.

Taking turns really is a horrible solution, much worse than placing meaning on a game where guys don't try as hard so they don't get hurt. Also great to see that FOX made the decision to place meaning on the All-Star Game. Who would have thought that a change in rules would be a money grab?

Since then, the games have been played with great intensity. I think it’s worked out great and I think it’s restored the intensity of the game. I had called my friend, Ron Santo, in 2002, to see how he was feeling and he told me, ‘When we were in the All-Star Game, everybody played hard and we wanted to win. Guys today are gone after three innings.’ Hank Aaron said the same thing and asked me, ‘Can’t you do something?’ I think it’s here to stay unless somebody comes up with a better idea. Now the fact that we don’t seem to able to get past Game No. 5 (of the World Series) is a whole another story."

Are we sure that Ron Santo wasn't just referring to the fact that everybody is getting replaced by other players starting in the 3rd inning so that everybody plays? If you want millionaires to try harder, how about holding their possessions over a vat or acid and dropping them in if they mail it in? Fans text message votes in to monetize the situation and suddenly you have a sponsorable solution.

Would it good for baseball if the National League won an All-Star Game pretty soon?

Uh, I’m the commissioner … so I have to remain impartial. I’ll let you answer that.

The answer? Eliminated.

The Grinding of Axes: One Man's Defense of Jeter

Foxsports.com's Adam Kriegel offers his commentary on why the fans were right to vote 4.5 million times for Derek Jeter. I actually agree with the basic premise of this article (Derek Jeter is good) but this article commits several cardinal sins. Read:

At 35, Derek Jeter is considered well past his prime as an everyday shortstop. Don't take my word for it. Baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have long since rendered their final analysis on the subject.

Actually, baseball's most sober and esteemed mathematicians have offered a meager resistance to the Jeter-love that exists throughout the sports universe, suggesting that perhaps the guy isn't the superhero everyone thinks he is.

And considering that his 2008 numbers were significantly lower than his career numbers in pretty much every category, the mathematicians didn't have to look far to analyze this downturn.

No surprise, either. By their mid-thirties, even the best ballplayers give up the position for less demanding assignments. At 36, Cal Ripken was a full-time third baseman. The logic is inexorable. Age and range are inversely proportional. Hence, Jeter's days are numbered.

It's like he's an old nag, shuffling off to the glue factory. Like Barbaro!

Still, when it came time to select a starting shortstop for the All-Star Game, Jeter received an astounding 4,851,889 votes, more than anyone in the American League, more than anyone not named Albert Pujols and Chase Utley.

Any sensible fan might note that Jeter was facing one of the least competitive positions on the ballot. Who's a good AL shortstop this year? Jason Bartlett?

Whereas Pujols was up against perhaps the most stacked position on the ballot.

He's now the oldest shortstop to start an All-Star Game since 37-year-old Luis Aparacio in 1971.

You are wrong. Ozzie Smith started the 1994 ASG at the ripe old age of 39. Even the MLB.com article correctly states that Jeter is the oldest American League starting shortstop since Aparicio.

Pure laziness on the part of Mr. Kriegel here. Or just a lack of baseball knowledge - since the mid-90s were full of completely unnecessary elections of Ozzie Smith when he was old enough to be like dead and played like eighty games a season.

So here's to the fans. For once, at least, you guys got it right.

Way to go, fans. You managed not to screw up a really easy choice, since Derek Jeter is really having a pretty darn good season this year.

I covered Jeter from '96 — when the burning question in New York revolved around whether he would be the equal of the Mets' defensive wizard Rey Ordonez — to 2001.

Really? That was the question? News to me.

And in all that time, through four Yankee championships, I don't think I ever fully appreciated the guy.

That makes you just about the only writer in America who didn't.

While his dating résumé, now as then, remains exemplary, I considered him too assiduously non-controversial, which is to say, boring.

Has anyone ever thought Jeter was boring just because he isn't an idiot?

In retrospect, it was a reaction to the gratuitously controversial regime that preceded his tenure in the Bronx. Jeter was the perfect consigliere for Joe Torre, a layer of heavy insulation against the irrational ravings of the principal owner. Still, his "Mr. Steinbrenner" act wore thin.

Huh?

But here it is, 2009, and Jeter has more hits than Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. In the next couple of seasons, he'll pass the original iron man, Lou Gehrig, and Babe Ruth. In fact, he's a good bet to end up with 3,600 hits. And in his steady progression toward that number, he's beaten more than the odds.

It would be kind of nice to cite his 2009 statistics, which would be most relevant to this discussion, and clearly support your position, Mr. Kriegel. Yet you pointlessly cite his career hits, which is pretty much all anyone ever discusses when they discuss Jeter.

I think when Jeter gets voted into the Hall of More Than Very Good, he will have the emptiest plaque in Cooperstown. All it will list is his name and however many hits he ends up with. Has he ever even hit a double?

And though the baseball nerds insist he can't field his position, I'll remember with affection the same plays everyone else does: the glove-handed shovel pass that caught Jeremy Giambi at the plate in the 2001 ALDS, and Trot Nixon's foul ball he caught three rows deep in the left-field stands at the old Stadium.

It's too bad the baseball nerds' stats noticed all the times he didn't make those plays. That's almost unfair of them!

Are football and basketball and hockey nerds doing everything they can to actively ruin their respective sports? Or is it just baseball nerds?

Kriegel then goes on to say how great Jeter is, and compares him to a bunch of average shortstops. The conclusion, as I said, is true: Jeter is the best shortstop in the AL right now, and is certainly one of the top in the last 20 years.

But this article still sucks.