Why is NFL tonight sitting there talking about Jessica Simpson being at the Cowboys game? Who cares! What does it say about our worthless media that frickin’ Terrell Owens (“She doesn’t run any routes. She doesn’t catch any balls. She doesn’t throw any balls.”) has the right attitude?
Category Archives: Sports
Tuna Melt
Is Bill Parcells a dick or what. Actually, I’m glad the Falcons didn’t hire him. If there is anyone who could bring the franchise lower, it would be Bill.
Degrees of Scum
Will Carroll, whose analysis of the baseball steroid issue is second to none, makes a great point.
One final note: While I agree with Sen. Mitchell’s call for a blanket amnesty for all users, named and not named, prior to the testing agreement in 2004, I have a problem with several of the players in the report acting as salesmen and distributors for Radomski. Drug use is wrong, but drug trafficking is a far larger issue and one that I feel calls for not only suspensions, but the consideration of larger penalties.
To me, this should be where our thinking is. The thinking of our self-important self-righteous SMTs when it comes to future HOF voting seems to fall into three camps:
1) Ban any players who might have done steroids, possibly even refusing to vote for anyone from the steroid era. This is ridiculously puritanical. The HOF is filled with segregationists, spit-ballers, sign stealers, mugs, thugs and pugs. We have never held baseball players to a terribly ethical standard. So why start now?
Well, the reason to start now is because a lot of the SMTs are feeling guilty because the knew what was going on and said nothing. And the reason to start now is because the SMTs feel stupid because they lavished praise on Bonds and Clemens and McGwire only to look dumb later on. And so, in their anger and arrogance, they throw the blame squarely on the players. Jason Stark is the only writer I’ve heard even start to take some of the blame for the steroid era.
It reminds me of the Pete Rose business. The press spent decades telling us how wonderful he was. And then when it turned out he was a corrupt asshole, they turned on him like a pack of wolves.
Never forget the first rule of the SMT: we were always right.
Moreover, as Carroll points out, banning players from the HOF is ex post facto punishment. Steroids were illegal before testing, but they were not banned by the league (similar to the way sunday games used to be illegal but not banned). The most fascinating part of the Mitchell report is the internal e-mails of the Red Sox, who clearly knew who was using. Everyone in baseball management knew this was going on but no one did anything until the outcry. And to turn around and punish only the players because they took advantage of the league’s tacit tolerance of the juice is unfair.
Finally, there is not enough evidence that steroids really make a ballplayer better to exclude everyone. I have no problem with a slightly tougher standard, but this extremism is silly.
2) Only exclude players on whom we have good evidence. This is fairer but puts in a “don’t get caught” morality into the league. And again, show me the proof that steroids make ballplayers better.
The only scientific study to date — that of Baseball Prospectus — showed little effect. Yes, two of the best players of all time did them. So did many guys who flopped right out of the league. And the latter outnumber the former.
3) Only exclude guys we don’t like. I suspect this is the way it will go down. Because that’s the way it’s going now. Guys who suck up to the media and appear contrite (Betancourt, Giambi) are forgiven; those who obfuscate (Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Palmiero) are pilloried. In that sense, Andy Pettite is the smartest guy in the room. He immediately confessed. By opening day, he’ll be getting cheered again.
I don’t think we should play these games. We can apply a tougher standard on HOF considerations, we can drop guys from the era a little bit in compilations of “best ever”. But we don’t get up on a high horse (option 1), we don’t play witch hunt (option 2) and we certainly don’t play favorites (option 3).
But Carroll makes another good point. The only players I would seriously punish are those who were spreading the gospel. It is clear that several players were spreading steroids like a virus, aiding and encouraging their use.
The worst was that scumbag Canseco, who is currently being lauded by the media because, of the hundreds of names he threw out, one or two stuck. Has anyone read Canseco’s book? Because my understanding is that he talks about how great steroids are.
Oh, he’s a whistleblower. Bullshit. He’s a media whore. Ken Caminiti was the first player to go public on steroids. Canseco took advantage of the scandal to cash in on his own scumbaggery. That ain’t a hero.
The Juice
I’m a huge baseball fan so I’m going to post a few random thoughts about the Mitchell Report:
ESPN’s coverage has been very good. Rob Parker, in particular made an outstanding point that we can’t ban or strip records from players named today, because it implicitly exonerates everyone else. We have to apply the correction to the entire era and have a tougher standard for the HOF. Even the players who weren’t doing it were silent.
Nate Silver has a neat post at BP Unfiltered where he points out that we have a mix of stars and borderline players. This backs up his long contention that the PEDs were mostly used by players trying to become stars rather than stars and the statistical impact may not be very big.
I think people are missing the point of Mitchell’s report. He wasn’t trying to compile a comprehensive list of everyone who did the juice but more looking into how this happened and how it can be stopped.
All Time
ESPN has their list of top 25 all time college football players. I’m assuming Barry Sanders and Red Grange will be 1-2.
Notice something? The list reads like a Heisman ballot. 17 (!!!!) running backs, four quarterbacks. No offensive linemen (John Hannah? Orlando Pace? Nope.). Only four defensive players, if you count Bronko Nagurski, who was also — stop me if you’re heard this — a running back. The other three are Butkus, Green an Woodson (who was also a receiver).
What the hell? This is the best they can do? Their college football experts came up with a list a few drunken fans and google could compile. In fact, google gives me this list, which is compiled by God knows who and includes Deion, John Hannah, Bubba Smith, LT and Dave Rimington in its top 25 (although they have Vince Young at #5, so they aren’t precisely in Earth orbit).
Seriously, folks. What the hell is the sports media’s job. I’m just some guy with a blog and even I would have the sense to put Orlando Pace, easily one of the best college football players I’ve ever seen, in the top 25.
Live-Blogging the BCS
Watching the selection show now. Let’s see what happens.
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Illinois. What? This should have been Georgia’s spot. How the hell did Illinois get in here instead of Arizona State going to the Sugar Bowl? Illinois lost to Mizzou, Michigan and Iowa. Arizona Sate lost to Oregon and USC. Granted Illinois’ noin-conference schedule was tougher by virtue of Mizzou. Illinois will get eaten alive by USC.
Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. West Virginia. No comment needed. Oklahoma should win this one easily.
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Kansas. What? What?! How the hell did Kansas vault over Mizzou? Simple. Mizzou made the huge mistake of winning the division, which meant they played a conference championship game. If they had lost to Kansas, they’d be ranked higher. This shows you how stupid the BCS is — it encourages teams to lose. Virginia Tech will take this one easily.
Sugar Bowl: Hawaii vs. Georgia. Now if Arizona State gets in ahead of Illinois, they end up playing Hawaii, a much better matchup, while Georgia goes into a monster game against USC. Hell, Illinois or West Virginia would have been a better match to Hawaii. The Georgia that has been playing for the last two months should destroy Hawaii; the Georgia that played the Vols might lose.
Championship: LSU vs. Ohio State. I’ve already said everything I can on this subject. These might be the two best teams in the country. We’ll never know.
Update: Thinking about it some more, I think the BCS really screwed the pooch here. Mizzou ranked higher than Kansas in the BCS standing, but they picked Kansas. Arizona State ranked higher than Illinois but they picked Illinois. What is the point of having the God-damned BCS system if you are just going to ignore it when it comes to picking the teams?
And if anyone says, “I love the controversy”, I’m going to punch them in the face. That’s like saying you would like to be in a bad marriage because of the entertaining fights. Two teams — Kansas and Illinois — are playing in BCS bowls who shouldn’t. Two teams — Mizzou and ASU — are saying, “What the hell did we do wrong?” And five teams — Georgia, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Hawaii and USC — are saying, “Why don’t we get a chance?”
This is how we pick a national champion?
Keeping Your Concentration
Chicago just went stupid against the Giants. After a heart-breaking drop on a long pass to Devon Hester, they just went to sleep mentally. Delay of game. Sack. Punt. A long run to the goal line by the Giants. I think Lovie Smith threw the challenge flag not to look at the spot but to get a long time out to calm his team down.
And it worked. They just stuffed Draughens. Twice.
Why am I better analyst than the idiots on TV?
BCS
Good gravy.
A few scattered thoughts while we wait to see if Hawaii or Illinois gets the last BCS slot and who the hell ends up at #2.
I have no idea who are the top two teams in the country. None. I do know that six teams won their conferences on the field. I do know that two other ranked teams — Hawaii and BYU — won their conferences on the field. We need to put those eight teams in a tournament and let them play.
If we had a playoff system, the writers could happily vote Georgia #1 if they wanted to and sleep well with the knowledge that the most it would do is give them an at-large bid in the playoff.
My prediction for the bowls? As I type this, Hawaii is already down 14-0 and if they lose, they’re out, which is a shame. But that’s what they get for scheduling a real opponent. Assuming Hawaii goes on to lose, I’d make the following matchups using what I see as the likely rankings tomorrow:
BCS Championship: LSU vs. Ohio State
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Georgia
Fiesta Bowl: Mizzou vs. West Virginia
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Oklahoma
Sugar Bowl: Illinois vs. Arizona State
But if we had a fricking playoff, which used traditional bowl pairing as a first round, it might look like this:
Rose Bowl: USC vs. Ohio State
Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. BYU (or Georgia)
Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Oklahoma
Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia vs. Hawaii (or Mizzou)
Write on Rice
The baseball Hall of Fame voting is about to take place. Let’s look at two players, one of whom is on the ballot.
Red Sox Outfielder A: 2452 hits, 373 2B, 382 HR, 1249 R, 1451 RBI, 670 BB, 315 GIDP, career line .298/.352/.502, 57 runs below average with his glove. Baseball Prospectus estimates he was worth 83.2 wins over a replacement-level player during his career and about 9.8 wins in his best season.
Red Sox Outfielder B: 2446 hits, 483 2B, 385 HR, 1470 R, 1384 RBI, 1391 BB, 227 GIDP, career line .272/.370/.470, 68 runs *above* average with the glove. Baseball Prospectus estimate he was worth 120.2 wins over a replacement-level player during his career and 12.2 wins in his best season.
No comparison, right? I mean Player A hit for higher average and slugging while driving in more runs. Player B matches player A in hits and homers. Player B beats the snot out of him in doubles, runs, walks, double plays hit into, on-base percentage, fielding runs, career and peak value.
Player A is Jim Rice, whom the Red Sox nation has almost gotten into the Hall of Fame.
Player B is Dwight Evans, who dropped off the ballot after three years from lack of support.
Red Sox minions will tell you that Jim Rice was the most feared hitter in baseball. Even if that were true, which it isn’t, you would think that terror would show up in his stats. That he would have been walked a few times to pitch to the weaker, um, Yastrzemski? Fisk? Lynn? Evans?
Dwight Evans was 1.5 times the player Jim Rice was. And these voters tell the fans they’re too stupid to vote for awards.
On Santana
It’s behind the subscription firewall, but Joe Sheehan today says what I’ve been saying for weeks:
Like Alex Rodriguez in 2000, like Barry Bonds in 1992, like Greg Maddux that same winter, Johan Santana is an elite talent irreplaceable through normal means, and as durable as any pitcher can be in modern baseball. If the standard in six years and $140 million, or seven and $155 million, as ridiculous as those figures sound, they may be well worth it if the alternative is spending two-thirds of that over that same period for half the performance.
No baseball team has benefitted from trading or letting go to free agency a multi-Cy-Young winning durable pitcher in his prime. The Cubs with Maddux, the Dodgers and Expos with Pedro, the Red Sox with Clemens, the Expos and Mariners with the Unit, several teams with Schilling. It has always been a disaster.
HOF-caliber pitchers who don’t get hurt are rare. Pitching prospects are a dime a dozen. And when you’re moving into a big taxpayer-funded stadium, you don’t slap the fans in the face by letting your best pitcher since Bert Blyleven walk.
Thus Spake Posada
Why is it news that Jorge Posada thinks the Yankees should get Johann Santanta? What’s he supposed to say?
“No, I don’t think we would be a better team if we got the best young pitcher in baseball, a proven durable Cy Young winner who is not a head case.”
In other news, Posada said we should bring peace to Middle East, end poverty and do something about sick people.
Packers-Boys
I would love to be able to watch tonight’s Packers-Cowboys tilt. But right now, I’m happy that I can’t . See, I’m a Time Warner customer and … well, Gregg Eastebrook put it best:
In other football news, the NFL began putting Thursday and Saturday night late-season games on NFL Network last season. Since then, 280 Park Ave. — league headquarters — has been hoping for a monster game only NFLN subscribers would see. Why? So everyone else would ring up their cable carriers and complain about the lack of NFL Network. Finally, the league’s wish has come true, as Thursday’s monster Dallas-Green Bay pairing is an NFL Network game, meaning it will air in only roughly 35 million households. The NFL is quietly happy most Americans won’t see this fantastic pairing, and that represents a reversal of the league’s nearly 50-year policy of doing everything possible to put nationally televised games onto every American TV set. But the cable carriers have proved so resistant to the NFL’s demands regarding NFL Network that the league has come to the point of hoping for an unseen monster game that might force the issue by causing viewer outrage.
,,,
The problem is that the league is demanding too high a price for NFL Network. The league wants cable customers to pay for NFL Network, a seasonal product, almost twice what CNN charges for 24-hour, 365-day appeal. If the NFL simply cut its asking price, the rest of the pieces with the cable carriers would fall into place. There are egos involved, however. A couple of years ago, Comcast offered about $400 million annually for the slate of Thursday and Saturday late-season games. An owners’ faction led by Jerry Jones of Dallas contended the league could make more by keeping the games and marketing them to cable over NFLN. So far, though, NFL Network pulls in only about $250 million in cable payments. Jones and other owners who insisted the NFL would come out ahead by direct-marketing NFL Network don’t want to cut the asking price because that would be tantamount to admitting their original negotiating strategy was wrong. As we’ve learned, prominent people will pile fresh mistake atop fresh mistake to postpone the day when they admit their first mistake. The NFL’s insistence on asking too much for its channel is yet another example of how often big business, with zillions of dollars in executive-suite and economic-consultant spending, nevertheless acts as if it’s ignorant of basic economics. To increase revenues, cut prices; this raises demand. (A high price suppresses demand.) The modern globalized marketplace is relentlessly efficient at driving down prices, and has relentlessly, efficiently blocked the NFL’s attempt to charge too much for NFL Network. As soon as the NFL drops the NFLN asking price to the market-clearing level, the channel will air in all homes. Then the NFL can scramble nervously to make its money on advertising, just like everybody else in the broadcast business.
Right now, Austin radio is filled with ads from both sides. The NFL’s ads are so insulting and infuriating, however, that they have pushed me into Time Warner’s corner. They basically consist of some guy with a Texas hick accent complaining that he can’t watch his “fuut-bawl” while the know-it-all NFL lady patiently explains how evil Time Warner is. It ends with a clarion call to phone up the legislature and demand … something. Inspired by this, I e-mailed by legislator and told him to stay the hell out of it. They have no business telling a cable company what tier they will put an expensive network on.
Um, We’re Out of Silva
Priceless. A Minnesota columnists suggest that the Twins trade a player that they, technically speaking, don’t have.
Doh!
Parity
Is it just me, or is there more parity in college football than there is the NFL? The only NCAA unbeaten left is Hawaii and only three teams have 1-loss. There is a chance a 2-loss team will play for the national championship. (And it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the polls don’t reflect team quality, but the voters trying to gerrymander the best 1-2 matchup).
By contrast, the NFL has one remaining unbeaten and two 1-loss teams. This weekend saw NFL games with spread of 14, 11.5, 10.5 (for Arizona!!), 9.5, 22 and 16 points — margins we normally associate with Texas playing East Yachupitsville State. Last night’s game had New England favored by 22 points. According to Sagarin, top-ranked Mizzou would be favored by less if they hosted North Dakota State.
As an aside, check out the pre-season college football rankings. Current #1 Missouri — unranked. Kansas, Boston College, Arizona State, Illinois, Clemson, BYU, Oregon — all unranked. Michigan was a top five team (now unranked), Louisville was in the top 10. So was California (what a collapse!), UCLA, Nebraska (!!), Florida State (!!!) and Texas A&M.
Yeah, those media guys know what they’re talking about. I can’t find CNNSI’s football preview on their page. Guess it was too embarrassing.