Why Reporters Shouldn't Use Unnamed Sources, part MCMLXXXVI

I've mentioned this from time to time here on LomHenn.com--the basic journalistic principle of reporters to use more than one source for a news (sports) story. Some may call me old fashioned, but basic tenets of journalism require that a reporter verify facts before publishing a story. And in any case, the sources a reporter uses should be "on the record"--i.e. named. Only in extreme circumstances should sources be unnamed in a story.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) includes a code of ethics listed on its website. SPJ states,

"Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability."

I know--most news and sports reporters now use the ubiquitous "unnamed source" in a majority of their stories (sometimes this is stated as a "source close to the situation"). Why I find this unacceptable is not only do I agree with the SPJ that the public is "entitled to as much information as possible" regarding a source's credibility, but it also helps keep the source accountable--if a reporter has promised anonymity to a source, he or she won't disclose the name of that source, even if the story is inaccurate. So a source can be mistaken--or lie, even--with no penalty.

Add to it that if the reporter only has that one "unnamed" source, he or she cannot independently verify the story to ensure its accuracy. As a result, the public is inundated with stories that end up being wrong.

Like this one.

Transition Coming At IMS

Robin Miller now reports for SpeedTv and SpeedTv.com. If you're not familiar with his work, Miller was a reporter/columnist at the Indianapolis Star for several years until he was fired in 2000. He has also been very critical of Indianapolis Motor Speedway CEO Tony George, especially after the CART/IMS split a few years back.

The controversial, ground-breaking, tumultuous 20-year reign of Tony George at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway appears to be over. SPEEDtv.com has learned George was voted out of power in a Tuesday night board meeting in Indianapolis.

A source close to the situation confirmed that the 49-year-old grandson of Tony Hulman would no longer be CEO of the Speedway after a vote of the IMS board of directors which includes mother Mari, sisters Josie, Nancy and Kathy, attorney Jack Snyder and George.

Of course, we have the use of an unnamed "source close to the situation." Who is this person? How close to the situation? Wouldn't it be nice if we could judge for ourselves?

The story includes comments from George and his mother, Mari Hulman George. However,
this isn't the original story that was posted by Miller today (though SpeedTv would like you to think so). The original story was much more definite in its language; it stated very directly that George was out but had no comments from him (apparently, George did not respond to an email). Here is the page where the original story was posted (note the title of the story in the URL) and here is a link to an SI.com story by Bruce Martin, who appears to use Robin Miller's story as his source (though Martin writes it as if SI.com reported on the story, too).

So why the change in the SpeedTv version of the story? Perhaps this is why:

Tony George: I'm Still In Charge Of IMS

Tony George and Indianapolis Motor Speedway officials said today that George has been asked to spend more time focusing on the Indy Racing League, but they denied a report that he has been ousted from his key role at IMS.

At least for now, it appears Miller's story is completely wrong. Curt Cavin's story from the Indianapolis Star website includes quotations from George and his mother, saying that George is still the CEO of IMS. Also, it includes details from the two of what happened at the board meeting.

Now back to the revised Miller article. Despite the denials of the IMS, Miller's article is still written as if George being out is a done deal, which is curious since it's pretty safe to say that there is at least some uncertainty regarding the situation:

George's ouster comes a couple weeks after his wife, Laura, was removed from her job as staff advisor at the Speedway.

It's assumed Jeff Belskus, the IMS chief financial officer, and Curt Brighton, general counsel for the Speedway, will run the show until a replacement is hired. One name making the rounds has been Humpy Wheeler, the longtime promoter at Charlotte who was at last Sunday's Indy 500 for the first time since 1970.

I love it that the guy's name is "Humpy." If it's a nickname, I wonder how he got it? Does he dry-hump people when he meets them?

Again, awfully certain-sounding language for a story that's been flatly denied by everyone involved. Either the SpeedTv.com editors are behind, or they are very sure of their story.

How can this be, when the principal actors are denying it? As much as I hate the idea of defending Robin Miller, it is possible the story is true. Reading between the lines of the IMS press release, it's feasible that the IMS board has voted to remove George, but has asked/given him time to work on a succession plan and will wait to announce the change until later in the summer.

Or, it's possible that Robin Miller is again wrong, and the story is crap.

What would help Miller's case is if we could judge for ourselves the source he used for his story. Who is it? Is he or she credible? What if it's one of George's sisters, who are allegedly the ones responsible for his ouster? That would certainly help Miller's credibility, and would allow SpeedTv to stand by the story.

There is a another advantage to using a named source. If Miller had used a named source, both Miller and SpeedTv would be protected from looking bad if the story does turn out to be false. With a named source, even if that source admitted to being wrong or lying later, the inaccuracy would lie with the source. However, by using the "unnamed source," Miller and SpeedTv have no protection--they will look like fools and their credibility would suffer.

That is, assuming Robin Miller has any to begin with.

You Do Know That Babe Ruth Also Played For the Yankees, Right?

You remember Babe Ruth, right? The Bambino, the Sultan of Swat. Hit 714 career home runs. Singlehandedly changed baseball--and all of sports for that matter--forever. Arguably the most famous athlete who ever lived.

Most baseball fans are familiar with the Babe and his story. Most fans know that he started his career as a pitcher, but when it was discovered that he was a great hitter, he was converted into an outfielder. As good as he was as a pitcher (which was pretty good), we all know his exploits as a hitter.

Again, this is fairly common knowledge to baseball fans. Apparently, it's not common knowledge to Phillip B. Wilson of the Indianapolis Star.

2 Tribe position players await their chance to pitch

This isn't the worst story ever written, though there is a factual error in it (more on that later). However, in the sidebar "Hitters who hurl" included with the story comes this tidbit:

Blame it on Babe Ruth. Or Ty Cobb. Or Jimmie Foxx.

Since baseball began, hitters have thought they could pitch...

Babe Ruth is a "hitter who thought he could pitch?" Seriously?

The Babe started 129 games as a pitcher (winning 80) before becoming a full-time outfielder in 1919. It's interesting to note how incredible he was in 1919, as he started 111 games in the outfield and another 15 as a pitcher. His batting line was .322/.454/.657 (AVG/OBP/SLG) and he hit 29 home runs in 432 AB. His pitching line was 9-5, 2.97 ERA, 1.55 WHIP, 12 complete games. Not the greatest in the world for his era, but still pretty good considering. Perhaps his 1919 season was the best all-around season ever.

To say that Babe Ruth was "a hitter who thought he could pitch" is pretty ignorant. Ruth was a pitcher--a pitcher who hit so well, they converted him into an outfielder so he could play every day. That's a bit different than a guy who has never pitched in the majors coming in to throw one inning in order to save some work for his team's bullpen.

In Wilson's defense, he does mention that Ruth won almost all of his games before becoming a full-time outfielder. So the sidebar and the story contradict each other--what else is new for the Star? Can whoever is editing sports stories there read?

Now to the small factual error: Wilson says that Nick Swisher of the Yankees became the "latest" position player to pitch in a game. Although it is true that Swisher pitched for the Yankees on April 13, the most recent to do it in a game was Florida's Cody Ross, who did it Sunday, in a nationally televised game.

I get that Wilson probably wrote the article last week. But for fuck's sake, can anyone at the Indianapolis Star do any editing? It's not hard--if you don't actually follow any sports yourself (as seems to be the case at the Star), there is this little thing called THE FUCKING INTERNET that will allow you to check your facts in about 12 seconds or so.

As much as I want the Star to increase its baseball coverage, seeing stories like this makes me glad that it doesn't.

WFNI - Brainless Broadcasting

We all know that sports talk radio in general has its flaws. While there are diamonds in the rough on the radio dials, idiots that think they are experts proliferate the airwaves. In the past 24 hours I have heard a couple of whoppers that make me shake my head.

Last night on the Kravitz and Eddie Show on WFNI 1070AM, I heard this lovely tidbit from Eddie White:

"The only time you see sports on the front page is when there is bad news," regarding an article on the Indiana Pacers' statement they need help from the city to help pay the $15 million per year in facility costs of Conseco Fieldhouse.

Really, Eddie? They only put bad news on the front of the newspaper? What kind of fucktard are you?!?

I'm pretty sure that when the Colts won Super Bowl XL, that was on the front page of the Star. The front page of the Sunday edition of the Star after the Indiana Boys High School Basketball State Finals always has a story on the finals. The day after the Indianapolis 500 always has a picture of the winner on the front page.

It may seem that the front page only has bad news, but come on! Eddie, you've been hanging out with Bob to long and it is starting to rot what little brains you had left.

Then just a few minutes ago on the Tirico and Van Pelt Show again on WFNI, Mike Tirico dropped this shit-bomb of a comment on the Butler-Cleveland State game (paraphrasing):

"You know, I was watching the last two minutes of the game last night and I was thinking that Butler lost the game so that two teams would make the tournament and make more money for the conference."

Yes, Mike feels that Butler tanked on purpose since they are a lock to make the Big Dance and letting Cleveland State win give the Horizon League two teams in tournament and resulting in a large piece of the tournament revenue pie. While it is true that the Horizon League, Butler and Cleveland State will benefit financially since Cleveland State won, you have got to be fucking kidding me if you fucking think that Butler fucking threw in the towel so they could fucking get more fucking money out the deal!

You fucking fuckheaded fucktard!

Mike, I thought you sucked to begin with, but you have reached a new level of fucktardedness. You are not quite down to the level of Tony Kornheiser or Bud Selig, but you are close. The only reason I listen to you is because I hate the shows on the other two shows in your time slot more than yours (and shit like this that I can post here).

So basically WFNI and ESPN Radio are staffed by idiots, but then we already knew that didn't we.

They've Been Playing Great Games; Thanks For Finally Noticing

It's been nearly a month since we've done anything on our favorite sportswriter. And by favorite, I mean "shitty like a yak with diarrhea."

Of course you know who I'm talking about: Bob Kravitz!

Girls take center stage with great players, games

In the 34 years they've been holding an Indiana girls high school basketball championship, there's never been a year like this one. Shoot, there's never been a year like this one in Indiana boys high school basketball, either.

Technically, unless every score of every game is the same and every game contains the exact same teams as a previous year's tournament, every year is unique. So by definition, you could say "there's never been a year like this one" about ANY year.

And when it was done, an undefeated Ben Davis staked its claim for the unofficial national championship of high school girls' basketball.

Kravitz does say "unofficial," but let's be clear about this: there is no national championship in high school basketball! Yes, I know some publications do national rankings, but they are completely meaningless. How can you possibly equate teams and schools from 50 states? Do you really have enough knowledge and data to say that the #1 team in Texas is better or worse than the #1 team in Indiana?

Publications and websites do national polls for two reasons: to sell more papers/get more hits and to make more money. There is no credible way of forming a Top 25 national high school poll.

As for this article, we'll see later how Kravitz adds more hype (inaccurately, of course) to the national championship hype machine.

Early in the afternoon, there was Heritage Christian, ranked anywhere from eighth to 14th in national polls, winning its fourth consecutive 2A state title by edging Oak Hill 60-58 in overtime.

Claire Freeman, their guard, had her own Bobby Plump moment, hitting a tough, contested shot off the backboard for the game winner with three seconds remaining.

Maybe she'll open a restaurant someday, call it "Freeman's Last Shot.''

Or maybe not.

If it were possible for the sound of crickets to be imbedded in a newspaper, you'd have heard it here. The online version of this story should have had them added for effect.

Then, in the tournament's much-anticipated marquee game, there were the state's and the nation's Nos. 1 and 2 teams -- some rankings had it Ben Davis-South Bend Washington and others had it South Bend Washington-Ben Davis -- and a game that exceeded all expectations.

Actually, as you can see here in an article from Kravitz's own paper, only one national poll had Ben Davis #1 and South Bend Washington #2. The rest had both ranked high, but in no other poll were the two schools #1-#2. Nothing like over-hyping an already over-hyped fictional national championship idea!

This, too, ended with another Plump moment, this one involving Ben Davis sophomore guard Bria Goss. Her twisting, falling, leaning, praying shot in the lane slammed the glass, pounded the front rim and then fell softly through the net with 1.4 seconds remaining.

Does every last second shot have to be described by invoking the name Bobby Plump? I know that Milan's small-school 1954 state championship is the stuff of legend and of Gene Hackman movies, but isn't there something more recent that can be referenced? Isn't throwing Plump's name into every story concerning a late-game shot a bit cliche now? Never mind that it's often inaccurate--does everyone hold the ball for more than a minute, without moving, before taking the final shot?

The 4A title wasn't just a state title game; it was an unofficial national title game.

You've said this already, despite it still being a stupid notion. More to come on that.

Boys?

Who needs boys?

(That's what I tell my daughters, anyway).

Bad joke aside, why does Kravitz feel the need to compare the boys and girls tournaments? Why is it assumed that the boys games would automatically be more interesting? I would say that NONE of the girls tournaments have needed boys to make them interesting (besides the fact that if the boys were there, it wouldn't have been girls basketball).

But wait; it will get worse.

Clearly, this is a historical anomaly. It's rare enough to have one top high school team named among the nation's top 10 or 15. But three teams in the national rankings, including the top two?

That said, the epic rise of Indiana girls basketball is not some accident of history.

When I first read this, I took a bit of an exception to the idea that girls basketball wasn't great 10 years ago. If you watched Stephanie White play when she was in high school, you know what I mean. But I have to agree with Kravitz here--for as ridiculous as the national polls are for high school sports, I don't believe Indiana has ever had the accolades for girls basketball that it enjoys now.

The next couple of paragraphs Kravitz points out that the rise of year-round play over the past 10 years in girls basketball has made the overall level of talent greater. It is a completely valid point, and I agree completely.

However, Kravitz quotes Garry Donna, the long-time publisher of Hoosier Basketball. At first it seems harmless, as Donna agrees with Kravitz that year-around AAU play has helped girls basketball. But then:

"...Second, the coaching has gotten a lot better in the girls game. There's been a trend over the years and it's gotten to the point where around 80 percent of girls coaches are men. That's not a gender thing, but a lot of girls coaches are former boys coaches and they have more experience..."

Fuck the heck? If that's "not a gender thing," then what exactly is it?

Not only is Donna's statement blatantly sexist, it also exhibits faulty logic. Perhaps Donna is correct that "80% of girls coaches are men" (I've been unable to find numbers for Indiana), but is this a new trend, even if it is true?

As for male coaches who started out in boys basketball before becoming basketball coaches for girls teams, how would that give them more experience? The girls state basketball tournament has been around for 34 years. Isn't that enough time for female coaches who have only coached girls basketball to have enough experience? Is Donna actually suggesting that coaching the same number of boys basketball games imparts more experience than coaching girls games?

No one has ever mistaken Garry Donna for a classy guy. Several people who have covered high school sports have commented independently that Donna's interest in girls basketball over the years was driven more by a leering motivation than by genuine interest in girls basketball (it was widely noted by some that Donna had an unhealthy obsession with Indiana Miss Basketball Stephanie White while she was still in high school). Even if he has a newfound respect for girls basketball, to say that it's only better because there are more male coaches with "more experience" is idiotic.

Of course, Kravitz does nothing to disagree with Donna--in fact, Kravitz gives him nearly a quarter of the article in quotations.

This is a classic case of Kravitz declaring that girls basketball is now worth watching, because he's just discovered it and declared it so. I'm glad that Kravitz has finally come around to giving the girls' game a chance, and that it's as "worthy" of watching as the boys' game. Perhaps he should have done it sooner, so he wouldn't have missed the last 10 years of great girls basketball.

Mike Wells Wrote a Crappy Article, Bad Writing Blamed

In another year of the Indiana Pacers continuing struggle to win a game, let alone close games, I can understand that the Pacers' beat writer at the Indianapolis Star, Mike Wells, might have a difficult time coming up with new article titles to say how the Pacers lost. However, this one takes the cake.

Pacers lose to Spurs 99-81, lack of offense blamed

(NOTE - This is the headline for the article online last night. The headline was evidently changed overnight for the print edition and now reads, "Offense leaves Pacers." Someone must be reading this site!)

Lack of offense blamed? No shit, Sherlock! That is similar to saying the Pacers lost because they didn't score as much as their opponent. Or, Bob Kravitz is a hack. Or even, Tony Kornheiser is a fucktard. What a shocking revelation!!!!!

What little momentum the Indiana Pacers had going into their trip came to halt the past couple of nights.

The Pacers, who have a lot of ground to make up to make the playoffs, started the second half of the season the same way they finished the first half, with a loss.

The Pacers are the second-worst team in the Eastern Conference at 15-27. Amazingly, they are only 4 1/2 games out of the 8th playoff spot. I don't see 4 1/2 games are a lot of ground with 40 games remaining. Do you?

The San Antonio Spurs outplayed the Pacers in every facet in their 99-81 victory at the AT&T Center on Tuesday night.

So it was more than just lack of offense then, huh?

The 81 points were the Pacers' lowest total in more than two months. They've lost seven straight to the Spurs in San Antonio.

OK, so it was just shitty offense?

Couldn't you also blame the defense for letting their opponent score 99 points?

The Pacers had no answer for Tim Duncan and guard Manu Ginobili.

Duncan scored 27 points and grabbed 10 rebounds in just 27 minutes. Ginobili made the Pacers pay for slow defensive rotations by making all four of his 3-point attempts. He finished with 26 points on 8-of-10 shooting.

Yep!

I think Mike would have been better off to say, "poor offense blamed." The only real "lack of" in this article is good writing.

I know this is a Pacers article and a Pacers beat writer, but I am offended that Mike couldn't spare a sentence to mention that the Spurs' George Hill, formerly of Broad Ripple High School and IUPUI star, scored seven points in 22 minutes or even get a quote from the Indianapolis-native? Come on, Mike! I know you have a tougher job dealing with the losing Pacers than some of your colleagues who cover the Colts, but quit being a fucktard and do your job right.

One Turd Deserves Another

This is a painful post to write, as it's only a day after the Indianapolis Colts lost yet again in the first round of the playoffs (if you don't already know, this time the culprit was San Diego, beating the Colts 23-17 in overtime). Last night's loss was the third first round playoff exit for the Colts in four years, with the only exception being the Super Bowl title after the 2006 season. Most of us at Lom Henn.com are Colts fans. Obviously, it goes without saying that we are disappointed.

Perhaps worse than the playoff loss will be the incessant talk and fall-out that will come in the next few weeks (okay, not worse. Nothing could be worse than that turd of a game). And who has already started the talk, even while the Colts' playoff corpse is still warm? You guessed it--Bob Kravitz.

Colts are underachievers

Another 12-victory season . . . and nothing.

Another Peyton Manning MVP season . . . and nothing.

Another Tony Dungy playoff appearance, his record 10th straight . . . and nothing.

Another glorious chance to advance to a Super Bowl, their second in three years, with the New England Patriots out of the way and the AFC unfettered by the existence of a dominant team . . . and nothing.

Yeah, we get it--the Colts have nothing despite all of the things they accomplished this season. No Super Bowl. But let me let you in on a little secret, Bob--30 teams will also have "nothing" this season, since only two teams play in the Super Bowl.

I understand the Colts had greater expectations then other teams entering the season. But I don't agree with Kravitz that the only measuring stick of a successful season is reaching the Super Bowl.

Let's just say it how it is: The Colts are the ultimate paper tigers. And if you don't like the Atlanta Braves comparison -- multiple postseason appearances, one championship -- feel free to come up with your own.

As a fan of both the Atlanta Braves and of the Colts, I knew this comparison was coming, and I'm sure that Kravitz won't be the only one making it. But it still bothers me--for reasons I'll get to later. For now, though, let's see about this "Colts are the Braves of the NFL" thing:

The Colts have made the playoffs for 7 straight years--six division titles and one wild card berth. The Braves made the playoffs 14 straight years from 1991-2005 (there were no playoffs in 1994), winning 14 straight division titles. So right there, not quite the same thing.

The Colts have made it to the Super Bowl one time in that span, and won it. The Braves also have "only" one World Series championship during their run: 1995. That's probably the focus most people will take, including Kravitz.

But the Braves made it to the World Series both in 1991 and 1992, right at the beginning of their playoff run. They also made it back in 1996 and 1999, for a total of 5 World Series appearances and 1 title. Plus, the Braves lost in the National League Championship Series four times--in 1993, 1997, 1998, and 2001. That would be like the Colts making it to the AFC Championship Game six times in their seven-year playoff run, and going to three Super Bowls. So, if anything, the Colts don't measure up to that comparison.

But my point in analyzing the Colts/Braves comparison is not to verify its accuracy. My point is that it's a stupid comparison! For one, they're playing different sports with different playoff structures. There is no way to compare success in one sport vs. success in the other.

The other reason it's a stupid comparison is that again, it defines success as winning a championship, and nothing else. The Braves made 14 straight post-season appearances. I can think of plenty of baseball clubs who would kill for that level of success (for example, this team, this one, and this one, too). The same goes for the Colts--do you think the Oakland Raiders would take seven straight playoff appearances and "only" one Super Bowl win? How about the Cincinnati Bengals? Or the Detroit Lions? Perhaps we should look at a relatively long streak of getting to the playoffs as a meaningful accomplishment, instead of just having the only measure of success be a league championship.

In fairness, I know that Kravitz isn't the only one guilty of this line of thinking. But he is guilty of it, nonetheless.

But how can a franchise be so routinely dominant year after year, and yet be found so routinely lacking when the brightest lights are shining?

Who knows? Could it be that Peyton Manning really is worse in the playoffs? That he chokes? That he gets too nervous? That he catches a case of happy feet? Maybe--he seems to not play as well in the playoffs.

But I think the better answer to Kravitz's question as to why the Colts can be "dominant year after year" and still lose in the playoffs is that in the playoffs, the best team doesn't always win.

You think the best team always wins in the playoffs? The last #1 seed to win the Super Bowl was New England after the 2003 season. In the four years since, there have been two wild cards (Pittsburgh and the New York Giants), a #3 seed (the Colts) and a #2 seed (New England again). The last #1 seed prior to 2003 New England to win the Super Bowl was St. Louis in 1999. So in the past nine years, a #1 seed has won the Super Bowl twice.

Clearly, the best regular season teams don't always win championships. Why? Because the playoffs are the ultimate small-sample size test: one game. You've heard the cliche: on any given Sunday, any team can win. Even in the playoffs, anything can happen: A 10-6 team can beat a 16-0 juggernaut; The #6 seed who had to win its last 3 games to even get in the playoffs can beat the best team from the other conference; Even a quarterback from an upstart league can guarantee a Super Bowl victory and have his team follow through. None of these things was predicted, yet they happened.

Last year's Super Bowl was a classic, and a great win for the Giants over the Patriots. But does that mean the Giants were a better team than the Patriots last year? The Patriots were six games better than the Giants in the 2007 regular season, and even beat the Giants in the final game. So the Patriots had already proven they were better than the Giants, both head-to-head and over the long haul. Yet, when they met in the Super Bowl, for whatever reason, the Giants were better that day.

I think it's pretty clear that the regular season means nothing when it comes to the playoffs. Of course, a team has to do well enough in the regular season to qualify for the playoffs, but otherwise, the regular season means nothing.

Back to the Colts. Yes, the Colts have seven straight playoff appearances and six straight 12-win seasons. And that guarantees absolutely nothing in the playoffs--case in point, the Colts' loss to an 8-8 team last night. Does it mean the Chargers are a better team than the Colts? Absolutely not--the 16-game regular season proved that.

However, that's not to say that I think the Colts deserved to beat San Diego Saturday night. The Chargers were clearly the better team in that game. They deserved to win.

Saturday night's 23-17 overtime loss to the short-handed San Diego Chargers was all too typical of the Colts' recent postseason history.

It happens year after year after frustrating and infuriating year. And it's always something. The weather in New England. The officiating in New England. The long layoff before Pittsburgh. The Dwight Freeney injury against San Diego.

It's always something.

Or, it's just a case of another team playing better that day.

(By the way, one legitimate factor in the Colts' playoff loss to Pittsburgh in 2005 was the suicide of Tony Dungy's son. I think Dungy and the team handled it as well as could be expected, but that had to be a distraction then. Interestingly, Kravitz omitted that.)

And yet teams like last year's Giants march on despite losing Jeremy Shockey, or the Chargers win this game without their top running back.

Fuck the heck? Is Kravitz comparing the Colts losing Dwight Freeney to an injury last year to the Giants losing Jeremy Shockey? Are you kidding me? Dwight Freeney, one of the best pass rushers in the game? That Dwight Freeney? Losing Jeremy Shockey is supposed to have the same impact? Shockey can play well at times, but he is, by almost all accounts, completely overrated as a tight end. Losing Freeney last year was a significant loss for the Colts, and it showed in the playoff loss to San Diego, as the Colts had absolutely no pass rush.

The fact that Kravitz compares the two injuries as if they have remotely the same impact is laughable.

If it happens once, it's an anomaly. But this happens time and time again. It's a trend, and it's something Jim Irsay and Bill Polian have got to address.

The only way to address this is by having the team play better. There is no magical formula or potion that can make it happen. I mean, how does one work on being better in the playoffs? What else can you do besides play better?

The nagging problem this year was that running game, the one Polian kept insisting was just fine, despite ample statistical evidence to the contrary.

It wasn't fine.

It was never fine.

Gotta give it to Kravitz here: he's right. The running game sucked all year. Can't argue with that.

However, this illustrates my biggest problem with this article, and with Kravitz. Where is the analysis of last night's game? There were plenty of things to examine about from the loss, including the fact that the Colts inability to run the ball almost directly cost them the game. Two series stand out: the first drive of the second half, when the Colts failed to convert on 4th down, and the 3rd and 2 play late in the game, when it was obvious the Colts believed so little in their ability to run the ball they tried a pass play that resulted in a sack.

Of course, nothing from Kravitz, because he a) can't do meaningful analysis and b) wants to be the first to declare the season a failure. Why couldn't this article wait until Monday morning's paper?

These were not just the 8-8 San Diego Chargers. These were the 8-8 Chargers without a reasonable facsimile of LaDainian Tomlinson, who didn't even play in the second half because of a serious groin injury. These were the 8-8 Chargers with Antonio Gates struggling with a high ankle sprain. And yet, there was Gates, maybe the toughest guy on the field, riding Antoine Bethea downfield for a monster first down on San Diego's game-winning drive in overtime.

Honestly, I wish Tomlinson had been healthy enough to play, because as good as he is, I think he was a better match up for the Colts than Darren Sproles. So I'm not sure that was as big of a setback for the Chargers as Kravitz does. And is it possible that the Antonio Gates ankle injury may have been a bit overstated? I'm not saying Gates didn't play with pain, but sometimes these reports get a little exaggerated. Gates certainly didn't look like he was hurting all that much, but that may just be a testament to the Chargers training staff and to Gates' toughness.

And the Chargers' 8-8 record may be a bit misleading. The Chargers were a last-second pass (vs. Carolina) and an Ed Hochuli blown call (could that be talked about any more than it has been, by the way?) away from being 10-6. This is not a typical 8-8 team.

Last year, the Chargers beat the Colts with backup quarterback Billy Volek, or as we came to call him, Billy Freaking Volek. This year, the Chargers beat the Colts with Mike Scifres, a punter, and a magical elf named Darren Sproles, who merely filled in for Tomlinson and produced 328 all-purpose yards.

No, it's Billy Fucking Volek. Don't refer to it if you're not going to do it correctly.

Kravitz acts like Sproles is someone the Chargers signed off the practice squad the day before the game, as opposed to the very capable backup that he is. As I mentioned earlier, Sproles was a match up problem for the Colts. But the 328 all-purpose yards stat is a bit misleading. Not to take away from what Sproles did, but even if LT had been completely healthy, Sproles still would have had 176 all-purpose yards, since he returned all of the punts and kickoffs.

And, oh yes, there was the San Diego defense, which held the Colts' underperforming offense in check, as is often the case in the playoffs. For all of Manning's greatness, for all the weapons the Colts have on that side of the football, the fact is, Manning is sub-.500 in the playoffs, along with his head coach. The running game was a cipher.

Kravitz is right about the offense. I don't think anyone would make the case that Manning & Co. played well. And yes, this has been a recurring theme for the Colts--the offense has rarely played a great game in the playoffs.

Marvin Harrison was invisible, as he usually is during the playoffs. Still think Harrison is coming back next season?

For fuck's sake, is now really the time for this speculation? Can it wait a few weeks, or at least a day or two? Marvin very well may not be back due to his salary cap impact, but can't this discussion wait?

And Marvin wasn't the only "invisible" receiver the Colts had Saturday night. Marvin had 3 catches for 20 yards--obviously not a great night (he did draw a pass interference call in the first half on a deep throw). Reggie Wayne only had 4 catches, though his totaled 129 yards. However, if you take away the 72-yard touchdown catch (which came when San Diego's defense wasn't ready), Reggie had 3 catches for 57 yards. Again, not a lot of production. Also, Kravitz-favorite Anthony Gonzalez had 6 catches, but none in the second half. Why doesn't Kravitz mention how Gonzalez was invisible after halftime?

Predictably, the Colts defense will get pounded this morning and for the rest of the week, and those three defensive penalties on the game-winning drive don't speak well of their discipline down the stretch, but they did force two San Diego turnovers in the end zone on potential game-tying or go-ahead drives.

They played well enough to win.

I agree. That's been the story here in Indy for awhile now--someone else usually gets blamed after a playoff loss despite the shortcomings of the offense. Message to Kravitz: you do know that the paper for which you work helps perpetuate that trend, right?

Bottom line is, when the Colts needed a third-and-short conversion, they couldn't get it. You can't win in the playoffs if you can't run the football.

It's pretty elemental stuff. The Colts couldn't run it. Couldn't run it all season, couldn't run it all night, couldn't run it when one conversion on third-and-2 with 2:30 left in regulation and San Diego out of timeouts could have put this game away.

See above on Kravitz's inability to provide meaningful analysis.

One and done.

Or, should we say, one and Dungy.

Yes, it's clearly all his fault. Not the players' fault at all.

If (when) Tony Dungy decides to retire sometime next week, will there be a great hue and cry for him to come back and give it another shot? As much as this town loves and reveres him and appreciates him for everything he's done on and off the field, isn't it time for a new face, a new voice, something different?

I don't know--maybe? I really don't know how coaching style plays into this. I suppose that you could make the case that Dungy's even-keeled style is better suited for the "long haul" (i.e. regular season) and less suited for the challenges and intensity of the playoffs. But I don't know--the Colts have won a Super Bowl under Dungy, right?

Again I ask, is the article that's supposed to reflect on the game that was just played the best time to ask these questions?

At this point, it's going to be tough selling fans on Jim Caldwell who, at least from a distance, promises to bring more of the same.

Ditto.

Overtime?

Where the fuck did that come from? Now all of a sudden Kravitz is talking about the game?

Of course it went overtime.

Because they're the Colts and the Chargers. Because they don't know how to play football games that don't end on the final drive, the final play, the final gasp. Because they've developed as good of a rivalry as you will ever see between two teams who aren't in the same division.

More meaningless, nothing analysis. Why didn't the last 3 Colts/Chargers games go to overtime then?

It took more than 60 minutes to decide, but the deserving team won.

True, sadly.

There's no nice way of saying what has to be said:

Paper tigers.

Folding again.

There's no nice way of saying what has to be said:

You suck.

At writing.

Using Stats To Confirm What We Already Know

Sorry for the lack of posts lately--it's been a very busy time here for everyone at LomHenn.com. Of course you already know about the birth of Hildegard Bembledack, which has kept Zinglebert busy. I've taken an extra part-time job at a kanuter valve plant in Oolitic, Indiana. Kringlebert has had an extra project thrown on him at work that involves replacing dirty-bomb components with used pinball machine parts. Oswald is doing only God-knows what. And as Lom Henn is a millionaire playboy author/celebrity gynecologist, he is jet-setting and isn't around to post very often.

But enough excuses...now on with the countdown!

Colts stats worst in Dungy era
Stats reveal why Colts have stumbled to 3-3 start this season

As you probably know, the Indianapolis Colts are 3-3. Of course, no one can just say that right now--what they say is that the Colts are 3-3, but could easily be 1-5. This due to the 4th quarter combacks against Minnesota and Houston.

They could also be 6-0, if they tackled better and had scored more points in the games they lost. But I digress.

Mike Chappel's article doesn't really have any big problems in it. Even though the headline indicates the article will talk about statistics, there aren't many included. The article focuses more on the fact that this is the worst start for the Colts since Tony Dungy arrived and that the upcoming Monday night game against Tennessee is a "must-win."

Here is the graphic that ran with this story in the newspaper. Basically, it shows that the Colts are 3-3, which is their worst record after 6 games in the Dungy era. As a reasonable person might expect, each of the statistical columns included on the graph show this year's Colts are not very good compared to Colts' teams of the last few seasons. However, this year's team is not the worst in every category.

So what does this story tell us that we didn't already know? The Colts are 3-3. Going backwards, the Colts were 6-0, 6-0, 6-0, 4-2, 5-1, and 4-2. Do we need a statistical analysis to show that this year's team is worse than the others? Basically, the Colts aren't scoring as much as in the past and they are allowing more points than they did in previous years. But their stats are pretty typical for a 3-3 team.

This article is merely another attempt to answer the question a lot of people have been asking thus far: what's wrong with the Colts? The simple answer is just that they haven't been playing very well. And the best stat that indicates this is the only stat that matters: 3-3.

Quick Hits

Once again it seems the entire group is either on vacation or too swamped to keep the entries going. So while I have a few minutes, I thought I could at least throw out some comments on various topics or articles.

U.S. Open/PGA

Personally, I like the 18-hole playoff format the U.S. Open uses even before the climactic outcome of this year’s tournament. It is unique to that major and adds to its mystique. It was obviously a boon for the PGA to have Tiger Woods in the playoff this year. I wonder how people would have felt if the playoff had been between Rocco Mediate and Lee Westwood?

Also, according to this article, Rocco Mediate is the David Eckstein of the golf world.

NBA

Congratulations to the Celtics! The NBA still puts a horrible show on the court and until the league understands that, they will continue to fall further behind the NFL and MLB. At this rate the NHL may be closing the gap.

Next year’s Oscar nominees should include Paul Pierce for his extraordinary acting performance when he “injured” his knee in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. I haven’t seen acting in sports like that since Reggie Miller retired.

Instant Replay

I had intended to do an in-depth blog on instant replay and some of the sorry excuses some writers against replay were giving. However, time just has not been on my side as of late. Hopefully I will be able to get to it before they actually implement it.

Indianapolis Indians Coverage

I know that the Indians are only a AAA minor league team in the International League and there are five MLB teams within a five-hour drive (Cards, Cubs, White Sox, Tigers and Reds), but I have been ashamed of the coverage the Indians get in the Indianapolis Star for a long time now. The Star typically gives the Indians only two or three paragraphs and the box score. The Indians give a 16-page press release on game days and the Star can only give them a couple of paragraphs?

There is a shit-load of material the Star ignores. You almost never see information such as hitting streaks, call ups or send downs, hot streaks, cold streaks, how Indians alumni are doing for the parent Pirates, or hot prospects on the move in the organization. Looking at the Pittsburgh Gazette, it gives a daily update of all of the teams in the Pirates organization.

I guess a newspaper that employs a columnist like Bob Kravitz doesn’t really care all that much about sports unless it is a big-time professional sport, or deals with IU, Purdue, Notre Dame football or high school basketball.

Ken Griffey, Jr.

Why does Mr. Nice Guy Ken Griffey, Jr. seemingly get a free pass on the steroid front while Mr. Locker Room Cancer Barry Bonds is still steroids poster child for “allegedly” taking steroids?

And lastly…

Vegas

Remember…what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!