Is It Too Soon to Panic? YES!!!!!!!

Wooooohooooooo, it's baseball season! Mrs. Bembledack still wonders why they play 162 games every season, but personally, I love them all. Unlike the NFL where you have a 16 game season, MLB grinds out 162 games in roughly 6 months. Every team is going to have good and bad stretches during a season. The better teams just have more good ones than bad. So why am I getting an AP headline like this one?!?

Panic time for champs? Phillies drop to 0-2

Panic time?!!!!!!!? After two fucking games?!!!!!!!? With 160 games yet to play?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

Two games in, these Philadelphia Phillies are playing like last year’s team.

Oh, you mean the team that won the World Series last year? Fuck the heck?

Jair Jurrjens and four relievers combined on a six-hitter, Kelly Johnson and Chipper Jones hit solo homers and the Atlanta Braves beat the defending World Series champions 4-0 on Tuesday night.

The Phillies are off to an 0-2 start for the fourth straight year. They’ll receive their 2008 championship rings Wednesday before trying to avoid a three-game sweep.

Alright, so they are off to an 0-2 start. So are you saying that every team should panic when they have a two-game losing streak? And you are saying this is the fourth straight year they have started 0-2? Well, let's look at how they finished the previous three years, shall we?

2008 - Finished 92-70, 1st place NL East and won the World Series. Bravo, good for you.
2007 - Finished 89-73, 1st place NL East, lost in Divisional Series to Colorado 3 games to none.
2006 - Finished 85-77, 2nd place NL East, 3 games out of the Wild Card spot.

Did those teams panic after starting 0-2 in those three seasons? I'm thinking no.

“You always want to get off to a good start, but you can’t repeat until you play 162 games,” losing pitcher Jamie Moyer said.

At least someone seems to have a brain in this article. The author certainly does not.

Jurrjens (1-0) beat a guy twice his age. The 23-year-old right-hander gave up four hits and walked three in 5 2-3 impressive innings.

Is Moyer's or Jurrjens' age really relevant here? Well, maybe. I know it is early and the season and most games north of the Mason-Dixon line are near or below freezing at this point, but it is only one game. Moyer is 46 and probably not thrilled with the cold temperatures right now (that is another story for later).

Jeff Bennett gave up a single to the only batter he faced before Eric O’Flaherty got the next four outs. Rafael Soriano pitched the eighth and Mike Gonzalez finished.

“We had excellent pitching,” Braves manager Bobby Cox said. “J.J. was really good. When he got in trouble, he pitched out of it.”

Moyer (0-1) allowed four runs and eight hits in five innings. The 46-year-old lefty led the Phillies with 16 wins and had a 3.71 ERA last season, earning a $13 million, two-year contract despite his age.

Any team giving a contract to a 40+ year old player is knowingly taking a risk. You are just as likely to have a 6-18 year with a 5.00+ ERA than a 16-win, 3.71 ERA season. I'm more concerned with the lack of offense than a mediocre night by Moyer.

The rest of story details the game. But here is why I don't care for early baseball.

It was 45 degrees when the game started, so fans were bundled in heavy coats, hats, gloves and scarves. Some didn’t show up, even though the game was sold out.
An 0-2 start is definitely nothing to warrant hitting the panic button. The Phillies lost at least two games in a row 19 times last season, including a six game losing streak in June, and still won their division. If you are 5-17 on May 1st, then you might need to look into researching a new team paradigm. The Phillies were 15-13 at the end of April last year and then took off. Two games does not a season make.

--EDIT--

I was reading the sports section of Tuesday's USA Today and noticed the information they had on last night's game. Jamie Moyer was only 3-8 (now 3-9) against the Braves including going 0-0 in 11 IP with a 6.88 ERA last season. So maybe he mojo just doesn't work well against the Braves. Period.

Also, the Phillies got their offense working and came back from seven runs down to beat the Braves 12-11. So I guess there really is no need to panic.

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.

Are We Experts? No, But We Play Them on TV

Watching the NFL Network on Saturday night after the Cardinals had just beaten the Panthers. Within 30 seconds there were two sad errors that I saw and now we know why the NFL Network is still a fledgling network not ready to take on the Big Three or ESPN.

The NFL GameDay Final show was hosted by Rich Eisen, Deion Sanders and Steve Mariucci. The three of them were discussing the possibility that the Chargers could actually host the NFL Championship game against the Ravens if they beat the Steelers on Sunday. Deion, doing his Donovan McNabb "I don't know the NFL overtime rules impersonation, blurts out, "how can San Diego host the game? I don't think they can, can they?" Rich and Steve then had to explain (slowly) that Whales Vagina won the AFC West and was the #4 seed as the worst AFC division winner while Baltimore was a wild card and #6 seed. Since the #4 seed is higher than the #6 seed, the #4 seed (Whales Vagina) would host the game.

Deion still looked perplexed about the whole issue. Yes, Baltimore at 11-5 had a much better record than the 8-8 Chargers, but the Chargers won their division and gets the higher seed. I'm still not sure what I think of the fact that a just because a team won their division with a .500 record automatically awards them a higher seed than 12-4 and 11-5 teams. But that is for another day.

While this is occurring, on the right side of the screen where they are showing game stats of Saturday's games and preview stats for Sunday's games. Not 30 seconds after I hear Deion waxing poetic that he is a moron, I see the following regarding the last meeting between Philadelphia and New York Giants:

Last Meeting: Dec 7, 2008
Philadelphia 20
Eagles 14

Fuck the heck? So Philadelphia played the Eagles, huh? So is that group masturbation if they are playing themselves?

Sadly, these three are better to watch than ESPN's Berman, Saunders and Jackson. I still have a hard time watch them though.

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.

How Does This Happen?

Here is a screen grab from Thursday night's Orange Bowl telecast on Fox. This comes from early in the game, during introductions of the University of Cincinnati's starting offense:


Notice the picture of Khalil El-Amin on the bottom-right (RT #79). Does he look familiar? If you follow college football, he might--or at least the picture does, since it's really a picture of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow!


And here is what Khalil El-Amin really looks like:

Fuck the heck??? I can see how a producer, graphics operator, or production assistant would get the two of them confused: Tim Tebow plays QB for the #2 team in college football and won the Heisman Trophy last year; Khalil El-Amin plays offensive tackle for the Cincinnati Bearcats. And they look a lot alike, too!

There aren't really a lot of good explanations for this one, other than some fucktard did it on purpose. I mean, if you're Fox, would you want to admit that your crew is that bad at game preparation and proofreading?

Of course, by now it's probably common knowledge, so admitting it would just be redundant.

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

An old article from our good friend, Murray Chass (and by good friend, I mean douchebag):

Rays Feeling A Red Sox Rush

By Murray Chass

I love that on a blog entitled "Murray Chass On Baseball," Murray feels it necessary to add a byline to his posts, even though he's the only one who writes for his OWN blog.

By now, you should realize that the Red Sox are going to win the American League East title and finish in first place for a second successive season for the first time since 1916.

Yes, of course--I'm sure you're right.

Or not.

Let me be fair. The main point of this post is not to point out a prediction that Chass got wrong in an article written two weeks ago (though that is fun). There is some other garbage in the article, too. We'll get to that. I am, however, going to make fun of his prediction a little more.

The Tampa Bay Rays have waged a scrappy, valiant fight for first, occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game. It would be nice to have them rewarded for a surprising, stupendous season, but even after beating the Red Sox twice this week they seem to be ready to have Boston overtake them.

For fuck's sake--what a shitty sentence. "...occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game." It's like a five year-old trying to make an argument: "...mom said I could go outside and get some ice cream and climb on a ladder and go over to Harold's house and look at his dad's dirty magazines and watch reruns of Bosom Buddies and then come home and have a cookie."

Okay, maybe it's an argument for someone a little older than five. Maybe six.

And what the fuck does "they seem ready to have Boston overtake them" mean? At the time, the Rays were holding their own against the Red Sox. Perhaps this is what Chass imagined:

Rays clubhouse after a game. Manager Joe Maddon has called his team in for a meeting.

Maddon: "Guys, we've done a great job all year. Our pitching's been great, we've had enough hitting to win games, the younger players have done very well. Now I think we're ready to take that next step--to have Boston overtake us in the standings. We've been waiting for just the right moment, and since we've been in first place since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when we've played a game, I think now is the time. We're ready."

B.J. Upton: "But coach, shouldn't we keep trying to win?"

Maddon: "No, we're ready to have Boston overtake us. That means we have to start losing."

Carlos Pena: "We just beat Boston. We're still in first. We can actually win the division!"

Maddon: "You guys don't get it. We're not just playing for us; we're playing for Murray Chass. And he says we're ready to have Boston overtake us. He's right--we weren't ready in August when we had the big lead. NOW we're ready. So stop winning."

(Maddon leaves room, goes to his office to look at dirty magazines).

By now, you should also realize that the Yankees aren’t going to make the playoffs for the first time since 1993, their 13-year American League record run going down in flames. Unlike the Red Sox, the Yankees haven’t stayed close enough to the Rays to overtake them for the wild card.

No, because the Yankees would have had to overtake the Red Sox for the wild card, not the Rays. The Rays were ahead of the Red Sox at the time.

Chass got it right about the Yankees, but even Anne Frank could see that by the time this article was written.

As the Red Sox and the Yankees have shown, a team can make up a 5½-game deficit in the last month of the season (see 1978).

Fuck the heck? Are you kidding me? We need to go all the way back to 1978 to see an example of a team making up a 5 1/2-game deficit in the final month??? Just because it was the Yankees overtaking the Red Sox? Is that the only fucking time this has happened? Gosh, I can't think of any other time--oh, wait--last goddamn year it happened twice: the Phillies erased a 7-game deficit to overtake the Mets in the final 17 days, while the Rockies won something like 1463 games in a row at the end of the season to make the playoffs (note: I may be exaggerating the number of games the Rockies won in a row, but I'm sure I'm within 1450 of the actual number).

Again, do we really have to go back 30 years for the best example? How about 1987, when the Blue Jays lost seven in a row in the final week to lose the division to the Tigers? How about 1995, when the Angels blew a 9 game division lead and an 11 game lead in the wild card over the final five weeks of the season?

Why does Chass use 1978? Because it involved the Red Sox and Yankees, so therefore it was more meaningful than the other collapses. Presumably, every one cares about the AL East and the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry more than anything else regarding baseball.

I'm using Chass as the example, but he's hardly alone here. Most of the national media ram the Boston/New York thing down our throats all season. When the Red Sox and Yankees play, forget seeing anybody else on Sunday Night Baseball--in fact, the first series they play in a season, ESPN usually shows two out of three games, with the Saturday game being the national game on FOX (assuming it's a weekend series).

This was never more evident than last Sunday night's Yankee Stadium Lovefest on ESPN. Despite neither team being in playoff contention, ESPN chose to air the final game at Yankee Stadium (Yanks/Orioles) rather than a game with playoff implications. Obviously, the network chose to do this because it was the last regular season game at the Stadium. I suppose that makes sense. However, ESPN went way over the top with it. It's true--because of all the championships and the legendary players (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio), Yankee Stadium does have the richest history of any ballpark. It's closing is a huge story. But on a night after a full day of NFL games and some good pennant-race baseball matchups, the lead on SportsCenter was the closing of Yankee Stadium! This, right after the game had aired for 4 hours on the channel! As much as I appreciate baseball history (which is quite a bit), this was unwarranted given the other sports news that happened Sunday.

I get that the Yankees and Red Sox get higher ratings on ESPN, so we'll see them more often. I understand the business of it and the myopic view TV programmers get when making decisions. The one thing that ESPN programmers don't factor in to their decisions is that some of the higher rating for the Red Sox/Yankees is inflated because that's all ESPN ever shows. If ESPN would do a better job of exposing some of the other teams in baseball on a regular basis, that would help fans in other areas of the country get to know those teams. Of course, that doesn't mean that ESPN should show a game between two last place teams just to get them on the air. But a Tampa Bay/Minnesota matchup would have been very appropriate this year, given that they were both at or near the top of their respective divisions all year. However, ESPN is on the east coast, and they want the short term ratings boost. So no small-market teams, and more Yankees/Red Sox.

The rest of the Chass article (yes, I was critiquing an article, remember?) is just a poorly-written look at why Boston would end up in first place. For an article that mentions the Rays in the headline, he hardly talks about them at all. But he does go on to write more about the Yankees, even though the headline seems to indicate the article isn't about them.

It seems that Chass, like many others who cover baseball, just can't see past the Red Sox and Yankees--even when the story of the year is standing right in front him.

This Really Happened

Fuck the heck?



This was on the website today at approximately 4pm (it has since been changed).

You think the headline may be a bit in appropriate for the Olympics in Beijing...CHINA??

Fucktards.

Boo-yah!

Our continuing saga of bad writing on bad sports writing bring us to Lee Russakoff and his blog article on how booing is bad for sports.

I Thought I Was Your Boo

OK, I’m from Philadelphia so this is a bit (completely) sacrilegious, but I’m going to say it anyway: We fans need to stop booing our own players.

But it is evidently OK to boo the opposing players.

Before you jump all over the comments section with “I pay my hard-earned money to go and do whatever I want” messages, hear me out.

You can boo whomever you want, you have that right. I am not trying to deny you that. Here’s the problem, though: booing your team is not only counterproductive to winning but it also is likely driving a wedge between home fans and players.

I'm sure when a professional athlete hears the fans boo, he is thinking, "even though I just dropped a pass for the fifth time this game, screw those assholes for booing me. I'm leaving this hellhole as soon as my contract is done."

Take Carlos Delgado.

Interesting choice. Mr. Delgado turns 36 this year and currently has a hip injury that is affecting his numbers this year. While 36 is not ancient for a ballplayer, it generally is around the time many players start experiencing a downturn in their numbers. Why not pick on Eric Gagne or Jason Isringhausen? Oh, that's right. They don't play for a New York team. At least he's not picking on A-Rod.

Carlos came to New York with a lot of fanfare but has never been the “Del-Gooooot-It” guy he was expected to be with the Mets. And Mets fans let him hear about it with the old Queens cheer.

Carlos is currently batting .216/.308/.362 for '08. Definitely not great numbers and probably worthy of a few boos, especially in New York. After hitting .265/.361/.548 with 38 HRs in 2006 and .258/.333/.448 with 24 HRs in 2007 for the Mets, this is a bad start for him. However, he started 2007 with a BA below .200 for April and was able to turn in a respectable average for the year.

The result: Delgado continues to struggle.

Delgado continues to struggle - with a hip injury. Not because he gets booed because he is injured. Have you ever tried to hit a baseball with a hip injury? Well neither have I. Yet, it can't be the most pleasurable task to do day in and day out and will cause you to adjust you swing/stance/mindset/etc.

On the rare occasions he makes contact with the ball, he has a combative relationship with the fans—to the point where he refused to take a curtain call at Shea last week after belting two home runs in one game.

What a fuckhead! I'm sure the fact that he hit his second home run meant his slump was over and his stats would start heading into Ruthian territory. A struggling, injured veteran that refused to come back out and take a bow for the fans. How dare that piece of shit player. Trade him to the Blue Jays for David Eckstein. Now there's a player with grit that will inspire the fans and other players. He would come out a take a bow even if he was in a full body cast.

How is that good for anyone?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe he felt like his hip was going to explode and he wanted to rest it before going back out into the field. Maybe he hates New York as he was traded to the Mets and did not sign there as a free agent. Maybe he just wants to win and doesn't care what the fans, or you, think.

I get why you boo. It’s frustrating to watch Carlos pop out for three straight years, or to see Rex Grossman get pwned over and over again, or to sit through Andre Iguodala’s 5-for-765 from the field against the Pistons.

Or Ben Utecht fumble for umpteenth time or Pacers players and their semi-annual strip club/gun-totting/drug-busting headlines or I could go on and on, but you get the point. And for the love of God, how can a fucking sports journalist not use the fucking spellcheck that comes in everything! I may write like shit, but by golly my shit will be spellchecked.

Booing is a cathartic exercise and a guttural reaction. We expected a hit/first down/dunk and got a strike out/loss of 13 yards/turnover instead. We’re disappointed. So we boo.

Most fans do not boo the occasional miss/strike out/double-play/loss of yardage/turnover. We may groan or shout about the unpleasantness of the outcome, but we generally do not automatically boo a bad play. (Although, Philadelphia fans are in a league of their own.) I do not sit in the stands and judge very play by cheering or booing the outcome. You string together a long series of crappy play, then the boos may be justified.

I won't boo Albert Pujols if he goes 0-6 in a game with 6 K's. I may ask what the fuck was he thinking, but no boos would escape me. Now I would probably boo him if he has 6 K's while he swings at 18 straight balls that are a foot outside the plate. What Mr. Russakoff fails to understand at this point is there typically is a level of bad play required to start generating the boo birds. Peyton Manning throwing a pass right at the opposing player does not illicit a dome full of boos. Now if Peyton Manning turns into Ryan Leaf next year, we have reached a level of bad that will start fans booing.

But as sports fans, can’t we rise above those visceral emotions? Can’t we say to ourselves: Wait, if I boo Donovan McNabb for that shorthop pass, it isn’t going to help him concentrate more on the next pass, it’s just going to make him less likely to show the city any love once he becomes a free agent or celebrates a championship (as if championships happen in Philadelphia).

Most players, in my opinion, would obviously prefer to hear fans cheering and praising their skills versus boos and jeers. I agree to a certain extent that booing could be a bit more counter-productive for a players ego to turn his game around. However, I also believe that a professional player has enough resolve to ignore the boos and jeers and right his ship.

I know I’m asking a lot. I know asking sports fans to stop and think is like asking Skip Bayless to stop and think. Throw beer into the mix, and the plea is almost hopeless.

Almost.

Are you almost done yet?!?

We’re all in this together. When we go to our stadiums, our interests are more aligned than at any other time outside a national tragedy. There are no Democrats and Republicans. No blacks, whites, Asians, or Hispanics. No Scarlett Johanssonites and Megan Foxofiles. We are all one. That is something special. That collective will, if harnessed, can make a difference.

True, sports are one area where fans of a team can get together regardless of political alignment, race, religion, or porn preference and cheer for their team. We high-five, slap, hug and jump as one big, happy family. Unless the fucker next to you is cheering for the other team. Then all bets are off.

And what the heck do Scarlett Johansson and Megan Fox have to do with this topic?

We can boo the other team. And we can boo our manager for making idiotic decisions. We can even boo our players if they make mental mistakes or show a lack of hustle/toughness.

NOW WAIT JUST A DING-DONG MINUTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fuck the heck?!? (My apologies to Fire Joe Morgan for borrowing this phrase, but it is just the perfect phrase sometimes.) Lee...first you are telling us we should not boo are own team as it is bad for the team and bad for the players' morale. Now it is OK to boo them for certain transgressions? Let's hear the rest before we finish judging Mr. Russakoff.

But let’s stop booing our players for failing athletically…not because it’s immoral or it hurts the players’ feelings, but because it only gets us farther from our goal.
All any fan really wants is to be celebrating a championship with his/her players in the streets. Booing our own team makes that less likely. And if it ever happens, less honest.

But Lee, how can you draw the line between a mental mistake/lack of hustle and failing athletically, really? My dead grandmother may move better in the pocket than David Carr, but what is the call when he gets sacked for the 12th time in a game? Did he not hustle? Was he expecting his receiver to be open and waited to long for the play to develop? Is he just a shitty quarterback? If so, is he shitty because he is mentally weak or because he is athletically-challenged? Personally, I think he is just shitty and I would feel justified for booing him after his 12th sack. I probably would have started booing around number 5 or 6.

So Lee, go back to your mother's basement like the rest of us bloggers and stop worrying about fans booing the players and focus your bad writing on something else.

Oh by the way, regarding your article, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!