Please, Stop the Madness

I wish I hadn't seen this.

Bill Plaschke, on ESPN's SportsCenter, explaining why Manny Ramirez will help the Dodgers:

"...he's been to 2 World Serieses..."

Plaschke thinks the plural of "series" is "serieses."

...

...

And he writes for the Los Angeles Times.

...

...

And people wonder why we do this blog.

Writers Believe In Curses, Not Bad Managing

Yes, this is a week old. But it has relevance into the second half of the baseball season, especially with this being the "Cubs' year."

Hurray for Harden, misery for Marmol

For those of you not playing along, Mike Nadel's article refers to the Cubs' 8-7 victory over the Giants in 11 innings last Saturday.

Rich Harden's pitch count was monitored closely, lest he get an owwie on his arm. A boo-boo on his finger made Kerry Wood unavailable.

I love it when sportswriters or fans trivialize injuries--or the possibility of injury--like the players are all a bunch of wusses. Yes, Rich Harden has been injured quite a bit in the past 3 years, and he's only had one season with 20 starts or greater. But throwing a curveball is notoriously hard on a pitcher's arm--which is why so many pitchers get injured.

I'm digressing a bit. What I meant to write is that Nadel's opening two lines are going to make my point for me.

And the Chicago Cubs felt compelled to protect Carlos Marmol from a bunch of bullies. Jeesh. Is the team running a pitching staff or a day-care center?

Yeah, we get it--the Cubs are a bunch of babies.

Was the team really "protecting" Marmol? We'll see...

That the Cubs defeated San Francisco 8-7 in 11 innings Saturday seemed trivial in light of the performances of Harden (brilliant, albeit somewhat brief, for the team’s newest hero) and Marmol (another in a series of train wrecks for the once-untouchable, now-combustible reliever). The Cubs led 7-0 when Harden left his Cubs debut to a raucous standing ovation...He didn’t get credit for the victory, however, because Marmol spit the bit.

According to Nadel: Harden didn't get the win because of Marmol's performance. Period.

Do you know how hard it is to give up five runs in one inning to the Giants’ collection of has-beens and never-will-bes? Marmol managed to do it in the ninth, displaying a variety of ills and a vivid imagination: a line-drive double, three soft singles, a hit-by-pitch, a base-on-balls and a booted infield chopper.

Marmol had used his great imagination to blow the lead! Did you see how Marmol used his mind to force Ryan Theriot to make a bone-headed error to allow the tying run to score? I also thought that is was wildly creative of Marmol to have a unicorn score two runs in the inning.

And it's true that the Giants were 13th in the NL and 27th in all of MLB in runs scored heading into the game. But part of that is because the Giants play in a very pitching-friendly ballpark. The Giants are exactly middle-of-the-pack 16th in MLB in runs scored on the road, so five runs in an inning isn't an impossible task. Never mind that any major league team is capable of scoring a bunch of runs, but that's beside the point.

Afterward, just as Marmol turned to face the vultures of the press, media-relations assistant Jason Carr stepped in and said: “We’re going to give Carlos the day off today.’’ If only Lou Piniella had done the same, the day’s theme would have been “How ’bout that Harden?’’ instead of “What’s wrong with Marmol?’’ The manager contributed to the angst by staying too long with Marmol.

"Vultures of the press" includes you, sweetheart.

If Piniella had given Marmol the day off, the Cubs might very well have run out of pitchers. As Nadel already pointed out, Kerry Wood was unavailable, and Harden was on a strict pitch count and only got one out into the 6th inning. Piniella used newly-acquired Chad Gaudin for only 2/3 of an inning to end the 6th. Piniella did allow Kevin Hart to start the 8th after a good showing in the 7th, but Piniella then wasted lefty-specialist Neal Cotts by having him face only one batter in a 7-2 game. Bob Howry finished the 8th, and instead of letting him go out for the 9th, Piniella went with Marmol (you can see for yourself here).

Wood couldn’t pitch due to a blister on his index finger (an ailment also likely to keep the closer out of the All-Star Game), but Piniella had left-hander Sean Marshall warmed up in the bullpen. Nevertheless, Lou didn’t go to Marshall even when lefty-batting John Bowker came up with the lead already cut to 7-4. Nor did Lou take out Marmol two batters later, when the trainer went out to make sure Carlos was OK.

Nadel said it himself at the beginning of the article: Harden was on a strict pitch count and Wood was unavailable. So why did Piniella blow through his bullpen like he was managing the All-Star Game and trying to get everyone into the game (before "it mattered")? The reason Piniella had to stay with Marmol was because if he went to Marshall, he would have had only one pitcher left (Jon Lieber).

Look, Marmol definitely pitched poorly last Saturday at Wrigley. But the criticism of Piniella shouldn't be just that he stayed too long with Marmol. Piniella knew he was short-handed going in to the game, yet still wasted his relievers--and it nearly cost him the game. By the time Marmol was struggling in the 9th, Piniella was trapped by his own mistakes.

Let's count the questionable Piniella moves (for the record, I was at this game and I made all of these comments as the game progressed, so this isn't second guessing):

1. Harden's pitch count. It was 7-0 in the 6th with two runners on when Piniella lifted Harden at 96 pitches. I get the fact that Harden is fragile, but Piniella could have given Harden a chance to get out of the inning. Basically, if the next batter gets on, you pull him, and if Harden can get the final two batters out, he's done after the inning. I doubt that 8-10 more pitches would have been so damning for Harden, especially since he'd averaged 97 pitches per start coming in to this game. A 105 pitch or so game wouldn't have been so bad.

2. Chad Gaudin only working 2/3 of an inning. It was a 7-0 game when Gaudin left after the 6th. This would have been a great opportunity to get some work out of him, since Gaudin is durable and he hadn't pitched the day before. In fact, Gaudin has started six games this year, so getting two or three innings out of him wouldn't have been an issue. Also, Piniella compounded the error by double-switching and having Reed Johnson replace Jim Edmonds, who had homered already. With as few position players as the Cubs have on their bench, making the needless double switch in a 7-0 game made no sense.

3. Using your LOOGY in a five-run game. A term borrowed from our good friends at FJM, "LOOGY" stands for "Lefty One Out Guy:" basically, the dude you have in your bullpen to face the other team's left handed batter, usually at a crucial point in the game. Evidently, Piniella thinks that point is in the 8th inning when your team leads 7-2; he used his LOOGY (Neal Cotts) in that situation. To be honest, the main thing Piniella did wrong was only use Cotts for one batter--in a five-run game, it's not uncommon to have your LOOGY stay in after he gets the left hander you wanted him to face. That way, you don't wear out your bullpen. By using Cotts only for one batter, Piniella then had to use Bob Howry in the 8th, which pretty much made Howry unavailable for the 9th.

4. Using Marmol at all. I know that Piniella wanted to build Marmol's confidence by letting him finish the game, and a 9th inning 7-2 lead seemed to be a pretty safe place to do that. But, without having Wood available, Piniella was forced to have Marmol get himself out of the 9th. Yes, Piniella had Sean Marshall ready, but if he'd used Marshall in the 9th, Piniella would have been left with only Jon Lieber in the bullpen if the game went into extra innings.

The better solution might have been to use Marshall to start the 9th and to only have used Marmol if Marshall got into trouble, or not at all. In another article that asks no questions of how Piniella handles his bullpen, Jay Mariotti points out that Marmol was near the top of the league in appearances going into the All Star Break. Perhaps Piniella should not have used Marmol when it wasn't necessary, instead allowing Marmol a day off. It's not an overstatement to say that the Cubs will need Marmol in September and October if it really is "their year;" if Piniella uses him another 45 times after the All-Star Break, Marmol won't have anything left.

It's a good thing the Cubs were carrying 13 pitchers (!!!) at the time of this game. With Piniella thinking his bullpen is the reincarnation of the 1990 Reds, he may need to carry 15.

Wait--there's more:

Piniella let Marmol throw 36 pitches to 10 batters. Compare that to the Cubs’ stated commitment to coddling Harden, who threw 96 pitches over 51/3 innings.

It’s hard to blame Piniella for being ultra-cautious, given that Harden has spent more of the last four years on the disabled list than on the mound. He was just so dominant Saturday (five hits, no runs, 10 strikeouts), it left everybody wanting more.Although it’s a stretch calling San Francisco a big-league team — after watching ancient Rich Aurilia and decrepit Omar Vizquel take their hacks, I wondered when the Giants would activate Willie Mays — Harden’s performance was impressive.

Oh, boy. Hacky, hacky, hacky. Nadel's right: Vizquel has been awful (.399 OPS; OPS+ of 8. 8!?!?!!), but Nadel's comment about the rest of the Giants' hitters is just a hack-job. The stats show the Giants have been remarkably average when they're playing in a park smaller than Yellowstone.

Piniella went to the mound with two on and nobody out in the sixth and was cheered loudly for leaving Harden in the game. Harden struck out Bowker and then departed, feeling the love of 41,555 fanatics.“Pretty cool,’’ Harden said. “I never really had anything like that in Oakland (where empty seats outnumber paying customers). You’ve got the crowd into every pitch. It’s good to see how passionate they are.’’

Nadel is apparently a high school senior at a school that is too small to have a newspaper, so he is allowed to work for the Springfield State Journal Register. Here is Journalism 101: when quoting someone in your story, everything in quotation marks should be something that person actually said. I am 100% sure that Harden did not say that "empty seats outnumber paying customers." I know that Nadel wanted to add that cute line as both a slam to Oakland and a positive for Wrigley, but come on. And incidentally, the statement itself is not true--Oakland is averaging about 23,000 per game, while McAfee stadium's baseball capacity is 37,000. If you use the football capacity of 63,000, then you might be on to something.

Also, the journalistic convention of including parentheticals inside of quotations is overused. Sometimes, it's done so poorly that it changes the meaning of what is being quoted. Other times, it is simply a crutch for poor writing.

Soon enough, those passionate people viciously turned against a struggling kid with a bruised psyche. For more than six weeks, Marmol was baseball’s best reliever; his earned-run average on May 14 was 1.04.

Small Sample Size Alert!!!

He then had several outings during which he couldn’t find the strike zone, followed by a decent stretch, followed by three consecutive games in which he allowed home runs...

Which happens to any reliever at some point...

...followed by another decent stretch, followed by Saturday’s meltdown. His ERA now: 4.13.

And his WHIP now: 1.04. And his Ks/9 inn.: 12.05. Even with the bad outings, he's pretty good. Yes, Saturday against the Giants wasn't so good, but some of that was luck (the three "soft singles") and a defensive letdown.

No wonder Sweet Lou took his sweet time getting his thoughts together between the end of the game and his arrival in the interview room. “Sorry I’m late,’’ Piniella said. “I had to have a nice, cold beer before I came down here.’’ He then professed complete lack of concern about Marmol, saying: “I think he’s been on his way back.’’ Was that Lou talking … or the hops and barley?

Neither--it was the weed Piniella smokes in the clubhouse runway between innings.

Piniella is right far more often than he’s wrong — a good thing, given how much he’s paid to be right. The Cubs’ hopes this season might depend upon him being right about Carlos Marmol.

Marmol needs to pitch well for the Cubs to be successful--no question. But Piniella needs to better effectively use his bullpen, or the Cubs will be in trouble late in the season.

And if this trouble happens during the playoffs, I'm sure there will be someone or something that will be blamed other than Piniella or the players--i.e. a goat, a black cat, or a fan (among 5 or 6) who "interferes" with a potential catch on a foul ball. The "curse" will have reared its ugly head again. But the truth is that the real cause of the failure will likely be in the Cubs' dugout.

Chris Hagan = Mouth Breather

Look, I know that you pretty much get what you deserve when you listen to sports talk radio. Most of it, if not all of it, sucks. Period. Whether it's Jim Rome insulting someone and showing his complete ignorance of anything having to do with actually playing a game, or Bob Kravitz and Eddie White reinforcing the Indiana stereotype of white-trash idiocy, or Mike Tirico taking 5 minutes to tell a 20 second story, we expect that going in. Sports talk radio is bad--very bad. Anyone with a brain knows this.

That being said, I should have known better than to listen to the afternoon drive show on WNDE 1260AM. Especially since the normal host, JMV, is on vacation all week. In his place, alleged sports reporter/anchor Chris Hagan from the local Fox affiliate.

Some of the wonderful items discussed on the show include how Chris used to work at a movie theater but couldn't handle the math and what Christian Bale's voice sounds like as Batman (these were in different segments). Hagan also talked about how the Fox 59 staff really was annoyed that they had to do a newscast after the All Star Game ended so late (their 10 o'clock news started at something like 1:50AM). You know: LOTS of non-sports content...on sports talk radio!

The sports content that did make it on the air was pretty weak, including a listener threatening to kill Dan Uggla for making 3 errors in the ASG. I wish I was making that part up.

What's remarkable about Hagan's performance on WNDE is that he came off as an even bigger idiot than he does on television--which is a very difficult task for anyone associated with Fox 59 News.

Murray Chass...(an idiot)...On Baseball

So what kind of conundrum is created when a person who hates blogs and bloggers creates his own blog? Murray Chass, writer for the NY Times, has created his own baseball blog and proceeds to tell us that he hates blogs. I guess he circumvents that by stating that his site is for baseball columns, not blogs. You can say that cow manure is fertilizer, but it is still cow shit.

FJM did an excellent job of reviewing Mr. Chass' blog site and had some insightful thoughts on what his page is about.

However, I am not here to rehash what his site is about. I am here to bash Murray Chass on his first blog, er...column or whatever he wants to call it, regarding the All-Star Game. Murray does not like the All-Star Game format in which the winning league receives home-field advantage in the World Series. The "added" significance to the All-Star Game has not had much influence on the television ratings since its inception after the tie game in 2002. Murray has some better ideas than the "silly scheme" of awarding home-field advantage for the All-Star Game winner.

One way would be to reward the team with the better won-lost record. But that idea wouldn't work logistically. Baseball can’t wait until days or even a week before the World Series is scheduled to start to determine where Series game will be played. Airlines and hotels don’t work that way.

Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure I could reserve a flight and a hotel room a couple of days before I leave.

So let me get this straight. This would not work for baseball even though this is how the finals NBA and NHL determine home-field advantage? Even with the current format in baseball, MLB officials can only narrow down which team will host games 1 and 2 in the World Series to two teams prior to the completion of the Championship Series. If they used the better won-lost record that would only expand the possibility to four teams.

As a Cardinals fan, if I wanted to go to a World Series game in 2006, I new that if the Cardinals won the NLCS, they would be playing in either Detroit or Oakland for the first two games. Since the Tigers swept the A's and the Cards took seven games to beat the Mets, I would have known where the Cards were playing before the end of the NLCS. However, I would have either had to take a chance that the Cards would win and make my flight and hotel reservations early or wait until the end of series knowing that game 1 would start in only a couple of days.

I think MLB officials would be able to handle the additional strain of coordinating everything with four possibilities versus the current two possibilities. I just think you are an absurd idiot for thinking this would not be possible.

Chass has another idea for awarding home-field advantage...

If baseball, on the other hand, based homefield advantage on the outcome of interleague games, the winning league this season would have been known before the end of June, leaving three months, or half the season, to make travel plans.

Using interleague games may actually be a slightly better idea for determining World Series home-field advantage as it uses a bigger statistical sample than one exhibition game and can show which league is better (at that time). However, Chass is either The Amazing Kreskin or an amazing, fucking retard if he knows where the World Series would be played using interleague games results! Yes, you would know if the American or National league pennant winner would have home-field advantage, BUT YOU DON"T KNOW WHICH TEAM, ASSHOLE!!!

Man, what a fucktard!

But the outcome of the interleague schedule would do nothing for Fox and its ratings for the All-Star game. Don’t let a sound idea get in the way of greed.

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good", or at least it was in Wall Street.

It may be a sound idea, Chass, but those greedy little networks are what help MLB pay the bills. So if Fox or ESPN want to have some input on the game and will put up some extra dough along with that input, MLB may agree.

There is a reason why you receive so many emails from angry readers. When you are wrong, people like to point that out to you, just like I am doing now. That does not mean you are doing some thing "right" by getting such a response from your readers.

I can't say that I'm looking forward to more "columns" from Murray Chass, but I believe we will be seeing a lot more of him on this site.

Good Riddance

CBS lets veteran hoops analyst Packer go, promotes Kellogg

About fucking time. The only sad thing is that we won't be able to talk about Packer's shitty basketball analysis during the 2009 NCAA Tournament.

He got off easy.

Rick Reilly: An Aficionado of Idiocy

Ah, the traditions of Home Run Derby: tape measure home runs, the sight of kids trampling each other while shagging balls in the outfield, and listening to Chris Berman's annoying and incessant "back back back" call 100+ times (does he know it's a home run derby?!?).

Add to those fun traditions a new one: amongst the 7 gazillion announcers/analysts ESPN has at the derby is Rick Reilly, who came to ESPN from Sports Illustrated earlier this year. Reilly has since proven he can be just as stupid on TV as he was in print.

Case in point from tonight's home run derby: a good 20-25 minutes after Josh Hamilton launched 28 bombs in the first round to break Bobby Abreu's record of 24, Reilly decided to add his analysis. "I'm sort of an aficionado of this home run derby thing, and I think that was clearly the greatest home run derby performance ever..." (emphasis mine).

Reilly "thinks" this is the greatest performance ever? And he has to declare himself a sort-of-aficionado in order to make this bold declaration, after nearly a half an hour of everyone else saying the same thing?

Rick, let me help you with this: Hamilton hit 28 homers. The record was 24. Therefore, it was the greatest performance in a home run derby. Is that too hard to understand?

Reilly also went on to rehash Hamilton's story, which was mentioned about 125,000 times (I may be exaggerating), ending with "it's a lousy night to be an atheist."

It's also a lousy night to be someone who watches the Home Run Derby with the sound on.

Joe Morgan - All-Star Game of Death

Lom Henn's favorite baseball commentator and turdmeister, Joe Morgan, puts in his two cents worth on the decline of Major League Baseball's All-Star Game.

Morgan: All-Stars of old had more fire

Joe Morgan looks at what has happened to the All-Star Game and doesn't like what he sees.

The Hall of Fame second baseman remembers when the top stars played all nine innings, when the All-Stars drew huge ratings.

Joe, your last All-Star game appearance was 29 years ago! I bet Ted Williams, Stan Musial and Jackie Robinson may have felt the same thing about your generation playing in the All-Star Game in 1979!

Not anymore.

"Part of the reason the game doesn't bring that energy is it's a different game now," he said Thursday. "Now it's considered an exhibition, whereas before it was considered life and death."

That's because it is an exhibition!!!!!!

Life or death??? That really would have been a game for the ages. I would have liked to have been there for the announcement of, "This year's MLB All-Star Game has been changed. The players on the losing team will be killed by the winning team's choice immediately following the game," and then watch the players drop a turd in their shorts. It's the MLB All-Star Game of Death!!!!!! You bet I'd tune in for that one.

Really, Joe, the decline in the All-Star Game is not due fully to the players playing the game now. I'll give you a few reasons why the decline is not due to just the players.

• When you played, the top-ranked TV shows had ratings in the 30s. Today, the top-ranked shows are lucky to make it into the 20s. Back in the 70's, the #30 ranked show had a higher rating than this year's top show, American Idol (16.1 rating).
• When you played, the only times the NL and AL players faced each other were in the World Series and the All-Star games. Since the inception of interleague play, we get to see teams from each league play each other roughly 18 times each year. While this has been a boon for the owners and generally regarded as a success by the average fan, many traditionalists continue to hate interleague play...but that is another story for another time.
• Giving the winner of the All-Star Game home-field advantage in the World Series probably has not helped, but I have not heard from the players what their take is on this one.
• The fans who elect the players to the game are mostly morons. Fans vote for their favorite player, not the most deserving player. I get that, but every year we see someone voted into the game that hasn't played all year do to an injury or is batting .125 and strikes out every other at bat. Although, the players were not any better this year in electing Jason Varitek to the 2008 All-Star AL team.

The last time the All-Star Game was at Yankee Stadium, in 1977, Morgan led off the game with a home run off Jim Palmer. A 10-time All-Star with the Cincinnati Reds and Houston Astros, Morgan's National League teams were a perfect 10-0 against the American Leaguers.

The All-Star Game has seen winnings streaks for both leagues. The National League won 11 in-a-row from 1972 to 1982 and won 19 of 20 from 1963 to 1982. The American League have won 10 of the last 11 with the odd one being the tie game in '02.

What does this really have to do with Joe's rant on the decline of this game? Oh, that's right, this is Joe Morgan.

"If you had Willie Mays and those guys with the attitude that they had playing now, you'd have that same awareness," Morgan said. "I don't say the players don't play hard. I'm saying that before, Willie Mays might play the whole game. Hank Aaron might play the whole game."

Mays went the distance in 11 All-Star Games and Aaron nine, according to the Elias Sports Bureau. When Carlos Beltran went all nine innings at Pittsburgh in 2006, it marked the first time a player had started and finished an All-Star Game since Ken Griffey Jr., Brady Anderson and Ray Lankford in 1997 at Cleveland.

Yes, there are probably times where a player may earn the right to play the entire game. But as we saw in 2002, the managers for each time seem to have this desire to make sure everyone plays in the game. I'm still somewhat irritated about the 2002 game where the managers had to make sure everyone got in the game, and when the game went extra innings, they had to cop out and call a tie. I understand WHY they called the game, but it should not have been an issue as there should have been at least one additional relief pitcher for each league available. If it was still tied after 12 or 13 innings, then you can call the tie.

The players are not noted for "playing" in the All-Star Game, they are noted for being "elected" to the All-Star Game. Obviously a player would prefer to play in the game and be in the spotlight, but I don't think it needs to be a requirement.

Morgan said having the game decide which league gets home-field advantage in the World Series, an innovation that began in 2003, doesn't help."

See bullet point above.

Unless the players buy into it, it doesn't matter what you say," he said. "You can say, 'This one counts,' you can say anything you want, but the players are the ones that make the game, not the marketing."

Yes, the drive to defeat the opposing league has waned over time, but I just can't place the blame fully on the players. The game has changed, the fans have changed, the owners have changed, the money has changed (OK, yes players are still paid in dollars, but they just get many, many, many more of them), TV has changed, the internet has come about, and so on and so on. The game IS an exhibition and with 500 channels and so much more available things to do, we should not be surprised that the ratings have declined. The Home Run Derby typically out draws the All-Star Game because it is more fun to watch. I don't know what can be done to raise the ratings for the All-Star Game, but we shouldn't be surprised by what has happened.

BTW - I am shocked that I did not see "consistent" or one of its variations anywhere in the article. Although, it could have been removed by the Tribune.

Just the facts, ma'am...

The mainstream media lives to bash the bloggers of the world about our incredible lack of grammar skills and use of the English language. While they are generally correct on that assumption, we bloggers enjoy bashing mainstream writers on their inability to present the facts correctly or bash their broad opinions on minuscule amounts of data and/or statistics.

I ran across this AP article on MSNBC.com regarding the Pirates win over the Yankees in a make-up date from a June rain-out. Here is the headline from the article:

Pirates snap Yankees' 4-game winning streak

And here is a paragraph from the article:

Damaso Marte finished for his fourth save in six opportunities, helping end New York’s five-game winning streak.

OK. I do not nor have I ever worked for a newspaper or online media source, but I will go with the assumption that at least one person if not two are supposed to read a story prior to its publishing. I don't think I'm reaching here by saying that someone should have caught the fact that you have "4-game winning streak" in the headline and "five-game winning streak" in the article. (The correct answer is the Pirates ended the Yankees four-game winning streak by the way.)

If my lack of grammar and English language skills can catch that one from just a casual reading of the article, shouldn't someone else whose job to catch this type of error have caught that? It's not like we are nitpicking on someone's OPS+ or VORP or EqA which makes most media writers scratch their heads or their backsides about what we are talking about or yell at us about how it is about runs batted in, batting average and wins and not some convoluted statistic that we used Big Blue to come up with.

Come on people! The Buzz Bissinger's feel we bloggers have no "journalistic integrity". Well the more the "real" journalists continue to make mistakes like this, the more bloggers will gain on them. I know...out of 100 blogging sites there are maybe only one or a small few that you could classify as a quality and worthwhile site. (We'll eave it up to you on where you feel we belong.) Yet slowly more and more sites and bloggers are getting better while the sports media is getting worse and worse.

The first rule in journalism...OK, my first rule I just made up... is to GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!!!

The second rule is go bash the idiot who can't follow rule #1.

Mr. Grit Goes to LA?

From the rumor mill...

Dodgers may be after Toronto's Eckstein

With shortstop Rafael Furcal on the DL, the Dodgers are going to give that guy who is married to Mia Hamm, Nomar Garciaparra, a shot at his old spot while it looks for a replacement on the trade market. Word is that the Dodgers are after Toronto's David Eckstein, who happens to be the owner of two World Series rings (italics mine).

Let me get this straight. The Dodgers want David Eckstein, Mr. Grit himself, because he happens to have two World Series rings? You want an average (at best) shortstop currently batting .273/.360/.348? Ned Colletti and the Dodgers are in need of a SS with Furcal on the DL, but really, you want Eckstein and his .708 OPS to replace Furcal's .366/.448/.597? That's a 1.045 OPS people! I know that Eck brings that whitey, average-guy, grit-factor with him, but give me a fucking break, you want him because he was lucky enough to be on two teams that won World Series? I know that he somehow also has two World Series MVPs to go with the two rings. I think that is due more to (1) luck and (2) the fact no one else really excelled during the series and the press just loves his grittiness.

If the Dodgers do make the trade and they somehow win the World Series, I will kill something.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Brett Favre has created a media storm by hinting he might want to return to the Packers for another season.

Dan Pompei feels that the Packers should welcome him back with open arms.

I'm not surprised Brett Favre wants to play football again now that the smell of training camp is in the air.

I am surprised the Packers are not welcoming him back.

Favre retired from the Packers and the NFL in March. The Packers have spent the offseason preparing their team around Aaron Rodgers. Just because he helped nearly lead the Pack to the Super Bowl last year does not mean they should roll out the red carpet, stike up the band and carry him on their shoulders back into the Packers facility.

But how in the world could the Packers not be interested in a player who:
A. Was the sixth best player at his position in the NFL a year ago, according to the NFL's passer rating system.

Brett Favre turns 39 this year. While that is not ancient, it typically is for a football player. Farve had a tremendous year in 2007, but he is past the age when most QBs start declining performance-wise. He may have been 6th last year, but he was 25th in 2006 and 31st in 2005. We are only two years removed from when Green Bay went 4-12 and some were clamoring for Brett to retire during and after that season. Some of that has to do with the players around him, but there is nothing that says he will stay at the level of last year.

B. Plays a position that is the most important on the field.

Only on offense. I don't think Brett does a whole lot from the sidelines while the defense is on the field.

C. Plays a position at which they lack a proven starter.

True, Aaron Rodgers has yet to start a game in the NFL, but he had studied under Favre for the past three years.

D. Is arguably the most beloved player in team history and one of the most beloved players in NFL history.

How many players and coaches have hung around one or two years too long? Reggie Miller had an excellent final season in 2004 before retiring. Yet, he still retired. I'm sure he had the itch to come back in 2005, but he stayed retired. Yet, there are several players who continued to play or came back when retirement was the better choice. Michael Jordan should not have come out of retirement for the second time.

This isn't about what Favre has done in the past. It's about what he can do this season.

See above. He'll be 39 this year. There is no guarantee that he will duplicate last season. At 39, the odds would say he will not do as well as 2007.

Does that mean Aaron Rodgers would be better than Favre in '08? Not at all. But I say you just can't welcome Brett immediately back to the team. The Packers drafted Rodgers to succeed Favre and since Brett retired, the Pack have rightfully put Rodgers as the head of the offense for next season.

Even if the Packers decide to bring Favre back, what happens if he starts having a bad year? At what point do you pull the plug and start playing Rodgers? Favre is the type of player who in the past could pull himself out of a poor start to the season, but that does not mean he could now. If Green Bay started 0-2 or 1-3 with Favre, what then? Bench him? Let him start one more game unless he loses then put Rodgers in? That's bad for both players and I don't think that benching Rodgers for another season is good either.

Frankly, the Packers should stick to their guns and tell Favre to stay retired.

You Have To Stand For Something

Now back to idiotic articles.

Fans are asked to treat Chiefs games like bowling matches

MJD writes for a Yahoo! Sports blog called "Shutdown Corner." In fact, he is the editor of said blog.

The Kansas City Chiefs have a "Fan Code of Conduct," which is essentially a list of rules that fans have to follow when they're attending a game at Arrowhead. In theory, it's not a bad idea, as you'd like your stadium to provide a friendly atmosphere for families and people who aren't drunken hooligans.

To quote one of my favorite movie franchises, "I have a bad feeling about this." I mean, is this guy actually going to say that it's a bad idea to have fans adhere to a code of conduct?

In practice, though, it might not be such a great idea, especially if the person responsible for coming up with the rules is an 85-year-old woman who teaches the 2nd grade and regards standing up as one of the evil things that young whippersnappers often do.

I seriously doubt that's the case. Most 85-year-old women are retired, even if they were teachers in the first place. Or they're dead. In any case, I don't think any of them are coming up with rules for fan conduct.

Seriously, standing erect is the No. 2 item on the list of things that are prohibited:

• Standing and/or obstructing the view of other fans
(italics his)

It is? Really? Because if you go here, and look at the second bullet point, it reads "Continual standing and/or obstructing..." (italics mine)

As much as I'd like to jump all over him for inaccuracy, I have to give MJD the benefit of the doubt here. Because of the way he quoted it in his article, I'm pretty sure the Chiefs changed the wording after his article was written.

Awesome. I hear they're even taking the extra step and including bed pans with every seat, so no one has to get up to use the bathroom. They're going to make the beer and peanut vendors crawl through the stadium on all fours. Also, as soon as you get to your seat and sit down, an usher's going to come by and inject you with a temporary paralytic.

That's pretty goddamn funny. I'm laughing my ass off. Oh, wait: LMFAO!

First off, let me go back to the title of his article: "Fans are asked to treat Chiefs games like bowling matches." MJD, have you watched PBA bowling? I know it's not a big sport, and it shouldn't be, but have you watched it? Because if you have, there's a lot of goddamn cheering.

Secondly, even if MJD wrote this article before the Chiefs updated their website, no reasonable person would think that the Chiefs don't want anyone to stand at all at their games. Most teams have something similar in their guidelines for fans. But getting back to the rule as it's now written, it has more to do with trying to get people from standing in places they shouldn't--i.e. aisles--or for no reason at all--i.e. when NO ONE ELSE is standing--than it does for legitmate standing and cheering.

There's an idiotic idea out there that people who sit at games aren't real fans, or are somehow automatically less interested than someone who stands all the time. Although that actually may be true for some people, for most people it's not. If you think the amount you stand at a game automatically makes you more of a fan than someone else, your IQ is less than 60.

Typically, if those in front of you stand up, you're going to stand, too (if you're able). And you have every right to do so. But, if you're one of those mouth-breathers in the middle of the 65th row who stands the entire game for no reason when no one else is standing in front of you (and also flip off the referees whenever any call goes against your team, as if they could see your classy act), then you are a fucktard.

The standard Fucktard attitude can be summed up this way: "I paid for my ticket, so if I want to stand the entire game, I can." Did you ever consider that it's not just about you? Did you ever consider that the 85 year-old guy, or the 10 year-old girl, or the 5 foot 1 woman behind you ALSO paid for his or her ticket (okay, maybe not the kid) and deserves to see the game, too? And no matter how much standing that person does, he or she simply won't be able to see if your fucking carcass is in the way? Even if the person behind you is tall and able-bodied, why should he or she have to stand just because you want to?

Sure, if something exciting happens that's worth standing for and everyone in the first 10,000 rows stands, then it's just bad luck for the short or unable-to-stand people. It happens. But at other times--read, 90% of the game, or more--there's not a reason to stand. So perhaps, for once in your miserable fucking waste of a life, you'll be considerate of someone else.

Doubtful, right MJD? We can't expect people to be considerate at a football game when the same people can't be considerate anywhere else, right? Then perhaps the Chiefs are on to something to include that "standing" clause in their code of conduct, since people really aren't into the idea of looking out for one another.

Fucktards.

Yes, the Stereotype Is True

I know the posts have been somewhat sparse in recent weeks. Not that we've had a tremendous legacy of having this blog, but we would like to do a little more than we have (thanks, Zinglebert, by the way, for keeping it going recently).

I can tell you that there's no legitmate reason for us not to post. As bloggers, it's not like we've gone on a family vacation, or enjoyed the warm weather riding a motorcycle, or gone to Las Vegas, or actually played basketball (or any other sport), or worked on projects around the house. We're bloggers: to go with the stereotype, we don't have families, motorcycles are scary machines that only hairy, tatooed gang-members named Skeeter ride, Las Vegas is just some cool place in a movie where George Clooney and Brad Pitt live, and we can't play sports because our muscles have atrophied from non-use. In fact, we've never played any sport, ever. We also have rickets because we don't get enough sunlight, since we live in our mothers' basements.

No, it's easier for most people to believe that since we're bloggers, our inactivity of late must be because we were all at a Sci Fi convention of some sort. Which of course is true: we have been at a Sci Fi convention. Mind you, not a convention dedicated to one particular show or milieu, but to ALL THINGS Sci Fi. Here are some of the titles of sessions at the convention:

"Debating the merits of Greedo shooting first"

"Death Blossom: Weapon of last resort, or new offensive tactic?"

"The future of the past: why can't Sam Beckett leap into the future?"

"Analysis of the most efficient USS Enterprise design"

"Clinical differences between hobbits, gnomes, and dwarves"

"Care and training of your Mog"

Now you see why we haven't posted. Can you blame us? We're bloggers, after all. Isn't that what you expect?