Gratuitous Manny

I'll try and post something about this in the next day or so but I had to post this video as soon as I could. It will likely be down by day's end (damn MLB and their damn "rights"). But a better video can be found here. Though this play was great, it pales in comparison to Manny's greatest play seen here:

Smittblog Song Of The Week

One of my favorite songs off of one of my favorite albums of last year. This song and "Map of The Problematique" are two of the best non-QOTSA "rock" songs I've heard in awhile. 3 dudes making about as loud and complete a noise as there is today.

Every Thing That Touches Joba Chamberlain Is Blown WAY Out Of Proportion

I don't really get why everyone (hyperbole) is getting so riled up about Joba's 8th inning exuberance but to listen to David Delucci and NY Sports Talk Radio you'd think he whipped his crank out on the mound and started helicoptering the shit out of it. People really need to settle down about this. Simmer.

Here's what I think (move away from the edge of your seat): everyone involved in this imbroglio is to some degrees wrong. The most wrongest is David Delucci. Joba's post-strikeout fist pump doesn't show anyone up. He's not pointing at the guy or yelling at him, he's just getting (overly) excited. Yes he does it too much and yes it's completely contrived and he just does it because it looks cool and now everyone expects him to do it, but it's completely harmless to the player on the "receiving" end of it. It blows my mind that Delucci somehow feels "disrespected" by a fucking 8th inning final out on-the-mound celebration. To pull the "play the game the right way" card here is absurd. But this isn't to say that Joba is blameless here.

With a 3 run lead in the 8th inning of a May 8th game and no one on, Joba Chamberlain is supposed to get the final guy of the inning out. And when he does he should be happy. He did a good job. But how he can possibly justify going bonkers and screaming at the top his lungs when he strikes a guy out in the 8th when facing no threat is a real headscratcher. An 8th inning strikeout is more a time for a muted fist pump or maybe a leg or glove slap (again, subtle). It doesn't get my blood boiling or anything that Chamberlain is somehow rubbing it in to the batter, but what does cause me pause is why he's so fucking excited. IT'S THE 8TH INNING IN A 3 RUN GAME WITH NO ONE ON! This is no time for crazy histrionics. It's like Bill Grammatica going nuts after kicking a 29 yard field goal in the 4th quarter to put his team up 17. I just find the whole thing so unnecessary and bush league.

You win the game or get a big out, go nuts like K-Rod or Papelbon. You strike out a career .260 hitter in a game you control barely a month into the season, you fucking walk back to the dugout and shut the fuck up.

Smittblog Song Of The Week

I'm not sure how long I'll do this but I'm going to start posting some of the songs I've been listening to up in this piece if only so I can have a record of the type of my flavor the month.

Above is Death Cab For Cutie with "I will possess your heart," the long version (also comes in the the 4 minute version. It come off their album "Narrow Stairs" coming out this Tuesday (May 13th). I can't speak for the rest of the album but I enjoy this tune.

Chris Paul Almost Makes The NBA Watchable

When Chris Paul is on the screen I am as transfixed on the boob tube as this kid on this strange gelatinous orb.
It'd be fair to say that I haven't watched the NBA with any regularity since MJ put down his last championship. For whatever reason the league lost whatever luster it had for me when Michael took off. The draw at the time was that every time Mike was on TV something unreal was bound to happen. And then he was gone and no one picked up the slack. It probably didn't help that the year following MJ's departure featured a 5 month lockout followed by 8 years of mediocre play led by dominating big men like Shaq & Duncan, the league just lost the imagination that used to draw me in when I was a kid. If you made an NBA Superstars video of the early 2000's you'd have half an hour of Duncan bank shots and 20 minutes of progressively less aggressive Shaq Dunks. Sweet. I'm told today that the NBA has the most talent its ever had. That may be true but even with the advent of the Kobe / Lebron era (I'm aware that Kobe's "era" began much earlier), I haven't really had any interest in watching. Those guys, while dominant, just lack something that I can't put my finger on (Kobe's luster was lost on me the day he decided to not take a single shot in a playoff game out of spite). Call it what you will maybe a little likable pizzazz that these guys lack... But whatever it is that they are missing is exactly what Chris Paul has; and he has it in f'n droves.

I'm not sure I've seen a more exciting athlete on TV in the last ten years. LT, Mike Vick, Lebby, Sid the Kid, college Reggie Bush, whoever. I'll put Paul up against any of them. If you haven't seen this kid play (and he is a kid at 23 years-old), you need to Tivo it or something. He's in the lane, he's throwing alleys and he's pulling up from anywhere making it look frickin seamless. He may be the most smooth player I've ever watched play... and I HATE NBA basketball (especially the Spurs who feature the least likable group of "stars" the world has ever known).

To put it in proper perspective, it's midnight on a Thursday, I just finished the last law school final exam I will ever take in my entire life (hopefully) and I haven't been alone with myself without a book in front of me for the last 4 weeks. And rather than abusing myself via the absurd amount of fresh porn that has built up in my absence (not to mention that Cinemax is presently showing "Hotel Erotica Cabo 10: Primal Urge"), I'm watching Chris Paul single-handedly keep the Hornets in a game against the best--and least exciting--team of the decade.

Now, maybe that simply means that I've lost my touch and just need to get back in the swing of things or maybe it means there are some things I need to work out in a lengthy therapy session, but the conclusion I've come to is that it means that Chris Paul is watchable to even the most casual of NBA fans under the most extreme of circumstances.

I'm not sure we'll ever see it replace the "NBA, it's FAN-tastic" slogan but for me: "Chris Paul, he'll distract you from masturbating" is pretty high praise.

Julio Lugo Sucks

Mr. Lugo, you are free to go now. Don't make this harder than it is. Just go. GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE YOU COCKSUCKER!
After coming back from a 4 run deficit and taking the lead on a Dustin Pedroia pinch hit single in the 8th, the Sox put Papelbon on the mound and were on their way to a win. With a man on (infield single) and no outs, a routine ground ball was hit directly at Lugo. He charged it in time to get the lead runner out and possibly turn two (though it would have been a tough double play). At the very least he had plenty of time to get the batter (Renteria) out at first, and that's when Julio Lugo stepped in and took matters into his cold concrete hands. Instead of picking the ball up and throwing it to a base for what is known as a "force out," Julio decided to kick the ball around for a little while and not throw it to any base for his 10th error of the year. A sac bunt, a productive ground out and a broken bat bloop later and the Tigers had won. Thanks Julio. You are the worst.

Yanks Coverage >>>> Mets Coverage

The Mets took 2 out of 3 from the best team in baseball this weekend and won a great matchup between Johan and Dan Haren on Sunday. But if you read the NY Post, probably had no idea.
Listen, I'm well aware that this is a Yankees town. The Mets often play third fiddle to the whoever the Yanks' opponent happens to be in terms of coverage in the tabloid rags. I'm rarely surprised that the Mets don't get a ton of respect. I'm also aware that at this stage in the season the major story in NY (if not all of baseball) is the struggling Yanks and their awful "rotation." But even for NY today's coverage in the Post was comical.

The Arizona Diamondbacks are the best team in the majors. Their big time offseason acquisition was Dan Haren. The Mets are the consensus pick to take the NL East and are most folks pick to get to the World Series. The acquisition of Johan Santana is the reason for the hype. Yesterday, in the rubber game of what is likely to be the NL Championship matchup (I'm assuming the Cubs will blow it at some point), Dan Haren squared off with Johan Santana. The game did not disappoint. 2-2 into the ninth with a 9th inning error deciding the game and the Mets coming out victorious thus stealing the series in AZ. A pretty big story and a huge confidence boost for the Mets. In the NY Post today, there was one article. One. The back page of the Post, the Yankees' back-and-forth journeyman Darrell Fucking Rasner. Inside the Post, 5 articles about the Yanks. FIVE TO ONE! The Yanks touched up the last place Ms 4th pitcher at home and got 5 articles. The Mets best pitcher pitched great and the Mets won in a dramatic last inning and there is a single fucking mention! What a fucking disgrace.

I know that the Yanks are a much more interesting story even when they are average (or especially when they are average) than the Mets are when they're good, but the Mets are going to stay baseball relevant deeper into the season than the Yanks will. So I don't know, maybe you want to familiarize yourselves and the public with what's going on with them?

PETA Takes On Horse Racing With An ABSURD Argument

According to the reasonable folks at PETA, Horse Racing is on par with dogfighting.
I'm not sure this is even worthy of a response because unlike a surprisingly large portion of Americans (according to a CNN.com poll, 60% of Americans feel that thoroughbred horses are mistreated) my readers are all probably in agreement here, but it's strikes me as so ridiculous that I feel I have to respond.

Taking advantage of the publicity of the death of Eight Belles in the Kentucky Derby yesterday, the folks at PETA have come out in support of horses. Here is a portion of the statement released:

PETA is calling for the immediate suspension of jockey Gabriel Saez—who whipped Eight Belles mercilessly as she came down the final stretch, no doubt in agony from two front legs that were about to snap.

Now, a couple things strike me about this portion of the quote and I'll hit them first before I post and respond to the most offensive portion. Firstly, as was pointed out in several places today including Tirico and Van Pelt's radio show, if their problem with the jockey Saez is that he whipped the horse "mercilessly" (not sure I agree with the word choice, but I'm no Buzz Bissinger so I'll relent in that critique), why did they single him out? Didn't every jockey whip their horses? I understand that I'm being a little picky as I'm sure the response from PETA would be that their first choice would be to get rid of horse racing altogether, but the fact that Saez was singled out strikes me as very odd.

Secondly, the folks at PETA seem to be suggesting that the injury was preventable. And not in the sense that it would have been prevented had the horse never been involved in racing in the first place. They suggest that the horse was in agony on the final stretch because her legs were "about to snap." Now, I'm no Equilogist (nor am I a veterinarian) and I wasn't in the room when they carved up the poor lady, so I really can't speculate on the cause of the injuries, but apparently if you are a PETA member you can simply know by watching the race that horse was running in such a way that her legs were essentially matchsticks waiting to be snapped. Now how on fucking earth could a reasonable human being come to that conclusion when that horse finished fucking second at the fucking Kentucky fucking Derby (if she were in a ton of pain on the back stretch, me thinks she may have slowed a touch). It's not only blatant and baseless conjecture on the part of the PETA folks, it's so illogical as to undermine their greater point. In order to sustain this line of argument, EVERY FUCKING HORSE WOULD BREAK THEIR LEGS AND DIE. But this isn't the best part so I'm moving on.

Here was the most unsettling portion of the statement:

Despite the wealth associated with thoroughbred racing, for the horses—most of whom end up broken, cast off, or sent to Europe to be killed for the dinner table—it's a dirty business and no better than dogfighting.

I'll start by saying that I'm not going to even address the suggestion that Germans are eating horses or turning them into coffee tables (the quote could really be taken either way) as it really has nothing to do with anything. The part I want to get to is the Horse Racing = Dogfighting.

First, shut the fuck up. This is stupid. The PURPOSE of putting dogs in a ring together is for one to injure or kill the other. The unintended consequence of horse racing is injury. And because horses suffer so greatly from the recovery process associated with these injuries (or die anyway through infection or circulation problems), the humane treatment for these injuries is euthanasia. In dogfighting, the dogs get the shit kicked out of them in order to ready them for fights. Many die in training. Thoroughbred horses are perhaps the most pampered animals on earth next to the Kobe Beef Cattle. They are well fed, well bred and get to run around as much as they want. Dogfighting and horse racing couldn't be less comparable on so many levels. So while choosing a brutal sport involving animals that was recently in the news is clever and gives the reader a nice visual comparison, the analogy is so off that it just serves to discredit your greater argument. You can't make outrageous statements like this and expect me to take your greater point seriously. Any chance you had at convincing me that you have the capacity to be reasonable is out the door because my eyes are rolling.

You see, if you want to make the argument that the governing body of horse racing needs to take a look at this incident and see if the horse was ill prepared or the maybe horses today should be better tested prior to a race or whatever, that's fine. Who knows, those concerns may even be legitimate. But if it's the public's support you want, quit reaching into your case of crazy and making statements that are not intended to inform but are instead intended to scare people into taking your side. It cheapens your argument and loses your grip on anyone who would even consider taking your side. I have no idea if thoroughbred horses are being mistreated or if Eight Belles' death could have been avoided (I have my suspicions that this couldn't be farther from the truth) and because of the public deaths the last couple of years I'm almost willing to listen to arguments suggesting that something is amiss. But when the people who have taken it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the animals rid themselves of facts in favor of fear mongering and outrageous headline making, you lose all credibility with me.

Will Jones: Fat Kid Cardio

This feels a little contrived but it's awfully funny. It also reminds me of a younger version of a friend of mine, so that makes it extra funny for me.

Ol' Buzz Bissinger Finds Deadspin's Will Leitch New & Scary, And Then Proceeds To Lose His Mind

I've posted the video in its entirety below but given that you come to my site, see a headline and then see a picture associated with that headline, I wanted to properly capture in picture the type of old angry media guy that Buzz Bissinger symbolized in his appearance on HBO's Costas Now last night. If you closed your eyes while listening to what Buzz had to say, this would accurately depict the picture in your head of the guy saying what was said(if you open your eyes, he looks like a crazed John Malkovich character with horrendous posture). But I'm getting ahead of myself...

For those who don't know, Bob Costas has a show on HBO that involves him taking on "sports" topics in front of a live audience with several panels of guests at 15+ minute intervals. The concept of the show is not a bad one and at least on the first day Costas had some compelling characters from all across the sports landscape (though 15 minutes was never enough to fully delve into any of the sometimes weighty subject material). On his first show, he took on "Sports & The Media" and brought on major players like Chris "Maddog" Russo (who was unapologetic and fantastic), Mitch Albom, Joe Buck & Dan Patrick, just to name a few. And while all that was fairly entertaining, the main event, surprisingly, was a heated battle between an enraged Buzz Bissinger and a cornered Will Leitch (with Costas playing the role of "piler on" over the "moderator role" it seemed the show intended and Braylon Edwards for some reason shoved into the mix) regarding the utility of the blogosphere. And almost before Leitch could get a word out (the first question was posed to him), Bissinger went bananas leading a sporadic profanity laced tirade that lasted several minutes. Predicably, Bissinger's beef involved your typical anti-blog cliches: no credentials, no ethics, no oversight, and no regard for traditional standards of journalism (oddly, only mom's basement was spared critique). Bissinger was not done there though, in a humorous moment, Buzz attempted to call out Leitch for not having read a random sports writer (WC Heinz, who Buzz feels is one of the greats of all-time) only to learn that Leitch had in fact read Heinz's most famous work, "The Professional." In a conversation wont of comedy, this was the high point.

Bissinger's biggest gripe, it would seem, is that blogs are poorly worded, grammatically incorrect and profanity laced drivel that add nothing to the conversation and only serve to humiliate and denigrate the poor unsuspecting athlete. And the man has a point, which is exactly why I don't understand why he gives such a damn. Much of the funniest stuff on the sports blogs is often the seedier side of sports. Whether it be Bronson Arroyo in a Northeastern dorm room, Santonio Holmes nude in the shower or stories of a Chris Berman pick-up line, these pictures & tales add very little to the greater conversation regarding the respective sports. Their only utility is entertainment at the expense of the athlete... and that's ok. What's more, it shouldn't bother members of the media one iota because this is the one area of sports coverage that the blogosphere is not stealing from main stream media ("MSM"). But beyond that, this tired argument suffered from the same misinformation and fear-mongering that permeates any discussion regarding the medium when a member of mainstream media is involved in the discussion BECAUSE NONE OF THEM HAS EVER READ A BLOG (Bissinger said that he doesn't read Deadspin but he "watched it" the day prior to the Costas show).

Here's what so enrages me about the arguments from MSM regarding blogs (or at least one of the major things): the main argument is that "many" blogs specialize in either hateful, untruthful or poorly written crap that is neither informative or interesting, so it shouldn't be read. In making this argument they cite no actual evidence of such postings and are likely relying on the good word of fellow curmudgeons who spout off the accusations via fountain penned letter and fire it off via telefax machine. If only they would take the time to look, they would find plenty of poorly worded and illogically formed sports arguments/opinions (hell, just check the archives of this site).

In an effort to make this argument yesterday, Bissinger and Costas assaulted Leitch with excerpts from Leitch's own site (though none of his actual writing, which was probably too well written for the argument to be made) and pointed out how vile and inappropriate the posts were. Bissinger went bananas, excoriating Leitch as if he were pushing crack on 8 year-olds for a living. But as Leitch so aptly pointed out, "these blogs" that Costas and Bissinger were referring to, if not well written or interesting, disappear. If there was a blog out there that started false rumors about female bowlers through the posting of a series of run-on sentences, people wouldn't read it. That may not prevent the uninteresting and grammatically improper untruths from being posted, but it would dampen their effectiveness. And if these folks were to look in the mirror they'd realize that THIS IS THE EXACT SAME WAY EVERY OTHER PUBLICATION / MEDIA OUTLET IS JUDGED. People write and say crazy shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME (check out the UFO or Al Franken / Ann Coulter sections of the bookstore) and if it's uninteresting or untruthful, it will go away (sometimes in a lawsuit). If people in talk radio can't stay on topic or formulate a sentence, people will stop listening. Simply because there are bad blogs out there (whatever your definition of "bad" happens to be) does not mean that the medium is plagued with badness. I don't think Bob Costas sucks because Brian Baldinger sucks. The same holds true for online sports opinion makers.

What's most amazing to me is that after having made these arguments for the last couple of years, MSM has failed to realize A. that the two mediums can co-exist (well, in fact. So well that it reminds me of a great scene from the film Accepted, the transcript of which you can find in the below post) and B. that in this time they haven't read any of the stuff on the internet yet they are for some reason so angry about it (this is especially so with Bissinger who is absolutely incensed but has never read a blog). The first point is what I think is most lost on MSM. As Leitch mentioned in the intro to the Shawshank style laundry room A-Raping with Costas playing the role of Boggs "discussion", people don't get the story of last night's game from the paper any longer. That information is too easily accessible and pawing through 8 paragraphs of game story that leaves out some of the most important portions of the game untouched in an ink bleeding newspaper is not worth the trouble. This is especially true now that you can get the information in so many different ways. If you want to learn about tonight's Red Sox game tomorrow, you've got a game thread on SOSH, the play-by-play on ESPN.com or CBS.Sportsline.com or wherever. If you want to know what decisions affected the game you've got literally dozens of blogs and message boards across the nation to give you the information. Why the fuck do I need to listen to Dan Shaughnessy tell me why he thought the game went awry (or not awry, which he never writes about). I don't. I need the boxscore and a little information if something crazy has happened. I can find that through my trusted blogging friends. I don't need a sports writer to tell me about the game.

Where sports writers do help is in stories that bloggers just can't get. Soon to be former Boston Globe writer Gordon Edes wrote a fantastic short expose' on the life of a middle reliever (the story focused on the travails of Bryan Corey and was a really interesting look at the crazy lifestyle of a middle reliever and his family with the constant call ups and DFAs. Worth the read if you have a moment). In order to write this kind of story, you have to have the creativity to come up with it and the access to contact Bryan Corey and not receive a restraining order in the mail following that contact. Sports writers have this and Gordon Edes is one of the better ones. If Sports writers took the time to write slice of life articles or were relevant enough to write opinion articles that were able to gain the trust of the reader (either online or in paper), then that would be great. But it would never dull my desire to get my information from people my own age who may have a funny take on the exact same game/episode/play that can't be printed in a PG media format. And herein lies the problem.

It seems to me that we the media consumers have always had the desire to have it "all." Before the internet, "all" meant a max of two competing newspapers with 3 articles about your team a day each and perhaps an article about your team in SI or The Sporting News. "All" also included a short blip in the local newscast about your team usually featuring the final score and maybe a nugget about your team's star player if it were particularly newsworthy. It wasn't that we didn't have a capacity or desire to know more about our team in that game or otherwise, it was simply that it wasn't available in an easily accessible format (other than the local establishment). You think people wouldn't have eaten up a publication that featured drunken pictures of Mickey Mantle at local bars or Joe Namath spouting off to a fan? If it were easy to publish and display those snippets of information in the hopes that thousands of people could access it for virtually on cost, the sports consuming populace would have eaten it up. Today we have all that and more. We have opinions about opinions and pictures of every athlete in every compromising situation as well as funny takes on even the most mundane sporting events (daily!). And the reason all of this is available (and I think this gets lost in many of the arguments) is that the people putting this stuff out there, for the most part, are doing it for free in their spare time. Their only interest is to entertain the faceless masses (or perhaps catharsis in some cases). They are not doing it to gain revenue or acclaim and thus are unconstrained by corporate overseers and the filters they present. This is good and bad. It's good in that you can now get a take on anything you want. You can find people who agree and disagree with you on almost any subject. It's interesting and engaging. The bad can sometimes mean that people go too far and post hateful and inappropriate material. The difference, in both cases, over today and yesteryear is that the access to both the good and bad is almost infinite. And thus the consumer is responsible for filtering the information and deciding for themselves what they will allow themselves to be swayed by. And THIS to me is where the greatest fault of the MSM lies (that's probably the third time I've noted their "greatest fault" but I'm too tired to correct it... lazy irresponsible blogger).

Buzz Bissinger and Bob Costas think you and I are idiots. They think that when we read fake rumors (redundant?) on Pro Football Talk or ugly message board vitriol that we cannot distinguish it from the truth nor do we have the ability to accurately discern how to react and form our own opinions. This is what the MSM used to do. If there was a rumor out there, they'd vet it and provide us with their best guess. If there was a statement made by a player or an action that was sure to cause a fan response, the sports writer used to tell us how to react. Today we have 50 people explaining what to believe about rumors. Today we have thousands of people explaining how we should react to polarizing sports subjects and because of that we have hundreds of different ways to react. I make up my own mind about how to react and sometimes I share it. If my opinion or take on it is in any way similar to yours it may or may not help you shape your opinion. You don't have to agree with with me but you may appreciate my perspective. So why is that bad? Why shouldn't the marketplace of ideas govern how opinions are made. The more the merrier I say. And because no one's opinion is more important than others, if the only complaint from MSM is that my syntax and sentence structure is poor, you can fucking sue my 4th grade teacher. She sucked anyway (clearly). But to argue that the blog provides a dangerous forum for unapproved opinions because of poor grammar or unimaginative writing is insane (not to mention irrelevant given the MSM alternatives out there today).

Look, Bissinger has a point. If F. Scott Fitzgerald were writing the game story for the Sox every day, I'd be a loyal reader and probably wouldn't need to watch SportsCenter to know what happened the night before (and even then I'd read SOSH to learn if Tito had properly subbed Coco for Ellsbury against McGowan). Sadly, we don't have a Fitzgerald or even a Joe Heller (who would've been a FANTASTIC sports blogger). Instead we're stuck with Fuck Stick Marriotti writing about sports and smug pricks like Bissinger explaining to us how the game should be enjoyed. I share nothing in common with these two assholes and their perspective on the games is meaningless to me. There are people out there who from their couch can give me more relevant insight into a sporting event for free than any classically trained journalist ever has, and for that I feel lucky.

I'm sorry old balls journo dude, I have a high capacity for consuming fan perspective blog posts and dick jokes. Lots and lots of dick jokes.

Here's the Bissinger - Leitch debacle:

Speech From Accepted

(Ed. Note: The transcript of the portion of the speech I referred to above from the film "Accepted" featuring Justin Long and Jonah Hill.

Bartleby Gaines: Nah, I'm not going to answer your question, 'cause you guys have already made up your minds. I'm an expert in rejection, and I can see it on your faces. And it's too bad that you judge us by the way we look and not by who we are. Just because you want us to be more like them when the truth is we're not like them. And I am damn proud of that fact. I mean, Harmon College and their - and their 100 years of tradition. But tradition of what? Of hazing kids and humiliating anyone who's a bit different? Of putting so much pressure on kids they turn into these - these stress freaks and caffeine addicts.

Dean Van Horne: Your phony school demeans real colleges everywhere!

Bartleby Gaines: Why? Why can't we both exist? Huh? You can have your grades, and your rules and your structure and your ivory towers, and then we'll do things our way. Why do we have to conform to what you want?

Dean Van Horne: Your curriculum is a joke, and you, sir, are a criminal.

Bartleby Gaines: You know what? You're a criminal. 'Cause you rob these kids of their creativity and their passion. That's the real crime! Well, what about you parents? Did -did the system really work out for you? Did it teach you to follow your heart, or to just play it safe, roll over? What about you guys? Did you always want to be school administrators? Dr. Alexander, was that your dream? Or maybe no, maybe you wanted to be a poet. Maybe you wanted to be a magician or an artist. Maybe you just wanted to travel the world. Look, I - I - I - I lied to you. I lied to all of you, and I'm sorry. Dad, especially to you. But out of that desperation, something happened that was so amazing. Life was full of possibilities. A - and isn't that what you ultimately want for us? As parents, I mean, is - is that, is possibilities. Well, we came here today to ask for your approval, and something just occurred to me. I don't give a shit. Who cares about your approval? We don't need your approval to tell us that what we did was real. 'Cause there are so few truths in this world, that when you see one, you just know it. And I know that it is a truth that real learning took place at South Harmon. Whether you like it or not, it did. 'Cause you don't need teachers or classrooms or - or fancy highbrow traditions or money to really learn. You just need people with a desire to better themselves, and we got that by the shit at South Harmon. So you can go ahead, sign your forms, reject us and shoot us down, and do whatever you gotta do. It doesn't really matter at this point. Because we'll never stop learning, and we'll never stop growing, and we'll never forget the ideals what were instilled in us at our place. 'Cause we are SHIT heads now, and we'll be SHIT heads forever and nothing you say can do or stamp can take that away from us! So go!

Max Kellerman Pilfers The Sports Guy's Idea, Page 6 Eats It Right Up

Sadly, I don't think Max Kellerman fears prosecution as intra-ESPN theft is a victimless crime.
I do not like Max Kellerman. I don't like his radio program or his overly precise consonant annunciation (if you listen to his radio commercials, you know what I'm talking about) and I especially don't like that he sipped the "Boeheim" shot (5 parts vodka, 1 part orange soda in a tumbler) we bought him at Rathbones only to leave it unfinished (and later laughed at me when I drunkenly suggested that the Blue Jays would win a pennant in the next 4 years, fucking prick). When his show comes on 1050am radio at 10am every morning, I turn the radio off and switch to the webcast of Cowherd's show out of Austin, Texas. For some reason I derive great joy from making this switch every day. So it is with great pleasure that I point out that Kellerman blatantly stole--and is now publicly receiving credit for--Bill Simmons' celebrity news Fantasy Game.

In today's New York Post, Page 6 notes that Max Kellerman "created" a game akin to fantasy football for the gossip pages:

"April 26, 2008 -- YOU'VE heard of fantasy football and fantasy baseball, where fans assemble all-star teams which compete based on their players' statistics over the course of the season. Well, last year, the people at the Kellerman and Kenny Show at 1050 ESPN Radio came up with a Page Six version of the game. Three partnerships held their draft on yesterday's show."

Of course, if you've read any of the Sports Guy's material over the last couple of years, you'd know that he came up with this exact same concept a full year earlier:

"So (Posted May 9, 2006) I'm going to create an Us Weekly fantasy league just for her. It's a million-dollar idea that could make me rich, if I weren't too dumb to figure out how to trademark it. More important, it will save my marriage. I can't afford to get divorced, it's way too expensive.

Here's how it works: 10 teams, auction format, $200 cap, five male and five female celebs per roster. Scoring is head-to-head for 22 weeks, playoffs over the last three (so you can have two seasons per year). OK, let's say you pay $55 for that chain-smoking tramp Lindsay Lohan. If she makes the cover of Us, you get 10 points (three for the inset photo). Every other Lohan picture inside is worth one. If she appears in the "Fashion Police," you're docked three. That's it. Simple. You can add or drop your celebs each Monday. Like maybe you want to dump Jake Gyllenhaal (because the whole "Brokeback" thing has played out) and grab Josh Hartnett (because he's dating Scarlett Johansson). Then again, you might want to hang on to Gyllenhaal. He's single and his number might be up in the Lohan deli line."

Now I will say that I'm not 100% sure that Kellerman didn't pay homage to Simmons when he suggested the game on-air last year (though judging by his shot-taking decorum, I'm guessing he didn't say shit), but regardless it's a pretty shitty situation for one of ESPN's own to get credit for the other's idea in such a public forum. I'm sure this is not lost on Simmons and I'm sure he'll take a half-assed and passive-aggressive "swipe" at Kellerman on his podcast at some time when the issue has fully blown over (similar to his "Obama" mention during the Eisen podcast), though of course no one will ever fully acknowledge that there's any bad blood because ESPN's dirty laundry never sees the light of day .

For Some Reason The NFL Draft Seems Awfully Lame This Year

If you have any questions about the definition of the word "lame," these guys could probably point you in the right direction.
Normally I am friggin geeked for the NFL Draft by the Thursday before the big day. I've read every mock draft and reviewed them with a fine toothed comb (making witty comments to myself like, "you idiot Don Banks, there's no f'n way Rodgers-Cromartie falls out of the top ten. This isn't the CFL draft!" And I laugh and I laugh...) and have listened to enough of Mel Kiper's predictable speaking cadence that I can finish his sentences with proper voice inflection. This year I'm just not all that into it. I don't know whether it's the teams at the front of the draft or the players coming out, but for some reason this draft just lacks a certain umph.

My guess is that the reason the Draft is lacking this year is because the players at the front of the draft are completely unknown quantities. The only one anyone really has any familiarity with is Darren McFadden and he's not even in the discussion at 2 or 3. Instead we've got a the Tyler Hansborough of D Ends (gritty, motor guy with a big heart) and one of the most talented D lineman in recent memory whose limbs are apparently constructed out of wet toilet paper. Even the top QBs don't have a ton of marquee value because none of them (other than my draft favorite, Chad Henne) are from programs anyone's ever watched. The WRs suck the RBs have a ton of depth (all the way through Mike Hart who is projected in the 4th/5th) and the real playmakers (like DeSean Jackson and Aqib Talib) have been red flagged to death. Other than Chris Long and Jerod Mayo, there's not a player in this draft that people seem to like. I hate to admit it but we may have reached our saturation point for NFL Draft information. There's so much out there about these kids that when the Pats pick their guy, I'll be so confused as to how to feel that I'll probably be emotionless. All that being said, it won't stop me from picking my over and underrated guys in this draft and project the first 15. While I didn't do too badly picking the over and underrated guys (in fact, I was f'n dead on) I sucked at picking the draft last year but I still enjoyed it so I'm doing it again. Here goes something....

Overrated:
1. Glenn Dorsey - if he's healthy, he's Warren Sapp. He's never healthy.
2. Vernon Gholston - Mike Mamula says hello.
3. Devin Thomas - JuCo kid with 6 catches in 2006. One year at Mich. St. and he's a first rounder?
4. Limas Sweed - Mike Williams part deux.
5. Felix Jones - The guy is 5'10" 205lbs. He's almost my size. I could not play in the NFL.
6/7. Joe Flacco / Brian Brohm - Great peripherals and disappointing college careers, unless you count eating. Joe Flacco could give Jared Lorenzen a run for his money in a pudding eating contest.

Underrated
1. Rodgers-Cromartie - Big, fast, great hands and raw. He may be the first shutdown corner to come out of the draft since DeAngelo Hall.
2. Clady / Alberts / Otah / Williams - The OTs in this draft are gonna be good.
3. Jerod Mayo - He's a physical specimen and played tremendous in the toughest conference in the NCAA.
4. Calais Campbell - I have a man crush on him. 6'8", athletic and tore through the ACC two years ago.
5. Chad Henne - He reminds me of Matt Hasselbeck. So I guess he'll play on an above average team in a bad conference and not win a big game, just like college!
6. Rashard Mendenhall - First jewish running back in the NFL.

NFL Draft Projections
1. Miami Dolphins - Jake Long

2. St. Louis Rams - Glenn Dorsey

3. Atlanta Falcons - Vernon Gholston

4. Oakland Raiders - Chris Long

5. Baltimore Ravens - Sedrick Ellis

6. New York Jets - Matt Ryan

7. Cincinnati - Darren McFadden

8. Kansas City - Chris Williams

9. New England - Branden Albert

10. New Orleans Saints - Mike Jenkins

11. Buffalo Bills - Devin Thomas

12. Denver Broncos - Ryan Clady

13. Carolina Panthers - Jeff Otah

14. Chicago Bears - Rashard Mendenhall

15. Detroit Lions - Keith Rivers

16. Arizona Cardinals - Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie

17. Kansas City - Derrick Harvey

18. Houston Texans - Aqib Talib

19. Philadelphia Eagles - Jerod Mayo

20. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - DeSean Jackson

21. Washington Redskins - Malcolm Kelly

22. Dallas Cowboys - Leodis McKelvin

23. Pittsburgh Steelers - Jamaal Charles

24. Tennessee Titans - Devin Thomas

25. Seattle Seahawks - Mario Manningham

26. Jacksonville Jaguars - Calais Campbell

27. San Diego Chargers - Kenny Phillips

28. Dallas Cowboys - Marcus Harrison

29. S.F. 49ers - Gosder Cherilus

30. Green Bay Packers - Antoine Cason

31. New York Giants - Brandon Flowers

If I have time tomorrow or Saturday, I'll give some explanations for all of this but for now I'm sticking to it.

What A Waste Of A Good Rivalry

You idiots! Do you know how much that hooch would be worth today?
Few things bother me more than a good opportunity wasted due to bad timing or uncontrollable circumstances. For instance, had the Black Sox scandal occurred in today's media climate, Jay Marriotti's head would explode. If Mickey Mantle played in New York today, he'd have been run out of town before his second season with his constant appearances on TMZ and Page 6. And if Skip Bayless were commentating on sports at the turn of the century, a ballplayer (likely Ty Cobb) would have given him the drubbing he so rightly deserves. Alas, we can only wonder what might've been as none of that will ever happen and we'll have to wonder what could've been. I'm reminded of these scenarios when I read today about the ongoing feud between Geno Auriemma and Pat Summit.

The feud is a good one. It features two folks at the pinnacle of their craft in a very public forum constantly battling through periodic character digs, all the while reminding us how great it can be when competitive sports turns 50 year-olds into 7 year-olds. There are rumors and threats and public call outs and tattle-taling.... this story's got it all. I mean look at this stuff:

Connecticut coach Geno Auriemma said the regular-season series against rival Tennessee was canceled because Lady Vols coach Pat Summitt accused the Huskies of a recruiting violation.

Auriemma, speaking to reporters on campus Tuesday, said Summitt "doesn't have the courage to say it publicly."

"Pat knows ... So she should just tell you why instead of saying, 'Geno knows.' I do know," he said Tuesday. "I already told you. She accused us of cheating at recruiting. She doesn't have the courage to say it publicly. So yeah, Geno does know. And I've said it."

Now that is good stuff. Unfortunately, because it is women's hoops, no one gives a shit. It'd be like shooting Goodfellas with the cast of Full House (Kimmy Gibbler playing the roll of Sandy and Uncle Joey as Billy Batts). I mean, imagine if this were happening with the two most public figures in a sport that mattered? What if Tony LaRussa and Joe Torre were yapping like this or better yet, Peyton and Brady. Man this coulda been good if not great. Instead we have to listen to two blowhards who coach a sport that is overtelevised and underathleticized (word?) get awfully nasty about some rivalry that no one really cares about. What an f'n waste.

At Long Last Our Prayers Have Been Answered!

Protest no more you ugly & smelly hippies, Matt Walsh will finally be heard.
In a story that refuses to leave us alone no matter how few of us actually give a shit, the NFL and Matt Walsh have finally come to an agreement regarding who can sue him and for how much (the word is he will not be held civilly liable for anything as long as he doesn't profit from his "story"). Walsh will now meet with Roger Goodell on May 13th to discuss what it is he has been holding onto all this time. And I think I speak for everyone when I say, thank God. I could hardly sleep at night wondering just what Walsh had to offer. I really think we're going to learn something amazing from his interview. It matters so much and I think he's a really credible dude so I'm sure he'll have a ton to talk about. But if you want to know what I really think... what a bunch of fucking horseshit.

Let's assume that Matt Walsh has 50 tapes or 150 tapes. Let's then assume that these tapes are of every opponent's signs, practices, walk-throughs and some POV home video footage of Andy Reid in the bedroom (let's hope not). What exactly does that prove? If he has all of it, Belichick will deny he ever saw it and then you'll have a he said / he said between two dudes who no one finds credible. The only difference will be that Belichick will have a ton of corroborators to his story while Matt Walsh will only have himself. Goodell will be forced to decide who to believe and will face a ton of pressure to further penalize the Pats while Kraft will be in the unenviable task of backing a guy who may have lied to him. And since that will be the end of it, nothing good will come out of it. But in the more likely scenario that Walsh only has his stories of what happened, what the hell will that prove? It's not as though we don't now know that the Pats taped people. What exactly will he be adding to the conversation and what could possibly be the consequences? If he tells Goodell he taped the Rams walk-through and that's all he's got, what could Goodell possibly do? Absolutely nothing. Because without more it's just another accusation and that's not enough to penalize the Pats.

Listen, I'm not suggesting that Matt Walsh shouldn't be spoken to and shouldn't give up all he's got. All I'm saying is that the media has made way too big a deal out of him when people stopped caring about this story 3 months ago; and when Walsh doesn't have shit on anybody and nothing happens after his interview don't say I didn't tell you so.