What Did We Learn From The Clemens Hearings? Well Not Much Other Than The Fact That Clemens Is A Lying Sack Of Shit.

Clemens won this contest in a landslide.
Remember when you were a kid and you did something wrong but thought you could get away with it, so you lied (or at least that’s what I did)? Even though you knew it really wasn’t the worst thing you've ever done and it was very likely your parents weren’t going to be that mad about it anyway, you lied. And maybe you got away with it but in support of that lie you had to create all of these secondary lies a long convoluted twisted tales (Dane Cook actually does a rare funny bit about this type of thing in his "Vicious Circle" special). And these secondary lies never really made a whole lot of sense but in order to bolster your original lie, you had to stick by them. You know, the real lie was that you weren’t hanging out at the bad kid’s house but in support of that lie you create an alibi and a timeline and you get real defiant about it: "Mom, I couldn’t have been over at Dirty McChainsmoker’s house because me and Carl were riding our bikes over by the sand banks and then we went for a swim and stopped by Rite-Aid to pick up some gum and then played a best of 13 Sega ‘93 Hockey Series but neither of us were allowed to be the Blackhawks or Blues because Roenick is too good and Al MacInnis’ one-timer is too unstoppable and I won in 10 games because I picked the Edmonton Oilers and subbed in Petr Klima at center who was secretly the second best player in the game even though Carl picked the Canucks (the best overall team in Sega ‘93 because Kirk McLean was a friggin brick wall and the Bure-Linden combo was borderline unstoppable). After that we went to Jreck’s and got a Meatball sub and then a sundae from Morgan’s before we took our clubs over to the 15th hole over at SLU to play the 4 hole post-dawn-sneak-on (15, 16, 14, 15) where I flew the ditch on 16 from the tips (260 carry) and then sculled my second onto the 17th tee. So you see, I never had time to stop at Dirty’s place. No siree." All you really needed to say was "No mom. I was riding bikes." Unfortunately you don’t take this route because you want to make it seem inconceivable that you could have been at the bad kid’s house. But mom’s no dummy. She may not have been willing to let it slide until you came up with this story. But this is your story and mom sees the holes in it.

Mom: "So you were playing Sega ‘93, eh?"
Me: "Yup. Great series. Klima dominated"
Mom: "But didn’t you say that neither of you could be St. Louis because MacInnis’ one-timer was too unstoppable?"
Me: (realizing I fucked up) "Ummm, yeah."
Mom: "But I thought Sega ‘93 was the year BEFORE they put in the one-timers?"
Me: "Well, I, we meant that maybe... I misspoke and, misremembered but, Petr Klima was the one..."
Mom: "You’re grounded."
Me: "Fuck"

You see it wasn’t the lie that got me, it was the lie in support of my lie. Clemens’ contention that he didn’t do steroids is only as credible as he comes off. And because of his secondary lies, he doesn’t come off as all that credible. He came off as a guy who if found with cookie crumbs and chocolate on his face wouldn't simply deny eating the cookies, but would deny eating the cookies, deny liking cookies, deny liking chocolate and deny liking food or ever haven eaten anything that someone would describe as sweet tasting.

Throughout the entire hearing, I couldn’t figure out (and still can't) why Clemens was so set on fostering these unnecessary secondary lies. My favorite one was when Clemens said that he’d never heard of HGH until this whole thing came about. Now this may be irresponsible of me but I call absolute bullshit on this claim. Clemens is CLEARLY lying about this fact. Never heard of it? Are you fucking kidding me? Even if we didn’t know that Clemens knew that his wife had been injected with HGH, there is no way that Clemens didn’t know about HGH or have conversations with people about it. Now I’d be more than willing to believe that he never had discussions about DOING HGH or asking people of the benefits of HGH (I don’t believe him, but I could see how that is more believable) but why is it necessary to go to the extra step of saying "I’ve never had a discussion about it ever." Never a casual conversation, Rog? You never talked to someone about the allegations regarding Bonds or Giambi a couple years back? What is the point of denying in totality knowledge of HGH the substance? My guess is that in Roger's world, he thinks that it if denying use is good, denying knowledge must be fucking super good. What he doesn't seem to factor into the equation is that it just seems so unreasonable to believe that an athlete in the 2000's had never even heard of HGH and it becomes such a stupid lie that it undermines EVERYTHING else you have to say. If we know you’re going to lie about something so stupid, why wouldn’t we then believe that you are willing to extend that lie to everything else? But Clemens wasn’t done there. He did the same thing when asked by rep Maloney (my representative!) about notice of the Mitchell inquiries.

Congresswoman Maloney asked Clemens why he changed his story about getting notice from George Mitchell that indicated Mitchell wanted to speak to him. Originally, in his 60 minutes version, Clemens stated that he knew about the letters from Mitchell but was told they wouldn’t tell him what the evidence actually was so he decided not to talk. Under oath, Clemens new tune was that he never knew Mitchell wanted to talk to him. When he fell back on his under oath remarks, Rep Maloney asked him if we are to believe that his agent never notified him of the letters from Mitchell, what the fuck is he doing by still employing such an irresponsible representative? He had no response because it’s simply not true. Do we honestly believe that the Hendricks brothers never mentioned to Clemens that Mitchell Report sent three letters to them asking their client to come in and talk? No fucking chance. Do you really expect us to believe that when their biggest client gets notice that there is evidence--evidence that will be made public in a couple months--that this client used steroids and HGH that they then wouldn’t pick up the phone and say, "Hey Rocket, what do you want us to do about this?" It’s not like the Mitchell Report was as secret and no one cared what it was going to say. OF COURSE Clemens’ agent told him about the fucking letters from the Mitchell Report. And OF COURSE Clemens said there was no chance he was going to meet with Mitchell because Clemens didn’t believe they actually had anything on him. And then when the report was released and we learned that they had a TON of shit on Clemens, he had to now explain why he never spoke with Mitchell after Mitchell's repeated requests. His only recourse at that point was to throw his agent under the bus. What are the Hendricks’ brothers going to do? If they were truly his lawyers at the time, the conversations would likely be privileged but even beyond that there is no way they’re going to disclose that conversation as it would be horrible for future business. But more importantly to the greater poitn, this lie was unnecessary. If he had simply said he got notice and decided that it would be improper to speak with the Mitchell Report unless they were willing to provide he and his lawyers with the evidence ahead of time, that wouldn’t be great but at least it makes sense. It’s a conservative legal decision based on sound judgment that is explainable. Instead we get, "Sorry ya’ll, my super agents never told me that I was going to go down in a heap of flames." That’s simply not true. And despite the fact that its overall relevance to the proceedings is minimal, it just speaks volumes as to how much of a freaking lying sack of shit this guy is turning out to be.

The final explanation I found really troubling was the convoluted story about Clemens and Pettitte’s relationship being such that Pettitte would have told Clemens about his HGH use. And because Pettitte never did talk about HGH with Clemens, this somehow means that Clemens never used it. Yes, I know this sounds like friggin loony tunes so let me get this right. I think it went something like this: Clemens and Pettitte were tight. The two were so tight in fact that they would approach eachother about anything. So if Pettitte knew that Clemens used HGH in the past and Pettitte was thinking about using it himself, Pettitte would have approached Clemens to ask him about it before he (Pettitte) used it. And since Pettitte never asked Clemens about it (which must be confirmed on the deposition in order for any of this to make sense), this somehow confirms that Pettitte never thought Clemens used HGH. Aside from being a horrendously weak argument, there are a couple of things that don’t make sense about this.

First, if Pettitte and Clemens were so tight, why didn’t Pettitte mention to Clemens that he was taking HGH? Pettitte admitted to taking HGH and Roger claims he never knew about it. Doesn’t this kinda throw cold water on the idea that Pettitte would have approached Clemens about using it in the first place if he could never muster the courage to tell him he was actually taking it? It would seem that that would be one of those things that buddies talk about. And yet, Clemens claims they never spoke about it. My guess is that Clemens’ answer in response to that would be that Pettitte wouldn’t have felt comfortable talking about cheating with Roger because he respected him so much (again, in Roger's head we're working under the assumption that he never did any drugs). Andy was embarrassed. I don’t fucking know. I don’t find it in any persuasive that because Pettitte didn’t ask Clemens about HGH (according to Clemens), that this means Clemens didn’t take HGH. Especially when held against the evidence that Pettitte AND HIS WIFE both confirmed that it was their understanding that Clemens took HGH. And when you throw in that Roger’s own wife took HGH (without Clemens’ knowledge, allegedly. Another point that is HORSEFUCKINGSHIT (tmesis)), the plot just got too damn thick. And all the defiance in the world doesn't make Roger look any less guilty.

With dust all settled, here’s where we are at: it has been confirmed that Brian McNamee injected Roger’s best friend, Roger’s wife and claims he injected Roger; and Roger’s best friend and his best friend’s wife back up McNamee’s claim. Given ALL OF THAT, we’re supposed to believe that because Pettitte didn’t ask Clemens about HGH, this means that Clemens couldn’t have done it. If that’s what you’re hanging your hat on Rog, you are fucking sunk.

Lastly, and this is completely subjective, doesn’t it just feel like Clemens is lying through his fucking teeth? Between his greasy lawyers and his feigned defiance and indignation, I just don’t believe him. I don’t think there is anything that can be done to change my mind about it. I’m sure all the evidence against him has affected my judgment but more than anything, I find him to be completely unbelievable. He just seems like a big fat liar. I suppose that’s not fair of me, but neither is shooting up drugs and striking out Mark Bellhorn during a roid rage. You see Roger didn’t worry about fairness during his career, so why should I give a shit about being fair when opining about that same career?

Just Wow

I don't even have to words to properly describe the absolute stupidity that is the above video and song. The only positive I can take away from the above video is the production meetings that must have gone on to get it to this point:

Editor: "Anything else guys..."
Dbag: "Well, I've been kinda working on some lyrics for a song about the Patriots for a little while and think I've stumbled upon something pretty solid."
Editor: "Well, let's hear it."
Dbag: "You remember the song 'Beat It' by Michael Jackson?"
Editor: "Sure. That song was all kinds of popular 25 years ago."
Dbag: "Well, keep that beat in mind as I sing this song... (falsetto) 'You sent a cameraman to shoot other teams!"
Editor: "Sweet Jesus Man! That's genius! I want a video for the website by 6pm!"
Dbag: "Um sir, it's noon. What do you want me to do?"
Editor: "We've got a Sony handycam in the back somewhere. Just take it and convince some assholes on the streets and bars to start singing. It'll be outstanding."

And so forth. I just... I'm done with this.

Hank Strikes Again

Not many people would have the chutzpah to bring up the names Koufax and Drysale when speaking about a crew of untested rookie pitchers, but then again, Hank Stein is quickly separating himself from the distinction of "many people."
I know I tend to do this a lot ("this" meaning ripping people in sports who exaggerate when making comparisons), but it bother the shit out of me when people resort to unnecessary hyperbole in order to bolster a point or get people excited. The media, and people speaking to the media, seem conditioned to give us examples that we can easily digest. A defensive end who is quick off the ball is compared to LT (see Shawn Merriman) or a pitcher who can command his fastball is the "next Maddux." The problem is that the comparison comes after 15 games or 60 innings and is the player invariably will NEVER reach the level of the compared player. I understand the thought process behind the comparisons. Familiarity with the big name brings with it an easy frame of reference from which the reader can draw comparisons. The only problem with that is that rather than use the hyperbolic comparison as it was meant to be used, the idiot reader (the majority of readers) uses the information as gospel. It's exactly the problem I had with the Globe comparing Buchholz and Lester to Peavy and Pettitte a couple days ago. Reading those comparisons don't just get people excited, they actually think they've got a Peavy & Pettitte combo (people are stupid) and it creates a monster of unfair expecations. Well, after these upcoming statements, it seems Hank Steinbrenner loves feeding the monster.

In an article entitled "Decade of Dominance", Steinbrenner, amongst other lofty claims, seems to think that his young pitchers are as good as any other staff in the league. In fact, he is so confident in his kids that he sees fit to compare them to perhaps the greatest duo of pitchers of all-time:

Steinbrenner is expecting another playoff run at the least in the finale of Yankee Stadium. "They do need to make the playoffs or let's face it, I'm going to be ticked off," Steinbrenner said. "And then once we get in the playoffs we'd better do well, but the fact of the matter is, as far as the next 10 years we could be in dynamite shape. We could have the best pitching staff since the Dodgers in the '60s and obviously we'll have some good hitters, too."

Koufax and Drysdale, eh? I feel like Matt Foley staring across the table at David Spade and saying, "Hey, Dad, I can't see too good is that Bill Shakespeare over there?" (video footage found here) except we're inserting Koufax and Drysdale for Shakespeare and I'm looking at three pitchers under age of 25 who have less than 20 starts total under their collective belts. It's absolutely INSANE to invoke the 60's Dodgers teams when speaking about your young pitchers. I don't care how confident you are in your guys, when you set the bar that high the only place for your guys to go is down. They can't possibly reach those expectations, let alone exceed them. And though you may think that people wouldn't possibly take so literally a statement like Stein's, you don't know people.

For many, the Post and the quotes within it are their only frame of reference. They don't differentiate between fact and opinion. They interpret his quote not as the opinion of a narcissist, but that of a skilled assessor of talent (which Steinbrenner clearly is not). Same goes for the Globe and the lofty comparisons that Buchholz, Ellsbury and Lester draw. Sure it gets people excited (I guess it'd be less sexy to compare those guys to Brett Tomko, David DeJesus and Gustavo Chacin, though that may be much more fair) but it is just so inaccurate as to be distracting from the real story that both teams or doing something that historically doesn't work out. They are relying on young pitching to put them into playoff contention. And maybe that was his intention (distraction from reality). In doing so he created an unreachable level of achievement and an unfair atmosphere in which these young kids will be scrutinized. As if it wasn't going to be hard to enough....

So yeah, maybe I'm a little over critical of these types of comparisons given that they've become a matter of course. Just don't say I didn't tell you so when the next Don Drysdale turns out to be the next Edwin Jackson.

The F?

I hear ya kid. The below headline had me wondering what the fuck was going on too.
Bored to tears for a period of time today and unable to blog because I work for communists, I found myself perusing the regular news rolls. In passing through Yahoo, I found the following headline:

"Scientists invent submersible glider that runs on sea's heat"

If you're like me, this raised some eyebrows. For one, I didn't know the sea produced the type of heat that could be utilized to power anything let alone an underwater vehicle. And if that's the case, what the fuck have we been doing by not using it for so long? There is a lot of sea out there.

The other thing that made me do a doubletake was the idea of a "submersible glider." Now after reading the article I realized I was thinking of something completely different. But without that knowledge my imagination took me to a pretty crazy place. I mean, submersible glider? What the F? So, in an effort to properly square away my thoughts, I drew a picture of what I thought a submersible glider to be. Below is the result (mind you, I am a HORRIBLE artist):

"Submersible Glider" by A. Alan Smith

Not bad eh? It's a guy on a glider submersing himself. I couldn't really draw the heat propelling him through the water but I thought it properly depicted the idea of a "submersible glider." That poor fucker didn't know what the fuck was going on until he hit the water and then it was smooth sailing.

Now you may be wondering what this has to do with sports, but I think it summarizes exactly the problem with this period between the Super Bowl and Spring Training. This is what happens when searching through things to watch tonight I honestly considered the Quinnipiac v. Wagner game.

Hurry up Spring Training. I'm starting to lose my shit.

The Sox Aren't Worried About Schilling. Hell, They've Got A Young Pettitte And Peavy In Their Rotation

Hey, I'm as psyched as anyone to see what Lester and Buchholz can do for the Sox this season. Unfortunately, the expectations may be a little on the high side.
With the Pats turning a fantastic season into a giant dump (no pun intended), pitchers and catchers can't start practicing fast enough for the mourning New England faithful. Fortunately for us all, because the Sox start their season early in Japan this year, Spring Training comes early and the Sox officially open facilities for their title defense in 3 days. And everything was going so sweet until Schilling's old ass up and busted up his shoulder. But even that really wasn't that bad because the Sox had 6 starters ready to go anyway (7 if you include Masterson). Because of this depth, Schilling's injury didn't really have the panic that it normally might. But I think because of the depression associated with the Pats failure and the history of overreaction and panic of Sox fans, the Sox media went a little overboard in an effort to calm the everyone's nerves.

Instead of merely heralding the young Sox pitchers as viable starting staff with great experience and potential, the Boston media compared the young pitchers on the staff to a couple of major league players. And not just any two guys:

The Red Sox, like the Yankees, are transitioning to a younger pitching staff, building around a core of veterans in Josh Beckett (27) and Daisuke Matsuzaka (27), and they hope lefthander Jon Lester (24) becomes their Andy Pettitte and Buchholz emerges as their Jake Peavy.

Pettitte and Peavy? Whoa. I hope that's true because the Sox will have the greatest rotation of all-time but come the fuck on. Peavy won the Cy Young last year and Pettitte is a borderline Hall of Famer (and drug abuser). It seems odd to make such lofty comparisons for two guys who are fairly untested when neither of them need to fill a No. 1 or 2 roll in the rotation. I'd be happy if Lester becomes a latter day Bruce Hurst and ecstatic if Buchholz turned into a steady Derek Lowe or David Cone.

Of course in my heart of hearts I want every young Sox pitcher to turn into Brandon Webb and Jake Peavy, but that's just not going to happen. It's much more likely that Buchholz or Lester flame out and never pitch another game than it is that either of them becomes a 20 game winner. That's just the way these things go. But I guess what frustrates me most about situations like these is that these guys are trying to make the rotation of the defending World Champs and the pressure is high enough. To start throwing around comparisons to Pettitte and Peavy is both unfair and unnecessary. We're f'n psyched about these two guys. Let's just leave it at that until the season starts.

The ManRam Is Ready To Roll In 2008 With The Help Of Uncle Rico

Look out for the ManRam this year. Apparently he actually gives a shit about baseball.
So there are rumors abound that the ManRam is taking baseball seriously this year for the first time in his life. He apparently hasn't lifted a bat, but he's been working out like a fiend at API (with the likes of Youkilis and Pedroia) and is apparently in top notch shape. And he's doing it in his typically ManRam sort of way:

It's 8 a.m., and Red Sox left fielder Manny Ramírez is already sweaty. He looks ripped and ready to defend the world championship.

He shouts "Ohio Gozaimasu" - Japanese for "good morning" - above the rock music blaring in the Athletes' Performance weight room. He runs sprints and agility drills on the Arizona State football field and signals touchdowns. He fetches bottles of water for his workout mates, Sox first baseman Kevin Youkilis and Minnesota Twins third baseman Nick Punto. He then does a lefty weight resistance exercise and announces he's going to bat lefthanded this year. He's only kidding.

When Youkilis is temporarily challenged by a 100-pound dumbbell, Ramírez stands over him and starts a "Youk" chant that would make a Fenway bleacherite proud. The football players training for the upcoming NFL Combine think he's crazy.

"Manny being Manny, I know what that means now," says Punto. "He's an intense workout partner. I think people perceive him the wrong way sometimes because this guy really loves the game. He loves everything that goes along with it. He's working out hard and he's going to be ready to play this season, for sure."

Things are good in Manny World. Since declaring himself a "bad man" at the World Series, Ramírez, 34, has announced his plans to report to spring training on time and to play for several more years. Ramírez allowed the Globe to follow his 2-hour-15-minute workout routine but politely declined to be interviewed.

"Take care of yourself," is his advice.

That's right ManRam. Take care of yourself or else you'll end up like Uncle Rico.

This is the honest to goodness caption under this photo in the Herald: "Red Sox left fielder Manny Ramirez puts in an offseason workout yesterday with the help of his Uncle Rico at Athletes’ Performance in Tempe, Ariz."

No no, not like this, like the real Uncle Rico:

Just Because You Don't Like The Result Doesn't Mean The Mitchell Report Wasn't Necessary

The Mitchell Report's been out for about 2 months and NOW people are saying they don't know why the MLB had it done. Allow me to explain, idiots.
Nobody possibly could have imagined that the fallout from the Mitchell Report would look quite like this. I mean, taped phone calls, Congressional autograph hounds, soiled gauze pads, crushed Miller Lite cans and now allegations of a wife doing HGH in an effort to look good for her photoshoot. This is a lunacy too far out there for a even the most sordid Hollywood script. And it is because of this wackiness that some members of the media have taken to only now suggest that maybe this whole thing wasn't such a sweet idea. Because the Report has devolved into a "He said, She-male said" and because the most public result is the airing of the dirty laundry of perhaps the most successful pitcher of all-time, the pundits are convinced that we'd be better off never having looked under the lumpy rug. The only problem is that these same folks want the same result. They want better testing and harsher penalties for those who test positive. Well, I'm here to tell you that the achieved effect could not have been achieved without the recently condemned cause. Allow me to splain...

I'll start by explaining that the reason for this entire post stem from Peter Gammons on Mike & Mike this morning and a rant from Michael Kay this afternoon. Both gents suggest that baseball would have been better off without the Mitchell Report. That baseball was moving in the right direction and the only result of the report was to ruin the reputation of a small percentage of players while the majority of offenders arbitrarily get away scott free. While I agree that those singled out aren't the only ones who did something wrong and are only punished because their dealers got caught, this isn't a novel scenario in American jurisprudence. Do you think every tax cheat gets caught? Are random audits the best way to single out those offenders? I guarantee that you've been pulled over for speeding and could rightly argue that you were going 15mph slower than the lime green Civic that just flew by you 10 minutes ago. But that guy goes free while you get caught. What's fair about that? The stakes may be higher and the task given to Mitchell more broad than a State Trooper in a speed trap, but spare me the fairness bullshit.

But getting back on point, the reason the Mitchell Report was spawned was to quell pressure from Congress. Congress wanted more stringent testing and harsher penalties and prior to the Mitchell Report, baseball had the weakest PED policy in all of sports. Because the Players' Association had given in and put a weak testing policy into the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement, the MLBPA had no reason to give in again and being one of the strongest unions in the U.S., there was little chance they would. One of their strongest arguments against more stringent testing was that there wasn't a huge problem. They had done there own testing and wouldn't release the data but were convinced that the results proved that further testing was unnecessary. Prior to the commission of the Report, there just wasn't enough evidence to prove that a stronger policy was necessary and Congress was breathing down Selig's neck. In order for the MLB to get a better testing policy and tougher penalties, they needed to prove there was a problem. So Selig commissioned the Mitchell Report. An independent commission to get to the bottom of the real steroid problem. That seems like a reasonable response.

So if we can accept that it was necessary to prove that there was a bigger steroid problem in order to get the MLBPA's head out of their collective ass and get a better testing program in the CBA, then you could make the leap that it may have been necessary to create some kind of independent review the situation to see if there was a problem. And if that is the case, it was probably necessary to find specific examples of past drug use in order to make the case. And this is where things get hairy. If Mitchell gets some guys to either admit to doing drugs or finds some prick who will turn on guys he has seen doing drugs, that's all the evidence they need in order to convince the MLBPA that they need better testing on their own or else Congress will force better testing upon them. So then the question becomes, why do they need to release the names? If all Selig needed was percentages or a number of players currently playing who at one time or another were doing PEDs, why the names? Here's why: What if he hadn't released the names?

Imagine The Mitchell Report comes out and it says "We have 80+ confirmed steroid abusers and 50+ of those are still playing." And then they used that information to get the MLBPA to bend over. Do you think there would not be a public outcry for those names? Wouldn't it look as though the MLB was covering something up? And can you even imagine what the outrage would look like if Clemens' name was leaked after the MLB refused to list the names in the report? That would make this current situation look like a frickin petting zoo (I have no idea why I chose that analogy). This was the only way this could have gone down. So to suggest that because we now have one PED freak with his panties in a bunch and because he has a top attorney for a mouthpiece that we should now second guess the reasoning behind the whole thing is ridiculous. In order to get the better policy and penalty, this needed to happen.

In conclusion, let's summarize:

Congress wanted a better testing policy.
MLBPA wouldn't budge without more evidence.
Selig wanted more evidence to get Congress off his back.
Independent report would be reliable evidence.
Independent report would obviously turn up players' names.
If those names remain silent, public freaks and calls cover up.
If those names are leaked, the cover up charges gain credence, especially if Clemens' name comes out.
In order for the integrity of the process to be upheld, the names had to be released.

But here's the kicker, in the end, the Mitchell Report worked. There's a better testing policy; Clemens' name made the situation hit home and the penalties have increased. Not to mention that the gravity of the HGH problem has been realized. A blood test is in the works and this never would have happened without the Report. So what the fuck are these assholes complaining about. Just because Chuck Knoblauch lost his innocence, I'm supposed to feel bad that Joey Meathead has to take a fucking hair sample every 3 months? The ends justify the means, I don't care how many wives of lying sacks of shit have to go down because of it.

I'm Not Bitter About The Giants Win As Much As The Praise Of Eli

If Asante makes this play instead of exchanging his hands for buttcheeks, Eli is the goat and the Giants are selecting a QB in the first two rounds.
I need to start saying that I'm really not making excuses here for the Pats. Simmons really summed up well the feelings I have about the Pats in that they didn't really show that much excitement or grit and were overconfident coming into the game. I'm not sure how it translated onto TV, but it was clear that the Giants came out on every play like they were shot out of a cannon while the Pats looked like they were just biding their time (and it almost worked!). The Pats performance was so lackluster and unimaginative that I felt like we were watching the Kansas City Chiefs or Penn State Football. But that didn't lose them the game. The Pats lost because the Giants front four ATE THEM FOR F'N BREAKFAST! Strahan, Osi and Tuck DOMINATED that game and every facet of it. It was one of the most inspired defensive performances I've ever seen. And really that should have been the story. But nope, rather than focus on the real story, the pages of the Newspapers and the morning talk shows and the radio were all praising Eli Manning. He of the three dropped interceptions (the one interception Hobbs actually caught was not Eli's fault unless you fault him for throwing one of his signature horrible balls), 56% completion percentage and extremely shaky first 3 quarters (though he wasn't horrible on the first drive, he blew it in the red zone). And that's what bothers me. It's fucking disgraceful.

As I've made abundantly clear on several occasions, I do not think much of Eli Manning (least subtly, I wrote a piece entitled "Is Eli The Worst QB In The NFL? A good read if you've got a minute...). Because I live in New York and I have no DirecTv access, I am forced to watch his third rate Quarterbacking every fucking Sundee from August to December. The only game I've ever seen him play better than mediocre is the Pats regular season game. Every other time he's been horrible. I know that is not necessarily accurate, but I'm not even going to come close to suggesting that I'm not biased here. I REALLY hate the guy and view his performance through shit colored glasses. So please keep that in mind as I digress here (and it WILL be a digression...).

My main premise here is that credit should be given where credit is due. Does Eli deserve some credit for the win? Of course he does. Tyree's catch never would have happened without his remarkable escape. He drove down the entire field in the final two minutes needing a touchdown and he got it... IN THE F'N SUPER BOWL! That's impressive. It's just not the story of why the Giants won the game. The story was the D-line. And they were even less talked about in the newspapers and radio shows than Belichick's walk off the field (the unwarranted outrage over that move deserves an entire separate post). The Giants sacked Brady 5 times and hit him 23 times! He had only been sacked 21 times all season! The Giants' D held the Pats to fewer points than they score in most quarters! Oh but no. We need to stroke Eli Manning for Rodney Harrison missing a tackle on Boss, David Tyree being a freak and Ellis Hobbs blowing out his groin and leaving Plax all by his lonesome. Instead we hear about how amazing Eli is and are forced to listen to people compare him to Joe Montana (if you type in "Eli Manning" and "Joe Montana" into Google News, there are 415 articles. I know there aren't that many final drives in NFL history so you can't compare it to much and some of those stories in this search are angry folks like myself calling bullshit on the NY media's overhyping, but come the fuck on.... Eli is as close to Joe Montana as Joran Van der Sloot is to Mother Teresa. I don't care how amazing you thought that drive was.). I can't fucking take it.

I know I'm probably doing a horrible job of being objective and my arguments (if you can even call them that) are not all that strong, but I think I can best bring this home by putting it this way: Eli had that game lost a second before Tyree gave them another shot. Asante Samuel makes that play ALL THE FUCKING TIME... and Eli threw it right to him! It was a horrendous play and was the biggest play of the game. And if Asante makes that play, Eli is the goat of all goats. The Giants' defense would be praised to the high hills for controlling the game and Eli could never show his face in this town again. They may have to trade him. And what makes me so mad about that is not that it cost the Pats the game (even though it did) but that with the game on the line and his team having given him a shot by playing so well for 58 minutes, Eli blew the game and the Giants' season. No one gave them a shot to be in this position and his teammates willed them to this spot with one of the greatest defensive performances in Super Bowl history. And how did Eli respond? He threw the ball directly to a Pro Bowl Cornerback on the other team. And by pure luck, he got another chance and his team made the most out of it (or I should say Eli threw up an answered prayer and then lobbed a pass to a 6'5" receiver after his defender injured himself). Yet for some reason, Eli is being handed ALL the credit for this game (with some going to Tyree, deservedly so). It doesn't make sense to me.

Look, I recognize QBs get more credit than most players no matter what happens and Eli did make the pass to Tyree and the pass to a wide open Plax, but he also blew the game. Meanwhile all the Giants' front four did was dominate the best offense in league history and make one of the best QBs in league history look more flustered than Mario Lopez getting denied access to the Stone Rose at the Maxim party (I'll get into that). Yeah, I'm biased, but even a more levelheaded observer would have to admit that in terms of achievement, the Giants' defense's effort was light years more impressive than Eli's. And if you can't see that, you're as stupid as Eli is bad at football.

Now I Understand Why People Hate Phil

Being that I was away this weekend and not privy to much of the media conversation about much of anything (though I did hear that Arlen Specter's panties were bunched up for a couple of days), so I'm not sure if this story got much play but I thought it was pretty solid.

I'll break down my trip to Phoenix in more detail later this week but one of my stops on Saturday was at the FBR Open in Scottsdale. It was out of control. But the coolest part as a spectator was watching Phil move around the course. Unlike other events where he shares the stage with Tiger, at the FBR, he is the event. And they F'n LOVE him out there. There were 175,000 people at TPC at Scottsdale on Saturday and about 150,000 were on 16 when Phil came through and the hole is only like 160 yards. It was louder than the Super Bowl.... but I'll tell that story later.

Anyhoo, as I've mentioned before, I'm a Phil guy and love Mickelson. I've never understood why love Tiger no matter what he does but hate Phil. And unfortunately most of the press about Phil is so negative (not through his own doing) that I can't find stuff to back up my opinion. Which is why I was really pleased to read this story.

I guess prior to reaching the the 16th on Sunday, Phil ran into a kid wearing Calloway gear and the kid asked for Phil's autograph. Phil, being Phil, obliged and then went a little bit further:

It started early Sunday morning when Fockler (Drew) and his father, John, left early from Flagstaff and got to the practice green early to see if they could get Mickelson's autograph. They waited through several golfers before their favorite showed up, and they approached him near the putting green.

"He told us that he doesn't sign before his rounds and that he'd catch us afterwards," John said. "We figured we tried, and we'd watch him the rest of the way."

By the time they got to the third tee, they found a good spot up front, and Mickelson's caddie, Jim "Bones" MacKay, approached them and said he needed to talk to them after Mickelson's threesome teed off.

"I thought maybe I was going to get a signed ball or something," said Drew, who plays on the Desert Junior Golf Tour. "I couldn't believe it."

That's when MacKay asked him if he liked football as he unzipped one of the pockets on Mickelson's golf bag.

Before he knew it, Drew was handed a set of tickets in an envelope and was on his way to Glendale.

"I thought it would be fun to give it to a father-son (group)," said Mickelson, who added it didn't hurt that Drew was wearing a Callaway hat. "I cherish the time I have with each one of my kids, and I thought it would be a cool experience for them."

What a prick, eh? I'm sure there's some Phil hater out there who is convinced that Tiger would have flown the kid to the game on his private helicopter or some such shit or complain that Phil's seats were probably nosebleeds. Phil haters.... I just don't get it.

Ian, Don't Back Down. You Said Nothing Wrong

Ian Poulter is brash enough to wear dick-in-the-ass pink pants, but didn't have the balls to stick to his original statement after the Tiger Gestapo took hold of the story and turned their claws on him.
You may remember a couple years ago when a Danish newspaper (not a newspaper made of dough and delicious filling but instead a newspaper published in Denmark) ran into a ton of shit when it posted a couple of cartoons that simply depicted the Prophet Muhammad. This depiction was considered blasphemous by many in the Muslim community (without getting into too much detail and because I don't really understand the entire story, apparently Muslims ain't cool with someone publishing their interpretation of what Muhammad looked like because it's disrespectful to Islam) and caused quite a stir amongst non-muslims who couldn't fathom getting upset about something so seemingly innocuous. The controversy led to death threats, worldwide protests and about 100 people being killed in the resulting chaos. Not that sweet. And all because people are offended that someone sketched a picture of an historical figure. It seems like a significant overreaction if you ask me, just don't tell anyone in Iran I said that. Anyhoo, after this week's "Poultergate" (trademark pending), I'm wondering if Tiger Woods has attained similar status with the American media in that if you say anything about him that even sniffs of a slight, you will be drawn and quartered and your family will have to enter witness protection.

This week England's Ian Poulter, a golfer much more well known for his fashion sense than his putting touch, touched off a frickin firestorm of media outrage after he did an interview with Golf World Magazin and said this:

"Don't get me wrong, I really respect every professional golfer, but I know I haven't played to my full potential and when that happens, it will be just me and Tiger."

"The trouble is I don't rate anyone else," the 32-year-old Briton was quoted as saying in the March issue of the United Kingdom version of Golf World magazine.

"Don't get me wrong, I really respect every professional golfer, but I know I haven't played to my full potential and when that happens, it will be just me and Tiger."

What exactly did he say here? To me, it seems he said that when he's on he can take on Tiger. And he hasn't been really "on" so far. I don't think that's completely unreasonable considering he's finished in the top 25 six times in the last 4 years and top 13 four times in the last 3 years. Hell, he even beat Tiger in the '06 US Open when Tiger missed the cut. He's presently the 22nd ranked player in the world. So it's not as though Poulter is some scrub. But from this seemingly benign statement, people who don't know shit about shit (see Stephen A. Smith and Tony Kornheiser) ripped the guy; all because he said he has a shot at winning a tournament and because he says at his best he is second best.

So then today, Poulter had to backtrack from all of his statements claiming he was "misquoted" and taken out of context. The only thing wrong with Poulter's statements is that the media interpreted them to mean he was ripping Tiger (or the rest of the Tour). But in reality he didn't say a damn thing. If he's guilty of anything it's being a pussy and backtracking. But the bigger story is that this was any story at all.

For some reason whenever you talk about Tiger you have to qualify every statement by citing his immortality and that no one will ever have a chance against him. Only after paying these respects may we opine on the magnificence that is Tiger. Don't get me wrong here, Tiger is perhaps the most dominant athlete in the history of sports. He's also one of the most likable athletes in sports today. I understand why people feel inclined to protect him and defend his honor in the face of anything that resembles disrespect, but he's not above criticism and he's not beyond competition. He can be beat despite his greatness and it's fucking disgusting how indignant the media gets every time some golfer claims he's got a shot. The funniest part about all of this is that the same guys who kill the guys who say they have a shot at Woods are the one ripping Woods competition on the tour. According to these hacks, you can't rip Woods because he's so great but Woods is only great because his competition sucks. It's a bit of a pickle. And nothing is added to the conversation by those fucktards who won't let someone suggest want to step up and give it a go.

I guess I don't understand what's so fucking wrong about thinking you can win? Since when is it bad to be confident in your ability? Did you enjoy watching the final round of the Bob Hope? Shouldn't we want a foil for Tiger? Or are we just so enthralled with the awe that Tiger inspires that we can't handle the idea of someone believing they can take him down? I'm ready for someone who thinks they can.

Apologies For My Recent Posting (Or Lack Thereof)

Apologies for my erratic posting recently. I haven't settled into a routine quite yet and between not having access to my the site at work (fucking feds) and my school schedule driving me insane, I just haven't really figured out a consistent posting schedule. I'm working on it though. Hopefully I'll have a more consistent system up shortly.

Oh btw, The Smittblog's going to the Super Bowl. So that should provide some blog fodder....

Greggggg Easterbrook Needs To Be Put In A Padded Room

We heard you the first time, Greggggggg.
Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If that is the standard, then Greggg Easterbrook is the posterboy for insanity.

A lot of things have transpired since the middle of September. (I’m not going to link to all of these stories because I’m lazy) The Mets blew an insurmountable NL East lead, the Sox won the World Series, A-Rod left and came back for the most money ever and then had the worst sports interview in television history on 60 Minutes, the Mitchell Report came out and made some news, the college football season got a little nutty and every favorite lost right when they could’ve won, Marion Jones had some trouble with lying, Mike Vick was sentenced, the Heisman sucked and went to the wrong guy, Brett Favre came back from the dead, Shaun Alexander killed my fantasy team and Tom Brady & Randy Moss had the greatest seasons at their respective positions ever. There are a ton of stories that I can’t even remember that have at one point or another grabbed the spotlight and made us forget about stories past. Hell, you probably completely forgot that Mike Vick was in prison presently until I reminded you and that was the biggest deal ever at the time. Well, there is one guy who has not let the hundreds of important sports stories between mid-September and today distract him from the story of utmost importance: that man is Greggggg Easterbrook; and his story is STILL THE FUCKING PATRIOTS AND VIDEOTAPING FIASCO!. Yes, for the 100th consecutive week, Gregggggg Easterbrook is ripping the Pats for videotaping the Jets and is still banging the drum of "asterisks" and taint and God knows what else. And yes, it's still falling on deaf ears.

When I first read this week's TMQ , I couldn’t believe it. I honestly thought I had clicked on a post from September or from when they played the Colts. But nope, it was written today and his arguments haven't changed one bit. The guy is certifiably obsessed with the Pats and this stupid story. I am in no way suggesting that this wasn’t a HUGE story when it came out. It dominated the sports landscape for about a full month. But what relevance does it have today? According Gregggggggg, all the relevance in the world:

No matter how well New England plays Sunday, every victory the team earned this season -- and perhaps victories in previous seasons, too -- is tainted until such time when we learn what was in the material the league destroyed. New England is aware that its season is an asterisk season; owner Robert Kraft has complained the Patriots are now viewed as "tainted," his word. For all we know, the Belichick Files vindicate the Patriots. But until such time when we learn what was in those files, even at 19-0, the New England Patriots should not be considered a great team because we cannot be sure whether these wins were earned or stolen. Nor can we be sure whether New England's three Super Bowl rings were earned or stolen.

......... I.... I.... I am honestly stunned. We don’t know if the Pats’ victories were stolen THIS YEAR? Why? Because they attempted to tape the first half of the first game of the season? After that incident it is likely that they were the most scrutinized team in the history of the sport. There were articles and Outside The Lines stories SOLELY on what the Pats were doing on the sidelines from that point forward. And the NFL hasn't suggested they did anything else wrong. If we worry that the Pats have "stolen" games this year even though nothing was reported after the Jets' games, why aren't we concerned about every other team. It's not as though this is the first time this has happened or the first time that a team was charged with doing something nefarious. His argument here just lacks a foundation of rational thought. It's pure lunacy and it distracts from his other statements, which are also founded in Gregggggg's f'd up homespun wisdom:

Most of the sports media have rolled over and played dead on the New England destroyed-tapes story; The NFL promised to get to the bottom of the Patriots' cheating and reveal the truth to the public; instead, the NFL destroyed the New England documents and refuses to say what they contained. If the documents vindicated New England or the NFL, it would have been strongly in the league's interest to say so. Instead, the NFL has stonewalled us, so what does that make you think? Until we know what was on the videotapes and in the documents the NFL destroyed, there will always be a cloud of suspicion over the Patriots. How much of an advantage did they gain by cheating? Did they really hand over everything to the league? Are they still cheating now? Most important by far, have they cheated in the Super Bowl?

You see, here I can kind of pick up what Gregggggg's puttin down. Now, I COULDN'T disagree more, but I think his skepticism as to the NFL's true motive in putting quickly to bed the Pats video story isn't completely unfounded. But where he loses me is when he starts asking about the advantage the Pats got or whether they are still cheating. If they are still cheating, it is very likely we would know about it. Mere rumor of impropriety would be front page news, so unless I'm missing something very striking here or no one has picked up on it, the Pats haven't done shit since the Jets game other than win every game. But in terms of the advantage to be gained from cheating, you could figure that out even without knowing exactly how they used the information they gathered. It's not that difficult. Use your imagination. But Easterbrook's final shot at the Pats was his finest and most indignant:

And all you sportscasters and sportswriters who will spend this week gushing over the Super Bowl, it would be nice if a few of you mentioned that, a mere four months ago, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell found the Patriots guilty of "a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition." Two billion people will watch the Super Bowl; almost all of America's children and teens will watch the Super Bowl. If the bottom line of the event is "It's fine to cheat, you'll get away with it," what message does that send?

Yup Gregggg, the message from the Pats' season is cheaters always win. And the message from Greggggg Easterbrook's coverage of the Pats is that even an old crazy coot who can't let anything go can still make an honest wage in this country through public catharsis.

Hey Giants Fans, You Think That Line On the Super Bowl Is Good? Vegas Has A Bridge They'd Like To Sell You

With all of your winnings from betting the Giants in the Super Bowl, you should easily be able to afford this nice, shiny new bridge!
I’m well aware that by heaping praise on Colin Cowherd I’m essentially committing blog suicide (if you weren’t aware, Cowherd has not exactly endeared himself to the blogosphere: see here, here and here), but via a conversation with the Las Vegas Consultants, Cowherd came up with a few VERY good reasons why the groundswell of betting support in favor of the Giants (3 to 1 that the Giants cover the spread) is so off-base and why the folks in Vegas are licking their collective chops.

The first thing he mentioned is that one of the easiest sucker bets is taking advantage of a bettor’s short-term memory (I’m paraphrasing a bit here). People are so swept up in the emotion of the Giants’ victories over Dallas and Green Bay as well as the “moral victory” over the Pats in Week 17 that they value those wins over the stuff they would normally use to evaluate a matchup. As Cowherd mentioned several times, the line on paper in Vegas for this game should be a COMFORTABLE 15 points. Today I’m seeing spreads as low as 11. People are putting too much emphasis on “momentum” and not enough evidence on raw fact. Yes the Giants are probably better than they were when they dropped their first 2 games of the season or when they played horrendously against the dregs of the NFC Central, but they aren’t as good as their two upsets either and certainly aren't as good as the one game they put it all together against the Pats (in the same way the Pats aren't as good as their 40+ win over the Skins). The objective evidence in favor of the Pats is overwhelming according to the Vegas folks. And if they were more wrong then right, you’d be building Casinos in deserts.

The second factor that came up is weather. The Pats are a fast track team. In games played in temperature above 50 degrees, the Pats average margin of victory is 847 million. When the Giants play in controlled climates, they are decidedly more average. But it’s not so much that the Giants are good “mudders” and a bad “good climate” team (they did beat the Cowboys in Big D in the playoffs) as much as it is that in good weather the Patriots did things to teams that have never been done before. Because the Pats haven’t blown a team out since Bills game (they did handle the Dolphins but that game was close for awhile, as was the Steelers first half), people think they are vulnerable. It’s only because they set the bar so high that an undefeated team that spent the last month of the season beating the NFC champs, the “team that no one wanted to play in the playoffs” (the Jags) and the undermanned Chargers could be considered vulnerable. The Patriots’ body of work speaks for itself and when you compare it to the Giants, it’s miles ahead (the Giants scraped past the Lions and then got KILLED by an Adrian Peterson-less Vikings team in back-to-back weeks).

The third factor is that these games are rarely close and the favorite usually wins. Only 11 times in history has the score in the Super Bowl been decided by 7 points or less. The favorites in the Super Bowl are 28-13. Favorites have covered the spread 24 of the 41 games. Favorites of 10 or more points are 9-4 overall and 7-5-1 against the spread. It’s not to say that it’s a foregone conclusion because the stats lean in the Pats favor (if anything, the statistics make clear that there have been several major upsets), but it is to say that in betting on the Giants +11 or whatever you are getting, history says your odds ain’t that sweet (please spare me the many statistical arguments otherwise including small sample size and whatever bullshit you want to throw at me). And I'm not even going to mention the oldest Vegas axiom of them all that "when everyone's betting one way, bet the other way" (not that that idea has any foundation in fact necessarily).

So essentially, these guys and Cowherd came to the conclusion that while the world and Giants fans (two separate entities) are throwing money at the Giants and the points, they’d be wise to take a step back and look at the facts without the glare of their 6 inch platinum Giants neck pendant obscuring their view. Because when you actually break it down (something I hope to do in the next day or two), you’ll see that betting the Giants in this game is a suckers bet, and come Sunday night Vegas is going to be rolling in the dough of some well-heeled suckers.

Hank Just Can't Help Himself

I'm beginning to take a bit of a shine to the Yanks' new egomaniacal media whore owner.
Bluster, bombast, bravado and bullshit have been a core tenet of the Yanks' ownership ever since George took over the team in 1973 (you could also probably throw in the word "winning," to that list but it doesn't start with a "b" so it just wouldn't work). And given what we've learned about "young" Hank Stein over the last couple of months, the transition from George to Hank is going to be a smooth one.

Aside from displaying a taste for nefarity (sic - nefariousness is proper but nefarity is such a better word...) very similar to that of his father's with his now weekly tiptoe across the tampering line (for a great recap of the dozens of statements from Hank that cross the tampering barrier, read these posts), Hank has developed a love for media attention that almost trumps his father's yet claims he's not fond of the attention :

"I don't particularly necessarily enjoy it. It was kind of thrust upon me. At some point, if you're going to be a leader, you've got to step up and you can't hide in the office," he said...

Yeah, if you're gonna be a leader, you've got to get your name in the paper and make sure the never quiet pot remains stirred. And while you're at it, no reason not to hang your GM out to dry:

"But as far as missing the playoffs - if we miss the playoffs by the end of this year, I don't know how patient I'll be. But it won't be against the players. It won't be a matter of that. It will be a matter of maybe certain people in the organization could have done something else."

That's gotta make Cashman feel good. In no uncertain terms: No playoffs, see you later. Not bad for a guy who had to be convinced not to give up the kitchen sink to pay Johan Santana $25 million / year after giving up the entire farm system. I think I'm gonna like the Hank Steinbrenner era.

Brett Favre Boogie > Super Bowl Shuffle

Eddy J. Lemberger is absolutely insane. And if this isn't crazy enough, below is Eddy J's step-by-step run-through of the boogie. The scariest thing about this is this guy is dead f'n serious:



(even more insanity found here and here)