Likes and dislikes on the microphones

Richard Deitsch has weighed in with his 2011 sports media awards,  and the readers of Awful Announcing have listed their best and worst in sports media.

As for me, I have my own favorites and people who make me cringe. Like the old All-Madden teams, these are based on people I see or hear, so while I have a general idea that Colin Cowherd is an insufferable doofus, I don't have the "privilege" of listening to his show, so he's not on my lists.

Let's start with the positives, shall we? (By the way, with the exception of my favorite or least favorite, who are listed last, these are in no particular ascending or descending order.)

LIKES

English soccer announcers - I know people who can probably provide more of a clue as to the quality of individual announcers' work, but what I love about them is their honesty. If someone makes a bad play, they say it. If a ref blows a call, they say it. If someone can't play, they say it. The closest thing most of them have for a euphemism is "That was optimistic" if someone skies a shot into Row ZZ from 40 yards out.


Jeff Van Gundy (ESPN/ABC) - He looks and acts a bit comical at times, especially when he's talking about referees, but don't be fooled. The guy knows his stuff, and he's really good at explaining it. He gets extra points for respecting the game enough to ask for the UConn-Baylor women's game because it shaped up to be a good one and he wanted to be there.

Don Orsillo (NESN) - He must be good for a Yankees fan to put him on this list, but he's a pro and gives a good call. There's a reason why TBS puts him on its postseason coverage and tried to get him full-time before he signed a new deal to stay in Boston.

Michael Felger (98.5 FM, Boston) - There's a really crappy sports talk radio station in Boston, full of blowhards who worship loudly at the altar of all the local sports teams while only having the advantage of knowing what they're talking about or actually being interesting once in a while. Felger and his partner, Tony Massarotti, have a show that's not on that station, and actually have a take that's sometimes ... the horrors! ... contrary! And he's arrogant enough in a good way to pull it off ... if you've ever heard him pronounce "fact, not opinion," you'll know what I mean.

Doris Burke (ESPN) - Smart, articulate, knows the game, great at explaining what's going on, funny at times, so good that she can go from women's to men's games or booth to sideline without a problem ... am I missing anything? The only quibble I've had with her is that she would sometimes get carried away ("We see you!" is the dead giveaway), but I think she has calmed that down since she started doing men's games from time to time. It's like she realized she wasn't in her usual sandbox, so she knew she needed to throttle down a little bit, and in so doing, found her correct speed.


Dan Shulman (ESPN) - He's good at everything, with everyone. Even Bobby Valentine couldn't drag him down.


Jim Lampley and Max Kellerman (HBO) - Lampley's forgotten more about calling sports than most of us will ever know, and I love Kellerman's style on HBO boxing. I'm not as wild about Larry Merchant, but this was pretty cool.



Sean McDonough, Bill Raftery and Jay Bilas (ESPN) - Individually, they're all really good, and Bilas' Twitter feed is outstanding, but when you put them together, their chemistry is incredible. I'm not sure if it was their idea to get together, a happy accident thrown together by ESPN or the result of someone thinking "these guys could work well together," but they make Big Monday a lot more entertaining.

Jack Edwards (NESN)/Tommy Heinsohn (Comcast Sports Net New England) - I'm not crazy about homers, but I can deal with them. However, I really don't like yahoos who think everything that happens against their team is some sort of conspiracy, especially referees' calls. But if you're going to be a yahoo, be so over-the-top that it's hilarious like these guys do on Bruins and Celtics games.


Vin Scully (I don't know the network, but it's the Dodgers on TV) - He's the second-best thing about my MLB.TV subscription. Once the Yankees game is over, I check the West Coast games to see if there are any that interest me. Unless there's an intriguing pitching matchup (Roy Halladay against Tim Lincecum in San Francisco will likely get my attention, for example), if the Dodgers are home, that's where I'm going. He's in his 80s, and I hope he keeps coming back until he physically cannot do it any longer.

DISLIKES

Brent Musburger (ABC/ESPN) - The guy's a legend, and for the life of me, I have no idea why. The best term I can think of for him is "carnival barker," and some of his banter with Erin Andrews on ESPN's Tuesday night Big 10 basketball games has nearly made me physically uncomfortable. (Yes Brent, we get it. She's pretty, and college boys like her. I'd be interested in hearing what the coach told her at halftime, if you don't mind.)


Joe Buck (FOX) - We all know somebody who's not nearly as smart, funny or interesting as they think they are. (Perhaps some of my friends feel that way about me. Guilty.) That's Joe Buck.

Tim McCarver (FOX) - What, did you think I wouldn't include Buck's partner on Fox's baseball coverage? Not only does he use 9,000 words where 25 will do, it's often for something he really doesn't even need 25 words for.

Meghan Culmo (Connecticut Public Television) - CPTV picks up the UConn women's basketball games that aren't on national TV, and people who live outside Connecticut can subscribe for $59.95. That's cool, but what's not cool is having Culmo, a former Connecticut player and assistant coach, call the games. She's hampered a little bit by having mostly blowouts, but her analysis consists almost completely of what UConn coach Geno Auriemma has told her and what she read in that day's Hartford Courant. When she talks about the other team, it's completely condescending in a "Look at those girls try so hard!" kind of way, punctuated by a surprised "Ha ha!" if one of their players hits a shot. What's sad is that all this still doesn't completely describe how unprepared and terrible she is. She's one of the main reasons we didn't renew our subscription this year.

Darrell Waltrip (Fox) - While he was still an active driver, Waltrip would sometimes call truck races on the former TNN on his off weeks, and he was really good. We all know he can talk, but he was really good at analysis and quite funny, so I was excited to learn he would be joining the Fox NASCAR broadcast team. And he was great ... for about six weeks. Then he morphed into "Ol' DW," with the singing and "boogity, boogity, boogity" at the start of every race. Instead of being a character, he became a caricature, and is almost unwatchable.


Ken Harrelson (Chicago White Sox TV) - This one makes me sad. During my younger days, I loved Harrelson on White Sox and later Yankees games. He was insightful, intelligent and taught me a lot about hitting. He once did a riff about "giving yourself a chance to hit a home run" that I found enthralling. But in recent years, when I watch White Sox games on WGN, he's nothing more than a yahoo, filling time between "He gone" and "Put it on the board ... YES!"

John Sterling (WCBS) - A couple years ago, Mike Pesca gave a scathing review of Ali Velshi's "Gimme My Money Back: Your Guide to Beating the Financial Crisis" on "Planet Money," featuring the following:

"One bad stock pick doesn't make this a bad book. The cliches which frequently begin each chapter ... that doesn't make it a bad book. The charts from Morningstar which are so small and are shaded so poorly that they strain both your eyes and your patience, they don't make it a bad book. But, you know what, overall, it's a bad book."

That's a bit how I feel about John Sterling. His silly catchphrases ("Tex message," "Robinson Cano, doncha know?" "An A-bomb...from A-Rod!) don't make him a bad announcer. His sometimes only being aware of what's going on doesn't make him a bad announcer. His desire to turn every game into "The John Sterling Show with Yankees Baseball" ... that makes him a bad announcer.

SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE


Dick Vitale (ESPN) - In small doses, he's OK. In larger doses, he'd make we want to throw my TV off a bridge.

Michael Kay and the cast of thousands (YES Network) - Fairly inoffensive on Yankees games. They're just kind of there.

Gus Johnson (Fox) - He's known for his enthusiasm, but if the Big 10 football championship game (in which I turned the sound off midway through the first half) is any indication, he's at high risk for Garces/Brown Syndrome.

Maurice Jones-Drew may hide concussions, but not cluelessness

Yes Maurice, the NFL is now worried about concussions because it's getting sued, and serious injuries are just an "occupational hazard."

Why don't you ask Ted Johnson about that "occupational hazard," while you still can?

Because you can't ask Andre Waters, or Dave Duerson.

And I don't know if you watch much hockey, but wouldn't be great to see Sidney Crosby on the ice?

Using numbers to hide

I'm a little more than halfway through Sheldon and Alan Hirsch's "The Beauty of Short Hops: How Chance and Circumstance Confound the Moneyball Approach to Baseball."

In spite of the second half of the title, it's not a strict takedown of Michael Lewis' "Moneyball," although the authors do a pretty good job picking apart what they see as the flaws in the book, including the same criticism that Tony LaRussa had of the movie (which hewed pretty closely to the book, as I recall) ... namely that in the desire to paint Billy Beane as a genius, it ignores the main reasons the A's were successful, in particular Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito.

But not only are the Hirsches not LaRussa acolytes -- they're no fans of his approach to closers -- their book isn't strictly an anti-sabermetrics screed. Their view is considerably more nuanced, as this passage on page 62 states:

"The problem that animated Bill James's revolution was colossal ignorance pervading the baseball world. He helped cure it. The problem he inadvertently ushered in was excessive faith in a particular path to knowledge and insufficient appreciation of how much can never be quantified."

As does this on pages 110 and 111, after the authors have given credit for sabermetric advances in the understanding of on-base percentage and closers, imperfect though those advances may have been:

"It is one thing to recognize a deficiency in baseball tactics, quite another to correct it, particularly without unleashing unanticipated negative consequences. Focusing on numbers, while overlooking the nuances and subtle forces that can't be quantified, sabermetricians fail to appreciate the complexity of the game they seek to transform."

It points out much more eloquently than I have in arguments with friends the main problem I have about those who worship at the altar of numbers -- they have a tendency toward absolutism.

In their world, batting average and RBI are virtually useless statistics, as are pitching wins. There's also no such thing as "intangibles," "clutch" or "chemistry," and Derek Jeter can't field. (One thing we agree on ... David Eckstein is highly overrated.)

But before I came to the first quote noted above, the Hirsches spent some time on Game 7 of the 2003 American League Championship Series. The numbers said Red Sox manager Grady Little should have taken out Pedro Martinez after seven innings, given his tendency to tire after throwing about 105 pitches. Little's gut said otherwise, so he left him in. You know how it ended up ... the Red Sox blew the lead, Aaron Boone happened, Little got fired. (I enjoyed all of this tremendously.)

From page 62:

"You follow your gut, or your best guess, and then you watch the game unfold in its unpredictable glory. Unless you're a devout sabermetrician, in which case you think the decision is made for you by the numbers. If you take the latter approach, you may sleep easier (win or lose), but you misunderstand messy reality and shortchange the beauty of the game."

Would Grady Little have been fired if he took Pedro out and the Red Sox lost, anyway? Well, consider this nugget from the story about Little getting fired:

"The Red Sox have insisted that Little's future will not be determined by the one decision, but according to the (Boston) Herald, the team was concerned about Little's lack of reliance on stats."

If Little's situation is any indication, relying on the stats means never having to say you made a mistake (or getting fired for it).

If only the Chargers had a unicorn that shot ice cream out its nose

A friend of mine had this question on Facebook this morning:

"I ask this of any San Diego Chargers fans out there -- how much would you give to have Drew Brees and Darren Sproles back in San Diego?"

He later added "with Sean Payton as your head coach?"

Given where we both live, I'm going to assume by "San Diego Chargers fans," he meant me.

In a way, what he says makes sense, since the Saints are going to the playoffs with Payton as coach, and Brees did set the single-season yardage record last night on a pass to Sproles. Of course, if a runner gets thrown out stealing and the batter then hits a home run, it also makes sense in a way to cry out, "If only he hadn't gotten thrown out stealing, it would have been a two-run homer!"

In other words, it makes sense if you're into overly simplistic thinking.

First, Brees. After the 2005 season, Brees was a free agent, and Philip Rivers was waiting on the bench for a chance to play after having been acquired in the Eli Manning trade during the previous year's draft. Brees was also injured, having torn his labrum in the final game of the season.

So the Chargers let Brees go to the Saints, and made Rivers the starter.

Before Brees left, I would have been OK with the Chargers auctioning off Rivers in order to maximize the Manning trade, which also netted Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding for a whiny child with a whiny father who never wanted to play in San Diego, anyway. But what would have happened if the Chargers kept Brees, traded Rivers and then Brees couldn't come back?

Yeah, that would have been a disaster.

Side note: How much would Dolphins fans give to have Brees in their lineup? They were interested, but traded for the washed-up Daunte Culpepper instead, although you have to give them a certain benefit of the doubt because of Brees' bad shoulder.

As for Sproles, I loved him for what he was -- a terrific return man and pass-catcher out of the backfield. However, in spite of moments of brilliance, he was never going to be the lead running back, but if the Chargers kept using the franchise tag on him, they would have needed to keep paying him like one. So they let him go to New Orleans, where he plays pretty much the same role he did with San Diego.

Turning to Payton, he got the Saints job after the 2005 season, a season in which the Chargers finished 9-7. It wasn't great, and they missed the playoffs, but it's not usually the kind of record that causes a team to fire its coach (who, by the way, was Marty Schottenheimer, not Norv Turner).

Furthermore, the Brees/Sproles discussion misses an important point.

The Chargers lost both of them (along with running backs Michael Turner and LaDainian Tomlinson), but are doing OK at those positions now.

Granted, Rivers hasn't had a particularly good season this year (in spite of the Pro Bowl selection), but he has been a high-level NFL quarterback. Ryan Mathews has also had an excellent year, Mike Tolbert provides another quality option at running back.

What I would give, however, is to see Clay Matthews in a Chargers uniform. It could have happened, but he fell to the Packers with the 26th pick in the 2009 draft, 10 picks after the Chargers chose Larry English, who has the grand total of seven career sacks playing the same position.

But Matthews didn't do something exciting on "Monday Night Football" last night.

Brad Radke won't go to the Hall of Fame, but there's no shame in that

I came across an article on the Baseball Hall of Fame website about how former Minnesota Twins pitcher Brad Radke is on the ballot for the first time this year.

The idea seemed laughable, but I kept reading, and Samantha Carr. who wrote the piece, sold it pretty well: already a member of the Twins' Hall of Fame, the 20 wins in 1997, a mainstay of three playoff teams, including in 2006 with an injured arm, the kind words from teammates.

"It's pretty amazing to watch him make these picture-perfect pitches time after time," said Twins second baseman Chuck Knoblauch. "He's getting some well-deserved recognition for what he's done, especially with the team we have."

For a brief moment, I thought that maybe Radke was one of those guys who did enough in his career that perhaps he had statistics relatively close to someone who had been enshrined or was at least in a conversation about it.

Then I kept reading.

"Finishing his career with 148 wins, a 4.22 ERA, 10 shutouts and 1,467 strikeouts, Radke was one of the most consistent pitchers in the game. When he retired, he ranked fourth in Twins franchise history in strikeouts, third in wins, second in games started and fourth in innings pitched."

Nope, that's not going to get it done. It may not even be enough to stay on the ballot by getting more than 5 percent of the vote. Frankly, it would shock me if he got a single vote.

And in his time, Brad Radke was a really good pitcher. It just goes to show how good someone has to be to even be on the outer fringes of Hall of Fame discussion.

Maybe you once wanted to hit an umpire. It's still wrong.

I actually have a Yorvit Torrealba story.

Actually, it's not so much a Torrealba story. After all, how many people have stories about journeyman semi-regular catchers?

This is more of a Vin Scully story, about the time Torrealba came up to bat while playing with the Rockies and Scully told the story of how the name Yorvit came to be. I don't remember all the details -- if memory serves, his parents had different ideas and so there was some kind of merger -- but what I remember is how smoothly Scully told the story, complete with imagining a little Yorvit asking his parents where his name came from, without missing a pitch.

That, and the way he said "Yor-vit Tor-re-al-ba." It was lyrical.

But even if my Yorvit Torrealba story isn't actually about him, he'll probably prefer it to this one.

If you think her face is pretty, check out her jumper

Over on ESPN's website, Scoop Jackson writes about Skylar Diggins of Notre Dame, in particular about how, as he puts it, she's one of those people who "defies the sentence that condemns the rest of us. Every now and then, someone shows up with sovereign skills and supreme attractiveness, and it's unfair."

"The hard thing about beauty is that it can't be ignored," Jackson writes. "Especially when it's so hard to ignore that it obscures something deeper, something that in this case is the attempt to out-ball damn near every yet-to-turn-pro female basketball player in the world.
Beauty, in Skylar Diggins' case, should come secondary. I said should ."

While I'm not so naive as to think that Diggins' looks don't get her extra attention (and some of those 131,000-plus Twitter followers), I'm going to guess that she's not the only attractive woman on the Notre Dame campus. I've never been there, but I feel fairly comfortable going out on that limb.

But it's because of basketball that Scoop Jackson, I and basketball fans know who she is.

Scoop gets it.

"Skylar Diggins will tell you that, for her, it's ball above all. It's on us to look past her beauty to see that."

Indeed it is. Can we?

How much for that game in the window?

"Are rising sports broadcast fees going to lead to pay-for-only-what-channels-you-want?"

The above Tweet from Darren Rovell linked to this video on sports rights fees and the possibility of a la carte sports programming in the future.






Whether or not it's through special packages of channels that only subscribers have to pay for or some other means, it's likely that sports fans (and all consumers of media, really) will eventually have to answer the question "How much is seeing that game worth to me?"

In a way, the option already exists, at least to a point. The money I pay to watch baseball online is worth it for me to see the Yankees when they're not on national TV or playing the Red Sox. Even though it costs a lot less, my wife and I decided to not renew our Hoop Streams subscription to watch UConn women's basketball online because the lousy games, uneven streaming and terrible announcing were no longer worth it.

I like to watch boxing on HBO, but we didn't order the channel for that reason; it's just a nice bonus, and I wouldn't have subscribed to it just for that purpose. I also don't think there's a fight I would order a pay-per-view for as opposed to reading about it the next morning or catching the highlights somewhere.

Even our choice of satellite provider and package had at least something to do with sports, as we picked the one with the most options. We also got a lot of channels we never watch, but that's the way it's set up right now.

So how far will this go? Will sports programming move beyond even subscribing strictly to sports packages into pay-per-view for the big events, including eventually the biggest of all ... the Super Bowl?

I don't know the answer to that, but it does seem like there's a lot of untapped financial potential for sports programming, and someday, someone's going to figure out ways to get their hands on more of that money.

A blogger's Christmas wish

Dear Santa:

I wasn't actually planning on asking you for anything this year. You have a lot of kids to take care of, and I don't want to take any of your time that could otherwise be spent doing things for them.

However, I think I have been very good this year, if only because I didn't mock my Red Sox fan friends too much, and even helped talk a couple of them down off the proverbial ledge. (And rest assured, if I saw one of an actual ledge, I would make an honest effort to keep him or her from jumping.)

However, I would like to ask you to make this prediction from John Ourand come true:

"MLB leaves Fox: MLB will consolidate its rights with one media company rather than continue with its current structure across three networks: ESPN, Fox and TBS. NBC will make a big push to win the rights. But my guess is that the league opts for ESPN in a deal that will finally include the same TV Everywhere components that other leagues have rolled out. Keeping Turner involved in some form can’t be counted out; think of the NBA’s deal with ESPN and Turner. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some playoff games land on MLB Network, but look for most of the playoffs to be on ESPN (with, maybe, some on TBS) and the World Series to air on ABC."

Thank you,
The Last Honest Sports Fan

Jeff, with that attitude, go back to coaching

Reading an article on this year's NBA coverage, I came across this from Jeff Van Gundy about the possibility of a two-man booth with Mike Breen after Mark Jackson left to become coach of the Golden State Warriors:

"I'm one of those who enjoyed the three-man booth more than doing the two," Van Gundy said. "I really don't know going forward if ESPN/ABC has plans to fill Mark's spot or just leave it as is. Even though there will be more time available to talk, I just don't want to talk for the sake of talking. I want to make sure I don't throw too many hair-brained ideas out there. I don't want to just fill time."

If it was up to me, I'd take Doris Burke off the sideline and put her in the booth. She's outstanding, worked well with Van Gundy during the UConn-Baylor women's game the other night and he wouldn't have to sit in the middle seat.

But "I just don't want to talk for the sake of talking ... I don't want to just fill time"?

What kind of announcer are you, Jeff?

Liverpool's suspension of intelligence

Learning about Luis Suarez's eight-game suspension for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra (no pressure Andy Carroll, but goals are going to have to come from somewhere for Liverpool), and I came across this from Grant Wahl:

"Who wrote that Liverpool statement? Dan Gilbert?"

Given that Gilbert tossed off a rather epic nutter after LeBron James had the temerity to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers for Miami, I had to check it out.

"We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no one else on the field of play heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner-kick was about to be taken."

Question the evidence, typical for someone who disagrees with a decision. OK.

"LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable – without compromise. It is our strong-held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suárez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible – certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations."

We're against racism ... and Patrice Evra is a habitual liar?

"It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said: 'I don't think that Luis Suárez is racist.'"

Nice, the "victim" even backs him up. (Ignore the "unfounded accusations" stuff.)

"Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multicultural profile," ...

 Not sure I'm crazy about where this is going.

... "many of whom became good friends."

NO!!!! THEY WENT WITH THE "HE'S NOT RACIST BECAUSE HE HAS BLACK FRIENDS" LINE!!! WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!!

"We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted in his evidence to insulting Luis Suárez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms."

Sorry, too late for that one. I just hope you don't lose too many games while Suarez is gone.

Clearly, the NFL will promote just about anything

Apparently, there has been a little bit of trouble keeping the lights on during the Steelers-49ers game.

Among all the jokes on Twitter about the 49ers not paying their electric bill comes this one from Steelers linebacker James Harrison

"If I cant play then can't nobody play... Lights out!"

Harrison can't play not because he's injured, but because he's suspended ... by the NFL. Yet I first saw his tweet as a retweet by ...

... the NFL.

Bloopers make the world go 'round

There comes a time in every man's life, when in the course of bumping around the Internet, he decides to head on over the the Guardian website to check out the latest soccer news ...

... and sees a blooper so outstanding it renders everything else he might have seen pointless.

The pitcher and the pen

I had no intention of writing another Tim Tebow post today, and actually, I'm not going to.

I am, however going to point you to pitcher and "The Bullpen Gospels" author Dirk Hayhurst's piece on the Bleacher Report: "Tim Tebow: Are His Celebrity and Football Success False Idols?"

"God does not favor the popular. He does not give preferential treatment to the celebrity. If he did, he would not be the God He is today. He humbles the proud, he lifts up the meek and he loves us all, sinner, saint, and sports hero the same—yesterday, today and forever. That is why he is an awesome God, not because Tim Tebow throws touchdowns for Him."

People who do this stuff for a living should write as well as this.

The 1972 Dolphins in 2011

The great Ken Tremendous, the man behind the late (and very much lamented) firejoemorgan.com, wrote this on Twitter after the Green Bay Packers' undefeated run came to an end today:

"Hey, 1972 Dolphins: as you clink champagne glasses tonight, remember that the 2011 Colts would have beaten you by 48."

I asked him the following in return. Let's see if he responds.

"Do you mean the 1972 Dolphins as they were then, or if those players were as they would be now?"

Because to me, that is the key to the argument. If you transported the 1972 Dolphins to 2011, he may be right because football players were smaller and slower in 1972. Looking at a team roster on pro-football-reference.com, the heaviest player on the team was Jim Dunaway at 277 pounds. The four offensive lineman who started all 14 regular-season games -- Bob Kuechenberg, Jim Langer, Larry Little and Norm Evans -- went 253, 250, 265 and 250.

Nick Buoniconti, the Dolphins' best linebacker, was 5-feet, 11-inches and 220 pounds. I couldn't find Paul Warfield's 40-yard dash time, but I'm guessing it was slower than receivers today, and he was the speedster of the offense.

So there's no doubt, the 1972 Miami Dolphins, as the Miami Dolphins in 1972, would have been run out of any NFL stadium.

But what if you took the kind of players they were with 2011 physical attributes? I won't provide a 1972 match to a current player, but this is the kind of team you'd have:

* one with a top quarterback, and a more-than-capable backup. (The 1972 backup, Earl Morrall, started more games than starter Bob Griese that year).

* three excellent running backs.

* one of the top deep threats in the league.

* nine Pro Bowlers and three first-team All-Pros (Wikipedia was my source for that, grains of salt being tossed.)

* a coach who ended up fairly decent.

* an offense that scored the most points and a defense that allowed the fewest.

Maybe they don't run the table (the competition's a little better these days, too), but there's no way the "Suck for Luck" Indianapolis Colts are beating them by 48 points.

Nothing half-baked about it

One columnist who I should read more often is Jeff Jacobs of the Hartford Courant, but I caught this column about the difficulty of being a Baseball Hall of Fame voter in the age of steroids. Good stuff.

On his decision, so far, not to vote for Jeff Bagwell, who has never been linked with steroids other than by rumor:
"I have wanted to wait a few years to see if anything surfaced. To watch ESPN, Yahoo!, New York Daily News, the Texas media — someone with the resources and vigor — put Bagwell in its headlights and see if he emerges clean. I have no intentions of making him wait forever. I will wait another year or two. If the worst thing I do is to make him enter the Hall of Fame with his teammate Craig Biggio, well, that's damning Bagwell with a great blessing."

(In case you're wondering, "Half-Baked Jake" is what he calls his columns about a series of unrelated items, hence the name of this post.)

Beliefs, maxims and other stuff

If you read the opening post on this blog, it gave you a little clue what I was about, but let me add some stuff to go along with that.

So what is it about sports? The best answer I can come up with is that for a fan, it provides an opportunity for passion without consequence. You can throw yourself heart and soul into something, and if it doesn't work out, life goes on, and it's none for the worse.

(An exception, of course, is if you use a sporting event as an excuse to act like a complete moron, like the people who rioted in Vancouver after the Canucks lost to the Bruins. Seriously, people, you have a breathtakingly beautiful city; why would you want to damage it?)

OTHER THOUGHTS 
-- I have never once sat in the stands at a sporting event or watched one on television to see a manager manage, a coach coach or an owner own. Therefore, I'm pretty much always going to be on the side of players in any labor dispute, because the games wouldn't exist without them, and they should get as much of the money they produce as possible.

-- In that same vein, I don't know exactly how I'd do it, but college athletes should be paid somehow. Like I said, that's a philosophical statement; don't ask me for details.

-- A bad day involving baseball is better than a good day involving just about anything else, and whoever decided it would be a good idea to make baseball games available online should get the next spot on Mount Rushmore.

-- If a statement ever begins with "It's not about the money," you are free to ignore everything else. It's about the money.

-- I would never trade the ability I have now to watch sporting events at all hours of the day or night for when I couldn't, but I do think sometimes it lessens the fan experience because there's no need to intently watch a particular game because another one is coming up any time now. (Also known as "If every game is a big game, then no game is a big game.")

-- I'd rather read Joe Posnanski when I think he's wrong than most people when I think they're right.

-- Fantasy sports are a scourge. They reduce athletes to numbers and the games they play into individual events in pursuit of those numbers.

--If you go to a game, watch the damn game! If you aren't interested in the game, stay home. If the game is nothing but a social event for you, have some friends over and watch it on TV.

-- Like women's sports. Don't like women's sports. I really don't care all that much; you're entitled to your opinion. But the fact that they exist and that some people may want to talk or write about them is not an attempt to shove anything down your throat. Don't like Maya Moore? Fine, ignore her and keep your trap shut. You're the one who's losing out. (See also: soccer, NASCAR).

-- College sports manage to bring us one of the greatest events on the sports calendar (the NCAA basketball tournaments) and one of the worst (the BCS).

-- The Olympics are awesome, from the opening ceremonies to the closing ones. I have been known to watch team handball preliminaries at 6 a.m. Deal with it.

-- People who reduce games to nothing but statistics scare me. What if they're right?

TERMS YOU MIGHT READ FROM TIME TO TIME

-- Garces/Brown Syndrome  If a person is known for a particular trait, such as former reliever Rich Garces or former defensive lineman Gilbert Brown and their ... ahem ... bulk, there is a danger that it consumes him or her to the point of no longer being able to perform. And it isn't just weight. Recent victims of Garces/Brown Syndrome are Joe Torre (calmness) and Terry Francona (treating his players like adults.)

-- Shuler/Mirer Rule  If you're watching college highlights of a quarterback and most of them are of him running, there's a reason for that. He can't throw.

-- Jeremy Mayfield Rule   No, not that drugs are bad for you (although they are). Several years ago, someone said Jeremy Mayfield didn't "deserve" to make NASCAR's Chase for the Championship over another, better driver (I think it was Tony Stewart), even though he had done what was required to make it, namely be in the top 10 in points after 26 races. Therefore, the rule applies in situations where someone implies that an athlete or team is undeserving of an honor even though it's a completely subjective measure. Had I been alive and able to think this way in 1961, this might be called the Roger Maris Rule.

-- NEW The Mientkiewicz Corollary (to the Jeremy Mayfield Rule) If you're not an important player, what you do or say doesn't matter and you can never be right, even if you are.

That's all for now. More things I believe to be truths as I think of them.

A magnificent seven

How's this for a stat? Including last night, Wisconsin-Whitewater and Mount Union have played for the Division III football championship seven consecutive years. Not one or the other playing for the championship seven straight years, they've played each other for the title seven straight years.

And I thought pollsters were in the tank for the SEC. They have nothing on Division III. At least until this year, the geniuses behind the BCS at least let someone from outside the SEC have a shot at the title..

Oh wait a minute! That's right! Division III has a playoff. That means you have to earn your way to the title game by winning games against other good teams.

What a concept!

An utter miscarriage of justice

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston clearly didn't get the memo that Barry Bonds is the worst human being on the planet for the crime of taking steroids while being unpleasant to deal with.

Two years of probation, 250 hours of community service, a $4,000 fine and 30 days of home confinement for the man who nearly ruined the game of baseball by himself until the 2004 Red Sox saved it (at least in Ken Burns' history of recent years)? At a minimum, he should have gotten 25 to life.

What a great, moral, upstanding man Joe Paterno is

According to this story from Matt Hinton, Joe Paterno said he "knew inappropriate action was taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster."

But he did nothing about it.

What a guy.

Captain of the sunken ship

Buster Olney had this question on the Twitter machine this morning:

"Open-ended question: What are the benefits in naming a captain in baseball?"

He seemed to find it somewhat dubious.

My own view of naming a captain: There is no practical benefit, and any upside is far outweighed by downside. For example: during BOS collapse, stuff went on in the clubhouse, and Varitek didn't address -- but that's not really his personality, anyway.

Somewhere in the rubble of the Boston's lost September -- yes, I was gleeful -- is Jason Varitek's reputation as a leader. For the most part, I'd say naming him captain was relatively harmless.The "C" was a bit indulgent and pointless, but Boston's a big hockey town, so it fit.

And then it all went to hell in September, and a few people started to ask, "Isn't a captain supposed to do something about that?"

But as Olney contemplates captains, a better question about the Red Sox might be "If Varitek doesn't come back, what will that mean for the pitching staff?"

People around here acted like he was the greatest, smartest game-caller ever, a Sheldon Cooper of the straight change, if you will. Josh Beckett, in particular, seemingly couldn't think without his Varitek binky out there with him, which may be just as well, because left to his own devices, seemed to think mostly about chicken and beer. 

It will be interesting come spring training if the pitchers can develop any kind of trust with Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Kelly Shoppach and Ryan Lavarnway behind the plate. Then again, it may not be a problem, since Bobby Valentine is apparently as smart as two Sheldon Coopers.

Athletes you don't like are people, too

Growing up without cable, I didn't get to watch much hockey, so I kind of fell into following the Edmonton Oilers because they were the team I heard the most about, those being the Gretzky/Kurri/Anderson/Messier/Coffey/Fuhr days.

Being the better part of a continent away with little opportunity to see the team isn't exactly the recipe for long-term, passionate fandom, and I mostly follow the Bruins now, but I'll always want them to do well, and I was therefore excited when they made the Stanley Cup Finals in 2006, even though they lost to Carolina. (They also had the most awesome national anthem singer ever, slightly better than Mullet Guy in Vancouver. It starts about 1:18 in.)



And then Chris Pronger crapped all over it.

For years after that, I dubbed Oct. 9 "International Chris Pronger Must Die Day," although after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, I decided to tone down my casual use of wanting-people-dead language, even in jest, plus I found out that his birthday is actually Oct. 10.

But I was always OK with him being injured (again, mostly in jest) ... or so I thought until I saw last night that he's going to be out for the rest of the season and the playoffs due to post-concussion syndrome. To declare in December that a guy will be out for the season that may not end until June, it must be bad.

And even though I obviously had nothing to do with it, I have to admit, I felt a little guilty.

If Nyjer Morgan tested positive...

... for performance-enhancing drugs and denied it, no one would say he "deserves the benefit of the doubt," because he's not seen as "one of the faces of the sport."

In fact, I guarantee someone would have said by now that this was "'roid rage."

The obligatory Tebow blog

When I first signed on for adventures in blogging, a little tiny part of the Terms of Service fine print said:

You must blog about Tim Tebow.

OK, so maybe not, but it seems like you can't get away from him these days. Just tonight, I saw that Rick Perry tried to compare himself to Tebow in the presidential debate and that some kids got suspended for "Tebowing" in the halls of their school.

My take on him is two-fold. On the field, he has some work to do, but I actually think he could be pretty good. But he's not becoming a polarizing cultural phenomenon just because he's unorthodox and has a habit of comeback wins.

It's because of the religion. Personally, I'm not wild about athletes more or less saying God helped them win. I don't think He cares, but that ship sailed long before Tim Tebow first put Bible verses in his eye black, so it doesn't offend me any more when Tebow does it more than anyone else, and I get the feeling he does walk the talk, certain rumors notwithstanding.

Off the field, my problem is with the people who would basically say that I have to like him because of his religion, which is a tack I don't think I've seen with any other athlete.

And another question has come up in the past few days that has nothing to do with his ability to throw a football or what Olympic skier he may or may not be dating.

What if Tim Tebow was a Muslim?

That would be interesting indeed.

Welcome to my world

So you've found your way here. Good. So what can you expect?

Well, basically, it's anything in sports that gets my attention ... whether it's funny, ticks me off or just gets me to thinking. I hope you'll agree with my opinions. If not, tell me why I'm wrong, but be prepared to back it up.

As for the name, it's just a wee bit sarcastic, but it's partly based on my belief that we don't have a lot of honest discussion in sports (or in life, for that matter), because we refuse to acknowledge one basic fact.

We are all hypocrites.

I'm not saying that as a criticism, because for the most part, I don't think it's a character flaw. It's human nature. For example, I'm a fan of Dale Earnhardt Jr. and can't stand Kyle Busch. (The only reason Kurt Busch isn't the biggest tool in NASCAR is because his parents decided to have more children.) If Kyle spins someone out to win a race, I'm probably yelling at my TV how that dirty little #@*!! punk wrecked someone again, but if Dale does it, I'd be cheering like a madman.

Since we all bring our biases, let me give you mine. I'm a fan of the Yankees (which can be rough, since I live in New England) , the Chargers, Syracuse University, UConn and the University of Wisconsin (by marriage), Dale Earnhardt Jr., Kevin Harvick, the Bruins, the Celtics and Liverpool. You can probably figure out who I don't like based on that list.

So that's a little bit about me. Thanks for coming to my sandbox. Let's play.