Easterbrook Just Makes Shit Up

Don’t ask me why I’m breaking such a long hiatus to write this post, but this week’s TMQ includes this line in reference to the possibility that Drew Brees could break Dan Marino’s single season passing yards record:

In this case, if Brees succeeds, it will be essentially a stunt, given the finale game has no meaning to the eliminated Saints. Marino's record year came as the Dolphins reached the Super Bowl -- those were all yards the team needed to win pressure games.

The 1984 Dolphins finished 14-2. In second place in the AFC East were the Patriots at 7-9. The Dolphins were 12-2 when Marino threw for 404 and 340 yards in the last two games.

So, Greggggg, how exactly were “all” those yards needed to win “pressure” games?

New Orleans is 8-7. Maybe Brees will rack up yards because he’s a competitor who wants to win? Maybe they want to finish above .500? Maybe they are psyched up to play a good Carolina team with a good passing defense?

Nope, says Gregg, it’ll be a “stunt”.

I wasn’t going to post about this, as I mentioned it instead in the reader comments over at FireJayMariotti, but this was in TMQ a few weeks ago and it is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read from Easterbrook:

Trailing Cleveland 6-0, Tennessee went for it on fourth-and-1 on the Browns' 28 and got a touchdown; the Titans won. (Tennessee cleverly threw to blocking back Ahmard Hall, who lost a fumble on fourth-and-1 earlier in the year; knowing that, Cleveland totally ignored Hall.)

Do you really think that Cleveland “totally ignored” Hall by design? If they did, do you think it’s BECAUSE EARLIER THIS YEAR HALL HAD A FUMBLE THAT HAPPENED TO BE A FOURTH DOWN PLAY????

I do not. I think that’s asinine.

Jon Heyman More Valuable than Tom Verducci, but Verducci Better

There’s nothing that draws out crazy failures in logic like MVP and CY Young voting. I just stumbled onto CNNSI and checked out Tom Verducci and Jon Heyman’s picks, and there’s a whole lotta wrong to be discussed. To be honest, I didn’t follow baseball as much this year as I have in prior years. I had a really busy summer at work and personally. It’s also pretty late and I’m tired. So instead of doing a bunch of research and using numbers to dissect their picks, which strike me as odd, I’ll just try to approach it more high level, with some basic logic.

First, Verducci, who is generally decent. Unlike Heyman, who must have incriminating pictures of someone important at SI.

NL MVP

1. Albert Pujols
2. Lance Berkman
3. Ryan Howard
4. Ryan Braun
5. Manny Ramirez
6. Brad Lidge
7. CC Sabathia
8. David Wright
9. Johan Santana
10. Hanley Ramirez

The guy is just posting his opinion, so just because I think Chase Utley should be on the ballot and he doesn’t have him, I’m not going to throw a fit. But Manny Ramirez played in 53 games. Brad Lidge had a great year. He threw 70 innings with a 1.95 ERA. But I have a fundamental problem with closers being MVP’s unless they are historically awesome.

But here’s my bigger problem. Based on the above list, how is Verducci’s CY ballot not:
Lidge
Sabathia
Santana

?

Here it is:

NL Cy Young

1. Tim Lincecum
2. Johan Santana
3. Brandon Webb

Verducci tells us the CY is meant to honor the best pitcher in the league, and correctly says that the pitcher with the most wins isn’t necessarily that pitcher. But how the fuck isn’t the best pitcher more valuable than the second best pitcher? How is the most valuable pitcher not one of the 3 best pitchers? And how is the best starter not more valuable than 2 other starters? In my mind, any attempt to reconcile this position is a failure to understand the singular nature of baseball performances. It’s not Lincecum’s fault the Giants suck. He can’t control what the other 4 pitchers do, or what the hitters do.

Similarly, Verducci had Francisco Rodriguez ninth as the most valuable pitcher in the AL, but not among the top 3 pitchers. Aren’t the pitchers who pitch better more valuable?

Now to Jon Heyman.

NL MVP

1. Manny Ramirez, Dodgers. The savant saved the storied franchise, slugging .743 and lifting the Dodger dogs to the NL West title.

Okay, but 53 games? Even if you include all his games in Boston, Pujols still had 147 Runs Created vs. Ramirez’s 134. Ramirez RC number in the NL was 60.9. The Dodgers won the NL West because the NL West sucked. If they were in the NL East, and the Mets were in the NL West, Heyman’s first 4 players are Mets. Why is this so hard?

2. CC Sabathia, Brewers. Carried them with three straight outings on three days' rest, and oh yes, had a league-leading seven complete games.

It’s just a philosophical difference here on Ramirez and Sabathia that’s not worth debating further. Sabathia is more defensible (to be on the Cy ballot), to me. For the rest of them, I’ll just show the list without the explanations because I have the same point that I had with Verducci.

3. Ryan Howard, Phillies.
4. Brad Lidge, Phillies.
5. Albert Pujols, Cardinals.

Pujols just finished his best season. He posted the best OPS+ in baseball (190) since Barry Bonds in 2004. The best by someone not named Bonds in the NL since Sammy Sosa in 2001 (64 homers, .437 OBP). Manny Ramirez’s (highest full season OPS+ was 186 in 2000) was higher in his 53 games in LA. I’m going with the guy who played 148 games in the NL.

6. Ryan Braun, Brewers.
7. Johan Santana, Mets.
8. Carlos Delgado, Mets.
9. Chase Utley, Phillies.
10. Lance Berkman, Astros.

So his CY ballot must be Sabathia, Lidge, Santana?

NL Cy Young

1. Santana. Gets edge over CC for ERA title and for being in the NL all year.

But, in the MVP race…….you had….Sabathia SECOND, and said you could easily have flipped him with Ramirez! Why….here…does being the NL all year mean more??

2. Sabathia. Sheer second-half dominance.

What about the first half? Does that count?

3. Lidge. Though tough to leave out Webb and especially Lincecum (18-5, with a league-leading 265 strikeouts) in this year with at least five deserving candidates.

NL Cy Old: Tom Gorzelanny. Ugliest numbers ever, including a demonic 6.66 ERA.

Ugliest ever? Cy Old is lame and doesn't make sense. Wouldn't the Cy Old be....like.....the best old pitcher?

AL MVP

1. Francisco Rodriguez, Angels. An alltime great season with a record 62 saves.

Ladies and gentleman, your AL MVP…..the 4th best closer in the league!

2. Carlos Quentin, White Sox.
3. Dustin Pedroia, Red Sox.
4. Justin Morneau, Twins.
5. Kevin Youkilis, Red Sox.
6. Joe Nathan, Twins.
7. Joe Mauer, Twins.
8. Jermaine Dye, White Sox.
9. Josh Hamilton, Rangers.
10. Evan Longoria, Rays.

Apparently Grady Sizemore and Alex Rodriguez were not as valuable as any of these 10 players because the other players on their teams did not play as well as the other players on the above teams.

Okay, so his Cy Young ballot must start with Rodriguez and Nathan?

OF COURSE NOT.

AL Cy Young

1. Cliff Lee, Indians.
2. Roy Halladay, Blue Jays.
3. Francisco Rodriguez.

I know that Heyman thinks this makes total sense and that I'm just a geek and he would say that I don’t understand baseball and pennant races and cracker jack and locker rooms and sweat, but this is a giant failure to exercise defensible logic.

I suppose Verducci and Heyman feel that good closers are very valuable, but they aren't necessarily worthy of being deemed the best pitchers, but how can Heyman defend having two starters 1 order in the MVP balloting (Sabathia / Santana) with good separation between them, but then have the order reversed in the CY balloting?

Michael Phelps is Also 1406 Stolen Bases Behind Rickey Henderson

After another Michael Phelps (that swimmer guy swimming in that tournament in that foreign place) piece on Sportscenter, Matt Weinert lead into a comparison of Phelps to other winners in other sports with this little nugget:

“He’s certainly the standard for Olympians, but he hasn’t matched any of these great champions.”

They then go into a little montage to explain that Bill Russell won 11 NBA championships, Rocket Richard won 11 Stanley Cups, Yogi Berra 10 won World Series and Charles Haley won 5 Super Bowls.

What, the fuck, does that intro mean?

I mean, he won more gold medals than any of them? The total of his gold medals is greater than any of those numbers. He has not, in fact, played another professional sport – so you got me there.

Hey, a Non-Sports Related Post!

So I stumbled on this random bit on Yahoo “Buzz!” about certain celebrities “real” names. The list included the top 20 searches for real names over the last past week.

Let’s see if you can spot the one that makes no fucking sense.

1. Tiger Woods (Eldrick Woods)
2. Madonna (Madonna Ciccone)
3. Lil' Wayne (Dwayne Carter Jr.)
4. Miley Cyrus (Destiny Hope Cyrus)
5. Coco Crisp (Covelli Crisp)
6. Hilary Banks (played by Karyn Parsons)
7. Gene Simmons (Chaim Witz)
8. Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea)
9. Larry the Cable Guy (Daniel Lawrence Whitney)
10. Ray Stevens (Harold Ray Ragsdale)
11. Bow Wow (Shad Gregory Moss)
12. Soulja Boy (DeAndre Ramone Way)
13. Triple H (Paul Michael Levesque)
14. Bono (Paul Hewson)
15. Sting (Gordon Sumner)
16. Jay-Z (Shawn Carter)
17. Tila Tequila (Tila Nguyen)
18. Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner)
19. John Wayne (Marion Morrison)
20. Prince (Prince Rogers Nelson)

If you said “6”, congratulations, you’re correct. Let’s run down why this is retarded.

1. Hilary Banks isn’t a “stage name” or nickname, as all the other names are – it’s the name of a character on a mildly successful TV show (The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air).
2. The last new episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air aired in 1996.
She wasn’t even the main character?!?!?
3. After her stint on Fresh Prince, she was in exactly 1 movie (The Ladies Man) and did 1-2 episodes of a few TV shows, the last being in 2002 (Static Shock was the show).
4. More searched than “Bono”??!??!?!??!

Maybe this is why Yahoo is getting its ass kicked by Google; its search data is crap. Other than Yahoo being fucked up, my guess is that Karyn Parsons has a stalker who looks her up online non-stop but can only remember her as “Hilary Banks”.

Colin Cowherd, WHAT???

From today’s show, talking about Kobe Bryant:

“Offensively, he’s the greatest player I’ve ever seen because he’s the most creative. Whereas Jordan relied on two or three stock moves for much of his offense. Kobe makes stuff up, every time down the floor.”

Ignoring the fact that a player who dribbles the ball only with his right hand, but goes 20 for 20 every game on 17 foot two handed setshots would arguably be the least creative offensive player ever, yet still arguably be the best, what the fuck are you talking about????

Cowherd did say that Jordan was a better player than Kobe Bryant. But can we pause on this? Jordan relied on two or three stock moves? WHAT? WHAT?????

No really, in all seriousness, WHAT?

White Sox GM Ken Williams = Delusional

If I posted enough to have a quote of the week, this would be it. From White Sox GM Ken Williams:

Reacting Wednesday to the blockbuster deal that sent power-hitting third baseman Miguel Cabrera and former All-Star left-hander Dontrelle Willis from the Florida Marlins to the Detroit Tigers — wrecking the Sox’ latest offseason plans — Williams said: ‘‘All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us.''

The White Sox were 72-90 last year. Their old players are getting older, they've yet to get them some help this off-season, they were last in the AL in runs scored last year and third to last in runs allowed.

The Tigers were 88-74 and now have arguably the most lethal lineup in the major leagues after trading for Miguel Cabrera.

Bill Plaschke Spins Some Nonsense

Bill Plaschke likes the Andruw Jones signing for a bunch of reasons. Let’s take a look:

Folks will complain because Jones, 30, is coming off the worst full season of his career, but every question has an answer.

I can’t argue with that. Was the Jones signing a good one? Probably not terrible since it's only for two years. Will Bill Plaschke have some good reasons? Probably not. Do I like Jello Pudding? Absolutely.

You say he had a bad summer? I say he still would have led the Dodgers in home runs (26) and runs batted in (94).

And he would have finished 9th in OPS+ among all Dodger hitters. That’s behind Wilson Betemit.

You say he's overpaid? I say that by giving him only a two-year deal, he's going to feel underpaid, and you know how hungry those guys get.

Last year he was so hungry that in his big-time, have-a-monster-year-and-get-huge-contract season of 2007 he turned in his worst performance to date. So that logic sucks.

You say he won't be any better than the combination of Kemp and Andre Ethier? I say, in a post-steroid-era season in 2006, he hit 41 homers with 129 RBIs, so get real.

So we’re not going to address how good Kemp will be? Just that Jones had a good year in 2006? How’d he do in 2007? Matt Kemp had an OPS of .894 last year, Jones had an OPS of .894 in the aforementioned 2006 season. Last year? Jones was at .724. Matt Kemp made about $400K. Ethier didn’t show Kemp’s potential but was still better than a league average hitter last year, Jones was not.

Since when is “so get real” an actual fucking point in a real argument?

You say that Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant? Well Kobe Bryant scored 81 points in a game, so get real! What grade are we in?

You say it's silly to bring a power hitter to Dodger Stadium? OK, well, how about bringing a perennial Gold Glove winner to Dodger Stadium?

I say both statements are silly. The point that you made up (and then didn’t address) and the point you brought up. Yes, Jones is a good fielder. If that’s what you care about, trade for Coco Crisp.

In acquiring Jones, the Dodgers are actually acquiring four players.

This is going to make a ton of sense. Four players worth of salary maybe. But based on last year, he represents pretty much one average player.

His power allows them to give Andy LaRoche a long-awaited chance to win the job at third base.

Ahhhh I see…so having Andruw Jones allows the Dodgers to play Andy LaRoche over power hitting Nomar Garciaparra, who’ll have to take his 7 HR’s and 78 OPS+ to the bench. Andruw Jones should have nothing to do with third base.

His pedigree probably convinces Jeff Kent to return for one more run at a championship.

Now we are onto the hardcore evidence. Jones’ pedigree will convince Jeff Kent, who is “good”, not great, and is about 40 years old and proved to be clubhouse poison again last year to stick around (which is mildly odd because I thought LA had a club option on him).

His position lets Juan Pierre become Juan Pierre.

Yes, Jones playing CF instead of Juan Pierre is a big upgrade on many fronts, because Juan Pierre is an out-machine with a little girl arm. But, Bill, what the hell are you saying here? I don’t think it’s “lets Juan Pierre become Juan Pierre, bench player”, and that’s a problem.

No, no, the Dodgers will not and should not trade the short-armed center fielder. Just because he was overpaid doesn't mean he lacked value. Did everybody somehow miss that he was second in the league in stolen bases and led the league in sacrifice bunts?

That might be the most terrible paragraph (well, a Plaschke paragraph) of baseball analysis I’ve read in a while. How can you ever say a team shouldn’t trade a bad player with a bad contract? I mean, if they could give him away, they should. Nobody would want him though, because he LACKS VALUE. You try to trade him Bill, and tell me what kind of “value” you get back.

The other NL leaders in sacrifice hits were John Maine, Omar Vizquel, Aaron Cook, Jeff Francis, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Kyle Lohse, Wandy Rodriguez, and Ian Snell. Do you notice anything about the hitting prowess of these players? They are not good hitters (all but one is a pitcher). They sacrifice bunt a lot because their managers would rather them give up an out than give it the old college try. The fact that Juan Pierre led the league in sacrifices is not impressive and including that point as a positive is the ultimate in reaching for an argument. I mean, it’s a hitting category that he beat a bunch of pitchers in and that should tell you something.

The Dodgers need to keep Pierre's speed and bunting ability at the top of the order. Goodness, it's one of the reasons Jones agreed to play here. But at least now, Pierre can move to a safer left field and be viewed for what he is -- a complementary player.

The Dodgers don’t need to keep out-machine Juan Pierre at the top of the order for a variety of reasons, two of them being that he sucks and Rafael Furcal is also on the team at the top of the order, who was sort of inept last year too.

"I never said Juan Pierre is a franchise player," Colletti said. "He's a very good player on a winning team."

That statement makes zero sense. He’s only a good player on a winning team? So he’s only good if he’s surrounded by a ton of other good players? I suspect that’s Colletti’s perception, but he doesn’t realize that it’s the winning team that masks how bad Pierre is.

Four players in, one player out, and that player is either Kemp or Ethier, who are overcrowding right field.

If you’re keeping track. This is a summary of the math:

IN (+):
- Andruw Jones (duh) at $18 million per.
- Andy LaRoche (because now they can safely sit HR machine Nomar Garciapparra out, which we still don’t know if they’ll do. This should happen completely independent of who was in CF anyway.)
- Jeff Kent (because of Andruw Jones’ pedigree or some nonsense)
- Juan Pierre (he’s in somehow, even though Jones’ is taking his place in CF).

OUT (-):
Solid young player Andre Ethier or potential stud Matt Kemp, who have the nerve to overcrowd RF.

= Good signing. That's one loony equation. Andruw Jones for two years at that pay is a bit much, to me, but given Hunter's contract I think it's not a bad move for the Dodgers. But who would dig up these arguments? Bill Plaschke, that's who.

Some Lame Jon Heyman Proofreading

From today's summary of the big Marlins/Tigers trade:

Willis was the 2004 NL Rookie of the Year after going 14-6 with a 3.30 ERA and is 68-54 in his five years in Florida. He has pitched over 200 innings in each of the last three years.

2003, not 2004.

The intent of this site isn’t to point out shit like this, or Mike Celizic not understanding how to apply the glass half full analogy. It’s to voice disagreements with columnists who come to crazily supported or unsupported conclusions. I haven’t seen that much lately in the vein of the early content on this site, which began just after the NBA finals. I am trying to avoid purely original content for two reasons: 1.) I’m not a writer. 2.) There are many good blogs/columnists out there that do this. ESPN baseball insiders like Keith Law and Rob Neyer really don’t come to many conclusions that I would disagree with and the ESPN basketball folks are okay. There’s no insight on a baseball trade that I can offer beyond what those guys will. We’ll see what the winter brings.

Anyway, from Heyman’s daily scoop today:

• The Cubs are considered the favorite for top Japanese League outfielder Hiroki Fukudome. But the Red Sox could be an interesting possibility, as well.

If you define “interesting” as “signing a player you don’t need to a lucrative deal to play OF when you already have all three positions set (including 2 CF’s)”, then I agree…..that’s pretty interesting.

Won’t Somebody Think of the Children!

In the interest of keeping the topics on this blog nice and fresh, I’ve asked Mike Freeman of CBS Sportsline to write about a new, interesting topic that’s not discussed every year during the NBA and MLB playoffs. Take it away Mike!

Mike: Sure, here goes!

MLB playoffs? Great action, but it's past our bedtime

Fuuuuuck.

If these postseason baseball games go any later into the night they'll have to be simulcast on Cinemax.

Why? That doesn’t make any sense. Oh I know, so you can make a follow-up joke….

Sandwiched between Cheerleader Diaries 7 and Emmanuelle in London.

LOL. Let’s skip down to where Mike gets to his point.

A question for Major League Baseball: Have you ever heard of the word "afternoon"?

His point is to write the same column often written about the poor East coast fans, especially the kids, who can’t watch anything on TV that starts at 8 or 9. I’ve heard this blamed as the reason why MLB and NBA have, in the past, lost fans (ratings going down).

The playoffs have been surprisingly good, and the sport is healthy and vital. Commissioner Bud Selig has won over even the harshest of critics, proving to be a skilled and deft leader after initially being a stumbling clown.

What the fuck has Bud Selig done to be called a “skilled and deft leader”? The baseball is good. Bud Selig isn’t the one playing.

But these late games are where baseball continues to go grossly wrong. Not only do you lose hardcore baseball fans for the sake of corporate cash because people, you know, work and all. Worse than that is the self-inflicted damage baseball is doing to its future.

That second sentence sums up my frustration with this general point. People DO work, which is why you should have games on at prime-time on the East coast. How does starting the game at 5 or 6 East coast time help those working on the West Coast take in the game? Sure, the East coast kids get to see – but should we tailor the entire postseason schedule around 5-12 year-olds on the East coast? There is no perfect balance here. 7-8 PM EST makes the most sense to me.

One of the big reasons the NFL overtook baseball is because football respected its young fans. The bulk of pro football games are played at times when kids can put on their team's jersey and watch the game with Mom and Dad.

Mike, what do all but 1 of this week’s NFL football games have in common? Got it yet? They were played on Sunday! The NFL, when it plays during the week, NEVER plays during the afternoon.

That's how you build a young viewership that remains loyal for decades. You allow kids that are five, eight, 10, 15 years old to watch your games. Seems pretty simple.

Fuck that. I get home from work between 6:30 and 8. I don’t care if little 5 year old Timmy down the street gets to watch the rest of the playoff game.

Even the NFL's late games Sunday and Monday night end at a somewhat manageable hour. Most of football's postseason contests begin in the afternoon; the Super Bowl starts during the dinner hour.

No, sorry, the late games don’t end at a manageable hour for a kid with a normal bedtime. I don’t think you can compare the NFL to MLB in this situation, because, again, they play mostly on weekends. Their Monday night games end late – between 11:30 and midnight. 5-15 year olds aren’t watching that. The Super Bowl is on Sunday. Sundays are different. How many times does this need to be said?

You see, baseball has yet to grasp the concept that you can be greedy corporate bastards and still somewhat serve the fans. The NFL does it every day.

No, they do it on Sunday and Monday. Monday’s game is on at prime-time in the East.

Baseball isn't just greedy; baseball is stubborn and thick-headed. That's a bad combination.

The steps baseball can take to fix this problem are simple. They're so simple baseball needs to be slapped upside the head for not doing them.

First, play every game in the afternoon, particularly Sunday, the day before the work week starts. Sure, baseball will be competing against the NFL, but it does now anyway. Earlier games make fans happy, and that will pay dividends decades in the future.

No, this doesn’t work. If you play every game in the afternoon, then the kids are at school/sports on the West Coast, the parents on the West Coast are at work, and the East Coast parents are working/just getting home for the end. So the only people that benefit are the kids on the East Coast who don’t play any after school sports. See how this makes no sense?

It also makes zero business sense. So, yeah, let's piss off millions of fans and make less money so the East coast kids can watch!

Second, no game should start later than 6 p.m. ET. Baseball maintains this will hurt West Coast fans, but trust me: They'll find a way to watch in California, dude. My Eastern bias might be showing, but the remainder of the country is better served by earlier starts.

Your Eastern bias is showing a tad, dude. Actually, the entire country, EXCEPT the east coast, is not better served by (somewhat) earlier starts. Afternoon starts make no sense….anywhere.

If baseball continues down the path of its games ending so late, they'll bleed young fans forever.

I would like to bet Mike Freeman eleventy-seventy gillian dollars that baseball will not “bleed young fans” just because the playoffs start during prime time on the East coast. I would also bet that ratings would be murdered if games started in the afternoon, during the week, as he suggested. It’s not like they recently started the current TV schedule, they’ve been doing it for a long time, and baseball seems pretty popular to me….even with the poor children. If Mike was right then we would be seeing a disproportionate amount of baseball fans on the West Coast. Does that seem to be the case? Nope.

Cinemax, anyone?

Still makes no sense.

Bill Simmons Has a Good Memory, Part 2

I’m not going to go into Bill Simmons’ mailbag in a tremendous amount of detail, because FireJayMariotti beat me to it. But sometimes Bill likes to just selectively remember how shit went down in the past. He’s usually good at it, but sometimes he’s just way off. So off that even a quick read of his work makes me say, “what the fuck?”

So, Bill, what the fuck?

On the subject of Joe Borowski:

Can you win a World Series with a closer who makes the '96 John Wetteland look like Eric Gagne during his 84-save streak?

The implication, clearly, is that Borowski sucks so much he made a not-so-good closer look like Eric Gagne when Gagne was unreal. To me he has to be implying that Wetteland was not that good, or was even just average, because otherwise this makes no sense. You wouldn’t say, “he made Roger Clemens of ’97 look like Pedro Martinez of ’00!” That doesn’t make any sense.

John Wetteland:

1996 Regular Season: 63 innings, 69 K’s, 2.83 ERA, 179 ERA+.
1996 Playoffs: 12 1/3 innings, 15 K’s, 2.23 ERA, 7 saves, 4 World Series Saves, World Series MVP.

For what it's worth, he was also named Rolaids Reliever of the Decade for the 90’s. Yeah that guy sucked!

Gregg Easterbrook Writes a Long-Ass Column

So I'm really tired and this post may be very sloppy and non-sensical.... but what the hell, right?
Gregg Easterbrook writes an incredibly long-winded column on ESPN page 2 called “Tuesday Morning Quarterback” where he explains why he’s so much smarter than you and everyone else. I just finished reading this week's edition and I’m too tired to type a better intro. For the record I don't hate the guy or think he's unintelligent. He often has many good points, particularly about NFL strategy. But he can get a little too righteous for my liking.

On the NBA point below, I’m not really saying he’s wrong, just responding. I don’t know. I’m really tired, just read it. I’m not even going to address his hyperbole when talking about the impact of the camera issue on the NFL - but feel free to check out his column for his (long) take on it (hint: it's catastrophic). Also, if you want a lot of comparisons of Bill Belichick and Richard Nixon, that link will suit you well.

Think the NFL can't decline? Fifteen years ago, the National Basketball Association was going up, up, up by every measure and was widely considered the gold-plated can't-miss "sport of the next century." Since then, NBA popularity and ratings have plummeted while NBA-based teams have floundered in international competition.

No, actually NBA popularity and ratings plummeted when Michael Jordan retired, which coincided with a lockout. There are dozens of other reasons, but I’d point to those two first. Also, losing in international competition is largely the result of much improved international competition.

I believe it was 1994 when Sports Illustrated had a cover story called something like “Why the NHL is hot, and the NBA is not”. Just saying.

Fifteen years ago, sports-marketing types would have said "impossible!" to the notion that only 11 percent of American households would watch the NBA Finals, which is what happened this June.

Look at the chart midway down on the left of this page. Notice anything? The ratings were high with Jordan or Los Angeles in the Finals, and pretty much lower any time the Spurs were involved. Also, this is a long time to be reviewing ratings. I think if you told the sports-marketing types about the rise in video games, and explained to them “the Internet”, TIVO/DVR, and cable packages with hundreds of channels and then told them the finals would be played between San Antonio and Cleveland, they would have thought of that notion as being very possible.

I also couldn’t quite follow Easterbrook’s train of thought when talking about the possibility of the Patriots cheating on Sunday night against the Chargers. Namely if they had used illegally obtained video from the January AFC playoff game (which he acknowledges had different coaching) to their advantage on Sunday night.

Was New England cheating again Sunday night, when the Patriots advanced the ball with such ease it seemed they knew what defense San Diego would be in?

He's asking that question for real. It's at the tail end of a paragraph where he explains exactly how the Patriots could have been cheating. Now let’s read some snippets of his analysis of the game from a different section of his column.

What in blazes was the story with the Chargers? Rarely has a quality team seemed so ill-prepared for a monster game, and rarely has a quality team seemed to give up the moment the going got tough.

He then goes through several plays where the Chargers should have known what was coming, but were ill-prepared. Based on AccuScore and (he seems to imply) common sense, the Chargers were not playing smart.

He concludes just by saying, “That's awful defense” after both long-winded detailed paragraphs explaining how the Chargers sucked.

But what was really awful about San Diego's performance was the coaching timidity.

He then goes into detail about how San Diego should have gone for it fourth-and-1 near midfield in the second quarter when they were already down 17 points and later in the quarter they punted again on 4th and 2.

When the coach quits on the game in the second quarter, it should come as no surprise that the players quit.

So first he questions if they were cheating because they advanced the ball easily and seemed to know what defense was coming.

Then we get:
- “ill-prepared”
- “awful defense”
- “awful defense”
- “coaching timidity”
- “coach quits”
- “players quit”
…to describe the Chargers.

Hmm, well….. I realize that those statements and the Patriots cheating aren’t mutually exclusive, but why would anyone who watched the game waste time putting a lot of thought into crediting their offensive output to the Patriots cheating, especially when that person has such disdain for the Chargers’ defensive execution, strategy, and effort?

“Too Little Too Late for Yankees to Make Playoffs”

Well that sounds dumb, right? I’ll let Steve Phillips tell you why you’re the dumb one. Dummy.

Vinny (New York): With a gun to your head, still Seatle over the Yanks for the Wild Card? Yankees are looking pretty impressive, just taking care of most people's "best team in baseball."

Steve Phillips: The Yanks looked good beating an undermanned Tigers team, I agree with you. But I think the Mariners will hold on and win the Wild Card. Their starting pitching is just good enough and their bullpen in unreal. They have one of the best defenses in babseball, and they are starting to produce on offense. I think it is too little too late for the Yankees to make the playoffs.

With 38 games remaining, the Yankees are 4 games behind Boston to win the division and .5 (that’s POINT FIVE) behind the Mariners for the wild card. They play Boston 6 times and they play Seattle 3 times. Obviously, at this point, ANYTHING could happen. They could take the AL East or (more likely) the Wild Card or collapse and miss the playoffs.

Now how the hell could anyone conclude that it’s “too little too late” for them to make the playoffs? It’s not like there’s 7 games left - and if there were would that even be too late? Does he just hate the Yankees?

Buster Olney, what?

From Today’s chat:

swayne (Delmar, NY): Buster, Do you see the Yanks making any significant deals by July 31? What are they targeting? Also: who would you rather have down the stretch -- Lackey or Chris Young?

Buster Olney: (1:21 PM ET ) Swayne: Young. Pitchers' park.

I don’t know why this question would involve ballparks. Buster doesn't get many fantasy questions and this wasn't framed as such. I think the question was supposed to be about which pitcher would you want on your team with the ballpark being whatever park you're playing in.