BODE LOSES!!!

Big news! Ted Ligety won the gold medal in the Alpine combined competition at the Turin Olympics! It is the first skiing gold captured by an American since 1994, and only the 4th Alpine gold ever. Let's tune in to SportsCenter to get the inside dope!

Dan Patrick: Welcome to SportsCenter. Bode Miller was disqualified this afternoon from the men's Alpine combined competition for straddling a gate. The U.S. ski team says it will not dispute the ruling. Miller's exit left the field open for Ted Ligety, who won the gold medal in Miller's absence. Steve Cyphers reports.

Cyphers: Ted Ligety won the gold medal, but Miller was disqualified for the competition for straddling a gate. When asked for reaction, Bode made some wisecracks.

[Somber shaking of heads]

DP: Let's go to Picabo Street for some comments on Miller's abominable behavior.

PS: One of these days, Bode's going to have to grow up.

DP: Thanks, Peek. And now let's see what the PTI guys have to say about the abysmal Bode.

Kornheiser: Is Bode a bust?

Wilbon (magnanamously): Not yet, Tony. He's got three events to go. But if he doesn't take the gold in one of those, he's all hype and no substance. Back to SportsCenter.

[End transcript]

Okay, I obviously paraphrased a bit there, but that really was the substance of the report. 95% of the words delivered in the opening segment were about Bode Miller. Ted Ligety, who came out of nowhere, shocked the world, and won the first skiing gold medal for the U.S. in 12 years, was virtually ignored so that the commentators could indulge their obsession with Bode Miller.

They watch with bated breath. Should we love him? Should we hate him? Well, today he lost, so we hate him, but just in case he turns things around and wins a gold, we're prepared to swing around too and proclaim him king of the world.

Hey, guess what guys? There's a ski competition going on here! Believe it or not, they didn't cancel the whole thing after Bode went down. And just because Ligety hasn't been pre-anointed Mr. Olympics 2006 doesn't mean that we, the sports news-consuming public, aren't interested in the fact that he just won the gold medal.

The PTI guys' "analysis" was especially rich given that they are the ones who are hyping Bode! Sure, Bode goes around and says some pretty outrageous things, but who cares? It's not like the guy has guaranteed a gold or anything. Just because you're obsessed with a guy doesn't mean that he's to blame for your own feeling of disappointment when he loses.

This is Ted Ligety's day. ESPN's ignoring him in favor of the scripted star system is disgraceful.

Giant goose-egg

SRAM readers probably think that this entry is going to be a big gloat over Eli's abysmal day yesterday, coming as it did on the heels of our dismantling of the Eli Myth that emerged about halfway through the regular season. But this blog is not about gloating. Nor is it about retribution. We take the high road. While the rest of the world is saying "Me, me me," SRAM says, "Us, us, us". We're all in this together.

So it turns out that Eli stinks. Are we surprised? Do we feel the need to dwell on this? Recount his 4 turnovers yesterday? Remind our readers of the last time a home team got shut out in the playoffs? Not at all.

On the contrary, today I'm (okay, back to "I") here to defend Mr. Eli. The pundits spent the day patting themselves on the back for their magnanimity and big-picture-seeing for not pinning the blame on Eli for the loss. Way to go, guys. But to a man they all missed the real reason for the Giants' goose-egg: the Giants defense.

In my opinion the most underrated statistic in football is number of plays, and that's the stat that tells the story of the Carolina-NYG game. Carolina had more rushing attempts yesterday than the Giants had total offensive plays by a count of 45-31. Throw in passing plays and the final tally stands at a staggering (staggering in the sense that it's unbalanced; you know how you're off balance when you stagger? That's what I'm getting at here) 71-35. And time of possession is even worse: 42:45 - 17:15.

So how is a team supposed to score when they only get 35 plays? How is Tiki Barber supposed to have his normal game when he only gets 13 carries? Sure, the 3 interceptions were killer, but Eli was still 10-18 for 132 yards on the game. A pretty "healthy" yards per attempt, no?

Now, of course it's a two-way street. The Giants had few plays because they couldn't sustain a drive. But offenses will struggle, and when they do, the defense needs to get the ball back to them for another chance, multiple times, so that the offense can get untracked.

Knicks in the playoffs?

Wilbon blew Kornheiser's socks off this afternoon on PTI with his bold prediction that the Knicks would make the playoffs. But a look at the standings reveals that the 10-21 Knicks are a mere 3 games out of the playoffs right now. Not that bold!

What Wilbon omitted to mention was that it's the Eastern Conference's continued pathetic-ness that allowed him to go out on such a supposed limb, as evidenced by the Baby Bulls' 14-19 "playoff-worthy" record. Not that the omission is terribly surprising, of course; after all, Wilbon spent the first week of the NBA season proclaiming the resurgence of the Eastern Conference and the supposed weakness of the West. That's right: the first week of the season. Yes, it's never too early to make sweeping generalizations.

Paterno

Just a word on the idiotic NOW-Paterno story: since when does anybody in the sports world care about what NOW says? But the sports pundits love to comment on it because it makes them feel like real reporters tackling real-life issues.

A little perspective, please

Last night's national championship game between USC and Texas was, indeed, quite possibly the greatest college football game of all time. After all, it featured:

• The undisputed #1 and #2 teams in the country
• An exciting game with lots of offense, a key 4th-down defensive stop, and a touchdown in the last 20 seconds
• Three of the most exciting college players of the decade, each of whom would be the #1 NFL draft pick if they came out in separate years, delivering memorable performances
• Keith Jackson in the broadcast booth

That's right, you take away that last one, and it's just another game.

Anyhoo, you might expect that such an atmosphere would be exceptionally conducive to sportscasters saying stupid things, and naturally you would be right. Here are 3 examples:

#1 - Kirk Herbstreit found himself simply overwhelmed in trying to come up with enough superlatives to describe Vince Young's performance. Here's a rough transcript: "I think Vince Young's performance was the best...anything...done by anybody...on any level...in any sport...in any universe...at any period of time in history...since the Big Bang..."

Look, I'm not trying to be the spoiler here. There's always a competition to be the first to release the backlash. I already said it was a great, great game. But I mean come on, guys; a little perspective here, please. There have been some pretty darned good players and games over the years. You could lend a little more credibility to the statement by prefacing your comments with some historical awareness like, "With all due respect to Red Grange's game against Michigan..."

#2 - Bill Simmons, always the smartest guy in the room, naturally supplied us with the spoiler comments with a running game journal that was primarily concerned with, believe it or not, proving that Tom Brady was the MVP. Okay, maybe that's a stretch. But his insufferable journal was simply obsessed with reminding us over and over that the college game is inferior to the pro game. And why is that? Because he still hasn't forgiven Pete Carroll for his mediocre tenure as coach of the Patriots in the late 90's. And why, you ask, would he not forgive Pistol Pete (to coin a phrase) this when the Pats have won three out of the last four Super Bowls? You got me.

Nevertheless, BS allowed this obsession to completely hijack his journal, a journal which should have been a minute-by-minute account of one highlight after another in quite possibly the greatest college football game ever played but which instead read like the indictment sheet of a serial murderer who has been apprehended at last. Every mistake made by USC was somehow Pete Carroll's fault. Every great play by Texas should have been stopped by USC's defense. (Bill suggested putting a "spy" on Vince Young. Genius! Why didn't I think of that! After all, the famous "spy" defense has successfully shut down every great running quarterback from Steve Young to Michael Vick!)

Let's take the most obvious example: the decision to go for it on 4th and 2. Here's what Bill said:

Anyway, here's the setup: fourth-and-2, 2:11 remaining, USC on Texas' 45 and leading by five, with the logical move being a punt that would force Texas' offense to drive 85-90 yards in 120 seconds with a quarterback who hasn't completed a pass longer than 15 yards all game. The decision rests in the hands of Pete Carroll. For once, he does the logical thing -- goes for the game-ending first down, keeps Reggie Bush and his Heisman Trophy on the sideline, then runs a predictable dive play with LenDale White that falls short because everyone on the planet knew it was coming (including all 11 guys on the Texas defense). Wait, absolutely none of that was logical. Texas ball.

Now, I'm sure that Bill must have been watching that game, because he's got the previous journal entries to prove it. But how is it that he evidently doesn't realize that there are plenty of logical reasons to go for it there? LenDale White had been unstoppable the whole game. So had Vince Young. USC was second-to-last in the country in net punting, and Texas would have had two full minutes and two timeouts to work with had the Trojans punted. Among the post-game pundits who get paid to second-guess, they were unanimous in agreeing with the decision to go for it on fourth down there. (That actually surprised me, but there you go.)

Look, it's just one of those decisions that is defensible either way you go. Punting would have been a perfectly viable option, too. But Bill, writing after the fact, of course, acts like anybody who doesn't punt there must be a complete and total idiot. Therefore, the NFL is superior. Therefore, Tom Brady for president.

In all my years reading Bill Simmons, the guy has never once given any indication that he has the slightest inkling that second-guessing a player or coach with the benefit of hindsight is essentially a classless move. If you're going to do it, you should at least apologize for it. Occasionally. Particularly when you're criticizing a guy who has just won 1.5 national championships and 34 games in a row. But no, he went for it on 4th and 2, so the guy can't coach.

#3 - My last example comes from PTI, and fortunately is more of an example of boneheadedness, in my opinion, rather than evil intent. So we'll end on an up note, right? After all, the PTI guys are plenty entertaining. But man, they sure say some things that leave you scratching your head.

(Hang on--a little diversion, first. I can't let the PTI guys get away with this. In the week before Bush won the Heisman, these guys were saying, "Well, it looks like Bush is going to win it, he has the votes, and sure, he's had a good season, so whatever." Then Bush won the Heisman in a landslide. For the next few weeks: "Bush is awesome! The man is a freak of nature! He's the greatest player of our time! Bush for president!" (Okay, just kidding about that last one. You'll never hear the PTI guys say that.) And then after last night's game, they were all, "Vince Young is incredible! He's the best player in the country! He should have won the Heisman! What were the voters thinking?" See? Bandwagoners. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.)

So today they were talking about the game, and Tony decides to devote an entire segment (about 2 minutes) to the fact that they didn't review on replay the Longhorns' first touchdown, which, it turned out, should have been taken back because Young's knee was on the ground when he pitched it. Now it was Tony's turn to go crazy on the superlatives: "This was a huge play! It was a turning point in the game! You have to get that call right!"

Tony. Breathe deeply and repeat after me: It ... was ... not ... a ... huge ... play. Not that huge! If they review it, UT has the ball, first down on the 10-yard-line. They've already moved the length of the field, and subsequent possessions would reveal a pretty darned effective red-zone offense in terms of getting the 6 points. Yeah, yeah, yeah, they might not have scored a touchdown. I'm not saying it was completely insignificant. But it was not huge. You see.

It reminds me of another pet peeve of mine, which is how all turnovers are considered, well, huge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some turnovers hurt a lot more than others. For example, a turnover on third down is likely less significant, since the team was about to give up the ball anyway. Especially if it's in "4-down" territory, i.e. between the opponents' 35- and 45-yard-line. It is even less significant if it's an interception of a long pass, and hence the proverbial "as good as a punt." On the other hand, if a turnover occurs on the opponents' 1-yard-line, when you're about to score a touchdown, that is a big turnover. Maybe. It still might not be, since the opposing offense has so little room to maneuver that they may end up punting from their own end zone, resulting in good field position and an eventual touchdown. Your TD was merely delayed. But a fumble on your own 1-yard-line, that is always simply crippling. Just like a blocked punt is always huge--and it doesn't even show up as a turnover on the stat sheet!

The review of Vince Young's knee wouldn't have even resulted in a change in possession, and UT would have had, as I said, first-and-10. Contrast that with two plays that were reviewed later in the game. Both plays had Texas players catching a pass, and then dropping it shortly thereafter. Both plays would have resulted in turnovers (one for Texas, one for USC). Both turnovers would have been large, particularly the second one. The second one would have resulted in undoubtedly a win for USC. And both plays, you could argue, the refs got wrong! I don't think they did, but it sure is debatable. PTI should have expended their breath talking about the importance of those calls, not on Vince Young's knee.

Postscript: Speaking of Vince Young's knee, I will now step out of my usual character and make, apropos of nothing, a bold prediction. First of all, let me preface my prediction with lots of disclaimers:

• Vince Young's performance last night was arguably the greatest of all time in a college football game. (Remember, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Herbstreit, just asking for a little perspective, please.)
• I like Vince Young, personally, a lot better than Matt Leinart. Young is highly likable, while Leinart seems a little full of himself, and not particularly gracious in defeat, either, as he blamed his defense for "missing tackles" and said he still thinks "we're the better team." Yeah, well, Notre Dame thinks they're better than you, too, Leinart.

Despite all that, I think that Leinart will be a better pro quarterback than Young. Leinart really played a fantastic game last night that everyone's forgetting about. Meanwhile, history is littered with examples of people who were fast in college, but not so fast in the pros. Leinart is another Carson Palmer, while Young is another Michael Vick. Who'd you rather have right now? Well, actually, lots of people could still say Vick, and in ten years lots of people might still say Young over Leinart. Much will depend on the situation they land in. But I'd take Leinart over Young.

Tom Brady: Game Manager

Sure enough, as predicted, Bill Simmons is back on his feet and in the tank for his beloved Tom Brady. This time he actually has the audacity to proclaim the man the 2005 NFL MVP:

Here's my criterion for an MVP in any sport: Remove the player in question and replace him with an above-average player. What would the team's record look like?

Under this criterion, you can rule out Shaun Alexander. Replace him with someone like Reuben Droughns and I still think Seattle goes 10-6 or 11-5 with that cream-puff schedule. Besides, if Alexander were truly the most valuable player in football, don't you think Seattle would have re-signed him by now? Do you think the Giants would be going into the offseason with Tiki Barber unsigned? What about K.C. with Larry Johnson? No and no. I can't give someone an MVP whose own team doesn't care whether he's signed. That's ridiculous.

You can rule out Peyton Manning and Edgerrin James, too. Replace them with an above-average QB (let's say Mark Brunell) or an above-average RB (Rudi Johnson) and the Colts are still 10-6 or 11-5 with their defense and all those offensive weapons. As for Barber, I might have voted for him a week ago, and only because that Giants team would have been 6-10 or 7-9 with an above-average running back in his place (let's say Domanick Davis). But after watching them get kicked around by the Skins last week, I don't think they're a championship-caliber team -- it's hard to imagine the Giants having a league MVP when they probably aren't getting out of the first round.

That leaves Tom Brady. If you replaced him with someone like Jake Delhomme or Drew Bledsoe, the Patriots would have been 1-7 after eight games. I'm telling you. He held them together when they were banged-up and ready to roll over. And in a similar situation, sure, maybe Manning would have held the Colts together … but the fact remains, only six teams have a legitimate chance to win the Super Bowl (Indy, New England, Cincy, Denver, Chicago and Seattle) and only one of those six teams is in that position because of one guy and one guy alone. Not only did Brady hold the fort when the injuries kept piling up, he raised his game to another level and pretty much carried them for two straight months. Now that's an MVP.

Now, hang on a second. This is the same Tom Brady that I saw hanging his head on the sidelines after his team was completely demolished in week 9, right? At home? And didn't the team that he lost to have a pretty good QB, too? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Okay, I will admit that Tom Brady is a good QB, and he had a good year. Probably, in fact, his best ever (more on that later on). But MVP? Of the whole league? Let's look at that.

First of all, I agree with the whole "ditch the RBs" sentiment. The Broncos and the Chiefs have already demonstrated that you can by and large plug and play with 'em without significant drop-offs. Occasionally you will see RBs that are truly extraordinary, like Barry Sanders or--dare I jump on this bandwagon?--Ladanian Tomlinson (actually, at one point I was going to write an article on how LT was overrated, too. I mean, the best RB ever and he's 6th in the league in rushing yards? Ah, well). Sean Alexander and Tiki Barber are fine backs, but replaceable.

So how about the QBs? Simmons says that the Pats are 1-7 at the midway point without Brady. With Brady, they were an impressive 4-4. But their schedule was brutal, says Simmons! Well, maybe so, but that's hardly an argument for Brady when he's just losing to those brutal teams. Let's see, how many teams did the Pats beat in the first half that finished with a winning record? One: Pittsburgh. As a matter of fact, the Pats didn't start winning consistently until their defense came around, which is the same story as the last several years.

Now on to the numbers. I know, I know, I'm not supposed to bring up Tom Brady's numbers. Such a thing is blasphemy in the Church of Tom Brady Worshippers. But the year Mr. Brady leads the league in passing efficiency (Ha!) you can be sure that his devotees will be trumpeting that fact. In the meantime...

Okay. Brady did lead the league in passing yards, while 4th in attempts. That's noteworthy, and well done to the man. He had to come out slinging the ball much of the year to make up for his shaky defense. But he only finished 6th in passing efficiency. Sure, passing efficiency is an imperfect metric, but if you're going to make that argument, then make the argument! Why is Brady more valuable than the 5 QBs ahead of him in that statistic? The 5 are these: P. Manning, C. Palmer, Large Benjamin, M. Hasselbeck, and M. Bulger. Okay, we'll throw out Bulger. The other 4 are all pretty worthy of consideration, methinks. Their teams had an average record of just over 12-4. (Let's see here, 12 is better than 10, right? Okay, just checking.)

Now, you can argue until you're blue in the face about who had better talent surrounding him, but just do this instead: throw away the individual names, and remember that Brady was surrounded by the two-time defending Super Bowl champeens. The other guys were not surrounded by the two-time defending Super Bowl champs, and yet still managed to post higher passing efficiency numbers and lead their teams to better records.

The hilarious thing about this whole bit, though, is that BS inadvertently gives up the game a little later on in the article while attempting to criticize someone else:

My favorite dumb announcing phrase of 2005: "Game manager." This started back in the early Tom Brady years (when the analogy made sense) and somehow morphed into a way of saying something nice about a crummy quarterback. As in, "maybe David Garrard can't carry an offense, but he's a game manager -- he'll manage the game for you." In other words, Garrard sucks. It's kind of like when the Indians spent four million on Jason Johnson this week and the GM explained it by saying, "He eats up innings." In other words, he sucks.

Uh-huh, I see. So when people call Tom Brady a "game manager," they're somehow describing some subtle attribute of his that makes him a great quarterback, but when they use that term on someone who is, on the other hand, NOT Tom Brady, they're just nicely saying that he sucks.

Okay, Bill. But here's the thing. The last few years before 2005, Brady has finished in the #8-10 range in QB efficiency. That's remarkably consistent, but not exactly among the elite passers in the game, is it? So what does that make him? A "game manager." Exactly.

You play to win...what?

I'm a bit late on this, but it's something I've been chewing over for the last couple of weeks and finally I decided it's worth spewing on. You may recall that a little while back Nick Saban, coach of the Dolphins, got in some trouble for saying words to the effect that the win-loss record doesn't really matter at this stage (being, as the Phins are, in reconstruction mode); what matters is whether the team is progressing. Only he said it, if it were possible, even less convincingly than I did just now.

So the PTI guys, naturally, decided to gab about this for 90 seconds or so. First, though, they played the old tape of Herm Edwards yelling at reporters, "You play to win the game! Period!" They cited this favorably and then contrasted with Saban. Well, sure, they averred, of course your long-term objective is to improve the team. But what about those season-ticket holders? ("Will somebody please think of the season-ticket holders?!") They want to see their team win! And so Wilbon ended up issuing one of his favorite pronouncements on sports celebrity misstatements: It may be true, but you can't say it.

Wilbon is constantly saying stuff like this. "It may be true, but you can't say it." This bugs me. Because it implies that people are stupid. Wilbon, in this case, evidently thinks that Miami Dolphin season-ticket holders are stupid. Does he honestly think that the average Dolphin fan willing to plunk down more than a grand for 8 seats not on the beach actually thought that the Phins were going to win the Super Bowl this year? Or even make the playoffs? Okay, sure, fans are inveterate optimists, and they might have thought, You know, based on our schedule, I think we've got a shot at the playoffs! Great, so they play 17 games instead of 16. Big deal. No, what they're really thinking, in the furthest recesses of their minds, is that Nick Saban is going to lead the Phins back to the promised land, just as he led LSU to a shared deed of their promised land.

Fans understand this. Fans understand that teams need time to develop. They're impatient, sure, but so long as each year the team is better than they were last year, they're willing to bide their time. Not infinitely long, of course, but certainly one year--and this is Saban's first.

In fact, in reality, nobody really buys the Herm Edwards Axiom that you play to win each game. Not even Herm, I'm certain. If they did, then they would bring every player back from an injury too early, on the off chance that they could contribute to that one game. Baseball managers would coach every game like it was the 7th game of the World Series, bringing their #1 starter off the bench to pitch the 9th inning. Okay, so now he can't pitch tomorrow, but hey, we won today, right?

Last year the NY Giants were sailing along just fine with Kurt Warner at QB, when suddenly halfway through the year Coughlin put Eli Manning in. The result was disastrous. Pre-Manning, the team had a chance to get to the playoffs. With Eli, they won about 1 game the rest of the year (yeah, I'm too lazy to look it up). So 2004 was screwed, but Eli is almost certainly better in 2005 because of it. True, I would still say that they'd be in at least this same position had they simply stuck with Warner, but the team is clearly building for the long-range future, and it's an absolutely defensible decision.

There's nothing wrong with throwing in the towel on a losing proposition. Cut your losses for a better chance next year. I was amazed at how long the media debated whether Donovan McNabb should have surgery. Of course he should! The Eagles' season was over a month ago! And I repeat: the fans understand this. Okay, ESPN will be able to find a few loudmouths who profess not to, but the majority are not that stupid.

In this I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with the Daily Idiocy. Today he explicitly refuted the Herm Edwards Axiom: "Hello?! You play to win the championship."

The is true, although I would add a slight caveat, which is that yes, you play to win the championship, but if you don't in fact win the championship that doesn't mean you're an abject failure. There is much to be said for trying your best, turning your team into a winner, getting far into the playoffs, etc. Accomplishments made along the way while trying to reach the goal of the championship are worthy of praise.

So Nick: blab away! We can take it!

Postscript: Fortunately, I can keep my anti-Daily Idiocy bona fides intact for the day by simply citing a different quote from the same column. This one concerns an early preview of the 2006 Heisman race:

If Vince Young and Brady Quinn both return for their senior years (and right now, both are expected back), that will be one of the best 1-on-1 Heisman battles in a long time. Young and Quinn's styles aren't simply different; they'll represent an allegory of the contemporary sociological divide between perceptions of what makes a "classic QB."

Boy, Shanoff sure has the lingo down, doesn't he? The guy oughta write for the New York Times.

Simmons Concedes

Every once in a while, in the face of overwhelming evidence, Bill Simmons is forced to admit that "I'm an idiot." (The "I" in the quote, of course, is Bill referring to himself. This is not me, the humble purveyor of SRAM entries, saying "I". SRAM would never admit to such a thing.)

But you have to be on the alert for these admissions, because they pass by quickly, and then Bill's back to his usual arrogant, wise, all-knowing, Sage of Boston Transplanted to Warmer Climates self. Interestingly, the admissions also came fewer and farther between when the Red Sox and the Patriots were winning world championships, as if their winning validated Simmons' own Smarter-Than-Thou status. But this, of course, is a given among sports fans.

The city of Boston's memorable 2004 not only inflated BS's ego, it also enabled him to ignore the primary quantifiable metric of his all-knowingness: his pick-against-the-NFL-spread percentage, which ended up at around 50.000001% last year. (Okay, a little better than that--but not a statistically significant margin above a coin flip.) Above all, BS was vindicated in his bad-mouthing of Peyton Manning, greatest QB of the current, unnamed decade, when Manning's team laid an egg in Foxborough last January. All in all, a good year for Bill.

2005 has not gone as well for the Sage; neither his teams, nor his anti-Peyton bias, nor his weekly picks (once again) are doing particularly well for him. And in a surprise (some may say shocking) move, he acknowledged as much in last week's NFL picks column.

First he starts by finally giving some props to Peyton Manning, about 5 years too late and at least 1 year after pretty much every other inhabitant on the planet:

Can we all stop with the "Plummer for MVP" crap? His coach wouldn't even trust him to throw the ball on third down with two minutes left in a tie game last week. Come on. Manning is the MVP this year. Even I admit it. He's been awesome to watch these last few weeks. Just awesome. I will now intentionally trip and hit my head on the side of a coffee table.

Stunning! But here's the thing: he wouldn't admit it until (a) the Colts were 11-0 AND, just as importantly, (b) the Patriots had a lousy year. Simmons has no hope that the Pats will beat the Colts in January (having already been thrashed by them in November, of course), so he can't pull the same trick that worked for him so well last year: deny the overwhelming evidence of Peyton's greatness by saying that the only games that matter are in January.

But here's the thing: Peyton is no better this year than he was last year. One could argue, in fact, that he was better last year. (I wouldn't, personally, but "one" could.) The difference, as every other inhabitant on the planet knows, is the defense. But Bill doesn't want to admit this, because that would discredit Tom Brady's three Super Bowls.

Still, a strong step in the right direction, Bill. How do you feel? Great.

BS then goes on to admit that his Pats just aren't that good this year.

Playing the role of the beaten-up star QB who took way too much punishment over the first 10-11 games and is slowly breaking down ... ladies and gentleman, Mr. Tom Brady!

(And yes, the AFC East is the worst division in football. I agree. You can stop sending me that e-mail. Seriously. I'm with you. Heard you loud and clear. Gotcha.)

It's the AFC East admission that's the important part, but I included the part about Brady to point out that this one really isn't that big a step for old BS. What he's really doing--with all of this, really--is circling the wagons and protecting his two Sacred Cows [I'm going to go ahead and allow this one, because you probably had cows going along with wagon trains all the time; and maybe there were a few Asian Indians along for the ride. -Ed.]: Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. Regardless of what happens in this disastrous NFL season, two things must be preserved at all costs: Belichick's genius and Brady's immortality. So Simmons has been playing the injury angle for all its worth this year.

(Injuries? But I thought Belichick was a genius! Didn't they have injuries in 2004, and Coach Bel converted a receiver to CB? Why doesn't he just win one game 16 times again this year? Doesn't seem that tough to me.)

And finally, in what in my opinion is the most shocking admission of all, he actually comes out and admits that his much-ballyhooed (by himself), highly complex and continually refined system for picking NFL games against the spread, is, well, pretty much worthless:

One of the sad things about parity: All my rules from my world-famous Gambling Manifesto have been washed away. You can go against Buffalo, Kansas City and Green Bay at home. You can take a crappy team like the Titans giving more than 7 points. You can take a crummy QB like Gus Frerotte on the road. You can wager heavily against Brett Favre. You don't have to be afraid of a road favorite like Denver in this one. Basically, wagering on NFL regular season games is like playing craps. There's no rhyme or reason to it. I find this mildly depressing.

Again, for anybody else this would hardly be a surprising concession, given that his record against the spread the last couple of years (this year he's 96-92-3) is insignificantly higher than that of an inanimate object. But remember, Bill is pretty heavily invested in his picks as the one quantifiable measure of his superiority to the rest of the world. He actually has readers who place money based on his advice. (Apparently these readers haven't figured out the "Scroll Down" feature on their browser so's to gain access to the guy's season record.) So this is a big deal. Sure, sure, he hedges with the whole "parity" bit, which obviously is pretty bogus (Huh? How does overall parity affect the picking of a given game? And when, exactly, did this "parity" start? 2004? 2005? 1895?), but we take what we can get.

Above all, SRAM is here to pre-emptively declare victory. If the Pats make a surprise playoff run, and/or the Colts lose in the playoffs, let the record state that none of this was foreseen by the Sports Guy.

Eli's no Peyton

I have to admit that even I get a little tired of constantly bashing ESPN. Which is why it's nice when somebody else comes along, even the reputable Wall Street Journal (motto: "We should stick to business and politics"), and writes an idiotic sports article that I can criticize.

Today Allen Barra writes a story for the WSJ arguing that Eli Manning has arrived. While not actually arguing that he is as good as his brother, his main thesis is that "[Eli] has reached the top rung of pro quarterbacks and is on the verge of superstardom." His supporting arguments for this assertion are simply classic examples of selective fact-stating and groundless name-calling.

He starts with the name-calling:

According to the National Football League's Byzantine system for rating quarterbacks, Eli is only the 18th-best passer in the league....

What would journalists do without the word "Byzantine"? A more useful word could hardly be imagined, meaning, as it seems, something that is "bad" according to conveniently unspecified criteria. I suppose in this case he means "overly complex," but that's rather a vague argument, wouldn't you say?

But Barra is not afraid to get into the nitty-gritty! No, not he!

The NFL's passer rating formula gives too much weight to pass-completion percentage, which most analysts now realize is a minor statistic. As football stats guru Bud Goode once asked me, "Would you rather complete two of three passes for nine yards or one of three for 10?"

Gotta love that "most analysts" citation, eh? And then back it up with noted "stats guru" Bud Goode! Thanks for the input, Bud! Okay, Allen, you don't like completion percentage? Then what do you like?

The passing numbers that correlate best with winning in the NFL are yards per attempt and interception percentage; Eli's YPA is slightly under seven, a healthy figure, and his interception percentage is lower than several other passers rated higher by the league.

A "healthy figure"! Bwaa-ha-ha-ha! Do you think that any of those business readers of the WSJ would buy a stock after an analyst had told them that the company's P/E was a "healthy figure"? And I love the way he just tried to slip it past us, too. What he really wanted to convey would have been more like this:

The most important stats are [cough!]ypa[cough!] and INTERCEPTION PERCENTAGE; Eli's ypa is around 7 AND HIS INTERCEPTION PERCENTAGE IS BETTER THAN SOME OTHER PEOPLE'S!!!

As a matter of fact, Eli's yards per attempt is 6.92, which is good for twentieth in the league. That would mean that his ranking in the highly credible statistical category of Yards Per Attempt is lower than his ranking in the dubiously "Byzantine" category of NFL Passing Efficiency. His ranking in interception percentage, by the way, is 15th, hardly cause for celebration.

Barra then goes on to argue that Eli's career is following roughly the same trajectory as Peyton's on the preposterously tenuous evidence that, here in his second season through 11 games, Eli has 20 TD passes and 10 interceptions while Peyton had 20 TDs and 11 INTs. Okay, that's a pretty impressive coincidence, but that's about all you can say for it. Peyton's Colts also finished that year 13-3; what are the odds that Eli's team does that well? Not good.

Barra concludes by saying that the main difference between the Colts and the Giants are that while the former are the least penalized team in the league, the latter are the most penalized. If only the numbskulls surrounding Eli would pull their heads out, he laments, the Giants would have the home-field advantage throughout the playoffs sewn up.

Nowhere does he acknowledge that the quarterback, as the de facto leader of the team, might have some responsibility for improving the discipline and overall smarts of his offense to curtail penalties. Nor does he anywhere in the article mention one Tiki Barber, the #3 running back in the NFL in yards and, oh by the way, the #5 RB in yards per attempt.

Look, Eli's having a good year, and his team has surpassed expectations. You know who else is having a good year, with his team surpassing expectations? Kyle Orton. And he's dead last in passing efficiency. You don't see anybody calling him a superstar, do you?

(Well, okay, not yet. But he's still getting more props than he deserves. Fortunately not from the WSJ.)

Belichick: Genius?

Three days ago, I would have been considered a madman for putting that question mark in this entry's header. Now that the Patriots have lost a game, and looked poorly doing so, suddenly everyone's questioning him again.

I'm not here to pile on. But I do think the issue of whether Belichick should have challenged Stephen Davis' apparent touchdown in the first quarter of Sunday's game is an interesting one.

The general consensus seems to be one of amazement that he didn't challenge. I don't agree. If he would have won the challenge, Carolina still would have had the ball, 2nd and goal with less than a foot to go. If I'm coach, I say at that point just give 'em the darned TD and give us the ball back.

Ruling the play a fumble was off the table because the whistle had blown, but for those of you interested in absolute justice, the fumble was recovered by an offensive lineman in the end zone, which would have been a touchdown anyway. And finally, the Pats played awful the rest of the afternoon anyway. It's pretty much a lose-lose-lose scenario for the Patriots.

So the play is ultimately inconsequential, and I don't have a problem with Belichick not challenging it. If anything, it showed to me that Belichick really is ahead of the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is screaming "Challenge!" when there's clearly no benefit to doing so.

Which is why I was surprised to read this morning that Belichick is now calling (or renewing his call) for cameras on the goal line. As if to say, the only reason he didn't challenge the Davis play is because there was a lack of cameras in the right spot. So much for my theory. And if that weren't bad enough, the article ends with this doozy from Belichick:

"The only way you're going to get a good, true evaluation of that play is to put a camera parallel to the goal line."

Parallel to the goal line? Actually, Bill, every yard line is parallel to the goal line. You could put a camera at the 50, and it would be parallel to the goal line.

(A bit nit-picky for you? Hey, I thought the man was a genius!)

Fish in a Barrel

Well, the NFL season is two weeks old, and a story has emerged which is so easy to pick apart that I almost feel guilty for doing so. But then again, nobody said my job was hard. They just said it was...oh, never mind.

Anyway, so here it is. I am going to go way out on a limb here and announce that the Colts defense is not as good as everybody thinks it is. Now, that wasn't very hard, was it? Not much of an analysis, eh?

Quick: name me two NFL teams that are known for having a good defense and a lousy offense. Baltimore and Jacksonville, right? Sure, they're good teams, but their offense stinks. So if you play those teams back-to-back, and you happen to beat them, why, it's just the perfect recipe for people getting over-excited about your defense.

"Numbers, SRAM, I need numbers!" Okay, here's your numbers. Baltimore currently sits next-to-last in the league in points per game, while Jacksonville is 24th at 14.5 ppg after their 26-14 track meet with Seattle last week. But that's not much data, obviously, and includes half their games against the Colts themselves. So let's throw in 2004 as well. Last year Jacksonville was 29th in the league with a whooping 16.3 ppg, nearly a point per game less than the mighty Miami Dolphins. Baltimore was 20th with 19.8 ppg, and that was before their star RB spent 4 months cooling his heels on the state government's dime.

Indianapolis has also benefitted from some missed FGs and bungling by opposing offenses. Sure, they lead the league with only 5.0 ppg given up, but what do you suppose their NFL rank is in yards given up per game? "Okay," you say, "it's probably a bit lower, but still maybe, say, 5th or 8th or so, right?"

Wrong. 25th. Twenty fifth in yards given up per game! 352 ypg, to be exact. This is a paltry 18 yards per game fewer than they gave up last year.

Sure, the defense is probably a little better than they were last year. They may even, in fact, actually be a lot better. But the evidence to suggest it is paper-thin, and I for one would suggest a little restraint from the commentators until more proof emerges. I remember a certain team last year that gave up 13 total points through 3 weeks. That team was the Seattle Seahawks, and their defense ended up 22nd in the league, allowing 22.3 ppg.

But get a load of all those writers jumping on the Indy D bandwagon! "There has been a sea change on Planet NFL. The Colts have allowed one garbage-time TD in eight quarters. No one is playing better than the Indy D right now," pronounces Peter King of SI.com. And Eric Allen of ESPN raves,

I'm very excited by what I'm seeing from the Colts defense. They have brought in guys who are hungry and are playing with tenacity. They have young cornerbacks who are flying around and making plays. This team looks like they are playing with an extra guy and we're just seeing the beginning of what they can do. This has the potential to be a very special team if the defense continues to play well.

Of course the most eloquent description of these poetic Colts in motion comes from Len Pasquarelli:

He was bloodied, bowed and beaten by the belligerent Colts' pass rush. If the Colts' first games are any indication, Leftwich likely won't be the last quarterback to be swatted around like a human piñata.

The Indianapolis Colts, a team synonymous with great defense, right? As incongruous as it sounds, people might actually have to get accustomed to it.

My favorite aspect is the bucketloads of analysis that the experts are trotting out explaining to us in precise detail exactly why the Colts defense is so much better now. For example, from the Pasquarelli column:

There is much more to the Indianapolis defense now, too, than a year ago. For one thing, this is Dungy's fourth season here, and the players who have been with him during that time have become considerably more comfortable in the scheme. Dungy and Ron Meeks, the Colts' defensive coordinator, have more of the type of players they need to play a scheme predicated on speed and quickness. And the Colts possess a defensive front that loves to pin its ears back and rush the quarterback on third-and-long.

There you go, folks. The secret to 25th-place performance.

I really wish I could just hear Sean Salisbury's take on it, too. It probably goes something like this: "When I was a quarterback in the National Football League this was exactly the type of defense that I hated facing the most. They're getting in the other team's face and hitting hard and serving notice that this is a new D they're looking at now and just flat-out making plays. Tony Dungy has done a spectacular job in remaking the defense the last 4 years while everyone was watching the offense."

Not surprisingly, the team is starting to believe its own press clippings, too:

"We were fortunate today, the defense could carry the offense for a while," Colts cornerback Nick Harper said. "We showed everyone we're for real."

And even Bill Simmons, who by the way has developed a brilliant, highly complex system for delivering a 50.1% success rate picking against the spread, is getting on board the Indy D-Train early on in a cunning pre-emptive CYA move. From his Week 2 Picks article last Friday:

Was anyone else thoroughly impressed by the Colts on Sunday night? This was the first time during the Manning Era that I thought to myself, "My Go[sh], they might actually win the Super Bowl this season."

Let me translate that for you. It means, according to Bill, that for the first time, the Colts look like they might have a Super Bowl-worthy defense. Hey, welcome to the club, Simmons! So a good defense behind the QB is important, huh? Gee, who'da thunk?

But don't believe the hype just yet.

Irrational Simmons

Bill Simmons is never less rational than when he's talking about the Red Sox. These days, that's saying something. But let's take a look at the opening line from a column from this week:

With rookie Jon Papelbon standing on the mound during a tie Red Sox game Monday night, I called my buddy Hench just to tell him, "This is the single biggest moment of the season."

Oh really, Bill? I thought that that was when A-Rod hit the home run off Schilling a month ago. Didn't you say the season was over then? (It was one of those "symbolic" moments that the SG likes so much, you see.) But last time I checked, the Sox were still in first place, so now we need to move on to the next "biggest moment of the season." Which is when Papelbon firmly established himself as the next K-Rod, according to Simmons. Okay, Bill. We'll be anxious to keep an eye on that one.

On to the next genius line:

Former closer Keith Foulke pushed his body too far last October and hasn't been remotely the same since -- I wish people would remember this when they decide to rip him, but that's a whole other story.

Yes, that's right. The reason why Foulke has been lousy all year long is because he "pushed his body too far" during the 2004 playoffs. I guess I can applaud the "give the guy a break" sentiment in that sentence, but holy cow--talk about for all the wrong reasons. That's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while.

But the line--nay, the word--that really pushed me over the edge into bloggable material was from this sentence:

Arroyo self-destructed in the seventh, blowing a five-run lead with help from Foulke (downright sad to watch) and Francona's goofy, Jamesian decision to bring in Timlin (who promptly gave up a game-tying bomb).

The key word, there, in case you missed it, was "Jamesian." As in Bill James. As in, a synonym for Moneyball (which Simmons avoided here either because it's becoming a bit hackneyed--a valid point--or possibly because the A's have made him look like such an idiot for his early season disparagement of them and the book).

The reason that this decision to bring in what you believe to be your best relief pitcher in such a critical situation (the Sox were up 5-2, 2 outs in the 7th, 2 runners on) is considered "goofy" by the all-knowing, all-Conventional-Wisdom-all-the-time Bill Simmons is because, you see, it wasn't the 9th inning. Never mind all those base runners. Never mind that it's Vernon Wells, the #3 hitter in the Jays' lineup who has 25 homers on the year. Never mind that Mr. Twenty Five Homers is the tying run. Never mind that if he retires Wells, then the Jays will be scheduled to send up their #7-9 hitters to the plate in the sacred Ninth Inning.

And actually, since it has become more acceptable of late to use closers in the 8th inning (Saint Rivera does this occasionally), I'm guessing that Simmons would even have been okay with Francona bringing in Timlin at the start of the 8th. But that is the absolute limit! Apparently. It's okay, that is, to bring in your closer in the 8th inning, but two outs in the 7th? Never! Outrageous! "Goofy"!

But getting to the point. Two outs in the 7th, tying run at the plate. Our friend Mr. Simmons does not offer an alternative suggestion concerning what Francona should have done. Should Francona have put in Papelbon? If so, why? Because Papelbon is a better pitcher than Timlin? But wait--if Papelbon is a better pitcher than Timlin, then shouldn't he be annointed The Closer and hence only available for The Ninth Inning? Or had the Red Sox not had time to do the official annointing ceremony yet? That must be it.

You see, Bill, what your column is missing here is an argument for not sending your best pitcher in that particular situation with two outs in the 7th inning. But no. Bill takes it as self-evident, because the decision backfired on Francona and Timlin gave up the game-tying home run. But this is 20/20 hindsight. Would Simmons have been okay with the decision, no criticism to offer, if the Inning box in the scoreboard behind Timlin had read "9" rather than "7" when he gave up the home run? Or does he really think that that "9" would have somehow inspired Timlin to throw better pitches? I'm not prepared to put that past him.

By the way, if anything, a more intelligent argument against Francona would have been to leave in the "sad to watch" Foulke. Because in that inning, Foulke "s!" faced three batters and gave up a single, a sac. fly, and struck out the 3rd guy. That's not exactly a brilliant outing, but it's not "sad to watch" in my book, either. Regardless, with Timlin clearly pitching better than Foulke these days (1.99 ERA to 5.91), it's ultimately not that hard to defend bringing Timlin in there.

Yippee Skippy

Skip Bayless has published enough stupid things that I've long since stopped reading him. However, my brother Craig supplied me this morning with such a ridiculously easy smackdown of a ridiculous point on a topic near and dear to my heart, that I had to comment on it.

Full disclosure: I still haven't actually read the column. But here is the relevant passage that Craig supplied for me (the column is about Michael Vick):

Why was another left-handed scatback of a quarterback recently inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame? Because Steve Young finally realized that the only way to the Super Bowl -- to lasting fame -- was through the air.

In 1992 and '93, the Dallas Cowboys viewed Young as by far the 49ers' best running back. Yet they also believed Young's happy feet would make the Cowboys happy in playoff games. In those years, Young's mentality was to run first, which made him frantic and impatient in the pocket, which meant he threw too many indecisive, out-of-rhythm interceptions.

But in '94, Young shocked the Cowboys by becoming a quarterback. Scrambling became an afterthought. Passing once again became a beautifully timed and often unstoppable weapon for the 49ers.

Young threw two touchdown passes as the 49ers beat Dallas in the NFC championship game. Young threw six touchdown passes as the 49ers demolished San Diego in the Super Bowl. Without those two performances, would Young already be in the Hall of Fame? No way.

This whole passage positively reeks of Conventional Wisdom, of the Lazy Reporter commenting on history where he hasn't bothered to actually look up the numbers. The whole "Steve Young used to just run for a living, then he figured out how to pass" fable is just way too convenient for the Lazy Reporter to be able to pass up.

Well, let's look at those games against the Cowboys, shall we? As we all know, the Niners played the Cowboys 3 straight years in the playoffs, 1992-94, losing the first two times and winning the third. Did Young suddenly discover how to stay in the pocket in 1994? Let's look at his rushing statistics for those 3 games:

1992: 8 attempts for 33 yards.
1993: 7/38
1994: 10/47.

Hm. He actually had more rushing attempts in 1994 than the other two years! And for more yards. Interesting.

In the meantime, what were his passing statistics for those games?

1992: 25/35 313 yds 1 TD 2 INT
1993: 27/45 287 yds 1 TD 1 INT
1994: 13/29 155 yds 2 TD 0 INT

If you take away the interceptions, Young clearly had his poorest passing game in the 1994 game. But according to Bayless, it was precisely that 1994 game which formed one of the two biggest arguments for his Hall of Fame case. Bayless seems to think that the 2 TDs makes up for an otherwise fairly subpar outing for Young, and also that the 2 INTs in 1992 completely overshadow what was otherwise an outstanding game.

By the way, the Niners lost those first two games by a score of 30-20 and 38-21. A loss is a loss, but 20 and 21 points is a respectable amount, and it's hard to win when your defense is giving up 30-plus points.

What about the bigger picture? Did Young suddenly learn how to pass in 1994? Well, I am tempted to start some long-winded story about Young's footwork and arm strength development over the years, but actually, why don't we just look at his stats? There's an idea!

In 1993, the year before Young's miraculous discovery of the virtues of staying in the pocket (according to Skip), Steve Young won his record third consecutive passing efficiency title, becoming the first QB in league history to have an efficiency rating of over 100 three straight years. He also was the first Forty-Niner QB in history to throw for over 4,000 yards in a season (okay, maybe that's not that impressive, given the franchise and its history). He also set a franchise record by throwing 183 consecutive passes without an interception. So much for all those bad passes that his happy feet were forcing him to throw.

Of course, it is true that he broke the NFL passing efficiency record during his supposed transformation year of 1994, but that's like saying that Wayne Gretzky stunk before his best season.

I'm sorry, Skip. It does make for a nice story. Particularly in light of Michael Vick's emerging story. But your story is simply not true. Not that that would ever stop the Lazy Reporter from making his case.

Fantasy time

I'm actually not a big-time fantasy sports guy, although I do play one on TV. No, wait. I'm actually not on TV, either, but I do work for a fantasy sports internet company. Oh no, wait. I don't work for them any more, either. But I did work for them, and that, my friends, makes me qualified to comment on fantasy sports. Period!

The great thing about fantasy sports is that it is so rational. None of this "Jeter is a winner" or "Brady is a winner" or "Vick has great leadership" business. Nobody cares about leadership in fantasy sports. They just care about your stats. Lots of people would say that that takes away the soul of sports. In my mind, sports could use a little less soul these days and more focus on measurable on-the-field performance that you can't weasel out of.

Nonetheless, fantasy sports still has its share of idiotic commentary. Hard to believe, when that commentary can be so easily and quantitatively refuted, but nonetheless, there it is. And my all-time pet peeve of fantasy sports commentary is the myth that Running Back Is King in Fantasy Football. Every, every, every single time you ever hear a so-called "fantasy expert" talking about fantasy football, they tell you that you have to get a running back in the first round. They used to say two running backs in the first two rounds at all costs, but after Manning and Culpepper's historic 2004, they now say two RBs in your first three rounds. This is still rubbish.

I was reading a column on Yahoo the other day (sorry, I can't find the link now; Yahoo doesn't seem all that anxious for people to be able to read their fantasy experts' archives) where the guy talked about the draft they just had in his "experts" league, and he was practically bragging about the fact that Culpepper wasn't taken until #28! Ridiculous!

Finally today I just couldn't take it any more, and I composed the following email to Eric Karabell, resident fantasy expert for espn.com. There's not a snowball's chance that he'll actually see this, but I'll post it here so that at least (maybe) somebody will see it:

I don't mean this as an insult, I really don't. But do you experts ever run the numbers in a reasonably intelligent manner before proclaiming year after year after year that "Running Back is King in fantasy football!"?

The number that you're really interested in for a given player is points above the average for his position. Am I wrong? Please explain to me why I'm wrong, if I am. I'm open to suggestions.

Anyway, I ran the numbers for my own FF league over the last two years. Based on the points-above-average-for-position criterion, here are the most valuable players:

1. Peyton Manning
2. LaDainian Tomlinson
3. Daunte Culpepper
4. Priest Holmes
5. Shaun Alexander
6. Tony Gonzalez
7. Torry Holt
8. Ahman Green
9. Randy Moss
10. BAL Defense

Four running backs. That's it.

I think it's great that you got Jake Plummer in the 9th round. Heck, so did I this year. But guess what: the people who had Peyton and Daunte on their teams last year are the ones who won my leagues.

At the very least, I would think that rather than just spout the same old conventional wisdom every year, one of you experts would eventually at least throw out the idea that, hey, if there's a run on a certain position, that might actually, possibly maybe, create an opportunity for an opening at another position. Worth thinking about, no?

Sign of the Apocalypse?

Well, I never thought I'd say this, but Pat Hruby had a great article today on Page Dos. And he managed to keep his most obnoxious, non-sports-related opionions to himself. Truly worthy of note.

But in addition to noting that Hruby wrote an article that didn't suck, I'd like to weigh in on the discussion. The article was on the lamest rules in sports. Great concept, first of all. Hruby then proceeded to make proposals for several rules modifications that would make various sports better. As in, more entertaining.

Some of the suggestions are quite good. Some of them are not. I suspect many of the ones that were not were just included for entertainment value. Which is fine, so maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but I'm actually thinking, if we can just narrow it down to the serious ones, then maybe we can really get these rules in. I know, I'm crazy.

So here's a list of the rules that Hruby proposes (you'll have to see the original article for better explanations) together with my personal verdict on each.

- No Offsides in Soccer: Somewhat agreed, although really this is too radical a change.

- No Intentional Walks in Baseball: No, no, no. It is unenforceable. Although maybe we could do something about walks in general. A player walks twice, he gets second base. That sort of thing.

- No Judges in Boxing--Fight to the Finish: Agreed.

- Only One Full Time-Out in the Last Two Minutes in NBA Games: Agreed. Except, why stop there? How about one 20-second timeout? Or no timeouts at all? Soccer gets by without timeouts. How about we televise commercials only during free throws? Just tell us how many he made when we get back, or else show it in a tiny corner on the screen. I would rather watch commercials than free throws anyway. Sometimes I think I would rather pass a gallstone than watch another free throw.

- Eliminate Amateurism in College Sports: No! This is ridiculous.

- Make the NBA Floor Bigger and Rim Higher: This is interesting. I think it's worth a pilot program. Probably wouldn't fly, though.

- No Second Serves in Tennis: My first impulse was to disagree. But I think I've come around. This would slow serves down, and maybe we'd get more rallies.

- NBA: no airborne timeouts: Of course. A no-brainer. Of course, in my world, there wouldn't be timeouts anyway.

- NBA: No two consecutive timeouts: See above.

- NBA: Don't require players to tuck in shirts: Disagree. Keep some semblance of classiness in the league.

- NBA: Technical fouls should count as personal fouls: Agreed.

- NBA: Track own goals: Sure. Whatever.

- Ground Can Cause Fumble in Football: Agreed. Though I'm not as passionate about this as some.

- Allow Arguing of Balls and Strikes: Agreed.

- Make Golf's Stroke-and-Distance Rule More Charitable: Disagree. Most of the rest of Hruby's rules argue for making sports more manly. This argues for making it more wimpy. Makes no sense.

- No Technical on Calling Time-Outs When You're Out of 'Em: Agreed. Just don't give them the time-out!

- Drug Test League Execs: Huh?

- No Interference in Hockey: I would comment on this if I cared about hockey.

- Only Warn One Dugout in Baseball: Agreed.

- Official Game Clock Posted in Soccer: Disagree.

- Allow In-Match Coaching in Tennis: Hmm. Undecided. Tend to disagree.

- Allow Golf Crowds to Make Noise: Disagree. Hruby doesn't seem to realize that golf is different from other sports.

- Baseball's On-Deck Circle--Use it or lose it: Are there actually people who care about this?

- Allow 3 steps/Palming in NBA: Disagree. He just wanted an excuse to bag on Allen Iverson, which is understandable.

- Baseball Managers Don't Wear Uniforms: I tend to agree. But I just can't imagine Tommy Lasorda in anything other than a Dodgers uniform.

- Overtime Stat Keeping in College Football: Agree agree agree! I can't believe we're even writing about this!

- No Sudden-Death Overtime in the NFL: Agreed.

- Allow Contact on the Basepaths in Baseball: Disagree.

- College Basketball's 3-point Line Too Close: Agree Agree AGREE!!!! This may be my biggest peeve in sports.

- Allow Cornerbacks to push receivers out of bounds for an incomplete pass: Agreed. This is a great idea.

- Allow Hitting Below Belt in Boxing: This is too ridiculous to even consider.

- No Helmet Earpiece for QB: Agreed.

- No Alternate Possession Arrow: Agreed.

- No One-Day Contract: Agreed.

- No Signing Your Scorecard in Golf: Agreed.

Total: I agree with 17 out of the 35, and am undecided/have no opinion on 5. Considering how radical some of these suggestions are, I'd say that's a pretty high level of accordance.

A certain...something or other

Joe Morgan has a pretty good article on Andruw Jones today in which he compares Mr. Jones with other outfielders, both contemporary and archaic. (Although he still insists on using the old Batting Average/RBIs/HRs metric in comparing offensive statistics. But hey. He's old school. Or maybe just old.)

Anyway, I just had to chuckle at a passage in the section where he ranks the all-time best defensive center fielders. His list goes:

1. Willie Mays
2. Ken Griffey Jr.
3. Andruw Jones

Fine. I especially like him remembering the "old" Griffey, rather than the much-maligned current version. Although maybe he's just sticking up for the son of his old pal on the Reds.

So what is his explanation for this particular ordering? This is where Old Joe waxes eloquent:

Much of this is a matter of taste. Griffey is more like Mays, who did things with a flair. Jones gets the job done with consistent excellence – he just goes and makes the catch.

When Mays and Griffey (in his prime) went after the ball, they did so with a certain flair – there was something special about every step as they pursued the baseball, forgetting the wall and everything else but the ball. Jones does the same thing, just without the same Willie Mays-like flair.

So what you're saying is....

Quick-hitters

I was just scanning espn.com this evening, catching up on the news, when in the space of about 30 seconds I saw 3 headlines/sub-heads that each announced to the world the idiocy of whoever wrote them. Fortunately for the writers, of course, we don't know who that was. The first:

- "Dodgers edge Padres to inch closer in NL West"

Uh, yeah. Now they're a mere 5 1/2 games out. And the standings look like this:

Padres 43 36
D-Backs 39 39
Dodgers 37 41

Yeah, we've got a real battle going on there.

Meanwhile, on the espn.com front page, we find under "Today's Voices":

- "Andy Roddick went five sets to reach the Final Four at Wimbledon. And he's not done."

Huh? You mean he's going to play a few more sets? He's not going to drop out after reaching the semis? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

And in the same section, we find this gem, the prize winner for today's ESPN Idiocy:

- "Bob Harig wonders: Does Michelle Wie need to learn how to win?"

You have got to be kidding me.