A Pearl Of Wisdom: Jeff Pearlman Doesn't Know Shit

In this column I say "fuck" a lot, and get my panties in a bunch about SI.com's Jeff Pearlman. Yay! Read on, intrepid reader!

Speculation, sensationalism, and talk radio-style rabble-rousing are the mainstream sports media's interests. What ever gets people to read their articles, they'll write it, even if it's complete fucking garbage.

For example, take SI.com's Jeff Pearlman. Please!*

Pearlman is the author of this article, which does it's very best to 1) make inflammatory statements, 2) not back them up with any actual information, and 3) accumulate gaypoints.**

Watch as Pearlman lays down this Aristotelian logic on yo ass:

It is widely known that performance-enhancing drugs help baseball players. Alex Rodriguez is a baseball player. Alex Rodriguez used performance-enhancing drugs. Alex Rodriguez presumably no longer uses performance-enhancing drugs. As of Friday morning, Alex Rodriguez is batting .223. Hmm ...

I get it! If A, then B, if B, then C, so if A then C! Except, what if A is bullshit? Let's try again taking this new information into account. So, if A is bullshit, then B is bullshit, and if B is bullshit, C is bullshit, so if A is bullshit, C is also bullshit!! And, a corollary, if C is bullshit, Jeff Pearlman is an asshole. Straight out of Aristotle.

For those of you not schooled in Pearlmanian logic, there is little proof that "performance-enhancing" drugs actually enhance performance in baseball. Just because you are stronger doesn't mean you can hit a ball any better. If it did, I'd be taking so many pills I'd have a negative sized penis. I'd be shoving pills in my penis-hole quicker than you can say, "I can't believe he is shoving pills in his penis-hole!".

Pearlman goes on to quote four expert opinions as to why Rodriguez's production has lacked since coming off serious hip surgery, only one of whom mentions Rodriguez is coming off of serious hip surgery. Steve Phillips thinks A-Rod is having "mental issues." Michael Salfino*** of Sportsnet New York wonders if A-Rod has enough protection in the lineup. Larry Brooks of the NY Post thinks Rodriguez just hasn't practised hitting enough yet, and also there's that serious hip surgery thing too. And, finally, Jeff Pearlman of SI.com (yes, he actually quotes himself) says, and I fucking quote him quoting himself, "He's not that good."

To Jeff Pearlman of SI.com hitting .223 for a month and a half eclipses fifteen years of Hall of Fame caliber production. Also, when citing Rodriguez's stats, Pearlman conveniently leaves out that Rodriguez, while hitting .223 has a .399 on base percentage and a .484 slugging percentage. In fairness to Pearlman, that's probably because he doesn't know what those statistics are.

Why is it that, when PED-implicated ballplayers return from lengthy absences, we never ask whether their non-drugged selves will live up to past greatness?

I dunno man... why is the sky blue? Why do birds sing? Why are the democrats such pussies? Some things man just isn't meant to know.

If, as was suggested by Selena Roberts in her recent biography, A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez, Rodriguez used performance-enhancing drugs during his Yankee tenure, shouldn't his presumed newfound, post-steroid cleanliness coincide with a dropoff?

Pearlman thinks "performance enhancing drugs" are like actual drugs: you take them, you get fucked up, you eat some Choc-o-diles, you shit in your friend's fridge, you pass out naked on the lawn, the drugs wear off, you wake up tied to a goat with only one nostril but what appears to be six nipples on your left arm.

Sadly, no. "Performance enhancing drugs" only help you work out. The might more accurately be called workout enhancing drugs. When they wear off or you stop taking them you're still just as strong, fast, agile, and possessing of man-tits as before. Or, put it another more hippy-esque way: if you climb a mountain and then half way up you stop, you aren't immediately at the bottom again. I mean, fucking duh.

After all, performance enhancers enhance performance. They make you stronger, faster, quicker. They help you work out more, bounce back in a shorter time span.

Pearlman's column should be called Pearls of Idiocy. "I was just in the shower, and it occurred to me, the sneeze guard at the salad bar only serves to get in your way!" For some reason Pearlman assumes that the name of something is proof of what it is. I fear for the health of his children because he'll be feeding them Blue Spa Select Premium cat food. Heck, it's select premium!

Hey idiot****: performance enhancing drugs aren't called performance enhancing drugs because they enhance performance; they're called that because the ignoramuses in the media decided to call them that. For instance, you aren't an idiot because I just called you one in the previous sentence, you're actually an idiot because you write idiotic shit.

[I skip over a lot of garbage, not because it isn't stupid, but because it is stupid.]

At the end of the article, Pearlman writes this:

When someone like Jason Giambi apologizes for his drug usage, then never recaptures his past greatness, we seek out excuses. He's older. He's not comfortable in New York. He's soft. "If you follow [the] entire narrative of the steroid era, it's always been written through the eyes of the players and for the benefit of players," Bryant said.

"Byrant" is Howard Bryant, author of Juicing the Game. A reoccurring problem throughout this article is Pearlman's inability to grasp whether a player is any good or not. He accuses Rodriguez of not playing well while Rodriguez is getting on base at a .399 clip and slugging .484 all after having major hip surgery. He states Jason Giambi never recaptures his past greatness, when the year after admitting to taking steroids, Giambi hit 32 home runs and led the league with a .440 on-base percentage. The following year Giambi hit 37 homers, but his on-base percentage fell to only .413.

But the Bryant quote at the end there is the cherry on top. Let me reprint it once more just because it's so over-the-fucking-top-with-whipped-cream-and-sprinkles crazy:

"If you follow [the] entire narrative of the steroid era, it's always been written through the eyes of the players and for the benefit of players," Bryant said.

And who might have written this fawning, over-protective, compliant, spineless, flattering, cringing, ingratiating, mealy-mouthed, slavish, obsequious, prostrate, and servile, "entire narrative of the steroid era", I ask you, Mr. Bryant and since you're quoting Mr. Bryant, Mr. Pearlman? I know the answer to this one: it was written by sports journalists! You don't happen to know any sports journalists around here do you, you two assholes?

I bet if we Lexis-Nexis search your asses we won't find anything about what a great ballplayer Jason Giambi is, or how Barry Bonds redefines amazing, or how Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa are saving the sport. No, I'm sure we'll find a bunch of articles about how steroids are ruining baseball and McGuire, Bonds, Sosa, and Giambi are all cheaters and, hey, why won't anyone listen to me, I'm the speaker of great truths?!

We must wonder whether there's any true greatness to regain at all.

Well, good job, Jeff Pearlman of SI.com. You have certainly succeeded in your article, whose purpose I'm assuming was to accumulate gaypoints. I award you 17 gaypoints and the coveted Medal of Gaiety! Good show, sir.
___

*Ha!
**I did a mock fantasy football draft yesterday on espn.com (the only time I ever go on that website). During the draft, one of my picks was criticized by another drafter on the espn.com Smack Board!. In response I gently suggested that the author of said criticism remove his head from his anus and look around once in a while. Well, surprisingly, the conversation escalated from there. Eventually, my opponent accused me of attempting to "acumulate gaypoints." Gaypoints, apparently, are a thing. And, yes, he misspelled "accumulate."
***Who the fuck is Michael Salfino?
****I originally spelled it "idoit"

BMFS's Delaware Sports Report

There are few outstanding Delaware natives among us, so as an un-outstanding Delaware native myself, I tend to follow any and all remarkable First-Staters I find. Thus, I was quite disappointed to see the bewilderingly poor performance so far this season of Dover native Ian Snell of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

After compiling a 2-8 record and a 5.36 ERA, Snell was shipped to the proverbial screen door factory; he made his first start for AAA Indianapolis on Sunday night against the Toledo Mud Hens.

After walking the first batter he faced in said start, Snell then proceeded to strike out the next 13 batters in a row. Snell struck out 17 batters in 7 IP, a league record for a 7-inning outing.

By Delaware standards, even a Triple-A masterpiece is a remarkable achievement.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go cue up some Matthew Shipp records and try to find out whether the Stanley Cup might make its first ever visit to Delaware under the purview of Wilmington native Mark Eaton. (No, not the gigantic motivational speaker. This guy.)

Delaware Sporting Addendum
Eaton is the only Delaware native to have ever played in the NHL.

There are more Pro Football Hall of Famers born in Norway (Jan Stenerud) than in Delaware (bupkes). Randy White grew up there (west of Wilmington, like Eaton, in fact), but he was born in Pittsburgh.

There are more players from Panama in the Baseball Hall of Fame (Rod Carew) than from Delaware (squadoosh). We have managed to claim the late William "Judy" Johnson, a Negro Leagues star and Major League coach and scout, who was born in Maryland but lived in Wilmington for most of his life.

The most notable NBA players born in Delaware: The immortal Graham twins, Joey of the Raptors and Stevie of the Pacers... and they actually grew up in Florida. Hilariously enough, basketball-reference.com lists only Joey, and not Stevie, as having been born in Delaware.

.

Washington Nationals Notebook: Nobody Cares Edition

You may recall that a week ago I began chronicling the Washington Nationals, the Worst Team in Baseball Since 2003*, and their fifteen game trip through the best division in baseball. A brutal slaughter was imminent, I thought but, sadly, it never materialized that way.

Lets take a listen:

Three games at Tampa: Swizzity-swept.
-Things are going to script so far. Lousy team on the road takes on one of the best (if not the best) team in baseball, and loses all three.

Three games at New York (AL): Nats lose first game, but take advantage of annual Thrills Instead of Pills Week when all pharmacies in New York close to win next two.
- Pitching has been DC's problem this year, but in this series, they held the Yankees to two runs over the last two games, and not surprisingly won both. Also not surprisingly, the NY tabloids went apeshit.

Three games vs. Toronto: Nats win first two, drop last one.
- Returning home from what can only be described as the best 2-4 road trip of all time, the Nats take two of three from a team that could be in the playoffs if it were in the NL. Unbeknownst to them, but knownst to us, this creates a small rip in the space-time continuum, causing it to rain menstrual blood on southern Greece.

Three games vs. Boston: Nats get crushed in the first two games before winning third in a route.
- Unlike the '03 Tigers, the Nats actually have some guys who can hit. They beat up on a returning-from-injury John Smoltz and the usually sound Red Sox bullpen in the third game, for which I had a front row seat. Ever been heckled by a Nats fan? It's straight embarrassing. Kinda like losing a race to a cripple. One actually said to me, drunken anger dripping from his voice, "It's pretty sad when you have to worry about us!" The circular nature of his insult was lost on him. In any case, the 2-5 of their lineup (Nick Johnson, Ryan Zimmerman, Adam Dunn, and Josh Willingham) is surprisingly pretty damn good. Sadly, not one of 'em can pitch.

Three games at Baltimore: Lost the first game of three last night, 11-1.

5-8 for a team with a .276 winning percentage going in against the best division in baseball, well that's not bad at all. I mean, it's bad, but considering the context, it isn't. Kinda gives you some smidgen of (false) hope for the Nats going forward. Of course, if they're smart** they'll trade those middle-of-the-order guys for prospects who will be around whenever they get their pitching staff straightened out, thereby torpedoing themselves over the last two months.

They're on schedule to lose 114 games so 120 losses, one more than the '03 Tigers, still isn't out of the question. Go Nats!***

___

*When the old Washington Senators played at Griffith Stadium in the first half of the 20th century, Washingtonians used to say Washington was, "First in war, first in peace, and last in the American League". So, you know, this has been going on for a while.

**I realize this is a dubious proposition, but go with me for a minute. Trading any and all of those 2-5 in their lineup, assuming they get someone young, cheap, and useful in return, would allow the team to improve for the long term, where they theoretically have a shot at winning something, and would carpet bomb the rest of their season, guaranteeing them the first overall pick next year and Bryce Harper.

***By which I mean, please, keep sucking.

Speaking Of Hockey: Tennis!

While I love to play tennis, I don't follow the pro circuit. I do enjoy a match on the ol' telly now and again, but not with any regularity. So, as you can tell from the previous sentences, I'm a goddamn tennis expert.

As a goddamn tennis expert I'm uniquely qualified to blah blah blah so lets talk about how to improve the sport. Three ways come immediately to mind. First of all, let the damn fans cheer. It's 2009 for fucks sake. If the players don't like it they can shed any further attempts to be taken seriously as athletes or, indeed, human beings, and take up golf.

Second, chicks aren't allowed to yell out in imitated orgasm when they hit the ball unless they have a dildo visibly sticking out of their vajayjay. If it falls out during a rally the player must shut the fuck up for the rest of their life.

Third, make tennis hockey. Like this:




Should be two minutes for interference on the ball girl, eh?

The Irony is Too Much to Pass Up

When the Mavericks drafted noted left winger, er unknown Franch baller Rodrigue Beaubois, the first thing I thought was, "Of course! It's the Mavs! Who else would draft unknown projects like this year after year?" The second thing I thought was, "Maybe in the tradition of other YouTube legends Fabian Brunnstrom and Yi Jianlian, Beaubois has a grainy highlight reel that might at least give me an idea what this guy looks like."

Well, the first video collection that popped up was set to "Thriller" and of all days to feature that song - wow.

Rodrigue Beaubois? I thought the NHL Draft was tomorrow!

I just sat through the first round of the NBA Draft, mostly hoping a draftee would show up on stage dressed like Michael Jackson circa 1983 and moonwalk across the stage to shake David Stern's hand. Then when I started yelling at the television in the hopes the Mavericks would draft a guy who has no ACL in either knee, I realized I'd had too much.

The Mavericks ended up with something called "Rodrigue Beaubois," who I think played for the Chicoutimi Sagueneens in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. Time to talk hockey!

I have lived in Dallas for six hockey seasons, and the Stars made the playoffs in the first five. They never made it past the Conference Finals, but that's still a steady track record. Last year's tragicomic chain of events, while it was difficult to stomach at times, at least gives us the opportunity to look at a major aspect of the NHL that often eludes the fans of the more successful teams: The Entry Draft.

(Upon hearing the Stars would be holding a "Draft Party" for season ticket holders, I thought, "Screw that! The freakin' Islanders have draft parties -- not the Stars!" Then I put on a Cowboys jersey and punched myself in the face.)

This is only the second time in a decade the Stars have missed the playoffs, and they have not had a top 10 pick since 1996. This year, they limped to the finish line with the league's 8th-worst record, giving them the pick the corresponding number away from the top.

(Yes, there is a lottery, but like a state lottery, only one number comes up. That team moves up to the top and everyone else falls into place. This year, the league's worst team, the Islanders, won the lottery. Same happened last year with Tampa Bay.)

The 2009 Entry Draft is a proverbial "two-man draft," reminiscent of the 2004 draft in which Alex Ovechkin and Evgeni Malkin were the top two picks. About two thirds of NHL front offices were thought to prefer Ovechkin that year, with the others preferring Malkin. This year's correlates are OHL forward John Tavares and Swedish defenseman Victor Hedman, respectively.

Tavares can step into the NHL immediately and provide instant offense and excitement; he was the MVP of the last World Junior championship and has been a standout on the Canadian team for the past two season; both won the championship. He's not yet a great defensive player, but is known to have a great work ethic. If his NHL team wants him to improve his defense, he will. But he can score in the NHL right away at age 19.

Hedman was thought to possibly be the world's best amateur player before his turn at the World Juniors for the silver-medalist Swedes, but he didn't particularly stand out in the tournament. At a hulking 6'6'' he is sometimes compared with Norris Trophy winner Zdeno Chara; he's neither as physical as Chris Pronger nor as slick as fellow Swede Nicklas Lidstrom. Chara, you may recall, took a few years to develop into a top-flight defenseman. In his early years with those aforementioned abysmal Islanders, he was as much a 6'9'' circus freak as a great defender. But he was always a guy who wouldn't get his team killed out there, and now he's almost certainly the best defenseman in the NHL.

The Islanders have been absolutely silent as to whether they will draft Tavares or Hedman. If they draft Hedman, however, I'm going to predict right now that he won't play more than an NHL season or two on Long Island. That's because the Islanders will playing in Kansas City or Las Vegas within three seasons.

The Islanders are a chronically mismanaged franchise with very little NHL-ready young talent that cannot attract quality free agents to play in the NHL's most decrepit building, for a front office that can't get out of its own way. They need Tavares. NHL fans have seen him play, they've seen the clutch scoring, they've seen the energy, they've seen the incredible talent. The Islanders need to get better as quickly as possible within the meager means available to them, and they need a reason for their fans to have a shred of optimism.

Hedman may indeed turn out to be Chara's equal, but drafting Tavares is an opportunity the Islanders cannot decline.

Oh, but if they do draft Hedman, look out -- it'll be the greatest day in Toronto since 1967. Leafs GM Brian Burke has made no secret of his desire to acquire Tavares by any means necessary, and with Tampa Bay in desperate need of a franchise defenseman with the second overall pick -- in addition to a need to keep its payroll as low as possible -- it's thought Burke will cede all sorts of building blocks (and cash) to the Lightning to move up and draft Tavares. Burke, in fact, would like to trade up from the seventh overall pick as far up the order as he can.

(Tavares, furthermore, is a capital-O Outlier. He broke Wayne Gretzky's OHL scoring scoring for age-16 players despite being eight months younger than Gretzky during his age-16 season. Tavares' birthday is September 20! If you have read Outliers, you now know that Tavares established himself as the best player in the OHL despite a set of circumstances that worked very strongly against him. After finding that out, I absolutely love Tavares as a player. And I bet you Brian Burke has read Outliers.)

Which brings us -- sort of -- to the Stars, who are picking immediately behind the pick Burke currently holds. Their draft strategy has to involve a whole slew of contingencies, as they ultimately have no idea who will make the pick immediately before theirs. If the Leafs can dump pick 7, they almost certainly will. But who will move down to pick 7? Tampa is a possibility, as is Colorado, which holds the third pick and is in desperate need of a total rebuild.

The Leafs drafted centerpiece defenseman Luke Schenn last season, and Schenn's younger brother Brayden is projected to go somewhere between picks 5 and 7.* Perhaps Burke would like to reunite the Schenn brothers and will have to trade up from pick 7 to do it. Then either the Kings or Coyotes would be drafting immediately before the Stars.

*By which I mean "between picks 4 and 8." I know there is only one pick between pick 5 and pick 7. But it just doesn't look right otherwise.

Regardless of what shakes out between the first and seventh picks, I think the Stars will end up with a medium-term replacement for one or the other of two creaky franchise legends: Jere Lehtinen and Sergei Zubov. See the POOOAST!!! just below for more.

.

It's the NHL Draft... On The Ocho!

As a final primer for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft -- and the Stars' first-ever Draft Party* -- here's a run-down and some half-assed analysis of eighth-overall picks in the modern era. The Stars will be drafting eighth overall, picking in the top 10 for the first time since 1996.

*Am I excited about a draft party? Depressed? Thirsty? "Yeeeeeaaaahhh! We stank last year!" *glug glug*

The NHL Draft was a crapshoot in the Original Six era, mostly because the Montreal Canadiens had outright ownership of every youth hockey team in Canada. So we'll start in the expansion era.

Again, these guys were all taken with the eighth overall pick.

1969 - Andre 'Moose' Dupont: tough guy who played in over 800 NHL games, won 2 Stanley Cups with the Flyers

1970 - Darryl Sittler: Hall of Famer and perhaps the greatest Toronto Maple Leaf ever.

1973 - Bob Gainey: Hall of Famer, greatest defensive forward of all time. Selke Trophy invented for him. (Note: Picks 8-10 that year were Bob Gainey, Bob Dailey, and Bob Neely. Huh?)

1974 - Pierre Larouche: Two-time 50-goal scorer played in over 800 NHL games.

1979 - Ray Bourque: Hall of Famer, one of the 10 best defenseman ever and probably the best I ever saw.

1981 - Grant Fuhr: Hall of Famer, five-time Stanley Cup winner.

1984 - Shayne Corson: Over 1100 NHL games, mostly as a quality checking-liner; Cup winner in '93.

1988 - Jeremy Roenick: Future Hall of Famer, 500-plus career goals, one of the 5 greatest US-born players ever.

1989, 1990 - for two consecutive years, the Stars -- then the Minnesota North Stars -- had the No. 8 overall pick in the NHL Entry Draft. In 1990 they drafted Derian Hatcher. In 1991 (the Lindros/Forsberg draft) they drafted Richard Matvichuk.

Hatcher and Matvichuk went on to comprise perhaps the NHL's best shut-down defensive pairing for several years, and in 1999 they were the Stars' top defensive pairing when they won their only Stanley Cup. (Hatcher is still the only US-born Captain to win a Cup.) Both No. 8 overall picks.

1995 - Terry Ryan: Okay, I have no idea who Terry Ryan is, unless he's the former General Manager of the Minnesota Twins. And he's not. I checked. The reason I mention this one is because the Stars had a fairly high draft pick in 1995, at 11th overall. They drafted Jarome Iginla, whom they later traded for Joe Nieuwendyk.

1996 - Johnathan Aitken: Again, no idea who this guy is. I mention this year's draft because it was the last one in which the Stars had a top-10 pick. In what was then thought, and now known, to be an atrociously weak draft, the Stars took the immortal Richard (Dick) Jackman 6th overall. At least Jackman played in 231 NHL games -- a few first-rounders that year never made the NHL at all.

1997 - Sergei Samsonov: Rookie of the year who cratered in Montreal after signing there as a free agent, now enjoying a renaissance in Carolina. The Bruins, who drafted him, traded him for Marty Reasoner and a second-round pick that turned out to be Milan Lucic.

1998 - Mark Bell: Spent the summer of 2008 in a work-release program after getting half-crocked and running over some pedestrians with his car. Oooops.

1999 - Taylor Pyatt: Not a standout, really, but deserves mention simply because he is a functional NHL player. The 1999 draft was the weakest of all time: of the 28 players taken in the first round, EIGHT are still in the NHL. That's astoundingly bad. And of those eight, only three are anything resembling All-Stars -- the Sedin Twins (nos. 2 and 3 overall) and Martin Havlat (no. 26).

(Here is a way to tell the difference between a bad organization and a good one: In the abysmal 1999 draft, the New York Rangers and New York Islanders each had TWO top-10 picks. The Red Wings and Stars had no first-rounders at all. Colorado, Philadelphia and New Jersey each had only their own picks late in the round. Good teams don't compile worthless draft picks. They try to liquidate them and turn them into assets.)

2001 - Pascal Leclaire: Looked like a promising prospect for Columbus before blowing out his knee and being supplanted by Calder Trophy winner Steve Mason, Leclaire will likely start next season in Ottawa.

2002 - Pierre-Marc Bouchard
2003 - Braydon Coburn
2005 - Devin Setoguchi
2006 - Peter Mueller
2008 - Mikkel Boedker

Five of the last seven drafts have featured "keepers" at the eighth spot -- Setoguchi scored over 30 goals last season and Coburn and Boedker are potential All-Stars.

There's no quantifiable reason for it that I can perceive, but that's a pretty impressive track record for eighth picks. Hopefully the Stars end up with someone who fits in nicely with that last group of five players, and maybe even fits in alongside some of the illustrious names way up there.

And regarding the "medium-term replacements for creaky Stars legends" mentioned here, here's a look at those players:

1) LW Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson
Pierre McGuire (aka "Captain Pushback") writes that LW Magnus Paajarvi-Svensson reminds him of Lehtinen, except with a better name. (OK, that last part was me.) Svensson was eminently noticeable on Sweden's World Junior team in January, and of the three guys I'll mention here, he is the most likely to be off the board by the time the Stars pick. He could go as high as fifth to the Kings. McGuire: "He's a younger Jere Lehtinen -- he gets it offensively, works well in his own end and is strong as a house."

2) D Oliver Ekman-Larsson
Former Stars front-office exec Craig Button writes that a fellow hyphenated Swede, defenseman Oliver Ekman-Larsson, reminds him of Sergei Zubov, one of the most unique players I have ever seen. Button called him "one of the smoothest players in the draft." Well, Zubov is nothing if not smooth, I guess. From International Scouting Services: "Ekman-Larsson is a very confident skater with excellent offensive skills."

3) D Dmitry Kulikov
Fellow defenseman Dmitry Kulikov also reminds me of Zubov based on what I've read. Most scouting services rank Ekman-Larsson a little higher, and some would consider a Kulikov pick a mild reach, but the Stars desperately need a defenseman to pilot their transition game in Zubov's (eventual? imminent?) absence, and if this is the guy they prefer, I'm excited to see him play. Like current Stars minor-leaguer Ivan Vishnevskiy, Kulikov grew up playing in Russia but came to the Quebec Major Junior league as a teenager to learn the North American game. Plus, unlike Ekman-Larsson, Kulikov may be able to jump to the NHL immediately. Says NHL Central Scouting, "He's a great skater; he can carry the puck and shoot the puck well. He's strong too, he can take big hits and they don't seem to bother him."

.

Wake Up Little Nellie, It's NBA Draft Day...

As I settled in to watch a little of this year's NBA draft, I looked at one of the final mock drafts online and scrolled down to see who the Dallas Mavericks were predicted to take at pick #24. To my astonishment, it wasn't a 7'3" Euro or Chinese guy, and thankfully the Mavs will be saved from themselves as it's likely that Tyler Hansbrough will be off the board.

Why the negativity, you ask?

Well, take a look at the Mavericks' first round draft picks during the Donnie Nelson era (1998-present):

1998: Robert Traylor (became Dirk Nowitzki).

1999: Leon Smith (releaesed after less than a year and a failed suicide attempt).

2000: Etan Thomas, Courtney Alexander & Donnell Harvey - somehow Thomas is still in the league and is best known for his poetry and feud with Brendan Haywood and the Mavs thought so much of Alexander that they traded him half way through his rookie season and he was out of the NBA after only 3 seasons. Harvey only lasted one year in Dallas, and was also out of the league by 2004. You get THREE picks in the first round of a draft and completely BOMB on all three of them. How does that happen? I couldn't do that if I was drunk and just looked at a list of available players for the first time 30 seconds before each pick.

2001: No first round pick.

2002: No pick.

2003: Josh Howard. A great pick that Donnie supporters always throw in your face when you dare to criticize his career moves.

2004: No pick.

2005: No pick.

2006: Maurice Ager. I remember actually liking this pick when they made it as I thought they had drafted the slasher and athletic wing that they needed so badly. Alas, the Mavs traded him after one year and he is currently riding the pine in New Jersey.

2007: Nick Fazekas. Maybe they thought this guy was Dirk Lite. He wasn't even close. He is currently waiting for his knees to explode in Clipperland.

2008: No pick.

2009: ??? (I hope it's Darren Collison, a former Bruin and a winner).

You gotta give Nelson his props for the Dirk move, a trade that always comes up in The Biggest Basketball Fleecings of All Time conversation, and for grabbing Josh Howard at the bottom of the first round. After that, their first round picks have been unmitigated disasters. Only Nowitzki and Howard remained with the Mavs for more than one season.

Amazingly, Dallas won 50+ games during the last nine seasons essentially without any home grown talent to speak of. Just another testament to the greatness of Dirk Nowitzki, and I guess we have to recognize the relative success of Nelson's free agent signings and trades. Oh wait, scratch that - for FIVE of the past 11 drafts, the Mavs didn't have a first round pick cuz it was traded away.

When you put it on paper like this, Little Nellie makes Isiah Thomas look kinda shrewd. And if you really want to read a horror story, take a look at the string of second round garbage that the Mavs picked in the last ten years. Not a single one of them, except Eduardo Najera, is still cashing a NBA paycheck.

There's a reason why certain teams are always terrible

A friend of my dad's used to like to goof on him for his tendency to buy bargain-basement, off-brand consumer goods, be they groceries, electronics, or anything in between. He used to say, "There's a reason why stuff costs more -- because it's better!"

Likewise, I'm starting to think there's a reason why certain MLB teams continue to stink of death year after year even as they aggressively remodel their rosters.

I was sitting here about 10 minutes ago marveling at something: I was watching a guy (Luke Hochevar) pitch for the Kansas City Royals -- the Kansas City Off-Brand Royals -- whom the L.A. Dodgers drafted in the first round and were unable to sign.

Hochevar is pitching brilliantly tonight, and with nothing positive to say about their moribund As(s)tros, Fox Sports Houston announcers Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies are instead trying to train themselves to pronounce Hochevar's name correctly. A worthy endeavor, I say, as I've never heard the man's name pronounced the same way twice; it's "ho-CHAY-ver."

So ho-CHAY-ver mows down the side and the Royals come up to bat in the top of the third inning. Leading off the inning, something called "Mitch Maier" just flat-out blasts a pitch from Roy Oswalt just to the right of dead center field, and there's no way Michael Bourn -- fast as he is -- to prevent it from getting past him. The ball scorches a path of worms toward that irritating vestigial hill in center field and then rolls up the hill, with Bourn finally reaching it at the wall, some 436 feet from the plate.

With nobody out, Maier is going to reach third base standing up and give the Royals an overwhelming chance to get on the board first in this scoreless game. But the third base coach -- whom I will not dignify by looking up his name and will instead call "Aggro Y. Runoutofarally" -- waves him home.

Plaschke profanity: There are NO FUCKING OUTS.

The relay throw from Kazuo "Butt Donut" Matsui arrives approximately 10 feet from home plate, but Ivan Rodrguez is still able to tag Maier out fairly easily.

(Yes, I know they're playing under National League rules in Houston and the pitcher was up next, but refer again to the profanity above. You don't send the runner even if there's one out.)

Two batters later, David DeJesus' fly ball to center field, instead of being a sacrifice fly, is the third out.

Meanwhile, Hochevar has mowed down the first 12 Astro batters in a row. And he ought to be working with a lead.

.

Ranger-POOOAST!!!in' while the Ranger-POOOAST!!!in's good

Some 6 weeks ago I propounded the inane theory that the Texas Rangers could contend for a playoff spot this season, while noting that the three division leaders in the American League were Toronto, Kansas City, and the Rangers.

Well, Toronto and Kansas City are each now closer to last place than first place in their respective divisions, while the Rangers are still (tied for) first in theirs.

However, no sooner had the NHL and NBA seasons ended -- thus beholding us to baseball spectating for the next two months -- the Rangers took an absolute nosedive. They're 2-7 since hockey season ended. Meanwhile, the Los Anaheim Angels are 8-3 in their last 11.

The current trajectories of the Rangers and the Los Anaheim Angels are so different, they may as well set up a Jokey Martling routine -- the Rangers are the guy plummeting toward Earth, asking, "Hey, do you know how a parachute works?" to the Angels as they hurtle into the sky and reply, "No... Do you know how to light a gas stove?"

So we here at T!!! are going to thank the Rangers for a promising 42.6% of a season -- Tied for first place after 69 games? Sold! -- stop deluding ourselves, and take stock.

Something resembling an actual staff ace has emerged from the rotation in the form of Kevin Millwood. For perhaps the last time, indulge me: There is no better player to have on your team than a Scott Boras client in his contract year. Millwood isn't striking anyone out, but he's logging a ton of innings and isn't allowing many baserunners (1.22 WHIP). Can a trade back to suddenly pitching-starved Philadelphia be in the offing as the Rangers regress back toward the pre-season projections proffered by people much smarter than I? (Think somewhere around 68-94.)

Josh Hamilton can't stay on the field. Brandon McCarthy's shoulder is orbiting Mars. Vicente Padilla is no worse than a 50/50 bet to show up at Nolan Ryan's compound half-crocked and set the place on fire. But the real turd in the proverbial punchbowl* is Chris Davis.

(*Okay, the turd is also proverbial.)

Or, specifically, the fact that the Rangers can't delete from their everyday lineup a first baseman who is batting .196 with a .252 OBP and has struck out 102 times in 225 plate appearances.

Plaschke paragraph: 102 K in 225 plate appearances.

Max Ramirez might have been an option there, but he's been laid up with a bad wrist in AAA, though he's back now. Furthermore, Hamilton's injury depletes the pool of outfielders among whom a suitable 1B can be fashioned, such that I have heard multiple people (professional ballwonks and otherwise) suggest that Andruw Jones play there.

Andruw Jones? Really?

My suggestion is that the Rangers call up David Ortiz and get Davis some of those magic eye drops* that turned Big Papi from a carcass back into a comic-book hero. Sumbitch just hit another homer!

(*"Tha Rizzoids." See if that poisonous idle speculation shows up on yer Google search, will ya?)

The organization still has a waist-deep pool of quality prospects, and notables such as Blake Beavan and Justin Smoak have already earned in-season promotions in the minors. So the arrow is still pointing up. It's just pointing at something further away than it looked a month ago.

Still, though, the Rangers appear closer to contention than the two other weakings in the AL West, Seattle and Oakland. The Mariners can't hit a lick -- without Ichiro, they would be the worst offensive team in modern baseball history -- and nothing the A's are trying seems to be working.

(No matter how smart and resourceful Billy Beane is, MLB front offices have made such strides in the past decade that there are no longer "blind spots" in the market he can reliably exploit. And the final outcome of Beane's tenure -- should it end any time soon -- may be that the A's weren't particularly good except when they were anchored by two steroid-addled monsters, Jason Giambi and Miguel Tejada.)

So, some goals for the rest of the season in Arlington:

1) Hamilton's health, with an eye toward the long term.
2) Millwood's, Jones', and Hank Blalock's health, with an eye toward this year's trade deadline.
3) No "Frank Jobe surgery" for the franchise's pitching prospects.
4) Padilla not turning up in a Nicaraguan prison during the All-Star break.

.

In Defense Of Matt Millen, Redux: More Right Than He Knew

Matt Millen is all about achieving new things. With the Lions he achieved new lows for a professional football franchise. He didn't just make them bad, he made them historically fucking terrible. Now, relieved of his duties, he is focusing his energies on taking the human capacity for self-delusion to new heights. Check this out:

In Detroit, they need a bad guy. I was a bad guy. I was to blame for the fall of the auto industry and the housing market. Somehow, I had something to do with Kwame Kilpatrick, although I'm not sure what. But that's what happens when you lose in this game. You give everyone a cheap and easy story to jump on.

See, I knew Millen was a monstrously awful and historically incompetent GM, but I had no idea he was involved in local politics, the housing market, and the auto industry. Surprised, we at TOOOAST!!! looked into it. With just a little bit of research, we uncovered Millen's private e-mail account. Take a gander at this:

wrsrawesome33@lions.com to kkill@detroit.gov (Kwame Kilpatrick, Ex-Mayor of Detroit):

No way, baby. Once you've been elected Mayor it's fine to kill people. I'm sure of it.

wrsrawesome33@lions.com to tha.wagon@gm.com (Rick Wagoner, Ex-CEO of GM):

This oil thing is just a temporary blip, baby. American people want big cars, and they don't give a shit how their built.

wrsrawesome33@lions.com to hanky.greeny@aig.com (Hank Greenburg, Ex-CEO of AIG):

Credit Default Swaps are free fucking money, baby. Free fucking money!

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

Losers Don't Get to Write the History Books

Marian Hossa: Misguided mercenary. Fool. Failure.

One of the infinite number of benefits that comes with winning is that history comes to be viewed through your perspective. Lose, and it's no longer up to you to determine how you're viewed. And thus we have Hossa as laughingstock, the guy who left tens of millions on the table to leave Pittsburgh for a 1-year contract with Detroit on the basis he would have a better chance of winning a championship.

And we know how that went. It would have gone badly enough for him if Detroit hadn't won the Stanley Cup, but they were defeated in the Finals by Pittsburgh. The Penguins proved they were the class of the NHL in 2009, and Hossa left. A Stanley Cup is forever; 2009 was the Penguins' season. Hossa will always be the guy who put his money where his mouth was in failing to anticipate it.

Marian Hossa: Traitor?

He was booed lustily every time he touched the puck in Pittsburgh. Penguins fans took it personally that Hossa left after a two-month rent-a-player stint with the Penguins last season. The Penguins were owed loyalty from a rental player because they were going to win the Cup next season? This wasn't exactly Ryan Smyth leaving Edmonton or Brett Hull leaving St. Louis. Those guys were treated better in the cities they left.

And to whom is loyalty owed in the NHL anyway? When Hossa was in Ottawa and had just established himself as an elite player at the tail end of his entry-level contract, the Senators signed him to a lucrative three-year extension. That season the Senators were one goal away from the Stanley Cup finals -- and Hossa led them in playoff scoring easily. The ink on the new contract had barely dried when Ottawa traded him to the sorry-ass Atlanta Thrashers.

At the end of those three seasons, Hossa was understandably excited to be traded to a legitimate contender in Pittsburgh, telling the Ottawa Sun he was "tired of chasing the puck all the time" in Atlanta.

The Pens, of course, then won the NHL's version of a pennant, ultimately bowing to the Red Wings, and Hossa left as a free agent for Detroit, claming at the press conference that he felt Detroit had a slightly better chance of winning a Stanley Cup in 2009 than Pittsburgh did.

Of course, he was wrong: the Penguins -- as Hossa knew them -- had no chance whatsoever of winning a Stanley Cup in 2009. Those Penguins were coached by Michel Therrien, whom I believe I once called "an overmatched high-school gym teacher" on this blog. Those Penguins were on an inevitable, 500-mph collision course with the draft lottery. They were as low as 10th in the Eastern Conference about two thirds of the way through the season.

Meanwhile, the Red Wings were the class of the NHL virtually from wire to wire this past season.

Pittsburgh GM Ray Shero fired Therrien and promoted Dan Bylsma. Defensemen Ryan Whitney and Sergei Gonchar came off injured reserve and Shero astutely swapped Whitney for Chris Kunitz, then added Bill Guerin from the Islanders. The rest, as they say, is history. History written by the Stanley Cup champion Penguins.

After the start of the season -- and of the opinion at the time that Hossa left for his stated reason, simply to win -- I was listening to a CBC radio recap of an interview with Hossa in which he essentially said, "I just wanted to play hockey the way I want to play." That place was Detroit -- where the European-style puck possession game is a battle-tested strategy and Hossa wouldn't be "chasing the puck all the time."

Should he have shoved Therrien down the stairs* in his press conference rather than saying he thought Detroit was more likely to win a Cup? It's low-hanging fruit to say, "hockey players don't do that kind of stuff." True, though.

(*"Throwing someone under a bus" is cooked, lexically.)

At the time Hossa signed the one-year deal, I thought it was an incredible risk to decline a long-term deal -- what if he suffered a catastrophic injury? Well, something even worse happened: the Red Wings lost the Stanley Cup Final to Pittsburgh, and Hossa's professional reputation took an enormous hit. (Playing like a zombie in the Finals didn't help.)

I think the guy deserves some slack. He made a shockingly altruistic decision to sign a one-year deal to play hockey the way he wanted to play hockey. (And win along the way. Cup or no Cup, you can bet the farm the Red Wings won't be terrible.) He didn't anticipate the Penguins cashiering Therrien, transitioning to a puck-possession style under a young coach, and enjoying a nearly unprecidented streak of luck with injuries in the playoffs. (Total man-games lost: 2.)

I didn't either.

.

You Never Know: Nationals Edition

The Nationals are just entering the very difficult part of their schedule. Not that every part of their schedule isn't very difficult for the 16-45 Nationals, but this part would be for any team. The Nationas are supposed to play fifteen straight games against each team from the AL East. The AL East is the division with four of the top five teams in baseball according to Baseball Prospectus.

Seven games into the fifteen, how are the Nats doing? They are 3-4, thanks for asking buddy. Three and four 'taint bad, eh? After losing the first three to Tampa and the first of three in New Yankee Stadium, the Nats came back and won the last two against the $200 Million juggernaut from the Bronx. Last night they won the first of three against the under-rated Blue Jays.

Washington has two left against Toronto, three at home against Boston, followed by three on the road in Baltimore. Finishing with a winning record will be a tough assignment, but it's possible. It will be interesting to see how the worst team in baseball and probably the worst team since the '03 Detroit Tigers who finished 43-119 fairs against the best division in baseball. Strangely enough, they're holding up OK for now. You never know, eh?

Yankees, Red Sox Simultaneously Kick Themselves In Balls, Nertz, And Doo-Dads

There are many ways to lose a baseball game. You could drop a two out infield pop up in the ninth inning while the winning run crosses the plate. You could let an easy ground ball go through your legs. You could get out-pitched by your opponent, or you could just not show up at all that day. Last night, the Red Sox and the Yankees, two of the best run organizations in pro sports, invented a new way to lose: they decided to play.

The Yankees were to play the horrific Washington Nationals at home at 1pm, while the Red Sox were scheduled to start a 7:05pm game against Florida. Despite an entire day of rain up and down the east coast with rain forecast to continue through the night and on into the morning, neither team canceled their game.

Start with the Yankees, who forced their fans and the visiting Nationals to wait through a five and a half hour rain delay before starting the game. Ever heard of a rain out? You can't convince me this was anything else but hubris because it's not like DC is that far from New York, and according to the NY Times the teams had four mutual off days, so it wouldn't have been too hard to reschedule. But no, the game must go on! And go on it did, despite puddles on the warning track the Yankees were shut out by something called Craig Stammen.

The Red Sox weren't any better. Although their game was able to start basically on time (there was a five minute delay), the rain which had been falling all day didn't let up all night. The forecast was rain followed by rain with a 100% chance of fucking rain! Cancel the goddamn game! Well, they didn't cancel it, so after getting through five innings (with the score Florida 2, Boston 1) the umps canceled it for 'em. After a 2.5 hour delay, of course.

MLB rules state that starting the game is up to the home team. Thus, both the Yankees and Red Sox made the decision to play last night. I'm sure the lousy level of competition played no part in the decision to play in what can only be described as less than ideal weather conditions. But, say the rules, once the game begins, the umpires are in charge of deciding when a delay, postponement, or early ending should occur. The Red Sox effectively turned the game over to the umpires and when the rain kept coming, the umps rightly called the game off, score be damned.

In what can only be described as some form of cosmic justice, both teams lost winnable games to to inferior opponents at home. Maybe next time they'll think twice about leaving their fans to sit in the rain for hours at a time.

We Doan Need None Uh Yer Uppity 'Lurn'n' Up Here, Sonny. This is the Big Leagues.

I've always felt it makes perfect sense to put a former major leaguer in charge of a baseball team, either as GM or manager because ex-ballplayers have been there, man. They know what it's like to be on the field. They've seen the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat, and the sheer boredom of an 8-1 blowout in Kansas City on a Wednesday night in July. They've played the damn game, OK? They... wait, this just in:

...while many current major leaguers had college experience, we found only 26 (including managers), who have earned [college] degrees. The brainiest team was the A's, with three graduates and seven key members of the lineup having university experience.

There are 300 professional baseball players at any given time (25 players per team times 30 teams). 26 out of 300 is [pulls out abacus] ... 8%. Doh! I guess maybe putting someone who's only college experience involves being taken to the hospital after ingesting an entire case of Olde English 800 in charge of a billion dollar entertainment corporation might not be the smartest...

Wait! This just in:

However, three "All-Brains" division leaders -- Oakland, Arizona and Washington -- are in last place in real life, while Texas and the Dodgers were last in their divisions in smarts but first in the standings.

YES! Stupidity is renewed! Bring on the dumb!

I mock because I love.

Worst... Contract... Ever

When people talk about the worst baseball contracts they mention Adam Eaton (3 years, $24M), and Barry Zito (7 years, $126M), and if they're savvy, maybe Vernon Wells (7 years, $126M... maybe teams should stop giving out 7 year, $126M contracts, eh?), or Luis Castillo (4 years, $25M). The point is, there are many to choose from. But here's one you almost never hear mentioned: Dontrelle Willis.

Willis was a very exciting and popular pitcher with the Florida Marlins who was traded along with Miguel Cabrera to Detroit, whereupon Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski lavished Willis with a three year, $29M contract. As popular as Willis was, and as effective as he was on the mound, a simple look at Willis' stats could have told you this deal was likely to end badly. Sadly for Willis and Detroit it not only will end badly but it started badly too.

Willis' career has been derailed to some extent by a social anxiety disorder, which has caused him problems during his last two years in Detroit. Last season he pitched 24 innings, gave up 25 runs while walking 35(!). Generally pitchers look to have a strikeout-to-walk ratio of about 2:1. 3:1 is good and some of the best pitchers have 4:1 or more. This year Roy Halladay is over 7:1. Last year, Dontrelle Willis' strikeout-to-walk ratio was 1:2. For that Willis was paid $7M. This year he's 'improved' to 1:1.6, and for this horrendous performance he's earning $10M. Next year the Tigers will owe him $12M.

Hopefully he can overcome the disorder, but whether he can or not, his time as an elite pitcher ended years ago. Even if he returns to the mound fully cured, Willis' contract will be one the Tigers regret. It's not the worst contract out there, but it's on the list.

Time to take down the Stanley Nutz

Finally, officially, we have a wiener winner: it is Bill, our* fellow Stars fan/Cowboys hater. Bill amassed a colossal 221 points, leading, in order, Rufus, Snizza, Lousy, and Clint.

*Our," meaning... uh... I guess, everyone in the pool who lives in Dallas, except Clint.

As spread-out as the scores appear to be, had Detroit won Game 7, Snizza would have won the pool, partly by virtue of never having picked against them and getting an extra 14 points for it. Not surprisingly, starting out high on the Penguins and then riding them all the way proved the secret to success -- the winner and runner-up both qualified for the bonus by never having picked against Pittsburgh.

And to the victor go the spoils. Snizza, please PhotoShop a big "FAIL" onto a photo of Marian Hossa, future KHL All-Star. More on him later...

.

Hey, who won the fuckin' hockey pool?

What hockey pool? You know, the one we were running on this-here blog?

At the beginning of the Conference Finals, I fled for the Alaskan wilderness and turned over the scorekeeping spreadsheet over to Matty and Snizza, never to hear from them again regarding the subject.

See, here's proof I went somewhere; I wasn't just being lazy: here I am! And I'm looking at stuff!

(Why in the Sam Hill would I schedule a vacation during the hockey playoffs? Well, first, I didn't realize I had done it until after my wife and I had already started throwing money around. And second, it's by far the best time to go to Alaska. Too early in the year and it's too cold and dark. Too late into the summer and big swarms of gnarly bugs emerge. Apparently the place starts looking like some bizarro mountainous version of downtown Cleveland.)

Anyway, I don't even have people's picks for the Finals.

Let this post serve as a pointless admission of our delinquency. But let's get it sorted out. The miniature Stanley Cup filled with Rumple Minze is starting to gather dust.

.

More Ripping On The Mainstream Media: Joel Sherman Edition

I've been picking on the mainstream media a lot recently, and another article caught my eye this morning. Foxsports.com's Joel Sherman who also writes for the New York Post wrote this piece which grades baseball's most recent free agent signings.

I understand that writers have space to fill, but someone who purports to assign grades to free agents needs to admit somewhere in the damn article that there might be, maybe, maybe? some ambiguity because we're one bleep'n* third of the way through the season.

But that ain't even the real problem. The real (and massive) problem is that no thought was put into potential future performance, length of contract, or pay. The latter is mentioned, but not in any way connected to the concept of value. For example, sure that cheeseburger might be tasty, but if you dropped $35 on it then it probably wasn't worth it. And, if you get the shits tomorrow, then you really wasted your money.

Because of these glaring omissions the article really only answers the very difficult question, 'which player who was a free agent last off-season is playing well now?' Making it basically stupid and useless. But I'm going to continue to rip on it anyway. Yay.

THE GOOD: Philadelphia's Raul Ibanez and the Yankees' Mark Teixeira are among the top MVP candidates one-third of the way through this season.

Ibanez and Teixeira are among the top MVP candidates so far, so their contracts must be "good". There's some real analysis. Again, there are two things at play here: 1) contract, and 2) performance.

Forgive me if this sounds elemental, but when signing free agents to a contract, teams fight to keep the years and dollars down while players and their agents fight to raise them both. So, when evaluating free agents, it's silly to put Ibanez on the same footing with Teixeira. Ibanez got a three year, $31.5 million contract. In terms of dollars, you could buy 5.7 Raul Ibanezs for the cost of one Mark Teixeira. If Ibanez and Teixeira both win the MVP that's great for the Phillies and Yankees, but there is no question that the Phillies got a far better deal than the Yankees did because they paid less money and committed to a shorter term contract.

Right now the Yankees are getting an MVP performance from Teixeira which is great for them, but Teixeira better be an MVP candidate because the Yankees gave him a fucking eight year $180 million contract. So (for now) they're only getting what they paid for, and no more. The Phillies are getting an MVP performance from Ibanez, but they aren't paying him as an MVP candidate. Thus, much better deal.

As for performance, Ibanez has been terrific for Philadelphia, but he's 37 years old and is signed for two more years after this one. If he keeps this up the Phillies got the bargain of the century, but despite how well he's played so far this season, the likelihood is that he won't continue at this level. After his three years are up, it's very likely that Phillies fans are going to be glad he's gone.

Teixeira's established level of performance is significantly above Ibanez's, so it's much more likely that Teixeira will keep his play up. This isn't to say that Teixeira was a better signing than Ibanez or the other way around, just that evaluating these two deals is far more complex than "both are 'good' because they're potential MVPs".

And I haven't even talked about defense or aging patterns.

But even after all that, my favorite malarkey is this malarkey:

Dodgers insiders will tell you Orlando Hudson's enthusiasm, amity and passion for the game have helped nearly as much as his wonderful play.

Team chemistry has been a tough nut to crack for performance analysts, but there is just no way that Hudson has helped the team almost as much by being a nice guy as he has by playing great baseball. It's just a fucking ridiculous statement. I can't play a lick, but I'm passionate about baseball and I'm a heck of a guy. By Sherman's logic I'd be a great fit for the Dodgers. Except, I'll tell you right now, I'd be a terrible fit for the Dodgers. Know why? Because I can't fucking play!

You just can't evaluate a contract for any player in any sport after one third of a season, and you definitely can't even take a stab at it without some perspective as to contract and what the player is likely to contribute going forward. Typically, Sherman ignores the first and appears to be using the ESPN method of player projections where you assume the current level of performance will continue indefinitely. It's all just stupid.

___
*By which I mean FUCKING.

Stone Cold Retarded: ESPN's "Projection" System

I almost never read ESPN anymore. I won't spend too many words on why, it should be obvious. In short, their content is horrendous. Rob Neyer is the only baseball or football writer worth reading.

I was screwing around on the internet, avoiding cleaning myself this Sunday morning, and came across this article from Chad Finn of Boston.com. On the topic of the resurgence of Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, Mr. Finn writes, "While he's apparently intent on having the last word with his skeptics -- hi there -- my willing suspension of disbelief calls it quits at his ESPN projections of 33 homers and 78 RBIs."

Finn's link is to Varitek's player page on ESPN.com. Under the 2009 Season Stats heading, there are four lines, "Season", "Career", "Last 7 Days", and "Projected". The first three are self-evident, but what does "Projected" mean, and how could they seriously project a 37 year old catcher to hit 33 homers?

When you think about it for a second, creating a player projection can take into account a million things including player aging patters, player type (i.e. speed, power, etc.), splits, and on and on and on. As you can see, getting numbers that even approximate what has and thus will happen on the field is very complicated.

There are a number of different projection systems available on the internet. Tom Tango who writes under the name TangoTiger and was recently hired by the Seattle Mariners created one called Marcel, SG at Replacement Level Yankees Blog created CAIRO, Baseball Prospectus has one by newly-renowned math whiz Nate Silver (also of the political projection blog fivethirtyeight.com) called PECOTA, Fan Graphs has one blah blah blah.

They are all different, but the one aspect that is the same within each is the complexity. Which brings me back to ESPN. After searching the site for an explanation of how they created their projections, I finally just looked at them and suddenly it was very obvious. Take a look at Varitek's numbers this year and his ESPN projected numbers for this year:

This year: .225 Average, .325 On-Base Percentage, .482 Slugging Percentage
Projection: .225 Average, .325 On-Base Percentage, .482 Slugging Percentage

Now take a look at Dustin Pedroia:

This year: .293 Average, .387 On-Base Percentage, .388 Slugging Percentage
Projection: .293 Average, .387 On-Base Percentage, .388 Slugging Percentage

You may be noticing a pattern here. Yes, ESPN's 'projection system' simply repeats the player's current stats. No accounting for playing time, injury, player history, splits, or really anything. This leads to some ridiculousness. For example, ESPN projects Raul Ibanez to hit 59 homers, 26 more than he's ever hit in his life. According to ESPN Jason Bartlett of the Rays will hit 23 homers, which doesn't sound like much until you realize he has hit 18 in his entire six year career. Tim Wakefield of the Red Sox will apparently win 21 games for Boston, and Kevin Slowey will win 23 for Minnesota.

None of these things are impossible, but all of them are extremely unlikely and together they're about as close to impossible as you can get without actually getting there.

So, what's my point? ESPN's projection system is sub-moronic. Good day.

Listen Up Earthlings: Joe Girardi Is Obviously Stupid

If you live on planet Earth, you may have heard that the Red Sox and Yankees just played each other. You may also be aware, "Earthling", that the Red Sox won all three games, by the scores of 7-0, 6-5, and 4-3. If you are proficient in math, you could look at those scores and determine that the second two games were decided by only one run. And, as I shove this awkward literary device even further down your throat, you may also know that the team that lost two games by one run apiece possesses Mariano Rivera, the Greatest Closer In All Of Recorded History*.

How could something like that happen? Or, to quote a great Umerican, "That's Unpossible!"

It's quite possible when Joe Girardi is the manager of the offending team. In fairness, many managers make this mistake, Girardi just happens to the most recent offender.

Coming into the series, Rivera had pitched in all of the previous four Yankee games, though one off day occurred during that time. More recently, he had pitched on the last two days but had thrown only 21 total pitches. The first game of the series was a 7-0 blowout by the Red Sox, so it makes total sense that Rivera didn't see the field.

During game two, the Red Sox got out to an early lead. The Yankees were one run down thorough the final two innings, but Rivera didn't see the field. Instead, a combination of Phils (Hughes and Coke) and Alfredo Aceves got the last six outs for the Yankees. Understandable, at least, that the Yankees might shy away from using Rivera in that situation, although you wonder why Girardi didn't employ his best reliever in attempt to keep the game close for a Yankee comeback.

So coming into the third game the Yankees are a game out of first place. A win pulls them into a tie while a loss drops them two back. They are also attempting to avoid a sweep and avoid dropping the first eight games of the year to their to their bitterest of rivals.

With this as backdrop the following unfolds. The Yankees score three runs in the top of the seventh inning to take a 3-1 lead. At this point, Rivera is shown warming up in the bullpen. The Red Sox don't score in the bottom of the 7th against CC Sabathia, nor do the Yankees in the top of the eighth.

Girardi's first big decision that will alter the game takes place at this point as Sabathia takes the mound in the bottom of the eighth inning. He gives up a single to 9th place hitter Nick Green, and then walks Dustin Pedroia in an ten pitch at-bat. Sabathia has now thrown 121 pitches and has just put the tying run on first base with the Red Sox number two, three, and four hitters coming up.

This is the second game altering decision for Girardi, who elects to keep Sabathia in the game. Again, not an indefensible choice. Drew hits left handed, Sabathia throws left handed, which is a big advantage for the pitcher. Drew hits .120 points of OPS lower against lefties than righties, and Sabathia holds lefties to 50 points less of OPS than righties. So, even keeping an obviously tiring Sabathia in to face the Red Sox number two hitter with 121 pitches in the books and the tying run on first base makes sense. I'm not saying its the right or wrong move, but it at least makes sense.

On the second pitch of the at-bat Sabathia gives up a hard hit run scoring single to Drew. Sabathia is then removed from the game for the Yankees best reliever, Mariano Rivera, who enters a 3-2 game with nobody out, runners on first and second, and promptly shuts the door.

Except, no, that's not at all what happened. Girardi does make a pitching change, but he brings in Alfredo Aceves, who also pitched in the second game, instead of Rivera. This is Girardi's big mistake. Look at all the factors here:

1. Rivera is the best Yankee relief pitcher by far.
2. Rivera hasn't thrown in two days.
3. The Red Sox have won 7 straight games in a row against your team. You need to win this game.
4. The Sox have two runners on, are down by one run, and their best hitters are coming up. Because of the way a lineup works, this is likely the last at-bats for the heart of the Red Sox batting order (unless they go into extra innings). Should it be necessary for Boston to hit again in the bottom of the ninth inning, the likely hitters will be the bottom of Boston's order who, to be explicitly plain about this, aren't as good as those at the top.
5. If Boston takes the lead, New York will only get one more shot at tying the game up. In other words, they may not have the need for another relief pitcher in the game if they don't stop the bleeding now.

With all this known, it makes tons of sense to use your best reliever in this situation. If you use a lesser reliever and fail, you won't have the opportunity to use your best guy later, because you'll have already lost the game.

And that is indeed exactly what happened, as Aceves gave up two singles to Youkilis and Bay and a run scoring sacrifice fly to Mike Lowell. 4-3, Red Sox, and all with Mariano Rivera, the Greatest Closer In All Of Recorded History sitting on his ass in the bullpen watching. The Sox swept New York, and never once had to face Rivera to do it.

Girardi later said that the reason he didn't use Rivera is because, "the situation didn't arise." Actually, it did arise, Girardi just wasn't smart enough to notice.


*Scientists believe there may have been a better closer sometime around the Pleistocene Era, but sadly nobody had yet invented the save statistic so we'll never know.
.

Drafty Drafty Drafty Draft

I've been following the baseball draft more closely than usual this year, and perusing the names of the players drafted by the Red Sox, I came across these guys:

James Patterson - No, not this guy.

Austin House and Christopher Court - You wonder if Austin's house is on Christopher's... I am so sorry.

Randall Fant - What is a "fant?" It just sounds dirty... kinda reminds me of the old SNL sketch with Jason Priestley, The Life and Times of Johnny Hildo, featuring the following immortal lines:

Johnny Hildo: Uh, Mr. Wilson, I was wondering if I could talk with you about the sociology exam.
Mr. Wilson: Well, it's gonna be a tough one, Dildo.
Johnny Hildo: Yeah... listen, that's "Hildo", with a "Ha", not a "Da", okay?
Mr. Wilson: Sounds good, Dildo. But hey, I've got a class to teach.

Reynolds Parthemore - Clearly a member of the Future Butlers of Britain.

Brandon Jacobs and Derrick Thomas - You won't find any 'they just drafted a dead guy!' jokes here. (See what I did there?)

Matthew Koch - I'm sure it's not pronounced the way I'm reading it. But it could be worse. He could be named...

Miles Head - Which, I guess, could still be worse... he could be named "Mike Hunt." Fortunately, the Red Sox didn't draft Mike Hunt. Overcome with an acute case of the giggles, I somehow found the composure to look up "Mike Hunt" on baseball-reference.com. Amazingly, nobody by that name has played in the major leagues. Someone named Mike Hunt did play in the Pacific Coast League in the late 1920's and 1930's though. Strangely, he was nicknamed "Old Baggy Pants." I have no joke for that.

and my favorite, and candidate for the back of my next Red Sox jersey....

Jordan Flasher

In other draft news, The Orioles drafted Mike Flacco, the brother of the Ravens quarterback. The Indians drafted two guys named Kyle Smith and someone by the name of Joe Colon. The Tigers took Michael Rocket, while the Braves picked something called Riaan Spanjer-Furstenburg. The Yankees drafted Graham Stoneburner, only to be out-stoned by the Marlins who drafted Sequoyah Stonecipher.

You gotta love drafts with 50+ rounds, huh?
.

Michael Wilbon Writes A Column That I Don't Particularly Like And/Or Agree With, Episode XVIII

In the baseball world, everyone is talking about one thing: Stephen Strasburg. Don't know who Stephen Strasburg is? You will soon, one way or the other.

For now, Strasburg is the phenom pitcher from San Diego State University who struck out 195 batters in 109 innings. From what I've read, he throws in the upper 90's, has a terrific curveball, and an improving change-up (i.e. it's getting better). He's also the perfect size for a pitcher at 6'4, 220 lbs, big enough to not break down under the strain of pitching in the majors, but small enough to be able to repeat his mechanics. Because of all of the above, Strasburg is the prototype for a major league starting pitcher.

In short, he's an ace in the making, and major league teams have been salivating over him for years. This year he was finally available in the draft, and was taken first overall by the moribund Washington Nationals.

Its not as if the Nationals went off on a limb by picking him either. Strasburg was the number one rated talent by everyone. I'm not talking two out of three dentists recommended drafting him, I'm talking everyone. The gap between him and the number two guy picked (Dustin Ackley) was huge.

Because of this, there was no question that Strasburg would be chosen first. In fact, in the ridiculous number of hours I spend reading about baseball, I have never encountered anyone who seriously suggested that the Nationals should not draft Strasburg.

[Warning: Plaschke Paragraph coming]*

Until yesterday, when Michael Wilbon did.

No way in the world I'd have taken Stephen Strasburg with the No. 1 pick in the draft. The risks are too great. [...] I wouldn't draft a guy who's going to play every fifth day to improve my team's attendance.

So, you wouldn't draft the consensus best player by a mile in the draft to improve your attendance? Let me quote something to you, sir:

You know how you build and keep a loyal fan base? Put a credible product on the field. Be competitive year after year.

Exactly. If Strasburg is the best player in the draft, the Nationals, who's needs on the field include just about everything, have to draft him first. Excellent point, anonymous author!

So, you might be wondering, who is the anonymous author of the above? The answer: Michael Wilbon! And lest you think I went hunting through the Washington Post archives to find a sentence that contradicts Wilbon's opening paragraph, I submit to you that the second quotation is from the same article as the first!

But let's not dwell on Wilbon contradicting himself within the span of 900 words. No, let's move on and attempt to tackle some of his other points. Like this one:

Yes, [the Nationals] need pitching, but they also desperately need everyday players, lots of 'em. And they don't need to drop $50 million, or even $35 million on a college pitcher. This kid isn't, as agent Scott Boras would like us to believe, Daisuke Matsuzaka, who had distinguished himself as a professional in Japan before getting millions to come to the majors.

As Strasburg hasn't signed yet, Wilbon's numbers are irrelevant, but let's say for the sake of argument that the Nats spend $50 million to sign him. Or $60 million. Where else are they going to get a pitcher of Strasburg's potential for that kind of money? The answer is nowhere. Last off season the Yankees signed two talented free agent pitchers. Combined they paid $240 million for them. You think the Yankees would spend $50 million on Stephen Strasburg? In a fucking second! So would Boston, and the Mets, and the Angels, Dodgers, Orioles, etc.

And it's a good thing, not a bad one as Wilbon contends, that Strasburg is coming out of college. College players are much easier (though admittedly not easy) to project as major league players than either high school players or Japanese league players. Do you think the Red Sox, knowing what they know now, would pay over $100 million for Daisuke Matsuzaka? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.

Moving on:

Strasburg isn't any different from any of the other 13 pitchers selected with the No. 1 overall pick in the draft since 1973, none of whom ever won a Cy Young Award or anchored a staff for six or eight years.

When you really think about this argument, you realize how patently ridiculous it is. What about shortstops taken with the 18th overall pick? Never worked out before? Well, don't ever draft a shortstop with the 18th pick then! Can you imagine a GM actually saying, "Well, we looked it up and no catcher taken with the 6th pick has ever made an all-star game, so that's why we passed on the guy with all the talent." It's moronic.

So what if no pitcher taken number one over all has won a Cy Young award or anchored a staff for six or eight years? Well, first of all, that is wrong. Well, not technically wrong, because Wilbon adroitly and stealthily drops the year 1973 into his sentence. I've looked at it, and I must be missing something, because I can't figure out what about 1973 makes it a good cut off point. I mean, other than that it excludes Tom Seaver, who was drafted twice, the second time as the first overall pick, in 1965. As you may know, Seaver is a three-time Cy Young Award winner and a Hall of Famer.

I don't think anyone would dispute that drafting in any sport is an inexact science. 2008 World Series MVP Cole Hamels was picked 17th overall, Roger Clemens was 19th, and reigning NL Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum was picked 10th. Ultimately, who gives a shit where those players were picked? If baseball re-did those drafts, most of those guys would be the first player picked, and you wouldn't hear anything about how no pitcher picked number one has ever crap crap crap.

And yet, I'm still not done with this point, because Wilbon's statement shows a basic failure to understand how the baseball draft works. Contrary to that of the NBA or NFL, baseball has no salary cap and no cap on rookie salaries. Therefore, the best talent is not necessarily taken first for financial reasons. Some teams simply don't want to pay the asking prices for the top rated talent. The year Tim Lincecum was drafted 10th by the Giants, many people thought he was the best player available, but the Kansas City Royals passed on him with the first pick (as did the next eight teams) because he was asking for what they thought was too much money. The same thing happened to Rick Porcello of the Tigers two years ago. Porcello was the consensus best pitcher in the draft but fell to the 27th pick because of his salary demands.

[The Nationals have] made so many mistakes as an organization it's insane to give them the benefit of the doubt in this. Had the Red Sox drafted Strasburg, I'd be less likely to think this had "bad move" written all over it because the Red Sox, of recent vintage anyway, make decisions that lead to first place while the Nationals mostly look like the Charlie Brown All-Stars.

Well, if the Red Sox had the first over all pick, they would certainly have taken Strasburg. 100% guaranteed. How do I know? Because the Red Sox aren't stupid. Feel better now?

And one kid pitcher, even one with a great arm, is unlikely to change that because there's so much that can go wrong with the kid's shoulder or elbow, with the contract negotiations. Maybe, putting on my optimist's hat for a moment, Strasburg will be the exception to all this. Maybe he'll trump history and be the first star major leaguer to be chosen first overall in the draft. Maybe. Hopefully. But it's a bet, especially at $50 million, I wouldn't be willing to wager.

Sure, a young player can get hurt, or not develop. It happens all the time, even to 'sure thing' players. In fact, duh, most players drafted don't make the majors, but if you follow that logic through, a team is better off just eschewing the draft all together.

It is also true that there is an increased risk in taking a pitcher over a position player. The act of pitching places an extreme strain on the body and results in a higher risk of injury. In recognition of this fact, as of this writing, 20 of the Nationals 32 picks in the 2009 draft are pitchers. That's the way it has to be. Because until someone figures out how to win in the majors without good pitching, drafting pitchers is a risk that all teams are going to have to continue to take.

The Nationals made the right pick. But Wilbon is correct about one thing: one pitcher isn't going to turn the franchise around. If the Nationals are going to become anything other than a laughing stock, they're going to have to get more out of this draft and the one's following it than just Stephen Strasburg.

___
*Don't you like how my Plaschke Paragraph warning is, in itself, a Plaschke Paragraph?
.

What's with the pictures, Wang? It's a parking lot!

Actually, it's more like a driving range. After tonight's eight-out stagger-fest versus the mighty Red Sox (aka "the other Yankees -- the ones with a good ballpark"), Chien-Ming Wang is 0-4 with a 21.61 ERA as a starter (14.34 overall). And that, folks, is the worst ERA after 5 starts in a season in the history of Major League Baseball. Don't sell yourself short, Judge -- you're a tremendous slouch.

Can he be traded for Vicente Padilla? Loaded into a cannon and fired straight at Kei Igawa? The Yankees better figure something out.

"Let's go, while we're young!"

Though I'm no Yankees fan, I honestly hope Wang can get his mechanics straightened out and at least stay in the Majors. It's still too much fun to fire off Caddyshack quotes at the bar when there's a game on TV with Wang pitching.

Well, at least it's fun for me, if not the other bar patrons.

"Whew, the last time I saw a starting pitcher like that, he got the hook in the third inning. You throw a game like that, I bet ya get a free bowl of soup! Oh, he looks good in pinstripes, though!"

(Note: Is Mr. Wang's IMDB page not the most cryptic of all time? No other credits... and no real name? Remember when Conan O'Brien went looking after the actor who played Grady Wilson? I think we here at T!!! are going to have to do the same with elusive "Dr. Dow.")

.

NBC Doesn't Know if They Should Shit or Wind Their Watch

It's one of the most memorable Stanley Cup Finals in recent memory! The Red Wings! The Penguins! A Finals rematch! Crosby! Malkin! Zetterberg! Datsyuk! Game 7! How could anyone possibly screw this up, right?

Well, the fucktards at NBC, having already committed the unbelievable scheduling fumbles of pitting three of the first six Stanley Cup Finals games head-to-head with NBA playoff games, and cramming games 1 & 2 into a single weekend, decided to out do themselves.

For the first two games at Pittsburgh's Mellon Arena, the game was broadcast outside the arena, using the local FSN feed, and attracted huge crowds who did nothing but push the energy in the city to a fever pitch. Sounds great. Thousands of kids will remember this scene and find a love for the sport that needs every fan it can get. So how does NBC respond to this mass of positivity?

Check their official statement*:

PITTSBURGH -- The NBC Network, which holds the exclusive rights to Sunday night’s Penguins' playoff game, has decided not to grant permission to the local team to put the game on the outdoor screen at Mellon Arena.
Ray Carter, Vice President and General Manager of WPXI, Channel 11, the local affiliate of the NBC Network, expressed disappointment in the decision.
“I know the outdoor screen has become a fan favorite for those who can’t get into the game. I wish we, as the local affiliate, could grant permission to the Pens, but quite frankly, our hands are tied. We do not hold the rights to the game; the NBC network in New York does. I understand and respect NBC’s right to do as they please with the broadcast signal.”
Channel 11 is proud to be able to carry several of the playoff games to a large television audience.
NBC will be the host broadcast network for other playoff games as well as the 2009 Stanley Cup Finals. WPXI wishes the Pens a long and successful run through the playoffs. Go Pens!

I guess they figure that forcing those few thousand viewers home to watch the game would increase their ratings and somehow make up for the fact that they were once again going up against the NBA Finals on ABC. Well, ABC pounded them by a margin of 58% more viewers.

Stupid, meet Retarded.

Another thing about this: what about the thousands of people who were crammed in to sports bars to watch the game? How is the big screen outside the arena any different? No one is making any money off of the public showings.

Effing morons.

*The statement was from the WPXI, the Pittsburgh affiliate from April 17, but applies to last night's game as well.