Bryan Joiner

Why then I

Month: November, 2007

More On Easterbrook!

I’ll say this about Gregg Easterbrook’s dalliance with a complete lack of reason: it’s gotten me to read his column. And most of the football parts, at least, are non-offensive to me. He just has this thing for the Patriots, this, “I coach football so I can talk about sportsmanship w/r/t the NFL, but it actually makes no sense, so here’s the Hubble Space Telescope and oh yeah, BillBelichickHatesPuppies and Al Gore is a fraud — his time would clearly be better spent writing football columns.” Say what you will about Gore’s politics, but a criticism of them doesn’t belong on ESPN.com, does it?

Anyhow, his narrow view of the Patriots’ running-up-the-score charge is not unlike that of many others who don’t follow the games closely. Only Easterbrook professes to actually follow what’s going on quite closely and seems to miss, oh, a whole lot. From today’s column:

At the end of the third quarter, the Patriots were leading Buffalo 42-7 — more than the margin of the greatest comeback in NFL history — yet Tom Brady was still on the field, still throwing passes like mad while the Flying Elvii were going for it on fourth down rather than attempting a field goal, frantically trying to run up the score. This is bad sportsmanship, plus it needlessly exposes starters to injury.

In previous columns, Easterbrook has criticized New England for playing Brady in the fourth quarter of close games: now we’re up to the third quarter. What’s next, the half? As the Patriots were up 35-7 at halftime, they could have easily been up 35-0, a deficit which every team in NFL history save one has not come back from. Should he be benched then? Well, that’s ludicrous. But the late third quarter is not ludicrous now, because it fits into Easterbrook’s narrative. Sigh. Brady did not play a single down in the fourth quarter and the Patriots ran the ball a hefty percentage of the time. It was, in fact, a display of sportsmanship. That the Bills cannot stop the Patriots is not the Patriots’ fault.

He also accuses the Patriots of being ruthlessly efficient in their first seven drives, scoring touchdowns on all of them, and this is true, but he criticizes them in going for it on fourth down (see above). Yet earlier in the article he writes:

And in other football news, trying for the first down on fourth-and-short isn’t a “huge gamble” as sportscasters say. Rather, it is playing the percentages properly. Jacksonville is 7-3 and leads the NFL in fourth-down attempts and fourth-down conversions. See more below.

So wait… for Jacksonville, going for it on fourth down is a cause of their success, while in 10-0 New England, it’s a symptom of excess? I’m confused. This is a clear double standard.

After this pre-determined silliness, he moves on to effusive praise of the New England offensive line and writes:

The Flying Elvii are doing everything to near-perfection, but TMQ continues to think too much credit is going to Brady and his flashy receivers, not enough to the offensive line and defensive front seven. On the night, Brady was never sacked, was hit only once and hurried only once; otherwise, he stood in the pocket as though he was posing for a magazine cover, no rusher even near him. Put Joey Harrington behind New England’s great offensive line, and he’d be a star.

Now, I hate the Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady debate, because I think it’s reductive and meaningless, and there are too many other factors that determine their performance to conclusively say that one is better than the other (hence the debate’s popularity). But the argument always goes something like this: [x] is underrated, so [y] is overrated. Which is fun but wrong: they have nothing, in a very real sense, to do with one another. What does this have to do with Easterbrook? Well, Easterbrook is making the argument that even Joey Harrington would be a star on New England. That may be true, but I think Tom Brady can get an appropriate amount of credit here and not be compared to Joey Harrington. It’s not that only Tom Brady is overperforming, or that only the offensive line is overperforming, or that only the wide receivers are overperforming — they all are. They are connected, but it’s not a case of if one is performing particularly well, the other is not. To take away credit from either Brady or the offensive line is ludicrous.

Fun With Obvious Contradictions

Here are two nuggets from Harvey Araton’s piece on A-Rod, the latest excoriation by a Times writer on “player as businessman” in the age of players as business men (it’s astonishing that they can’t wrap their heads around this):

Take this for what it is worth from the player who talked the talk but wouldn’t take the Yankees’ postseason calls for the privilege of handsomely compensating and (we could argue) eventually overpaying him after another playoff failure.

So the Yankees overpaid A-Rod. That would be good for A-Rod, right?

Rodriguez has long been a money magnet and serial attention grabber, but now we are supposed to believe that Boras alone bungled Rodriguez’s second free agency fling?

Wait… now team Boras/A-Rod bungled the negotiations?

Which is it? Did A-Rod bungle the negotiations, or is he overpaid? If he is overpaid, then it would seem he did not bungle the negotiations. That they did not go as smoothly as the Yankees would have liked is too bad for them and their reactionary fans in the press and beyond, who used the two-week window of A-Rod’s potential free agency as a time to bash the crap out of a guy who merely won two MVPs for the franchise. Even I joked that he came crawling back, but it was a joke — the guy is making $275 million as a base, the richest contract in sports history. A-Rod got his contract and the Yankees got their third baseman. What is everybody so upset about?

Martha’s Vineyard Whoops Nantucket

We rolled on them fools for the fifth consecutive year! 48-6! And we’ll be on Sunday Night Football next week too!

Greatest sports year ever.

Breaking News

39912.jpg

A-Rod Wins MVP In One Hour

This is wrong. The Globe’s Jason Tuohey makes a case for David Ortiz as AL MVP over A-Rod, who will certainly win it when the results are announced at 2 p.m. But it’s plain wrong. Ortiz certainly had a better year than most people thought, and possibly his best year ever, but that has nothing to do with Alex Rodriguez, who also possibly had his best year ever. There’s a dynamic here similar to Brady/Manning, in that critics see A-Rod and Ortiz as complementary players. If one is undervalued, then the other must be overvalued. Of course, it’s ludicrous, just as it is for people to think that whatever Tom Brady does reflects on Peyton Manning. David Ortiz is a great player but A-Rod was a little bit better.

Signs of the Apocalypse are Everywhere

So which one is a greater harbinger of doom for the planet:

• The fact that the Buffalo Bisons baseball team felt the need to illuminate their entire stadium because the Bills were on Sunday Night Football? How can NBC have Green Week, when Greenzo scolded Liz Lemon for keeping lights on for ‘The Invisible People,’ and then condone this stuff? THE ENTIRE STADIUM’S LIGHTS WERE ON AND THERE WAS NO ONE IN IT! Normally, I would be worried about the long-term consequences of this…

• … except it may not matter. When, with the Patriots leading 35-7 at halftime of a game on my brother’s birthday, NBC chronicled the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School football team, I felt my universe was about to collapse upon itself. It will be tough to top that for outright absurdity ever again.

The Week In Quotes – Barry Bonds edition

23042446.jpg

Yesterday in San Francisco, the best hitter in baseball history was indicted on four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice, and if convicted, will face up to 30 years in prison. The charges are unsurprising. They’re also absurd.

— Tim Marchman’s take in the New York Sun

In the absence of a tape-recorded, cartoon villain speech from Bonds proving that he knew he was taking steroids and growth hormone, it is going to be very difficult to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Bonds knowingly took drugs.

— Marchman

So Bonds is in a lot of trouble?
Maybe, but maybe not.

— Sports law expert Michael McCann breaks down the indictment on cnnsi.com

My first reaction is that this is a travesty, and has been for years. For someone to be investigated for this long for something so unimportant is a disgrace… This is an abuse of power, a shameless personal attack of Barry Bonds.

This is not a good day for baseball, it’s not a good day for anyone involved, really.

— The “Only Baseball Matters” blog

Never mind the debate over sticking an asterisk on the ball in the Hall of Fame. Baseball has no business putting an asterisk on Barry Bonds. The asterisk belongs on Major League Baseball, for allowing the players union to bully it into avoiding testing and penalties.

Our “friend” George Vecsey’s spot-on take in the Times

I’m high up on the line you can get behind me
But my head’s so big you can’t sit behind me
Life of a don
Lights keep glowin’
Comin’ in the club with that fresh sh#t on
With somethin crazy on my arm
Uh-uh-uh
And here’s another hit, Barry Bonds

— Kanye West, “Barry Bonds”

Things Like This Bother Me

Jeffrey Chadiha has a column on ESPN.com today that is tagged with the line, “Rumors of their demise have been greatly exaggerated.” The topic? The notion that without Dwight Freeney, the Colts cannot win the Super Bowl. Chadiha writes:

It’s a devastating blow to lose a Pro Bowl defensive end, no question. But to believe Freeney’s loss makes the Colts incapable of defending their Super Bowl championship is a silly notion at best.

Here’s what I’d like to know: where that “silly notion” comes from. Did Chadiha make it up? The answer is “yes.” No one is saying — not on ESPN.com at least, as far as I can tell — that the Colts can’t win without Freeney. If this was Peyton Manning, it would be another story. But it’s not Peyton Manning.

And the end of his article, Chadiha writes:

All they need is the same attitude and belief that has gotten them this far. When it comes down to it, it’s those two qualities that mean more to Indianapolis than anything else these days.

Yes, those two qualities… and Peyton Manning.

Good News

Frito-Lay is attempting to make an environmentally-friendly (neutral?) potato chip factory.

George Vecsey And The Yankees Character Assassination Machine

The Yankees character assassination machine continues. Just when you thought the lackeys of this organization couldn’t be any more embarrassingly myopic, George Vecsey writes an article entitled “Yanks Should Treat Rodriguez the Way He Treated Them.” The absolutely phony premise of the article — that A-Rod hurt the Yankees’ feelings, so the Yankees should move on — belies the fact that the Yankees are a particularly ruthless baseball organization. When things are going well, the plaudits never stop, from inside the organization and out. When they’re not, the Yankees are quick to point the blame at the players or coaches for underperforming, making sure to emphasize that losing is a character defect, not a side-effect of giving one’s best in gamesmanship and coming up short.

Don’t believe me? Here’s what Michael Kay, the Yankees television broadcaster, had to say about Joe Torre on Torre’s way out of town:

There are things about Joe Torre, if I wanted to come out and say, would show how cold and calculated he really is… Joe Torre is for Joe Torre. … The graveyard of Yankees coaches is loaded with bones of coaches Joe Torre did nothing about.

Is that so, Michael? Well, that’s just a classy move on your part. Joe Torre hurt your feelings by leaving the Yankees, so you need to start completely unfounded rumors to tarnish the four-time World Champion manager. Well, done! You should be proud of yourself.

Now Vecsey somehow tries to similarly indict Rodriguez, basically saying A-Rod should have expressed fealty to the Yankees by not attempting to maximize his value on the open market. That A-Rod’s ploy didn’t work is irrelevant: baseball is a business, the Yankees are in the business of winning, and A-Rod gives any team a great, great chance of winning. That’s why he’s going to command money no matter where he goes, even back to New York. The Yankees haven’t forgotten his 54 home runs, even if Vecsey has. He writes:

He is an enigmatic figure in their clubhouse, clearly not a player who improves his team.

Such an embarrassing quote is worthy of his equally embarrassing brother. Calling A-Rod a player “not a player who improves his team” is possibly the most unbelievably stupid statement I have read in The New York Times.

In fairness, he probably means “in the clubhouse,” but A-Rod’s job is to play baseball, not rah-rah his teammates. Mike Mussina never gets called out for his surly ways, but he’s not the iconoclast that A-Rod is. A-Rod wants to be the best player ever and the biggest name ever, and the Yankees fancy themselves the greatest organization and biggest name in sports, and both are ruthless in search of their goals. As I’ve written before, it’s a match made in heaven. How is this not obvious? To make the claim, as Vecsey, Kay and others have, that certain players are big enough to hurt the Yankees’ feelings is to undercut the entire foundation on which the Yankees empire stands. That notion is that the Yankees are so big that no one can touch them, even the Red Sox, in wake of two titles in four years. Remember Hank Steinbrenner? He said that the Red Sox “would never be the Yankees,” even after the titles. And he’s right. You’ll notice that he’s not saying anything any more. He knows he can win with A-Rod, and win the negotiation, and others will do the dirty work. And he will win the negotiation. Why? Because the Yankees always win in the end. Admitting A-Rod hurt their feelings would make them losers, and that’s not what this organization is all about, is it, George?