Can't take the Heat? Get out of the kitchen

Go figure that LeBron James takes a bunch of Heat, then takes the Miami Heat's offer... but not before aligning with the mainstream media to turn his free agency process into a top-story news saga that did more to embarrass the sports media than it did to elevate/desecrate LeBron's image or report on any actual news.

Here's the thing with reporting on trades and free agency in pro sports: There is only one type of news that actually matters, and that's when a deal is actually made. All the rumors, all the hearsay, all the insider info... they come and go and rarely is any of it ultimately right or even valid: Often it brews from a throwaway comment in conversation blown very far out of proportion, speculation passed along as fact. No reporting in sports media is more consistently worthless that the reporting of trade or free agency rumors.

Couple that with LeBron's insistence on formally prolonging his decision and then aligning with ESPN to conduct a one hour special where he announced his decision (a decision he by all accounts made two weeks ago), and all you've got is equal parts three ring circus and pied piper, pulling the gullible masses along, of which includes the mainstream media itself, thirst for something to report on in the doldrums of baseball season with the World Cup winding down, the NBA and Stanley Cup Finals having long since concluded and NFL football season still more than a month away.

Thus I give very, very little credence to criticisms of LeBron James' character. He made no secret that he was unhappy with the Cleveland Cavaliers and that he would test the market. Given the obvious widespread interest in the superstar's services, LeBron was virtually assured of signing elsewhere. For LeBron to leave a perpetually underachieving Cleveland Cavs team is not an act of treason, but simply a desire to play for a better team. He owes the Cleveland Cavaliers nothing except his services over the life of his contract with the team, which expired after this season. Any moral arguments to the contrary are, like those trade and free agency rumors, all hot air in a media world that's already full of it.

Nobody told Michael Rosenberg.

Michael Jordan announced on national television he's leaving Chicago to join the Detroit Pistons. Jordan said it was tough to bolt Chicago, where he was the most popular athlete in many years, because he thinks he has a better chance to win a championship if he plays with Pistons star Isiah Thomas. Jordan said by playing together, he and Thomas "won't have the pressure of going out and scoring 30 every night."

That would have sounded absurd, right? Well, it is no more absurd than what LeBron James is doing. Jordan was 27 years old in 1990, slightly older than James is now. He had never been to the NBA Finals. He had been beaten up by the Celtics and Pistons for years. He doubted his supporting cast was good enough.

First of all, Michael Jordan was part of a carefully assembled, vastly improved team with strong role players (a young Scottie Pippen and BJ Armstrong, Horace Grant, John Paxson), and an innovative and effective coach in Phil Jackson. His team was loaded with young and improving talent, plus effective veterans (Grant, Bill Cartwright, Paxson, etc) with a lot of mileage left.

LeBron was on a hastily thrown together team of okay-ish players (Mo Williams, Delonte West) declining veterans (Shaq, Anthony Parker, Zydrunas Ilgauskas) and maybe one other young talent that might be an effective counterpart over the long haul (JJ Hickson). Their coach, the recently fired Mike Brown, was a terrible strategist and had barely the first idea of how to manage his personnel. With no head coach as of yet, no assurance the Cavs would hire a good coach, and no young supporting cast, not to mention a constantly transitioning roster with no identity let alone no style.

Save for improving to a winning record the last few seasons, the Cavs were nothing, NOTHING, like the Bulls team that Jordan elected to stay with. The situation MJ had in Chicago was vastly superior to the situation he would have found somewhere else. In Chicago, Jordan could be the leader of a young, stable, improving unit under a great strategic coach who also ran the team with a calm, balanced and yet suitably authoritative demeanor. No other team could have provided all of that, and a group he was familiar with to boot.

As for LeBron, he walked away from a rag-tag group that definitely would have to be rebuilt over the next season or three, and could well spend the rest of LeBron's youthful years rebuilding. They didn't even have a coach, nor much of an idea who they wanted to coach.

Contrast that with a fractured but reloaded Miami Heat team that just re-signed Dwyane Wade and just acquired star post man Chris Bosh. They have an incumbent and effective coach in Erik Spoelstra working under legendary Pat Riley. Yes, Miami has to reload that roster, but they also now have three very strong players in James, Wade and Bosh to build that team around. Compare this to the fractured and perpetually directionless situation in Cleveland, and it's no wonder James would choose Miami over that.

Oh wait, Rosenberg's not done yet.

the self-proclaimed King said everything you need to know about him.

1. "You have to do what's best for you, and what's going to make you happy."

This is what's going to make him happy? Sharing a stage with two other stars? Really?

Well... yes!

First of all, Michael Rosenberg, who are you to decide what should and shouldn't make a star player happy? If LeBron James decides tag teaming with two star players instead of being the star leader on another team is what makes him happy, then who are you to tell him that's wrong? It's none of your business to decide what LeBron James does and doesn't want.

I guess that's all LeBron is: A complementary player with superstar talent. We should have figured this out before: He got that giant CHOSEN 1 tattoo on his back and calls himself King James because he is desperate for reassurance.

Actually, the MEDIA and his cohorts dubbed him King James. He ran it because well why the hell not.

And Rosenberg plays sports psychologist again, telling us with certainty that James got those tattoos because he was desperate for constant reassurance. Maybe LeBron just thought they were cool nicknames synonymous with his reputation. People get tattoos for a variety of reasons, some of which make more rational sense than others.

So far, we've got an article heading forward with a full head of steam on the basis of three very hastily assembled and poorly thought out presuppositions concocted purely in the author's imaginative mind. I have a bad feeling about the rest of this piece.

2. "We don't have the pressure of going out and scoring 30 every night or shooting a high percentage."

Whoa. Hold on there. Scoring 30 a night is too much pressure for one of the five most talented players ever?

Well, when defenses are tighter than ever and every team you play is focused intently on stopping you... yes, Michael, yes it is. I don't care if you're Jesus Christ and have blessed yourself with a 68 inch vertical leap, and the refs are giving you every call ever.

LeBron would rather be on a team where other stars provide a sthreat and, if he ahs a down night, others will be able to pick up the slack... than be a 30 point guy on a team where if he doesn't throw down 30 his team's probably losing because everyone else sucks. LeBron isn't perfect and can't play 82 spectacular games a year, plus 15-25 spectacular games in the playoffs, if his body can hold up to that kind of pressure. Strange, I know. There are very few players that could play consistently great all the way down the stretch in those conditions, and the list consists of Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson and... uh....

Find me another all-time NBA great who would utter those words. Jordan would rather do an adidas commercial than say that. Bryant must have laughed as he heard the so-called "King" say that. Larry Bird? The next time he complains about pressure will be the first. Magic was the greatest team player of the last 40 years, but he was also so competitive that he wanted to play Jordan one-on-one in a promotional event -- and this was when Magic had won titles and Jordan had not, so Magic had more to lose.

Now would be a good time to note that Jordan had Scottie Pippen and, later, Dennis Rodman. Bryant had Shaq during his first title run and Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum and Ron Artest during his 2nd. Bird had Kevin McHale and Robert Parrish. And Magic had James Worthy and some dude named Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on his team, who BTW I hear is only the NBA's all time leading scorer. Yeah, none of those had or needed any help whatsoever. None.

3. "I know how loyal I am."

The man just dumped his hometown(s) on national television.

LeBron, like the rest of us, is loyal to an employer as long as he is technically employed by them. And like the rest of us, he is as loyal to his hometown as long as living there serves him well. He owes Cleveland nothing. Do we serious think Michael Rosenberg would stay loyal to SI if they treated him badly and another media outlet offered him three times the money to write for them?

This is pretty sad to read, because Rosenberg generally is a fairly decent sports writer. But this just reeks of Rosenberg being pressured by his employer and peers to craft up false moral indignance over a decision that honestly makes sense for all parties.

LeBron James just jumped into an elevator and wants us to think he can fly. Sorry, but we know better. We know that he did something Michael, Magic, Bird and Bill Russell never would have done. We know he ditched Cleveland for an All-Star team.

Right, because if Michael Jordan were the leading scorer for a rag-tag Cleveland Cavs team instead of the young, improving Bulls team he was a part of upon free agency, he totally would have stayed. If Bill Russell were the only good player on the Clippers, he totally would have stayed. Magic would have eschewed good money to be the man on a team of nobodies with the Minnesota Timberwolves.

Oh wait, all of those players were great players on great teams with great teammates and great coaches, and LeBron walked away from a fractured team with the revolving-door roster and no coach.

I've already given this terrible piece more attention than it probably warrants, so I'll just say that while LeBron's media whoring was amusingly annoying, it made sense and his ultimate decision made sense.

Media hot air, however, will never make sense. Aside from drawing attention to said outlets, it rarely if ever provides any real sociocultural value.

Armando Galarraga made history today

Armando Galarraga became more famous in not achieving a perfect game than he would have if he did.

With two outs in the top 9th, Indians shortstop Jason Donald grounded to the right side and Miguel Cabrera snared it, fired to Galarraga covering 1st to beat Donald by about 4-5 feet, and 1B umpire Jim Joyce called him safe. The Tigers were not amused... well, except for Galarraga himself.


It's almost as if Galarraga, in realizing he HAD earned a perfect game whether Jim Joyce agreed or not, also realized that he had just taken a front row seat in the moment of what will likely become one of the most famous blown calls in MLB history.

Joyce, to his credit, knows he blew the call and feels terrible. But the moment underscores a looming problem in MLB, the human error of umpires and their impact on the game. MLB, stubbornly resisting any steps to formally second guess their umpires, grudgingly adopted instant replay on home run calls, a very limited basis, this past year. That didn't stop the drumbeat to expand replay and corrective procedures to everything from base calls to balls and strikes, a drumbeat that grows with every blown umpire call, calls that unfortunately happen on a regular basis in almost every game played.

MLB is trying to do everything to avoid what they should do. The scorer is allegedly looking into scoring the Donald play as an error to credit Galarraga with a bastardized no hitter, even though there clearly was no error on the play. Such a 'correction' would be a bigger disgrace than the blown call itself.

There is only one way MLB can fix this in the short term. Commissioner Bud Selig has the power of Special Action, basically a hand of god. He used it to call off the All Star Game in Milwaukee, the infamous 11 inning tie game, and used it to extend a World Series game that honestly should have been called off early.

Since the Donald hit had no bearing on the outcome of the game (Galarraga got the next batter out to end it), Selig should take a Special Action to have Donald declared rightfully out on the play to end the game, and award Galarraga with the perfect game that he clearly earned.

A perfect way to mitigate the lack of opportunity for a team and home crowd celebration would be to fly into Detroit tomorrow, have Selig go out to the field before the game and announce this decision. It would give the team and fans a chance to celebrate the accomplishment before the game, with a bonus handshake from the Commissioner. Then they can play the day's game as scheduled.

Of course, it's highly unlikely Bud Selig makes such an overriding and undermining decision if he can help it, which is a shame given this is one of the few times the umpire in question has openly admitted to blowing a key call. This is a special case that deserves such an exception, and Selig can argue that there would not be a need for it again anytime soon.

But in any case, even if nothing is done to mitigate today's injustice, Armando Galarraga has been immortalized even moreso for throwing a perfect game that was taken away at the very end by a blown call. No other pitcher could ever claim such a feat. Like Harvey Haddix's 12 perfect innings, and Ernie Shore relieving Babe Ruth after a leadoff ejection and retiring the next 27 batters, Galarraga may not get his name on the list of perfect game hurlers, but he has now earned a special and more unique place in history... especially if this incident leads to changes in MLB's instant replay and umpiring policy.

No one is going to forget what happened with Armando Galarraga today.

Milton Bradley: A Reflection of Mariner Fans

Despite the misgivings of damn near every outside observer about his checkered past and temper, Milton Bradley (a wheel and deal acquisition in miraculous return for the overpriced mistake Carlos Silva) came in with expectations of big things for this season. He quickly disappointed, and as the pressure mounted to produce in light of a sputtering start he began to wind up and get angrier with himself, which only made the problem worse. He had flashes of the brilliance everyone expected, but he couldn't even string it together over more than a few games, sometimes not even through an entire game. The frustration led him to rock bottom and he eventually got fed up and gave up but, realizing his hope and respect for what the team is about, he reneged and asked for help to try and salvage things instead of break them down all over again.

Despite the misgivings of damn near every outside observer about their offense, Mariners fans came in with expectations of big things for the 2010 season after Jack Zduriencik's miraculous wheeling and dealing produced several quality acquisitions (Cliff Lee, Casey Kotchman, Bradley, Brandon League). The Mariners quickly disappointed, and as the pressure mounted to produce in light of a slumping start the hitters began to press and try too hard, which only made the problem worse. Sometimes the team showed flashes of the potential everyone saw in them, but they couldn't string together more than a handful of good games... sometimes they couldn't even manage a single good game. The frustrated offense eventually hit rock bottom and the fans got fed up and stopped paying attention. But, realizing their hope and respect for what the team had rebuilt themselves into, they reneged and resorted to begging the GM to try and find a bat or two to salvage things... instead of throwing their hands up and resigning themselves to another lost season.

Of all the things said and written about the Milton Bradley situation, what struck me the most was how it reflected the Mariners in themselves, and how fans react to Milton kind of reflects how fans perceive the Mariners. Some "knew" the guy was going to fail, and now that he's finally melted down they want him gone ASAP even though losing him would cost the Mariners one of their best power bats. Likewise, some fans, remembering the crappy teams of the last few years, believe the team just wasn't cut out to compete, and now that they're losing they've given up on the team since it's likely they're going to spend May caving in and falling out of contention just like those past seasons.

But some realize that Milton's actions following the outburst were far different and more positive, and are willing to show him support believing that this time is going to be different. Likewise, some fans realize that this new GM is different from past regimes, and his smarter approach to team building has given the team real upside and hope that past teams didn't have... and are willing to maintain their support despite an 11-17 start believing that, with 134 games to go and only a 3.5 game deficit for the lead in a weak AL West... this time things are going to be different, that this team isn't going to cave in and fall out of contention in May like past teams but hang in there and get back into the hunt.

As one can say with many media controversies... the situation itself is a microcosm of the world from which it spawned. And how you react to Milton Bradley says a lot more about you than it does about Milton Bradley.

Should the NCAA Tournament expand to 96 teams?

If we are to believe a thinly sourced blog's report of an offhand quote on a sports talk show by Lesley Visser, the NCAA is not only seriously considering the expansion of the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams, but they are going live with the expanded format next season, as well as eliminating the NIT.

While I wouldn't miss the NIT, I'm not sure where I stand with the proposed expansion personally.

On the one hand:

- It eliminates the possibility of an inflammatory snub. Virginia Tech, the highest rated team to get the cold shoulder, was in the top 40 overall, with as many as 10 teams rated below them getting in at-large. Under a 96 team format, they would have definitely made it. And the new bubble would be around the 80's in rank, hardly a point where anyone would complain about someone getting left out. At that point we're talking teams that probably don't even qualify for the NIT today. Talk about the bubble gets a lot less exciting, and in a good way.

- We get more exciting early round basketball! Most of March Madness' excitement is all about the small colleges in the early rounds trying to pull a big upset or spark a Cinderella run, as well as the general chaos of CBS furiously flipping between up to four games at once, making sure to keep their eyes on the close contests. Once you reach the Sweet 16, you have one or two fleshed out Cinderella teams against a field of power teams, and your best hope for an upset otherwise is for a #4 seed (one of the top 15-20 teams in the nation) upsetting a #1 seed.

With an additional round, and better parity within that additional round, we get three rounds of non-stop action and serious upset and Cinderella potential... compared to the two we have now.

- It would give the small college teams an actual chance in hell. Right now, the least of the bunch gets a #16 seed and is force fed to one of the top four teams in the country. #16 seeds are now 0-104 all time vs the #1 seed since the field expanded to 64 in the mid-1980's, and the best chances we've seen at a 16-1 upset came years ago. As the power teams get better and better, the prospects of a #16 seed making the round of 32 get dimmer and dimmer: The average 16 seed has no better than a 7-8% chance of winning vs a #1, typically a 2-4% chance.

But in an expanded 96 team format, those bottom teams would become #24 seeds, and instead of playing a #1 seed, they would open against a #9 seed, with the winner getting the #8 seed. Their chances would still be somewhat dim against a #9 seed, but they would at least have a fighting chance, as at the #8-9 range you're talking about talented but flawed top 40 teams, weak in one or more aspects or inconsistent in general. Catch them on a bad day or match up with them well, and you could have a serious chance at an upset.

The only way a #24 would see a #1 seed is if they won two tournament games, which would be two more than they have ever won in the 64 team tournament (clearly I am not counting the Play-In Game as part of the tournament proper). And at that point, it would have already been a more than satisfying run in the Tournament, compared to the current M.O. of 'get annihilated on Thursday and go home'.

On the other hand:

- It would dilute the tournament with an excess of power conference teams. Big East commissioner John Marinatto's claim of getting 16 teams in with an expanded format is a bit outlandish, but not by much. In an expanded format they would have sent (according to Sagarin ratings) about 13 teams. The one conference that would have sent all their teams? The ACC. At that point....

- ... why even hold conference tournaments if you're a power conference? Small conference tournaments would still have a purpose, as many conferences don't have a team rated highly enough to qualify at large, let alone several, so there's leverage to winning a conference tournament. But the power conferences are loaded with teams with strength of schedules in the top 3rd of Division I. Many of the conferences would send half of their conference at-large, if not their entire conference. Holding a tournament at that point is kind of meaningless, unless you're trying to get a really weak conference team in to squeeze out an additional bid for the conference. But in the case of the ACC and Big East, that's kind of silly because most or all of your conference can get in easily.

If all or nearly all of your conference's teams are going to the NCAA's, is there even a purpose to holding a tournament to determine who gets the automatic bid? At that point, everyone with a winning record is getting an automatic bid. The lowest rated team in most power conferences is around the 70's, well within the likely cutoff of 80 or so for a 96 team format. Why so many at large teams?

- More mid-major and small conference champs would have the rank to climb in at-large, and once you get to the last of the at-large bids, you're encountering teams with losing records. This is the ultimate proof that 96 teams is too many. Go to the overall Sagarin ratings and you'll hit your first sub .500 team at #75, Iowa State. At that point, after subtracting the conference champs and handing at-large bids to the highest rated teams otherwise, you've still got six at-large bids left. I passed about four teams with losing records before I found 65 qualifying at-large bids. And many of the teams hypothetically let in were only 2-3 games over .500.

I suppose you could minimize this slightly embarrassing issue by handing bids to small-conference regular season champs who lose their conference tournaments, but it still illustrates how weak the bottom of the at-large barrel gets once you expand to 96.

Plus, not that all or most conferences are inherently corrupt, but letting in the regular season champ AND the tourney champ could encourage smaller and mid-major conferences to dive their top seeds with biased officiating to faciliate an upset loss so they can get an additional teams into the tournament (There's no guarantee that didn't happen in the WAC or Conference USA this year). It's probably a better idea not to create such a rule, and at least give the CBI and/or Collegeinsider.com tournaments a reason to exist by allowing those deposed small conference regular season champs to play there instead. The latter consolation tournament has pushed itself as a small and mid-major championship anyway, so it would play right to their appeal factor as a consolation tourney.

- Since bottom end power conference teams could qualify at-large with a winning record, you'll see power conference teams playing much weaker schedules to pad their records, knowing they can pad their strength of schedule in conference play and probably sucker in even if they finish dead last in their conference. This will reduce opportunities for all but the worst of the small and mid-major conference teams, and if any were to (heaven forbid) upset a few of these power teams, they would probably never get scheduled again. You'd create (or further solidify) a Division I caste, where power and mid-major teams play among themselves, small conference teams play among themselves, and the pecking order only deviates when a power team sees a chance at an easy win against an overmatched opponent.

Basically, it'd be kind of like what we have now in the regular season, except exaggeratedly so. Except the Gonzagas of the world won't be able to find good non-con opponents to play because the power conference teams will gain nothing from playing them that they can't gain from a good conference schedule and a dozen easy non-con wins over crappy opponents.

- It will dramatically reduce the chances of the top seeds making the Final Four, let alone winning the tournament. The #1 and #2 seeds, instead of playing weak small conference foes in round one, would now face more competitive NIT-quality teams. They would still be big favorites, but the contests would not be walk-overs (with the occasional scare). The UABs and Seton Halls of the world can hang with and beat the Dukes and Kentuckys of the world on a good day, instead of once in a century. Instead of a 92-98% chance of winning their first game, they would have a 70-85% chance, still good but giving dramatically greater chances of an upset. Many of the upsets we just saw in rounds one and two were pulled by teams with 10-20% chances of winning. They happen: 20% means that one of every five such contests will end with an upset.

Wait... I guess that can be seen as a good thing. But then again, the best teams will now have a much harder time winning a national championship. We may be surprised at the quality, and the number of losses, of the eventual champions of a 96 team tournament. It'll more and more resemble a poker tournament, where the winner isn't usually the best team, but the luckiest.

******

So anyway, I'm not sure how I would feel about a 96 team tournament, but I'm sure I could live with it as easily as I could live without it. Next I'll map out a hypothetical bracket and show what a 96 team tournament field would have looked like had the NCAA done it this year.

How bad seeding by the Selection Committee helps the NCAA Tournament experience

I am of the persuasion that Dan Guerrero and the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee deliberately mis-seeds the four regions to some degree in order to generate upset possibilities.

Think about it: If they were to seed everybody where they ought to be, the chances of early round upsets would go way down, because the legitimately best teams would play the legitimately weakest teams in the early rounds, leading to boring opening rounds like 2004, where there were only two "upsets" and both were wins many saw coming due to underestimated seeding for mid-major talents in Pacific and Manhattan, against legitimately seeded but beatable teams (in Providence and Florida). The media brayed about the two upsets but couldn't put a shine to a predictable slate of opening round games. It was one of the best jobs the Selection Committee did of seeding the teams, because nearly all of the seeded favorites won their early games. And the end result was one of the more boring tournaments in recent memory.

So in essence, while people howl and complain at erroneous seeding, it does in effect seed the tournament for upsets, if not in the early rounds then in the later rounds as the underseeded 4-8 seeds make what seems to the casual observer like Cinderella runs but are in fact legitimate runs by good teams that the Committee underseeded.

This is not to say that every underdog team that makes a Cinderella run is in fact an underseeded giant. But many are: Many don't realize that George Mason in 2006 was a legitimately good 23-7 team that got in at-large and was probably more of an 8-10 seed than an 11 before their miracle Final Four run.

Coming up is a look at the four regional brackets and see who's got a gift seed, who got shafted with a bad matchup and who's got a chance to make a deep run.

A long list of thoughts on Jeff Sullivan's ten ideas to fix baseball in the next decade

Jeff Sullivan wrote about ten ideas he had to improve baseball in the next decade. It's a well written article with plenty of ideas: Read and enjoy. There are parts I agree with and parts I don't agree with.

Ideas of his I like:

- Phase in replay and robots. I say this knowing a lot of people, friends acquaintances and the like, who make the argument that the umpire's human element is a valuable part of the game. I personally can take or leave the human element concept, and to a greater extent I'm tired of the biases of an umpire swinging the outcome of games. There is a reason Curt Schilling busted up a Questec machine in frustration during its trial period a decade ago: A machine can't be swayed by Schilling's Star Veteran Status into calling strikes on pitches out of the zone that a typical pitcher would not receive.

And on the flip side, with automated strike zones a young pitcher isn't going to get screwed in a pressure situation against a popular team's star hitter by having all his borderline pitches automatically called balls by an umpire favoring the star team and player. Having an automated system call the balls and strikes would ensure every pitcher a fair, equitable opportunity to get batters out that they currently don't have.

Umpires still can be used on bang-bang base and slide calls, as well as be on hand to back up in case the strike-zone system fails. So they won't lose their jobs: You'll still need four umpires: The home plate ump still needs to act as crew chief and make miscellaneous on-field decisions as well as base calls at home plate and out calls on nearby balls in play. It's just that the ball and strike counts will be handle mechanically, perhaps with an automated system relaying the call or the umpire relaying it from a headset or something.

One added advantage: Ball-strike bickering will virtually disappear, since who will argue with an in-discriminative machine? The only situation where I can see a need to argue balls and strikes is if either side thinks the machine is off-center and needs to be recalibrated or something.

- Quicken pitcher pace on the mound. I'd even go as far as to take a page from other sports and institute a pitch clock. Limit mound visits to 60 seconds from the moment a manager/coach calls time, or 30 seconds from when the coach/manager reaches the mound, or even 15 seconds from when the catcher reaches the pitcher. For the pitch clock itself, I'd say 20 or 30 seconds, and after a pickoff attempt, make it 15 or 20. Throwing the ball to the plate is not rocket science nor a rocket launch. Pitchers are only taking time because they're nervous, tired or stalling.

- Resolve the payroll problem. It's clear that several MLB teams will never have a realistic chance of making the postseason or even posting a winning season while some teams can always buy their way into contention every year as long as they aren't stupid with their money. A salary cap would create parity but the MLBPA would flip out (though to be honest they would flip at any attempt to regulate payroll spending) and as we see with the NFL it could overdo parity and make every offseason a near-total reshuffle of the balances of power. Revenue sharing has not worked as many lesser teams simply pocket the extra money without spending it to improve their teams as intended.

I would suggest a strict limit on draft pick bonuses and maybe even a player salary maximum. Before you question the ethics of a salary maximum, keep in mind most businesses and governments have a set salary structure for every listed position, with minimum and maximum salaries that are subject to cost of living increases as well as negotiated raises in union positions.

- Condense the playoff schedule. Sullivan makes a great argument about the excessive number of off days turning the playoffs into a different situation where teams can lean on top pitchers more than in the regular season, which conversely emphasizes depth over a long haul. Cramming the series into consecutive days forces teams to go deep into their rotations and bullpens as they would in the regular season, ensuring that the teams we see in October resemble the teams we saw from April to September.

- Take measures to reduce take-out slides and home plate collisions. I totally agree. Maybe ejections are a bit harsh, but you can just award a team with outs or runs as applicable. 1) If a player slides spikes-high in a double play situation, both the slider and the batter are automatically out, an auto double play. 2) If a catcher's foot impedes an oncoming baserunner's path to more than half of home plate, the runner is automatically safe and a run will score. Any baserunner in transit to a base at this time will automatically be safe at that forthcoming base and play will end.

Institute those rules and the problem will solve itself.

- Penalize the HBP. Efforts at this time to crack down on beanball wars allow too much room for them to carry on as usual despite the warnings and ejections. Sullivan's proposed penalties are also a bit harsh here, and added to it is the fact that beanball wars usually happen in garbage time of a rout when the outcome's in hand or when the bases are empty, so adding an extra base penalty doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. The best approach is to go with Sullivan's ejection/suspension proposal: If you as a pitcher headhunt or otherwise go after a guy, you're gone and suspended, no exceptions. The automatic suspension itself is a deterrent: You can make it stiff too, like 10 games, and not allow the offending team to replace the player on the 25 man except with special permission from the Commissioner's office (in unusual cases such as injuries to other players, but these can be rare to prevent loop-holing). Let umpires use their discretion as to whether a HBP was intentional or not: This goes back to the HP Umpire still having a use even if the ball/strike calls are automated.

I'm ambivalent about these:

- Limit or penalize mid-inning pitching changes. I too find most mid-inning pitching changes superfluous and annoying, but I also think managers who over-manage are penalized properly for their over-management in the status quo through overworked relievers wearing down during the season, and a lack of available relievers in later situations when they could be more useful. The inherent lack of modularity such a manager has is also a proper penalty, as he often loads the bullpen with one-dimensional specialists who are limited against other batters and thus have limited application... over more typical relievers who can work a full inning because they can face more batters in more situations.

There may also be situations where a mid-inning pitcher change is practical, not just when a guy is hurt but when a new pitcher clearly isn't able to pitch, as in a guy who walks back to back to back batters. At that point bringing in a new guy isn't about over-managing but about making sure the game doesn't get away due to a wild reliever.

- Even out the AL and NL. I also find the unbalanced league structure dumb (and can see why Bud Selig ill-advisedly tried to contract two teams a decade or so ago). But one obvious problem with going 15 and 15 is that you have to either a) play one inter-league series at all times or b) give one team in each league anywhere from 2 to 6 days off.

See, other leagues get around uneven league arrangements because they don't play series against each other. They play a team once, then immediately move on. Having one team idle at all times works because that team shouldn't be idle for more than a day or two. But in baseball, that's not possible because every team plays a 2 to 5 game series with an opponent (typically 3 or 4) at one time. If a team is idle, they're idle for several days. That opens up a can of worms with regard to competitive balance and rest periods.

If you're cool with eliminating the novelty of inter-league play and having one inter-league series at all times, then sure, move an NL team over (come on over, Rockies!) and make it 15 and 15. Otherwise, your best bet is to ignore the recession and somehow find two new viable markets for MLB teams in the AL, then split the divisions in four 4 team divisions. And good luck with that, because nobody with a remotely viable market has a suitable stadium or the money/financing to build one.

Forget about contraction: The MLBPA will choke a bitch if you even suggest eliminating 50 MLB player jobs (and hundreds of MiLB jobs), and there isn't an owner in MLB right now that would be cool with cashing out his organization: That ship sailed when the Expos were moved out of Montreal.


Ideas I'm not as fond of:

- Penalize intentional walks: I hate intentional walks as much as Sullivan does, and when I'm managing simulated teams I never intentionally walk a batter. But like a specialized bullpen for a micro-manager, the intentional walk comes with its own penalty: You just put an extra guy on base, and history along with pretty much any run expectancy matrix will show you that when you walk a guy, you just increased your opponent's chances of scoring.

That above all else is why I hate the IBB, and why I don't think anything needs to be done. If an old-school manager wants to shoot his team in the foot by intentionally passing a batter, then let him be stupid. Smart managers will pitch around a dangerous hitter and/or use defensive positioning to minimize the risk of damage, giving them an optimal chance of the slugger putting the ball in play and still getting him out, and the team out of a jam. To be fair, teams don't turn to the IBB all that often, even managers who like it more than others, and the leading targets of the free pass see maybe a dozen or so of them in a year.

- Resolve the PED problem. No, I'm in favor of addressing the PED situation and fixing the code for enforcing it. It's just that the definition of PED's problems as well as what the solution would be are each issues many of us see differently.

Whether or not they should be allowed has to keep in mind that Federal law bans most of these substances: Non-prescription steroids, Human Growth Hormone and several stimulants. Allowing their usage in light of their being illegal to possess or distribute in the United States sends a horrible message at best (an active defiance of Federal law by a major organization with a relationship with the U.S. Government) and is a P.R. black eye with a few other cans of worms unloaded on everyone's faces most likely. It would take a major fundamental upheaval of Federal law if you were to allow monitored roid and HGH usage, which FTR I actually would support if not for the existing laws.

As it stands, one of the great ethical issues is neither of the ones that everyone cites: The alleged performance advantage and the health risks. They're issues, yes, but manageable through regulation.

No, the real ethical issue with PED use is that, to use PEDs, you not only have to put your physical long-term health at risk but you also have to risk getting in trouble with the police and the DEA, which can lead to fines and prison time. It would be unethical to allow PEDs in light of the reality that acquiring them comes with a risk of jail time: Imagine telling someone that in order to keep a very lucrative and rewarding job, they have to rape and kill someone every week, and whether or not they can get away with it is their problem.

Extreme example, yes, but it gets to the root of what you're asking players to do if you blindly okay the use of PEDs. It's one thing to ask that a player put his health at risk... another entirely to send the message that he needs to risk going to prison or incurring serious sanctions otherwise in order to remain competitive.

Sullivan's argument that illegal things like fights are allowed in other sports doesn't really wash because the lines blur on the definition of basic assault (especially with consensual violence like tackles or in-game fights), and that not every case of assault is an arrestable offense. If I slap you in the face in a public place, for example, that may technically be assault and warrant legal action but if you walk away and don't file charges, or a cop shows up and realizes it's no big deal and walks away since both parties are cool with what happened, then it's not exactly a felony, is it?

However, possession of a banned narcotic is a fairly black and white, open and shut case. How many times does a cop find syringes and narcotics and walk away without issuing a ticket or arresting anyone? Save the argument about pot, Seattle and the I-75 decriminalization law: They can still cite you if they find it on you or pursue you for some other possible violation. They just can't seek you out solely for pot possession.

I'm not going to act like I know the answer to the PED problem right now. The problem's not solved: Hundreds of undetectable PED varieties exist (the chemical production of such PEDs predates BALCO by several years and continues today as BALCO takes the pariahic bullet on behalf of all such labs), HGH is undetectable in a drug test, and while steroids in particular may be nearly gone, cheaters are always a few steps ahead of the game, and it's very likely many players utilize some sort of otherwise illegal or dangerous PEDs today.

So it's still an issue. But MLB would take a great leap forward to give up the ghost and admit that many players used steroids during the "Steroid Era", that no they don't have much of an idea how many used or who, and that while they're making efforts to combat the problem now they accept that there will always be users among them all, all they can do is be vigilant and that anyone who uses does so at their own risk and will receive no mercy if discovered to be using something banned or illegal.

So how does the NFL get those #1 seeds to keep trying in Week 16 and 17?

Following up on my earlier piece on the NFL combating top seeds that quit on games... now Deadspin notes that the NFL may try to carrot top teams into playing competitively the final weeks by rewarding them with draft picks for doing so.

Wow, that's opening a can of moldy worms if I've ever seen one. Give a top team picks in a draft designed to improve lesser teams and level the playing field. Nothing levels the playing field like giving more top college talent to the best teams, Roger Goodell. Great idea, genius.

Barry Petchesky's idea to revoke draft picks for quitting on games sounds appealing, but really... if a team is good enough to clinch a top seed, they probably don't need that 3rd or 5th round draft pick, maybe not even their 1st round pick (since it'll likely be a 28th-32nd pick, good to pick up a useful role-player but nothing that will break you if you lose it).

I think the best option is to dock a team that pulls their starters with a heavy fine, something in the neighborhood of $1 million to $2 million. If that's not enough to deter teams (but really, with $50-60 million payrolls stretched to the limit with big salaries, it should), make the fine bigger until it does.

If taking that much money makes your moral sphincter clench... then just take that much money off their salary cap next season instead. They'll have to meet a payroll limit that's $1-2 million lower than everyone else's if they need to rest their starters.

Oh, that's right. The NFLPA's looking into revoking the salary cap in the next couple seasons when their deal with the NFL expires.

So then... just get over your morally capitalist hangups and just fine any team that pulls its starters during any competitive game (i.e. any game that a team is leading by fewer than two scores), or before the 4th quarter (remember that the Colts pulled their starters midway through the 3rd), in the final two weeks. That's the best way to coerce compliance.

As for teams looking to keep their starters out of harm's way (the real reason teams "rest" their starters), just run a conservative ball-control offense centered around runs and quick passes, rotate your non-QB starters in and out of the game to keep them fresh and minimize injury chances while keeping them involved, and work the clock as much as you can. That'll ensure fewer plays run in the game, meaning fewer chances for your players to get hurt, and running plays with quick pass plays will minimize the chances for your QB to get hit and/or injured.

Ron Artest fell down the stairs

Using an alibi stereotypically reserved for domestic abuse victims, Ron Artest reportedly injured his head and left elbow in a fall down the stairs of his Los Angeles home. After stitches and a CT scan, he was released from the hospital, but missed tonight's Lakers game.

Now, the last time I can recall a "fall down the stairs" impacting a professional athlete, both stories were cover ups for some unflattering reality.

- Former Mariners closer Kaz Sasaki's fall down the stairs and subsequent rib injury "with some luggage" turned out to be something different: The underground rumor indicated it was a domestic dispute gone wrong but popular reports indicated he was practicing pro wrestling maneuvers with friends while drinking.

- Rockies infielder Clint Barmes' fall down some stairs "with some groceries" (which at some point bizarrely changed to a fall "with some venison") turned out to be cover for an ATV accident.

The funny thing is, despite my typically jaded nature, I actually believe Testy. I can buy that he just took a tumble and hurt himself, especially with minimal leaks indicating the contrary. But go figure there have been enough fishy stories behind off-the-field injuries that our first instinct as a culture is to wonder what actually happened.

The real question behind Favregate Part Umpteen

Never mind the indemnity of Brett Favre being a bitch in the Vikings loss to Carolina and refusing to let Vikings coach Brad Childress bench him with the Vikings leading the Panthers 7-6 and then mincing his words with the media about the matter after the game.

Here's my big question: Why in the blue hell would Brad Childress willingly pull one of the NFL's best quarterbacks and put the meek Tavaris Jackson or turnover machine Sage Rosenfels under center... in a tight game with playoff implications, let alone do so because of worries about his QB not being able to handle an aggressive pass rush when his backup QBs would still get killed by said Panthers pass rush in said game?

Why, amidst turning Brett Favre into a pariah for his bitching and moaning, are we not discussing the nonsense of Childress even considering a move that would toss the team's chances of winning the game into a garbage can in the first place? Does he not realize that every QB faces aggressive pass rushes and most of the time they walk away with little more than the same bumps and bruises they finish every game with? Why, even in the interest of protecting your QB, would you even consider pulling your QB? What, is max protection blocking and running the football with your two star tailbacks as much as possible too difficult to do instead?

What's really amazing is that Childress actually considered doing this in two other games. At that point, I can't even blame Favre for going, "You know what? That's stupid. I'm not sitting down." I don't even think it's selfishness as much as it's Favre realizing that Childress is punting away the ballgame and puts his foot down for the best interests of the team. It's a case of being a bitch for the good of the team as they tried (unfortunately in vain it seems) to wrestle home field from the Saints after their door-opening loss to Dallas.

Yeah, the Vikings lost 26-7 Sunday night. You think that result would have been better with Tavaris Jackson throwing nothing but floating screen passes and tiptoeing into sacks in the 2nd half? Hell, most QBs would see Julius Peppers rushing in untouched that many times, piss themselves (literally) and just hand him the football. Childress should consider himself so lucky he's got a QB who, even at 40, can take hit after hit from that roider and still run the offense... instead of looking for a reason to bench him.

As if we needed any more reasons to question Brad Childress' ability to successfully coach the Vikings. Don't let 11-3 fool you. Any dumbass coach can win 11 games with one of the best offensive lines, running games, defense and pass rush in the NFL, let alone with a Hall of Fame playmaking QB that his stupid ass was seriously looking to bench in the middle of a tight game.

Childress was 24-24 in three so-so seasons coming into this year, so we're not talking about a Belichickian genius. If anything, we may be dealing with a fool whose team is winning despite him rather than because of him.

My one and only take on the Tiger Woods meltdown

If you're going to portray yourself as a squeaky clean individual, nailing a bunch of skanks and porn stars behind your wife's back was probably not the best idea.

Way to hit the drink with your personal life, champ.

Why wasn't Elizabeth Lambert stopped the first time?

During a conference playoff women's soccer match between New Mexico and BYU, NMU player Elizabeth Lambert got herself on the national radar for all the wrong reasons:



Eventually, she issued what I'm sure was an apology hand crafted in part by New Mexico Athletics. She is suspended indefinitely and I would be surprised if she ever plays for them again.

My question isn't so much why she did it, as I'm sure she just lost her mind and once someone loses her mind there's no rationalizing a meltdown.

No, my question is how she was able to do it so many times. I've watched my fair share of soccer, and I find that the first time you so much as slide tackle someone a little too maliciously (let alone punch someone in the back, or dodgeball someone's head with a kicked ball, or hair-pull takedown somebody), you tend to get no less than a yellow card, and often you'll get red carded and sent off from the match.

Yes, it was a playoff match and going down 11 to 10 trailing 1 to nil would have essentially put a nail in New Mexico's coffin. But refs didn't let the competitive circumstances stop them from running French star Zinedine Zidane after he headbutted an Italian player in the 2006 World Cup Final. Refs in the NCAA Tournament don't let the do-or-die format stop them from calling a 5th and disqualifying foul on a team's star player. If you commit a foul, you commit a foul and it's an official's duty to call it accordingly.

You can argue that Elizabeth Lambert's actions are themselves inexcusable, but what's just as inexcusable is that the Mountain West soccer referees didn't immediately send her off the 1st time she committed a flagrant foul, let alone the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th or umpteenth time. That they let her stay in the match and turn it into an informal one-sided catfight is a collective act of gross negligence on their part. Those officials ought to be punished themselves.

80-90% of those violations never happen if Elizabeth Lambert was sent off after the first flagrant act of violence on a BYU player. The best argument given for allowing the catfight style of 'play' to go is that said play is part of women's soccer. But honestly, I'm not sure how one can argue the hair pulling, malicious tackles and punches to the back are excusable at any level of soccer. The officials have to nip it in the bud, or you end up with spectacles like the one Elizabeth Lambert put forth in this match.

The Detroit Tigers have a conspiracy against old, bad baseball players

LAKELAND, Fla. — The Tigers released designated hitter Gary Sheffield this morning, a startling development since the team had already guaranteed him $14 million this season. It's the second-highest amount owed to a released player in club history, behind Damion Easley's $14.3 million in 2003.

“It’s one of those things where you move on, you know?” Sheffield said, remaining remarkably composed as he discussed the move. “I was surprised. I thought I was getting ready for the season. I never thought that I wasn’t going to be playing with the Detroit Tigers this year. It’s probably a blessing.”

Dombrowski confirmed that the decision means outfielder Marcus Thames will make the team. Thames will likely get a percentage of at-bats as the DH. Manager Jim Leyland can also use Magglio Ordoñez, Carlos Guillen and Miguel Cabrera at DH, which would allow him to have better defensive teams on certain days.

The Tigers clearly released the struggling Sheffield, who hit .176 in Spring, to better modularize their roster and to fit their overall goal to get younger. Young hitter Jeff Larish is a likely replacement on the 25 man for Sheffield.

Gary Sheffield’s famous quote from 2007 on a perceived MLB preference of Black Latinos over Black Americans:

“What I said is that you’re going to see more black faces, but there ain’t no English going to be coming out. ... (It’s about) being able to tell (Latin players) what to do — being able to control them. Where I’m from, you can’t control us. They have more to lose than we do. You can send them back across the island. You can’t send us back. We’re already here.”

This, rather than his 499 career home runs, could likely be his longest lasting legacy.

Sheffield’s career is likely over, whether he wants it to be or not. Sheffield wants to try and catch on with Tampa Bay’s Rays, which play near his home in Florida, but given they signed Pat Burrell to DH and the rest of their lineup is essentially set, with boatloads of talent waiting in the minors… I’m not sure he’ll find a market for his services near home. Given he flatlined in Spring Training this year and hit 225/326/400 as the full time DH in Detroit last season… I don’t see a market for Sheffield’s services emerging at all.

Time Out, T.O.

So it appears the Dallas Cowboys had enough of star receiver Terrell Owens, releasing him this morning. Really, between Jerry Jones and Tony Romo, there was more than enough drama on the Cowboys clown car before you added in the always contentious Owens. Now T.O. goes looking for his 4th team, needing to convince a team that either a) his talent warrants his perpetual drama-friendly ways or that b) he will change for real and THIS TIME he will mellow out and produce consistently without causing any trouble… just like he said he would with the Eagles and Cowboys.
In seeking a new employer, two things work against T.O. besides the whole ‘looking for his 4th team after getting run from three others’ thing:

His age. T.O. is 35, not a young talent and not in the prime of his career. If anything, his talent combined with the perpetual interruptions to his career as a result of the continued spats of drama are the only reasons he hasn’t washed out of the league by now. The interruptions and physical talent have preserved his health. Most receivers call it a career by 32 or 33, whether they want to or not, due to wear, tear and the aging process. T.O., meanwhile, can still help a team, but at 35 his skills may begin to diminish, if they haven’t already.

One indication that they have….

Dropped passes. A big problem that plagues T.O. on the field comes from the catchable passes he drops each game. Whether they come from lapses in focus or diminishing physical abilities, T.O. is not a guaranteed top talent these days as a result. He is very talented, of course, but his penchant for dropping passes is a huge flaw that kills drives.

Three to five years ago, T.O. could head to a new team under the pretense of being a prime talent at wide receiver. However, now he is merely a good but flawed receiver with significant baggage. Already there is a sizable list of teams that have confirmed they want nothing to do with T.O.

Such is the peril of producing drama where ever you go. It doesn’t hurt you in your 20’s when you have top talent. But it does hurt you later in your career when your skills diminish and you need to find someone willing to employ you despite your growing pool of flaws.

Now... who out there needs a wide receiver? How badly?

0-4 IN SUPER BOWLS EDIT: Apparently, the Buffalo Bills do.

Two brief examples of Chicken Little Sports Media and a Lack of Foresight In the Name of Sensationalism

1. Manny Ramirez has re-signed with the Dodgers. Despite the media hysteria when both sides balked at the other’s respective offer, there was never any doubt he would re-sign.

Where else was he going to go? Who else was going to pay more money for a productive but aging slugger with no defensive range in LF? Who had the money? Who among those who had the money was going to scrap their incumbent lineup and game plan in the middle of Spring Training to pay out the nose for a defensive liability with attitude issues, just for the added offense that may or may not be in age-related decline? Where else was Manny shopping his trade besides Los Angeles?

Ned Colletti loves veteran stars and the Dodgers have plenty of money to burn. The two sides were close on a deal before the media hysteria. There was no way Manny was going anywhere else.

2. Kurt Warner re-signed with the Arizona Cardinals, and despite the media hysteria when Warner turned down the Cards’ initial offer and entertained an offer from the San Francisco 49ers, there was never any real doubt that he would return.

The Cards just came off an incredible Super Bowl run and still retain many of the parts they would need to repeat that run. The 49ers, despite some solid player development by new coach Mike Singletary, have a long way to go before they field a competitive unit. Why would Warner, chasing one more ring before retirement, jump ship from a team that can get him there and take a couple extra million dollars just to run for his life around a patchwork, fledgling offensive unit, on a team that could go 8-8 with some breaks? And who else needs a starting quarterback besides the 49ers and Cardinals? Pretty much every team has the position accounted for. The two sides were close on a deal before Warner went fishing, the only real difference being Warner wanting an extra year, and the Cards’ only other alternative at QB was young party animal Matt Leinart, who is rapidly approaching Bust status. There was no way a deal wasn’t getting done.

Do as Torre says but not as he does

Former New York Yankees manager Joe Torre worked with SI reporter Tom Verducci on a tell-all bio that recently came out about Torre's tenure as Yankees manager. Verducci apparently compiled years of reporting and research on the Yankees for this retrospective, and Torre filled in as many blanks as he was willing to.

With distance from a job comes a candor about it that may not have existed during the job due to your standard terms of non-disclosure, and Torre's provided enough gossip logs for the media fire, making sure to throw in bits about the squad's behind-the-back disdain for A-Rod ("A-Fraud") plus criticism of owner George Steinbrenner.

Buster Olney, who managed quite a living out of writing about the Yankees, took note of a certain hypocrisy, whose key points I will note in obnoxious bold text:

It is Tom Verducci who wrote the actual words of the book, and over the past two days, Verducci has worked to underscore this point and to note that the fragments about Alex Rodriguez, Brian Cashman and the Steinbrenners are just tiny pieces of a book of almost 500 pages. The voice is third person, not Torre's, as it was the first time Torre and Verducci collaborated. A lot of the words are based on Verducci's reporting.

But here's the problem with that: It's Joe Torre's book. His name is on it. He got paid for it. He had a chance to read every word, every sentence, every paragraph. He had to approve every passage....

... in spring 2003, David Wells and a ghostwriter published a book, "Perfect I'm Not: Boomer on Beer, Brawls, Backaches and Baseball," and Torre was furious, angry that Wells had aired some of the Yankees' dirty laundry in the pages. Wells tried to distance himself from some of the words in the book, saying they belonged to the writer, but the Yankees' manager would not accept that....

Joe Torre won a ton of media respect for his "handling" of the many understandable egos employed by the star studded New York Yankees, even producing the hyperbole of placing him among the greatest managers of all time.

But it's fairly easy to fill out a lineup card when your 25 players are among the league's best, thanks to an owner so rich and obsessed with winning that he handed his general manager a blank check to sign the best available talent on the market each winter. And as some media heads have noted, Torre doesn't exactly possess a magic touch. Torre's previous managerial records:

New York Mets (1977-1981): 286 wins, 420 losses (.405 win percentage)
Atlanta Braves (1982-1984): 257 wins, 229 losses (.529)
St. Louis Cardinals (1990-1995): 351 wins, 354 losses (.498)

It takes about .550-.560 to contend. Compare these records with the 1173 wins and 767 losses (.605) he compiled in his 12 years with the well-rolled New York Yankees. A look at the talent level of those 12 New York Yankee teams should tell you all you need to know about why they won, and it wasn't because of Torre's firm hand and menacing stare in the clubhouse. That firm hand and menacing stare oversaw 8 losing seasons out of his previous 14 with other clubs. He won with Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Cone, Tino, Mo Rivera et al and all the other All-Star free agents that came after them because any manager with a functioning brain could win with such a group.

The credibility of Joe Torre allegedly comes from a belief that he possesses an innate skill to derive winning from his talent, when in reality, Torre is just like any manager in that his record is typically only as good as the talent provided to him. Last season, his first as skipper of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the Dodgers eked out a playoff appearance from an 84-78 record in a less-than-competitive NL West division despite allowing the fewest runs in the NL (4.0 per game, half a run below league average) due to a relatively anemic offense that scored 4.32 runs per game, 4th fewest in the NL. Where was the magic, Joe?

If that doesn't call into question the respect that media pundits believe Joe Torre deserves, then how about his hypocrisy in calling out David Wells for divulging clubhouse gossip in a book and helping squeeze the team into fining Wells $100,000 for it... then doing the exact same thing himself several years later, and even resorting to the same excuses as Wells (distancing himself from the book by blaming the ghost writer), excuses that he dismissed from Wells years ago?

Perhaps we can dismiss Torre's distanced excuses as well. Buster Olney has, and he probably won't be the last writer to call Torre on it. Either way, the facade over the myth of Joe Torre as a great man and manager has further faded, as well it should given the facts.

He was a pretty good catcher though.

Anquan Boldin's big deal about nothing

TEMPE, Ariz. (AP)—Arizona wide receiver Anquan Boldin laughed off the negative reaction to his nationally televised run-in with offensive coordinator Todd Haley, calling it “hilarious.”

Boldin’s shouting match with the coach on the sideline came as Arizona drove for the winning touchdown in Sunday’s 32-25 victory over Philadelphia in the NFC championship game.

Boldin didn’t stay on the field in the postgame celebration, making a quick exit through the locker room. He said that he did congratulate his teammates and left quickly only to avoid questions about the Haley incident.

Instead, he acknowledged after Thursday’s practice, his abrupt departure “made it worse.”

“For me it’s hilarious,” Boldin said of the criticism he’s received. “I mean, I don’t want to sit here and dwell on it because for me it’s in the past, but that’s something that goes on every week in the NFL whether people know it or not.

“Every week, somebody on the sidelines gets into an argument, but it’s in the heat of the moment, it’s part of football and once it’s done, it’s dead on all sides.”

Well, given we've never seen a team's 2nd leading wide receiver celebrate the biggest win in his team's history by quickly storming off the field, I can't agree that it happens everyday. And given the modus operandi of the mainstream media, it's no surprise that they would react to the incident with the typical textual histrionics.

The Arizona Cardinals had just earned their first ever trip to the Superbowl after winning a game they were not expected to win, weeks after clinching a(n albeit weak) division title few expected them to clinch. I would expect a more typical reaction to such an event to look like this:

Team leaders Adrian Wilson and Kurt Warner strongly defended Boldin.

“I think people are making a lot out of nothing,” Wilson said. “That stuff happens all the time. Q is very dedicated to this team, very dedicated to the players. I think it’s a non-issue.”

Warner said it was “crazy” for people to define Boldin’s personality by this one incident after “everything that guy’s done all year and the character he’s displayed all year long.”

Well, it's typically rash to define a person's being by one isolated event, though an event like walking out on your team right after they won a trip to the Super Bowl can tell you an intuitive lot about that person, just as much as coming back strong three weeks after a scary concussion.

It's not as crazy as Kurt Warner says it is. Almost everyone in an NFL locker room works hard all season, even the 53rd guy on the bench of the worst team in the league... so to differentiate a guy by saying he works hard is hogwash: unless you're extremely talented, you have to work hard in the NFL, or you're out of a job. Bragging about a guy's hard work, if anything, is the true big deal about nothing.

And then we get to character, one of sports' favorite vague badges of valor. What is character? Anyone with a personality of their own has character. But let's not turn this into a great philosophical convo: Warner, here, is probably referring to the stones Anquan Boldin showed the team by coming back from a helmet to helmet collision that left him lifeless on the turf in week 4 against the Jets. Many players aren't quite the same after a blow to the head, so Boldin's return after three weeks, not to mention the 9 catches per game and 6 TDs he had in the next five games after his return, certainly deserves some note.

But so does walking out on your team in the middle of the biggest moment of their existence. Who does that? Maybe that blow to the head did have some after-effects, because it's not a decision that makes a lot of sense to most normal individuals.

Perhaps Adrian Wilson will be right in the long run: this will all be a big deal about nothing. The odds are on his side: how many scandalous sports incidents of yesteryear can you rattle off the top of your head? The talking heads wax philosophically indignant about what X Incident means to sports, but after a while, it's just a blip on a star player's radar... ultimately, just a big deal about nothing.