I had forgotten how much Gregg Easterbrook annoyed me. Of course, because he annoys me I have to share my annoyance with the entire Internet that cares to read what I write (and I thank all eight of you). TMQ is back and this week he doesn't really talk that much about the NFL, but as we all know, he can be horrible on nearly any topic.
Umpire Jim Joyce admitted he blew the call that would have given Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game -- but the outcome wasn't reversed. Should a sports outcome ever be reversed?
We sure are a few months late on this issue aren't we? What's next for Gregg...did the Redskins overpay for Albert Haynesworth? Will Tiger Woods be able to immediately win a major after taking a few months off? I know Gregg doesn't write TMQ during the summer, but that doesn't mean he should bring up old news stories. There's plenty of other things to talk about in the sports world.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback thinks sports outcomes should be reversed, in one instance only: when an incorrect call occurs on the last play and a correct call would have given the victory to the other team.
(groaning because we have to go over this again)
But what if the play doesn't take place on the last play of the game and still has an impact on the game? For example, say the bottom of the 9th with zero outs and the Nationals are beating the Giants 1-0. The first batter for the Nationals is incorrectly called out at first base when it is clear he is safe. The next batter gets a base hit and gets to first base, the next batter pops out, the next batter hits a double and the runner who was on first has to hold up at third base, and the final batter hits a deep fly ball to right field which is caught for the final out.
If the first runner was called safe like he should have been, it would be a tie game and the runner that is on third would be able to tag up and win the game for the Nationals. This out call directly affected the outcome of the game. If calls in sporting events should be reversed, why should this call not be reversed?
Checkmate on your stupid "last play of the game" theory for call reversals.
In a December 1998 Seahawks-Jets game, officials signaled touchdown when Vinny Testaverde of the Jets clearly was stopped on fourth down at the Seattle 1 with 20 seconds remaining, giving Jersey/B the victory, while the loss helped keep the Blue Men Group out of the playoffs.
That play led to instant replay being instituted by the NFL. There hopefully wouldn't be a need for a call reversal, but the play would be looked at and overturned with instant replay.
In 2002, the Lakers squeaked by the Kings in Game 6 of the NBA's Western Conference finals when Los Angeles was awarded a hard-to-believe 27 free throws in the fourth quarter, causing Michael Wilbon to write, "I have never seen officiating in a game of consequence as bad."
What the hell are you going to do? Replay the entire 4th quarter? Give the game to the Kings because it wasn't "fair." You can't reverse the outcome of this game based on perceived bad officiating. I don't think this should happen.
Just this summer, an official admitted two fourth-quarter botched calls against Seattle in the Steelers-Seahawks Super Bowl, won by Pittsburgh.
When there are drastic officiating errors, why isn't the outcome reversed?
So the NFL should have looked at the tape of that Super Bowl and handed the Super Bowl victory to the Seahawks? I know the calls were bad, but how does this make sense? Bad calls happen and I hate them.
I despise Eric Gregg because he gave Livan Hernandez a 35-foot strike zone in the 1997 NLCS. There were pitches that were thrown towards the dugout that were called strikes. Should that game be reversed? Absolutely not. I have no problem with computers deciding the calls in a sporting event, but reversing outcomes is even less fair than the poor calls that caused the outcome to have be reversed. If we want to eliminate all mistakes, eliminate human umpires/officials, and you will eliminate the human errors.
There are obvious reasons why leagues, from Pop Warner on up, dread reversing outcomes. No one wants every close sports event to be followed by a second contest of angry lobbying over changing or preserving the result.
That pretty much sums it up for me. I can't handle all the calls from idiots anytime there was a borderline bad call to overturn the result of the game. It would suck the fun out of sports...which I know is something Gregg could care less about because he looks at sports from a purely scientific point of view. Some people actually like sports though and like to see the excitement that leads up to the outcome.
But isn't getting the outcome right what matters?
The outcome, as it is played on the field, that is what matters. Do something about instant replay, make other drastic efforts to reduce bad calls, but reversing outcomes is a terrible, terrible idea. It's the "New Coke" of bad ideas.
The problem is that a bad call or calls alone can't be grounds for reversal of outcome, since it's impossible to know how the game would have unfolded later if the calls had been correct.
Usually, even when a late-game call is botched, it's impossible to be sure who would have won had the call been correct.
I usually know when I am staring straight in the face of a bad idea when the person who is advocating that bad idea expresses the opposing side of that point of view incredibly well and doesn't appear to have a counter-point to it.
Thus TMQ's belief that outcomes can be reversed in only one instance: bad call on the last play.
This will occur only rarely, but it also doesn't serve to fix any of the injustices that the entire point of reversing would try to fix. There are still terrible calls that don't occur on the last play of the game that affects the outcome of that game. If we are changing calls, why can't these calls be changed? The outcome of the game being correct is the important thing after all.
In this case, you're sure who would have won had the final call been correct. In the 1998 Patriots-Bills game, without the bad call, the game would have ended; the clock expired while the Hail Mary was in the air. And in the case of the Tigers' perfect game that wasn't, since correcting the call would have meant game over, baseball should have reversed the official's mistake.
This is the part where I start talking about a "slippery slope" and mentioning if the point of reversing a game's outcome is to have a fair outcome, then you could also change a call that was made late in the 4th quarter or in the Top of the 9th and still have a "fair" outcome. I don't like the idea of changing a call, even if it is the last play of a game.
How Postmodern: The CEO of Hewlett-Packard was forced to resign amidst a sex scandal that did not involve any sex.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
"Later On, We'll Conspire ..." On Feb. 26, the ice skating rink in Prospect Park in Brooklyn, N.Y., was closed -- because of snow.
There is a difference in ice and snow. Snow accumulates and if it accumulates on an ice skating rink it could be dangerous and cause lawsuits. I'm embarrassed I even addressed this.
I Am Not Making This Up, No. 2: Defense Secretary Gates Calls Anti-War Mood Danger to Peace -- actual offseason headline in The New York Times.
First off, the article wasn't even called what Gregg just called the article. It was titled, "Gates Calls European Mood a Danger to Peace." Unless the title was Mariotti'd and changed after it was published.
The article was about how the opposition to the military in Europe was causing problems for border security in Afghanistan. It's a fairly legitimate article and problem.
President Barack Obama called the spill, which killed 11 people and damaged wetlands and fisheries, "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." Really? Less than five years ago, at least 1,836 people were killed by Hurricane Katrina, while much of New Orleans was depopulated. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed about 8,000 people. Hurricane Andrew in 1992 killed 26 and did $42 billion in damage (in today's dollars). The Dust Bowl reduced millions of people to years of extreme poverty. The Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 killed 57 people and leveled several hundred square miles of land.
"Environmental disaster" as in dealing with how the disaster affected the environment. He wasn't talking about how many people died in each tragedy. Obama was talking about it being the largest disaster in how it affected the environment solely. We could debate the merit of this statement compared to other disasters, but we could all agree Obama wasn't talking about the human death toll.
Cold Coach = Victory: Reader Jerrod Ewing of Columbia, S.C., notes that when the United States lost to Ghana in the World Cup, U.S. coach Bob Bradley wore a ski parka, though the temperature in Rustenberg, South Africa, was 52 degrees Fahrenheit. Ghana coach Milovan Rajevac wore an unzipped jacket with tie. This game was over the moment the coaches arrived at the pitch!
I really hate this theory Gregg has that a coach who dresses warmly will lose the game. How about this for a theory...Ghana is located in Africa, the World Cup was played in South Africa...perhaps the Ghana coach was used to the climate and his team winning had nothing to do with what each coach wore? Does this make too much sense?
Clang! Clang! Clang! In Game 3 of the NBA Finals, Ray Allen, called by teammate Glen Davis "a master of the art of shooting," and Paul Pierce, who describes himself as "one of the greatest shooters in NBA history," combined to go 5-of-25 from the field. In one stretch during the Finals, Allen missed 18 consecutive 3-point attempts.
(Bengoodfella shaking his head and remembering why he hates Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ)
What a great way to cherry pick stats. He focuses on one of Ray Allen's worst streaks from the three-point line to prove Allen isn't a good three-point shooter. Of course Easterbrook ignores all the three point records that Allen holds and the fact he made 7 three-point shots in one half during this year's NBA Finals. Gregg routinely avoids giving his readers the full picture in an attempt to try and influence them to believe what he is writing.
During a break, I chatted with a vice admiral and asked what he thought of "Don't ask, don't tell." (Here is the sexual orientation survey the Pentagon sent in July to 400,000 service members.) His reply was revealing. He said older colleagues who had retired from duty were incredibly worked up regarding gay people in the armed forces, and his middle-aged, active-duty friends were pretty concerned, too. But when he spoke to young officers and sailors, most thought homosexuality in the military was a not a big deal -- they'd served with gays and lesbians and encountered no problems. Sounds like what's happening is a generational divide. Many older people still consider homosexuality shocking, while many younger people view it as just part of life.
No fucking way. I absolutely refuse to believe this unless I see an incredibly expensive study commissioned that proves this. You mean younger generations are more progressive socially than previous generations? I can't believe this! The next thing you will tell me there was a generational gap in the 1960's between younger people who liked rock and roll and supported civil rights and their older family members who weren't as open to people of different races and thought Elvis was the devil.
He Didn't Say, "On Earth": Covering the Lakers-Suns series, the velour-clad Craig Sager of TNT declared, "This game is being broadcast to 214 countries." According to the United Nations, there are 192 countries.
Does no one fact-check at ESPN for Gregg? That link he provided showed there are 192 countries that are members of the United Nations, not 192 countries in the world. So there is a chance Gregg's criticism of Craig Sager's statement is unjust.
This site explains how Gregg isn't the only person who makes this mistake.
Fan Mail from Some Flounder? How long until babe spy Anna Chapman signs to play Natasha Fatale in a big-budget remake of "Rocky & Bullwinkle"? Boris Badenov would be the role of a lifetime for Danny DeVito.
They are making ANOTHER big-budget remake of "Rocky and Bullwinkle?" They made one in 2000 with Jason Alexander and Robert DeNiro. It's pretty much the lowlight of DeNiro's acting career.
LeBron James has never won an NBA championship -- as opposed to, say, Derek Fisher, who owns five rings. What exactly are his accomplishments, beyond making money and getting media attention? Supposedly, James is unstoppable, but in the playoffs he has been stopped on an annual basis. Bruce Bowen, Robert Horry and Michael Finley: These are players who started against James the one time he reached the NBA Finals and defeated him. Horry owns seven NBA championship rings; he is a substantially more accomplished basketball player than James.
These players are more accomplished than LeBron James, but LeBron James is a substantially better basketball player than those three players ever have been. They played key roles on championship teams while LeBron James was the guy who tried to lead his team to a championship. There's a massive difference in these three players and LeBron James.
Yes, James wins trophies for himself. The most tedious figures in sports are the ones who collect individual awards but never make their teammates better.
Did Mo Williams not seem like a better player playing with LeBron James? James did make his teammates better in Cleveland, but they still weren't good enough to win an NBA Title. The blame doesn't fall directly on James' shoulders.
Decision night note: James said, "I wanted to do what was best for LeBron James and what would make him happy." Referring to yourself as "him" takes the royal "we" to an absurd new level.
I can't disagree with this and most of Gregg's criticism of James is correct, but when Gregg tries too hard to prove his point and attempts to claim the Cavaliers weren't made a better team with James on the team and confuses the role of a role player and a franchise player, he loses me completely on what he is trying to say.
In the 2008 draft, Jersey/B used the sixth selection on Vernon Gholston; in the 2009 draft, Buffalo used the 11th choice on Aaron Maybin, and Denver used the 14th selection on Robert Ayers. All are hybrid defensive end/linebacker types who specialize in rushing the passer, and the three have combined for zero career sacks in the NFL. This year, Jersey/A used the 15th choice of the draft on hybrid defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul, who specializes in rushing the passer. Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player, finishing a distant 69th in Division I sacks. Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.
Drafts can be judged three years later. TMQ has a sawbuck that says in three years, the undrafted Coleman will be a more accomplished NFL player than Pierre-Paul, Gholston, Maybin or Ayers.
I will bet $1,000 with Gregg Easterbrook this is not true. I will lay $1,000 on the table right now that says in three years Antonio Coleman will not be a more accomplished player than Pierre-Paul, Maybin or Ayers. I have given up on Gholston, but I think Pierre-Paul will be better than Coleman easily. Hell, Gholston may never live up to his draft status, but he still may better than Coleman. Coleman is an undrafted free agent after all. I know Gregg is infatuated with undrafted players over highly drafted players...but I would still love to take this bet he wants to make here.
The Curse Lives: The Sports Illustrated issue received by subscribers on May 13 featured the Cleveland Cavaliers on the cover. That night Cleveland, a heavy favorite, was eliminated from the playoffs.
I don't know if Cleveland was a heavy favorite or not. They only won two more games than the Magic, who made the NBA Finals during the 08-09 season and this guy didn't seem to favor the Cavaliers too much over other teams. Gambling isn't my forte, but it doesn't seem like the Cavaliers were overwhelming favorites to win the Eastern Conference Title once the playoffs began.
"Fringe" is the only one of the three with intelligent writing, though the show is setting no records for internal continuity. "Fringe" had the nuttiest sci-fi line of the offseason. A scientist is told a parallel Earth exists. Mere seconds later he confidently declares, "The molecules of a mirror universe would have to be slightly out of sync with ours in time. But once every 24 hours, the frequency vibrations would match."
It's Sci-Fi and things tend to get made up in that genre, which is probably why it is called science-FICTION.
Hockey Canada issued a formal apology when members of the women's Canadian national team drank beer and champagne and smoked cigars on the ice after winning the gold medal at the Vancouver Olympics. In Canada, drinking beer at hockey games is seemingly mandatory: the problem was that some team members are below the legal drinking age in British Columbia. What TMQ wants to know is how the women got beer onto the ice mere seconds after the contest concluded. Isn't the only possible explanation that the Canadian women's hockey team went into the Olympic finals with a cooler of beer at their bench?
Yes, the cooler was either at their bench or in the locker room. That is the only explanation really.
I wonder if Gregg wonders how NBA and MLB teams get all those champagne bottles in the locker room before they win a championship? DO THEY KEEP THEM IN THE LOCKER ROOM? THAT'S THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR THIS PHENOMENON!
Roberto Ruiz of Tijuana, Mexico, reports he got this offer to sign up for a Radio City "Christmas Insider" newsletter on June 22.
That offer is offering a pre-sale on tickets to the Christmas Spectacular. It may be hard to sell a bunch of tickets if you only try to sell them during the specific Christmas season.
Benjamin Schmitt of
Schmitt's Gay Beer?
Milwaukee
I was close. I am kidding Milwaukee...if anyone from Milwaukee reads this.
Doug Obach of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, tops them all by reporting that on May 5, he received this notice urging him to buy tickets immediately for a Christmas concert. The Christmas concert will occur in ... November. Double creep!
I know (or think) this Christmas creep shit is supposed to be silly, but the Barra MacNeils are doing a Christmas tour, as seen here, so every date they play can't be exactly on or near to Christmas...unless they find a way to clone themselves. So while it does seem like this is a part of Christmas creep, it is hard to be a band that does a Christmas tour around the country and do it in two weeks.
The year's first summer movie, "Iron Man 2," opened on May 7. As noted by many readers, including Leah Tilford of Madison, Wis., the opening-week ads proclaimed, "Summer officially begins Friday!" That "official" start of summer came weeks before school ended and 45 days prior to the June solstice. This "summer" movie had already closed before the summer solstice arrived.
I don't know why I insist on explaining things like this knowing Gregg isn't reading...but the ads weren't saying that literally summer was beginning when Iron Man 2 opened, but they were saying the summer movie season, which doesn't line up with the actual summer solstice much to Gregg Easterbrook's horror, begins with Iron Man 2. It is not the beginning of summer, but the beginning of the Hollywood-created summer movie season.
No. 1 seed Kentucky missed 20 consecutive 3-point attempts on the way to 4-of-32 3-point shooting in losing to West Virginia in the men's NCAA basketball tournament. And the game was close to the end -- there was no need to go trey-wacky. Shortly afterward, all five Kentucky starters left school early for the pro basketball draft.
Dammit. Will someone at ESPN fucking fact-check TMQ? Darius Miller was a starter for Kentucky this year and he did not leave school early for the NBA Draft. This is such a minor point and this is so easy to quickly do an Internet search on. This is so small, but it has to be caught. Daniel Orton entered the draft and was drafted in the first round, but he was not a starter for Kentucky this year.
Those failed 3s meant Kentucky players only care about their own stats, not whether the team wins. They were ready for the NBA!
Let's see...play basketball for free at Kentucky or earn millions of dollars in the NBA as guaranteed (at least for 3 of these 5 players) 1st round draft picks. How can we even question the player's motives in going to the NBA?
I think it was pretty clear before Cousins and Wall enrolled in school at Kentucky they weren't staying for more than one year. Patrick Patterson had been thinking about going to the NBA since his freshman year.
Clang! Clang! Clang! In his first game with the Cleveland Cavaliers, megabucks All-Star Antawn Jamison went 0-for-12. In his final game of the season, Jamison went 2-for-10.
In his second game with the Cavaliers, Jamison went 9-for-14 and had gone 62-for-127 prior to that point in the playoffs. So while Jamison did struggle in his first game with the Cavs and the last game of the season, he did play pretty well in the interim. Why does Gregg hate the Cavs so much?
Next Week: AFC preview -- plus the United Nations Orchestra performs Mantovani's greatest hits.
Gregg didn't even talk about the NFL in his TMQ this week. I can't wait to see how he manages to cherry-pick statistics and mislead his readers next week.
19 comments:
"Decision night note: James said, "I wanted to do what was best for LeBron James and what would make him happy." Referring to yourself as "him" takes the royal "we" to an absurd new level."
Let me get this straight. TMQ, who refers to himself throughout his articles as 'TMQ', has a problem with Lebron referring to himself in the 3rd person? Is Matt missing something? Matt thinks he must be.
Good job Ben. You're a better man than I for reading through the whole article.
Boris Badenov would be the role of a lifetime for Danny DeVito.
Frank Reynolds begs to disagree.
Clang! Clang! Clang! In Game 3 of the NBA Finals, Ray Allen, called by teammate Glen Davis "a master of the art of shooting," and Paul Pierce, who describes himself as "one of the greatest shooters in NBA history," combined to go 5-of-25 from the field. In one stretch during the Finals, Allen missed 18 consecutive 3-point attempts.
for the most part, no perimeter player in this year's Finals shot particularly well. I wish there was a prominent sportswriter who could tell us how many shots Kobe made in Game 7.
Yet in April, no team drafted Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.
being prolific in college always means pro success! Ron Dayne set the all time rushing record in one of the toughest conferences in college football, he'll surely be a better pro than this Shaun Alexander guy!
Those failed 3s meant Kentucky players only care about their own stats, not whether the team wins. They were ready for the NBA!
what the fuck?
Clang! Clang! Clang! In his first game with the Cleveland Cavaliers, megabucks All-Star Antawn Jamison went 0-for-12. In his final game of the season, Jamison went 2-for-10.
TMQ is right about one thing: Antawn Jamison really isn't that good. can anyone tell me how he's any better than Shareef Abdur-Rahim? and no I'm not being sarcastic. same thing about Chris Bosh.
In those contests, big man Rasheed Wallace heave-hoed 10 3-point attempts, missing nine; had Wallace simply stayed near the basket in Game 7, a four-point Celtics loss, Boston might have won the NBA championship.
add basketball to the list of sports TMQ doesn't watch. Rasheed Wallace hasn't "stayed near the basket" since, oh, 2004.
at least twice identified a man as a woman (it's so hard to tell these days); at least twice identified a woman as a man (and getting harder all the time)
spend some time in western Washington, Greggggggg. you have no idea how difficult it can be.
While the hypocrisy is a tad overwhelming, referring to yourself in the Proper third person "LeBron" (or "TMQ") makes you sound like a douche; referring to yourself as "him" makes you sound insane. I have to actually agree with TMQ on this point ::vomits::.
In this case, you're sure who would have won had the final call been correct. In the 1998 Patriots-Bills game, without the bad call, the game would have ended; the clock expired while the Hail Mary was in the air. And in the case of the Tigers' perfect game that wasn't, since correcting the call would have meant game over, baseball should have reversed the official's mistake.
So if they overturn the call in 1998, both teams (I think) still make the playoffs... which...umm... uh... I got nothing, call barely made a dent on the season.
As for the Tigers game, losing a perfect game sucks, but people will still hold it as a perfect game (a 28 out one too boot) and remember it better than say Dallas Barden's. It also had no impact whatsoever on the season as the Tigers won anyway.
This game was over the moment the coaches arrived at the pitch!
Really? The last goal was scored in the 92nd minute... Wait, how was Bob Bradley dressed in 2006 against Ghana? My original thought was that Ghana was just a better team, but now my eyes have been opened.
I wonder what will happen during the SB in the Meadowlands. "The Vikings won because Norv Turner wore a ski mask, whereas Childress had his mustache to keep his face warm."
combined to go 5-of-25 from the field. In one stretch during the Finals, Allen missed 18 consecutive 3-point attempts.
I'm sure someone has mentioned Kobe's stats from game 7. Guess even great players go cold some days.
defensive end/linebacker Jason Pierre-Paul
Thinks about everything I've read about JPP LINEBACKER?!?!?!
Oh and the Giants have another guy like that Mathias Kiwanuka who has been good, if not stellar (thanks to continual position changes). JPP is a DE, end of story.
Pierre-Paul had just six sacks in his sole season as a major college player
Yes, because that South Florida defensive line was so stacked that JPP didn't face double and, on occasion, triple teams.
Antonio Coleman of Auburn, a three-year starter who compiled 22 solo sacks in the SEC, college football's toughest conference.
Last year he had 8 solo sacks. Those sacks came against: WVU, Louisiana Tech, Mississippi (2), Fulmer, Northwestern, Georgia, Alabama.
The only one that seems particularly impressive is the one against Alabama and even then it was the second game of his college career for Greg McElroy and he, uh, isn't really that mobile.
So Ray Allen was just thinking of his stats when he clunked all those threes? Or maybe they figured they were too good to keep missing and that eventually they'd get a couple to drop and win by double digits?
In his final game of the season, Jamison went 2-for-10.
It's deja vu! I get this cold creeping sensation going up my back that someone really important went 6 for 24 in game 7 of the NBA finals. If only I could remember who told me that!
I'm sorry this is long, but I think it sums up what we all know about Gregg: he's an idiot who thinks that whatever he believes is undeniably correct.
"Fringe" is the only one of the three with intelligent writing, though the show is setting no records for internal continuity.
I watched the first season of Fringed (it was either that or do hw). The show is not smart and since the main plot line is "weird shit exists" there's not supposed to be continuity. The show takes a bunch of things that sound really smart and puts them together to try to confuse people into getting lost and just going "well that sounded like it could be possible." Things that should make you go "that's not possible and the writer is making shit up." Things like:
"The molecules of a mirror universe would have to be slightly out of sync with ours in time. But once every 24 hours, the frequency vibrations would match."
This is not smart or "nutty" it's just flat out complete bullshit. Frequency deals with the rate something is oscillating at (or vibrating), it has nothing to do with absolute time. So basically all that quote says is "there's an alternate universe that's at a different time than ours and sometimes both universes vibrate at the same frequency!" Which means... absolutely nothing. It'd be like playing an A (220 Hz) note on a guitar in New York and SF three hours apart. Doesn't mean jack shit.
Molecules vibrate in response to energy. ENERGY CANNOT SPAN A DIFFERENCE IN TIME. Like everything else in the fucking universe, energy takes various amounts time to transmit (depending on the medium). Even if the universes were in sync, you couldn't send them energy because there's no physical location to send it to as the two universes are occupying the same space in different dimensions. Energy isn't some unexplained mystery that just randomly fucking appears.
Also, the odds of all molecules vibrating at the same frequency even in one universe? None. Can't happen. Why? Because when things resonate at their fundamental frequency, they tend to break down and lose all structural stability. If you pick any random frequency, odds are that it's the fundamental frequency of something that now no longer exists. If this happens every 24 hours, really bad things would happen.
In summation, if you're going to call yourself an "expect" on sciencey stuff, you can't have your mind blown by the bullshit spewed by a tv show on Fox.
A third post (ya, I know, I need to stop).
Even if they're talking about the overall frequency of the universe, it's still a load of crap.
For example, your car technically operates at a frequency, but that frequency is a convolution of all frequencies present in the individual components of the car. The motor has one frequency, the tires another, so on so forth.
To say the universe operates at the same frequency as another, completely independent universe is so insanely illogical it doesn't make sense.
In order for this to happen the convolutions would have to have the same exact inputs. This would be hard enough to replicate by getting to sets of 10 objects to oscillate at the same frequency, but considering all of the nuances of the universe, is, statistically speaking, impossible.
Also, why the 24 hours? Because that's a day on earth! Never mind that earth is the only object in our universe that has a "day" of 24 hours.
Bengoodfella,
You're going a little overboard attacking the "reverse if the last place is called incorrectly and affects outcome" proposition. It's actually not a terrible idea, because it would clearly make more games come out the way they should, which I think should be the point of officiating. I don't think it would happen often: maybe three football games a year, maybe five baseball games, and I don't care about basketball. But there's little doubt that fixing a call with the benefit of hindsight increases the likelihood of getting it right, and on the very last play of the game there is no need to speculate what might have been. Think of it as extended booth review. It obviously won't solve all games affected by bad calls, but no one says it would. Most games decided by bad calls are decided much earlier than the last play, but there's no convenient way to fix that [besides better officiating] so we're doing what we can there. On the last play, we can take a few hours or a day and determine the correct call and reverse it. If you think of it as just reversing one call, which just happens to reverse the outcome, it's a much more palatable idea.
That said, I'd be against instituting reversals. Not because I want games to be decided wrongly, but because I like the finality of a game. Once players walk off, that's it. It's like a statute of limitations: after a certain time, you can't bring a cause of action anymore. In this case, the end of the game [plus instant replay or whatever] marks a good ending point. I'd hate to leave a stadium wondering "I wonder if Selig will reverse that 2-run double."
So, while I'm against it, I don't think you're arguing very well against the idea. There are better parts of this particular column to pickon.
Gregg must really have nothing to talk about when he tries to state his case in reversing NFL outcomes from years ago (naming occurances in 2006 and 1998, respectively). But if that's what he wants to talk about, it's his column.
Yes, both the Pats and the Bills were playoff teams in '98, but they played each other twice in the regular season. Now I consider myself a crazed NFL history buff, but I do not recall which Pats-Bills game this took place. Could anyone enlighten me?
Yep, it seems Gregg Easterbrook is a Cavs hater, and even though I'm from Ohio, I don't really care, because I had to put up with Colin Cowherd beating on the Cavs throughout the Spring and NBA postseason on "The Herd," so I'm used to it.
"Next Week: AFC preview -- plus the United Nations Orchestra performs Mantovani's greatest hits. And don't miss the TMQ Trailer on Monday!" -- Oh, boy. I can't wait (please note sarcasm). They'll probably be in haiku form, too.
Cory,
Both Pats-Bills games were played in November and they split the season series (Bills won the first 13-10).
The game TMQ is talking about is the second game at the end of November that the Bills lost 25-21.
Here's a basic synopsis of the game: http://www.billsdaily.com/articles/1998/nep2.html
(I'm going to do it again, it's been a really boring day for me).
HH brings up a really good point. Lets say for argument that Jason Donald had actually been safe and had been called out.
1. Would there be any of this "change calls after the game talk"?
2. How would you handle that situation? Basically if sports allows calls to be overturned, then only one team can benefit. In baseball it'd be the home team; in football the team with the last possession.
If no one can explain how it would work in the situation where a called out should have been safe or a called TD should have been a non-TD, then you can't institute a rule that can only screw over one of the teams.
Rich,
The last play can actually be to the benefit of either team. In baseball: imagine the ruling is that the ball dropped for a 2-out 2-run game-winning double, when in reality the ball was caught. Overturning the call would give the away team the win, as the game ends on the catch. [Though it's interesting in baseball that it'll always be the home team batting. If umpires make more bad calls against either the defense [no out called when one was made] or the offense [outs called when none were made], then a "last play only" rule places the home team either at an advantage or disadvantage, depending on whether umpires are consistently more wrong against the defense or the offense.]
In football, imagine that the team with the last possession is down a point and kicks a field goal attempt: the field goal is ruled good, but was actually a miss. Changing the call actually helps the team that didn't have the last possession. The opposite is true if a made field goal is ruled a miss.
Rich, the better point you raise in your last post is, what happens if a mistake is made on the last play such that the right call would have extended the game?
Imagine a 2-out solo shot that would have tied the game at 1 is somehow ruled a catch [hard to imagine, but this is a hypothetical]. The bad call thus made a winner of a team that may not have been the winner had the game continued, as it should have.
I think Gregg would argue that such a call shouldn't be overturned even if it was the last play of the game, but it's a slippery slope.
HH,
Good call on the fact that it helps either team. Completely forgot about those situations.
Football has instant replay, so I won't address that; for baseball though, the home team benefits a lot more (in my opinion).
If a call goes against the home team, whether it be the top half of the inning or the bottom half.
You raise an instance where it helps the away team, but due to the rules of baseball, there's a lot more leeway for the home team.
Because the game doesn't go into the bottom of the 9th if the home team is up, then you can't reverse a call that would have allowed the home team to bat. So using your example and flipping it: if an away team 2 out line drive is ruled a catch when it would have been a 2 run double to take a 1 run lead (or even tie the game), you can't overturn it because then it wouldn't have been the last out in the game.
Likewise, lets say the home team gets a 2 out hit that scores 1 run to win the game when it should have been an out. Again, you can't overturn it because it wouldn't be the final out of the game.
In essence, for the "last play" overturning, the play to be overturned has to be the last play if the call is overturned. In baseball, this benefits the home team to a much greater degree.
Matt, I think referring to yourself in the third person makes you sound a little crazy too. I do find it weird that Gregg refers to himself as TMQ. If you made me list on a 1-10 craziness scale, referring to yourself as "him" and "we" is a 7 and calling yourself TMQ is a 6.5. It is funny when I do TMQ because many people will agree with what he writes, which is fine, but he is just sane enough to have a good point, but still too crazy to make complete sense.
Ivn, anything that takes DeVito away from "Sunny" is a terrible thing.
What did Kobe shoot in the Game 7? I think this is what I hate most about Gregg and why I nitpick his other stuff. He takes a small sample size and then tries to prove something from it. He tries to say Ray Allen isn't a great shooter b/c he had a tough stretch. I have no idea what he was even talking about with the UK players. He made me defend them and that pissed me off.
I am not sure Rasheed Wallace has been found near the basket since the early 2000's.
Rich, I agree but of those calls didn't have a impact on the season, so they shouldn't have necessarily been overturned. Of course, we wouldn't know that at the time it wouldn't have an impact on the season.
I don't think anyone would argue based on the sacks that Coleman should have been possibly drafted, but I would bet Gregg saw zero Auburn games so he is just shooting out guesses in the dark as to how good Coleman is.
I haven't seen "Fringe" but I had to read what you wrote three times Rich and I think I finally understand. You should email Gregg what you wrote here.
How many perfect games involved bad calls the other way (Calling a 3-2 pitch strike 3 when it was a ball, Trapped balls for outs, Calling a runner out when he was safe, Etc) Do we go back and change those?
HH, I think I am less against overturning the final call of a game than I am completely against overturning calls. I don't want the final call of a game to be overturned and then in another game when the second to last play of the game was bad, everyone will want that one overturned. I hate talking about a slippery slope because it sounds like paranoia and speculation, but I am against the idea of calls being overturned in a game that may not have affected the outcome of the game. I am afraid if we overturn the last call of a game, when that call is bad, it will lead to other calls being overturned.
For example, I don't think the 28 out perfect game should be overturned because it didn't affect the outcome of the game, though it would have given him a perfect game. So if that play had caused a runner to score, I want to have no problem with the call getting overturned, but then I am afraid the idea of overturning calls will extend to more than just the last play of the game.
My poorly reasoned argument is based on the fear the rule would be expanded, not that I am against the overturning of final calls completely.
Cory, he picks on the Cavs a lot in this week's TMQ. I don't know why. I hate the haikus especially. I know there are people who love it, but it's so gimmicky.
HH, that better call that would have extended the game is part of where my worry lies in overturning calls. If the call would extend the game then essentially by overturning the call you are changing more than just one play. I don't hate the idea now of overturning just one call at the end of the game, but my concern is exactly what we are talking about...where does it end? If we overturn the last play of the game, then that is fine, but if it extends to what would be the last play and extends the game then that is something completely different to me. I would agree and say the call should not be overturned.
I may have argued badly, but the last play of the game is a time when I am fine with overturning the call. I am afraid this definition will be expanded though and I don't want to see that.
Rich, that's a great point that the rule can favor the home team more than it can favor the road team. That's also a part of my worry of overturning calls, even on the last play of the game. At some point, there will be a movement to expand this and I don't agree with that.
Anon, see that is another issue. I don't know how many perfect games contained bad calls on the last pitch for a perfect game or something to that effect, but if the last pitch was a ball, would they really overturn a perfect game?
I guess Darko Milicic is also more accomplished than LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony combined, 'cause he has a ring and they don't.
Anon, well naturally. Darko has a ring so he knows how to win!
Sometimes Gregg's football analysis is OK, but I hate when he starts talking about basketball - as his "analysis" shows, he doesn't know fucking shit about hoops. period.
As you pointed out, with Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Antwan Jamison, he cherry picked poor shooting nights by them, but actually he does this to implicitly imply that the NFL is better than the NBA simply because in these specific cases the players were clanging bricks. Obviously that's bullshit - I could just as easily cherry pick some of the most inept browns or bills games from past years as evidence of the NFL's inferiority, but then i'd just be stooping to his level.
As for the Lebron stuff...wow...how can one man be so fucking stupid? So Derek Fisher is better than Lebron because he piggybacked shaq and kobe for a few rings while LeBron was stuck carrying a D-League team? Would the cavs be better served switching LeBron for Robert Horry (and by the way LeBron was shut down in the Finals because he had no offensive help, his coach was inept, and because of Bruce Bowen and Tim Duncan's help defense. Finley? REALLY??!!!!!!!!!!)
"Lebron doesn't make his teammates better?" holy shit how did this get published? how many all-star games did mo williams ever make before joining lebron? how exactly did they win 60 games if Lebron is a selfish ball hog that doesn't improve anyone else? I;m not defending lebron's summer antics, but easterbrook's thoughts on lebron are nothing more than a pile of dogshit. he needs to stay away from basketball and stop embarrasing himself.
by the way everyone when you're done here make sure to check out www.arjun-allthingssports.blogspot.com when you're done here
Post a Comment